Oh, ok yeah..........WTF???

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by orange
another major problem is the difference between infantry, ranged, flanker, and bombard units (land)

Archers should have a bonus against infantry, cavalry should have a bonus against archers, flanker (like knights and tanks) should have a major bonus against infantry....etc.

but by assigning them all a number and simply rolling the dice, it doesn't accurately represent warfare.

Archers vs infantry (actually footmen): only in clear terrain where footmen can't approach under cover.

Knights vs footmen: that's also terrain depedent. IIRC knights aren't really flankers they just charge straight in most of the time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jason
If you think WWI infantry against M1A2s, ok, maybe unreasonable, but if you think WWII infantry entranched on a mountain vs. soviet semi-modern tanks its an ok compromise. Mountains are mountains.

M1A2's aren't designed for mountainous terrain. They are worse than Soviet tanks in those areas.

[orange]

Originally posted by freezuch
i meant in real life, not in Civ3.

exactly my point

[EnderSword]

I agree with this wholeheartedly.
I left the weakest enemy 'til last in a Cheiftan...CHEIFTAN game and attacked a city with a 20hp army of Modern Armor. The Defender in the city was an elite spearman...He Won, and lost 2hp.
I realize he's in a city, but still, walls or not dude should die and without any argument. That's one thing I thought they were going to focus on largely in this version, guess not.

I would be able to accept this better if bombardment was more effective too, I thinkit'd be cool to surround a city with catapults/atillery/RA's or something and actually kill the army instead of randomly hitting targets inside the city. Then You could atleast have risk free attacks in some way.

Each piece should have an Age modifier.
Same age - no adjustments
Gap of 1 age - Attack/defense x2, 2 ages x3, 3 ages x4 etc...
This would solve that i know must have occured to them, that in order to make the units fight right they would need warriors to have a defense of 1 and Armor to have an attack of 300 or something.

'Cause I mean really...a Friggin swordsman could attack and unmanned tank and bang away at it for about 36 years and never even dent the casing.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by EnderSword

I mean really...a Friggin swordsman could attack and unmanned tank and bang away at it for about 36 years and never even dent the casing.

Yet that's where we're expected to use our imagination in covering up firaxis' poor quality and lack of effort.

Umm cuz if the swordman is in thu modern age so he probly used sum plastic explosives or sum other modern stuff to hurt or kill the tank!

Firaxis, the upcoming patch had better be one hell of a download.

[jones]

You gotta be highly proactive with the AI or they WILL gang up on you. However, they are pathetcily easy to manage and your games will be much easier when everyone is on YOUR side againts those evil [nation].

[Sencho]

Originally posted by mrbilll
Seeing this once in a while wouldn't be so bad. Look at the Zulus and the English- "upsets" do happen in military history. But it's also noteworthy that in the end, the Zulus lost.

Which one, the Zulu 'upset' at Isandlawana (Zulu's with ~22:1 odds in their favor) or the British upset at Rourke's Drift (Zulu's with ~40:1 odds in their favor) a day or two later?

You're right though, history is chalk full of weird outcomes to battles.

[EnderSword]

Upsets happen, i'll grant that, but there are limitations.
A single soldier armed with today's weaponry and gear could kill a charging army of 500 spearmen. A Tank cannot be touched by a dude wielding a Sword or longbow...and try as he might a wooden sailboat has no chance vs a nuclear submarine.
Basiaclly in history someone can win by being smart...or lose by being stupid...A legion of Rome's Best can be caught of guard by archers on hills, spearmen with good timing can stop heavy cavalry (ala Braveheart =) but in no universe we yet know of does a Samurai bring down a panzer tank.

[Setsuna]

I take it you've never seen any anime, Ender.

[Skanky Burns]

Re: Oh, ok yeah..........WTF???

Originally posted by orange
Horsemen army (6.1.2 , 15 HP) vs. Jap Vet. Warrior (1.2.1 , 4 HP)

Theres your 'bug' right there. Unless you used an editor, Horsemen have an attack of 2. There stats are 2.1.2 and putting them in an army makes no difference. They still have an attack of 2. So it becomes more understandable that the odds are even in a 2 attack unit attacking a 2 defence unit.

