Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[knott]

In civ 1 mech infantary had a defence of 6, a catapult had an attack of 6 it was enable during mathematichs 3 (IIRC) techs in game.

[WhiskeyJuvenile]

Originally posted by mmike87
5) Horses should NOT be a strategic resource. They can be bred, and once introduced my forces would capture and breed our own horses. Horses as a SR was a bad idea, although I generally like the idea overall.

No horses in north america. Native Americans had to trade with Europeans to get them. hence, horses as a special resource.

[Soapyfrog]

Venger... a musket armed unit would not neccessarily do very well against a Roman legion. Musket fire was remarkably ineffective and was almost never the deciding element on the battlefield. Rifles are a different story, mind you.

Cavalry has not been a truly effective battlefield unit since Agincourt. Their primary purpose was for harrassment, scouting, and pursuit of already defeated enemies. Cavalry could almost never prevail against infantry that was formed for combat.

So my argument would be cavalry should have a useless attack and defence ratings and be used exclusively for attacking units that have only one HP left, other cavalry, and pillaging.

THAT would be a realistic model of their worth.

On the battlefield, infantry is Queen!

[Jolard]

This argument has been going on for a long time on these boards. (Hey two weeks is a long time for civ III ). I understand the strong feelings that many have that they feel the combat system is broken, however I have three responses.

First, I have now played 4 full games, and I think the combat is very well balanced. Sure I lose superior units sometimes to weaker units, however if I won all the time where would be the fun in that? Anyway, from 4 games of experience, the arguments that the number generator is broken, or the combat isn't implemented as described in the manual, are just not correct. At least in my experience.

The second point is gameplay. There is NO fun if you always win with technological superior units. You still need strategy, combined arms, taking into account the terrain, before you can win any battle, and that is fun. The strategy in the combat in CIV III is far superior to that in any of the predecessors. And that IS fun.

Third, as has been posted above, it is very possible in real life for these sort of battles to occur, as has been document well above, so I won't go into it further. But these kind of battles are very realistic.

Basically the bottom line is that combat in CIV III is much more complex and strategic than any of the ones before, and you have to make sure you attack with superior numbers, with combined arms (hey, kind of sounds like real life). I have enjoyed combat in CIV III a lot, and hope they don't change a thing. Of course, this doesn't apply to the real bugs, like bombers and air defence, however the main combat system works as advertised.

[Elrad]

I find you could enjoy a game more if you try to justify its "flaws" with good reasoning. I think the fact that spearmen "can" beat modern units isnt a flaw at all, infact its a very good trait.

Gameplay issues aside, what would you say is the modern unit equivilant of a Taliban band of raiders armed with AK 47's? Or viatnimese soldiers several decades ago?

Well armed Infantry, Seasoned Marines? Tanks, Jets? I don't think so. However there are those "outdated" units as it were. Honesty, do you think a devision of men armed in spears in the modern age wouldn't be able to get their hands on some guns?

I think its assumed that these units are actualy far superior to their ancient counter parts. The reason a spearman stands a chance againsed Marines while fortified in a mountan or a jungle is because its assumed that in a world where there is a certan standard of armed forces, that that standard atleast somewhat carries over even to the less advanced civilizations.

Even civilians can get their hands on guns, so why cant a bunch of spearmen in the late 19th century?

Anyway, to wrap up...I think the fact that the older units can beat the newer units is actualy more realistic then if it wasnt true. The alternative is even worse, what the hell are "legitimate" ancient spearmen doing in 1956? The best explenation is that they are no longer spearmen, but represent an armed sub standard military unit that when fighting on its home terrain, on the deffensive, might just win 2/5 times.

I hope my reasoning checks out with you guys

-Elrad

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by SuiteSisterMary
Well, calvary lose their advantage in a city, and I'll point out that English Longbows had better range, accuracy and damage than civil war style rifles, which the rifleman represents.

It takes a lot more resources and trainging to create a longbowman in real life than a rifleman. Anyone can pick up a rifle and shoot but not anyone can accurately fire a longbow. This is the primary reason the crossbow and later the musket took over from the longbow. If Civ3 were to be more accurate it would make the longbowman far more expensive than a rifleman or musketeer.

I agree with the original poster. I have had AI caravels defeat my veteran frigates 9 out of 10 times and even spearmen defeat an attacking veteran tank (granted the spearman was on a mountain but still - an no I wasn't playing the Italians!).

[dr.charm]

I've had a similar experience with Cossacks attacking me. I was able to hold them off after they'd broken through my Maginot line of infantry and artillery with my own cavalry, but once I was able to break out only 2 or three tanks (having just discovered Motorized Transport), I forced them right back over the defensive frontier.

And this was an attack by about 20 cossacks, supported by the odd knight and a few riflemen and infantry.

