How the battles work in Civ III?

[Whunder]

Hi !
How the battles work in Civ III?
As CTP? Or as the past Civ?
Thanx a lot.

Whunder.

[Stromprophet]

Same way as before. Most will be single on single combat.

As any oldschool civ player knows, CTP & CTP2 royally screwed up the logistics of batteles with their army of 9 crap. You had 2 phalanxes and 2 catapults beating A group a fusion tanks.

However you will be able to group 3 units with a leader. A leader is provided to your civ at random times. Militaristic civs have a greater chance of producing these leaders.

These leader pass qualities on to their troops, who can then pass those qualities to other generations. Also a leader cna help direct the building and rush a wonder to completion.

After you get a war academy wonder you can then have 4 units in an army at a time.

[Whunder]

Thanx for the answare Stromp. !

I'm sorry for the battlefield. Would be great if the would improve it !
But, why so few units in an army??? I can't understand.

[Stromprophet]

The reason I posted about CTP style armies. With 9 units often unpredictible martice applications came up in combat giving you annoying results. As In I have 6 fusion tanks getting beat by some phalanxes running around with some catapults.

It's best to keep it simple. But they did decide to expand it beyound unit on unit combat.

Oh, you also can only have 1 army per 4 cities. When I say that I mean, you can have as many units as you can support, but only 1 grouped army(of units) per 4 cities.

[General Ludd]

besides, it's no fun when you just stomp around the map with a single stack of units.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by Stromprophet
The reason I posted about CTP style armies. With 9 units often unpredictible martice applications came up in combat giving you annoying results. As In I have 6 fusion tanks getting beat by some phalanxes running around with some catapults.

It's best to keep it simple. But they did decide to expand it beyound unit on unit combat.

Oh, you also can only have 1 army per 4 cities. When I say that I mean, you can have as many units as you can support, but only 1 grouped army(of units) per 4 cities.

You are in the minority. Most think the stack on stack is unrealistic and annoying. If anything, the combat in CTP was alot better. Civ2 was lame. charging a tank into a lone city! Then chargin 9 more behind him. I think its ridiculous.

[ancient]

nah i think ctp players are in the minority, that game was crap,,

civ2 combat isnt fun but its reliable..

tanks dont be beat by phalanx...

[faded glory]

That doesnt happen in CTP.....1 tank vs 4 phalanx the tank will win. Unlike Civ2......


CTP stack combat is way better than Civ2 Unit vs Unit. You end up wasting so many good units in Civ2.

[Inverse Icarus]

i just got CTP from eb at my local mall, a used copy for $5 , and i'm having trouble adjusting to it... i really dont like not having a city screen ala civ2.

[faded glory]

Yea that sucks but you can still place workers and things...

but the combat is way better than Civ2

[Lung]

You're absolutely right, Faded Glory. CTP rewards armies, and even more so if it is diversified. It certainly added depth to warfare when you have to consider what units you put together to fight as an army. In Civ2, your only decision is which units you want to sacrifice in order to reduce the strength of that lone phalanx on a mountain!

In CTP you can build twice as many pikemen, but the muskies get a free shot before having to risk death. Also, you're torn between having large stacks for defence, or smaller stacks to defend larger areas, and single units for scouting and pillaging. The consequent strategic options are multiplied considerably by this.

Sure, the stacking system had it's flaws, but Civ2 was nothing but flawed! The biggest criticism of CTP warfare was that you couldn't manipulate the individual units in battle. Still, it's fun to just sit back and watch them fight to the death

[Sharpe]

While CTP has some good features, and the stacking was a good idea.... but the results of the battles in CTP are frequently ridiculous.

Two examples from a recent game:

1) 6 fusion tanks and a storm marine vs a city without walls guarded by 1 machine gunner, 2 pikemen, and 1 legion. I won, but lost 3 tanks and the marine.

2) 1 machine gunner, 1 pikeman, 1 warrior and an archer against a barbarian warrior unfortified on a hill. I won, but only with a 90% damaged archer left.

Civ 1 was bad enough with its phalanx defeated armor problems, but CTP is even worse!

[faded glory]

Me thinks you are incorrect about the Fusion tanks. Its illogical if not impossible. The city would have to be on a mountain to lose that much.


9 tanks vs 9 machine gunners inside entrenched city. tanks will win with about 5 losses

[Blake]

Double post ruthlessly eliminated.

[Blake]

Personally I liked stacked units, the main reason being it's much quicker to move units around (It takes 1/6th the mouse clicks, and redrawing time to move 1 stack of 6 compared to 6 stacks of 1). Have mercy on those of us with limited time and slow computers.


The main complaint with CTP combat seems to be the poorly thought out combat stats, rather than the combat model itself.

Besides, in the example of pikemen beating tanks, well prehaps they looked at there pikes, considered what they were up against, thought f*ck this, and wandered down to the army surplus store to buy some bazookas. (and remember, they are the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren of the original pikemen, so the pikes would have all broken and been replaced by modern weapons, anyway)


The CTP2 combat works out fairly well, especially if your using a decent mod, which scales unit stats in some sensible way. While it is a little odd for a city with a wall and nothing but a dozen siege catapults beating off a well balanced attack force - I guess they are fortified on the walls, and the walls presumably have some garrisons to slow down the invading infantry.
In CTP2 MedMod, an army in a well defended city (walls, castle) would have about even odds of beating off an attack one age more advanced. And all the old defenses obsolete (so city walls are no longer a factor by the time musketeers are around). Out of the box CTP2 may be a load of crap, but with proper balancing and a bit of thoughtfull design it works superbly.
The most usfull addition to the CTP2 combat model would be the concept of range - so armies had to advance under the fire of longer range weapons for a number of rounds before they could attack. (so, for example riflemen may get one round to fire at musketeers with no return fire, and swordmen would never even get close to tanks, indeed it would be foolish to use the CTP model, when some really cool stuff could be done with range, combat speed, dynamic flanking, battle orders etc etc...)

Personally I think the PIA factor of moving hoardes of units more than justifies stacks, and the improved realism is all good too.