On the other hand, a 15HP unit losing to a 4HP unit is very unlikely. 1 in 2^15 chance, or 1 in 32,768.
If the enemy warrior was given a 50% defence bonus, the chances of your army losing without even damaging him are still very low, 1 in approx 13,000.

[orange]

the unit said 6.1.2

well, it happened once, and almost twice, within 10 minutes of each other.

[Boris Godunov]

Another thing to take account in your above situation are the CSAs. Both Zulus and Japan are militaristic, which gives them combat bonuses. This further added to the rather unbalanced outcome of the battles.

Cheers.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Wasn't civ II combat model better than this one. (comparing single units only?)

Maybe they should bring it back, and adjust it for armies.

[Che Palle]

Re: Re: Oh, ok yeah..........WTF???

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


Theres your 'bug' right there. Unless you used an editor, Horsemen have an attack of 2. There stats are 2.1.2 and putting them in an army makes no difference. They still have an attack of 2. So it becomes more understandable that the odds are even in a 2 attack unit attacking a 2 defence unit.

On the other hand, a 15HP unit losing to a 4HP unit is very unlikely. 1 in 2^15 chance, or 1 in 32,768.
If the enemy warrior was given a 50% defence bonus, the chances of your army losing without even damaging him are still very low, 1 in approx 13,000.

I dunno about that 1 in 13,000

... I don't remember the modifier for defending, but there is DEFINITELLY an advantage to defender, I dunno if that's the 50% you speak of.

If the city had walls, that's another 50% bonus.

And in the sorry-ass case that you attack a city from across a river (been there, done that, got creamed) they're looking at yet another defence bonus.

When you count all these defence bonuses that the little guy might have had (and considering that I agree with you, having 3 horsemen in an army is like "having 3 horsemen" not like having a *3 superHorseman) I'm not at all surprised the army got creamed. And only somewhat surprised that the defender seemed unscathed.

Alessandro

P.S. I've only found armies to start becoming effective by the time you have cavalry... assuming you're attacking cities not completely defended by pikemen or better.

[Ludwig]

I think a lot of people are hung up on the CivII unit system and don't realize that combat is now about masses [LARGE masses] of units.

In CivII, units were most effective used singly. Stacking or attempting to coordinate attacks was bad strategy. Actually, the DREAM situation was to have a single unit happen upon a really, really large stack of enemy units, since you could destroy the entire stack with a single successful attack.

In CivIII, individual units are toast. The only way to advance is to do so en masse. Terrain defended by single units will very quickly be lost in the event of any sort of determined enemy assault, made by virtually any type of unit.

Certain basic strategies [not traditional CivII strategies, but traditional wargame strategies] still work, and work despite the ability of even a technologically inferior enemy to inflict damage.

When advancing against an enemy city prior to possessing airpower, mass-stack most of your units in a single stack. Combine cannons/catapults [bombardment units], musketmen/pikemen/spearmen [defensive units] and cavalry/chariots/cossacks/immortals in a single stack. This stack WILL advance one square a turn if it's large enough. It may take some losses, but it will never surrender ground and will be able to advance that one square a turn.

Use smaller stacks of mobile units in pincer movements on the flanks to surround the enemy city and cut off its road access. Pillage the roads and prevent reinforcement of the city as much as possible. With the roads gone, your enemy can't construct decent units in the objective city. If you can keep his reinforcements at bay for a couple of turns, you can wear his units down with bombardment. Your defensive units will absorb any sorties. Ultimately, if you accept a few casualties you will take the city. Be prepared to lose units in the assault, and be prepared to lose some of the mobile units you send into the rear areas.

When under attack, fortify defensive units in your cities and NEVER sortie. Use mobile units or high attack/weak defense units for counterattacks NOT at the main axis of the enemy's advance but into the rear areas along that axis [again, get into his territory and pillage his roads] and launch feint attacks against the areas of his empire where his best resources are. In these attacks, you don't need to take any cities, you just need to pillage the roads and mines on his strategic resources. Again here, you will lose some of your counterattacking units, but if your Civ isn't completely outclassed the AI will back off, or withdraw from your territory to defend his own and retake his strategic resources.

You can't get through a game without losing some units anymore. Units are made to be expended. While occasionally war has been about genius, it has more often been about attrition.