And once I had them back across the border, I quick built a new fortress with 6 workers at the same time, filled it with infantry... and waited. Yes, I could have attacked, but I would have gotten my butt kicked, trying to attack my technologically inferior opponent with only a few tanks and maybe half-a-dozen cavalry. In Civ2, yes, it would have worked, in Civ3, my a$$ would have been grass and Catherine would have been smoking it.

So, I bided my time, built up my tank forces and then demolished the Russians.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[dexters]

I find you could enjoy a game more if you try to justify its "flaws" with good reasoning. I think the fact that spearmen "can" beat modern units isnt a flaw at all, infact its a very good trait.

Gameplay issues aside, what would you say is the modern unit equivilant of a Taliban band of raiders armed with AK 47's? Or viatnimese soldiers several decades ago?

It checks out with me.

Although you may want to think of it as justifying a design flaw, I see it differently.

the team could have made combat so complicated that you can semi-upgrade outdate units with modern weapons, but they can choose not to do it, and just have spearmen hold up better against more modern units. it is sort of an implicit understanding that they can still be viable in some circumstances.

Same goes for the game economy. They can build a complex economic model where you receive more gold some turns and less gold in other turns, to reflect business cycles of booms and recessions. But instead, they chose a model that gives you a fixed amount of gold from each city every turn. Is that unrealistic? hardly.

Macroeconomics tells us in the long-run, the recession and the booms sort of cancel each other out and you have a long run linear line that is smooth and usually has a positive slope, that is it goes up from left to right. Why does it increase? usually, just the naturall growth of the economy as your populations grows and their per capita income increases.

I see the combat system along the same lines

[Trachmyr]

The problems arising stem mostly from what has been called "Small Number Syndrome", something that was strongly argued against being duplicated in civ3.

What "SNS" means is that instead of a warrior starting with an attack/defence of 10/10 it has a 1/1. With such small number you can't allow for as much diversity between the units statistics. For instance with Calvary, they shouldn't be as good defenders as musketmen but should be better than knights... but since such small numbers were used, that isn't a possibility. If instead Musketmen had a defence of 40 and knights had 30, you could give calvary 35... which means they would have an edge defending vs. swordsmen (attack 30).

Also, as many people with experience with Random Number Generators can attest (or those taking samples/polls/etc.)... unless you don't mind having skewed results occur OFTEN, you need a larger "test pool". thus while 3 is 50% greater than 2... it only has a margin of 1 which allows odd results to more often occur. 30 is also 50% greater than 20, but with a greater margin... thus while odd results can occur... they more closely match the actual % of times they should occur.

A quick fix is to multiply attack/defence values by 10 (plus bombardment and bombardment strength of citizen/buildings), and tweak a few of the units by +/- 5 points. Some units need heavy fixing though (like privateers). I've already done this and I get much more realistic results, but still the occasional upset. (Actually, my biggest problem is with archers... I can't understand why they are "attackers", that why I really want an ability added for "2x Defence vs. Foot-Soldiers").

[dexters]

There is also a big number syndrome. with BNS

the difference between an attack rating of 20 and an attack rating of 15 is marginal. With smaller numbers, the difference between an attack rating of 2 and 4 is substantial, a 100% difference, vs a 25% difference.

[F18fett]

UPDATE:

I decided to follow the advice of others and use riflemen for the defense of my captured city. I went back to a previous save and made two riflemen and an extra artillery before attacking. I managed to capture the city and only lose one artillery (I accidently left it undefended). However, another problem arose with the combat system. I had a regular rifleman fortified in a size 12 city. A veteran Aztec knight attacked, killed the rifleman, and took my city. This city had The Art of War and Wall Street, so I was quite angry. The knight may have been a veteran, but could the hardened crusaders fight an equal number from the Army of the Potomac and win? I just don't see how something with an attack of 4 could defeat a much more highly advanced unit with a defense of at least 14 or so. Since Montezuma had stopped talking to me, I quit the game, vowing never to return to that save again.

The odd thing was that the town was rather far flung, on the very edges of the Aztec Empire. Montezuma had managed to conquer half the Zulus as well as create this gigantic empire (and not even suffer corruption, at least until I captured it)! It's amazing that Montezuma would fight a war just for that one town..I guess I'll break my vow and return to the save. This time I'll see how much I have to give him before he hands the city over.

[VetteroX]

If you read in the Civipedea, Fortify is now + 25% defence, not 50% like in Civ 3. But the unit strengths are messed up. Longbow men shouldnt stand a chance against Cavalry.

Im sick of people making the Zulu example and Russia vs Afgan point. These are rare occurances, and its not a fair point. We are talking about 1 unit vs 1 unit. Also, we have to assume everyone has the same equiptment, not one country has "Good" guns and the other "bad" Russia's equptment sucks, as we knew before and learned more when we captured their stuff in the gulf war. We have to assume in Civ 3 the equiptment isn't low grade garbage, but well built well maintained stuff like USA and now EU countries would use. Also, it wasnt a full scale invasion. If Russia had fought in afganistan with every man they had and with the same might they had in WW2, Afganistan would have ceased to exist. Same with the English. If they sent every man they had, the Zulu woulnt have won one battle.

When I go to war in Civ 3, I send a full power force, defence units, offence, artillary and air support, naval support etc. ALL units are veteran, some are elite. Under these conditions, when a knight attacks my tank and loses, yet maneges to shave off 3 bars of health, its just plain stupid. Let me tell you, if middle ages knights attack tanks in grassland, 100 tanks vs 10,000 knights, thanks will win, without one loss. NO the damn nights dont have molotof cocktails NO they wont stick a lance in the view slit and kill a guy, NO they wont climb on top and pry the hatch off and kill thoes inside, EVERY SINGLE kight will die, and they will die fast.

Now, I like Civ 3 a lot, it is an evolution over Civ 2, for the most part its better, but the combat in Civ 2 was better. A knight NEVER beat a healthy cavalry, not EVER. A tank NEVER lost to a musketman, a Battleship NEVER lost to an ironclad. How hard can it be? Just bring back the combat system you made in 1996 to Civ 3, Fix a bug here and there, and the game will be excellent.

[Venger]

Never bring a bow to a gunfight

Originally posted by Soapyfrog
Venger... a musket armed unit would not neccessarily do very well against a Roman legion.

Not neccessarily? I seem to recall nations that didn't have gunpowder being subjugated by nations that did.

Musket fire was remarkably ineffective and was almost never the deciding element on the battlefield.

What was?

Rifles are a different story, mind you.

Ranged accuracy was remarkably improved, however even rifles have their limits - a confederate infantry brigade was beat up on pretty well by Union cavalry - they didn't have rifles, but rather repeating carbines. And they of course didn't fight on horseback - the "cavalry charge" went out with the invention of gunpowder and the bayonet.

Cavalry has not been a truly effective battlefield unit since Agincourt.

Dragoons are very powerful. Being on the horse after the invention of gunpowder is really only get for getting to the fight, not for being IN the fight. Which is why, to me, cavalry should be the same attack and defense as normal musketeers, but rather have the increased mobility. Their is no attack advantage to being on horseback after the invention of long barreled weapons...

Their primary purpose was for harrassment, scouting, and pursuit of already defeated enemies.

If we define cavalry as people on horses with guns, then their purpose was, in addition to scouting as you mention, the massive advantage that mobility bestoys on a unit. A cavalry unit can exploit breaches and attach rear areas very effectively. But in battle, being on horseback in a gunfight is a pretty sure way to get your ass shot.

Cavalry could almost never prevail against infantry that was formed for combat.

Again, it depends what you mean. Cavalry armed with rifles against non-gunpowder units will rack them up at will. However, cavalry will not ride into the lines of formed musket or rifle units. It simply didn't happen that way.

So my argument would be cavalry should have a useless attack and defence ratings and be used exclusively for attacking units that have only one HP left, other cavalry, and pillaging.

And my argument would be that cavalry should have the same attack/defense as normal musketeers/riflemen but have the additional move points. Actually, the Civ3 model fits cavalry well, better than Civ2 in fact. A Civ3 cavalry unit can, in it's turn, move many space to engage in combat, or engage in combat and exploit an opening. Exactly what one would expect from combat. What one would not expect is the defeat of the 10th Cavalry regiment by Edward Longshanks' bowmen...

It...would...not...happen...

THAT would be a realistic model of their worth.

On the battlefield, infantry is Queen!

And all cavalry really is is infantry than can ride to and from the battle.

Venger

[TCO]

Originally posted by F18fett
UPDATE:

I decided to follow the advice of others and use riflemen for the defense of my captured city. I went back to a previous save and made two riflemen and an extra artillery before attacking. I managed to capture the city and only lose one artillery (I accidently left it undefended). However, another problem arose with the combat system. I had a regular rifleman fortified in a size 12 city. A veteran Aztec knight attacked, killed the rifleman, and took my city. This city had The Art of War and Wall Street, so I was quite angry. The knight may have been a veteran, but could the hardened crusaders fight an equal number from the Army of the Potomac and win? I just don't see how something with an attack of 4 could defeat a much more highly advanced unit with a defense of at least 14 or so. Since Montezuma had stopped talking to me, I quit the game, vowing never to return to that save again.

The odd thing was that the town was rather far flung, on the very edges of the Aztec Empire. Montezuma had managed to conquer half the Zulus as well as create this gigantic empire (and not even suffer corruption, at least until I captured it)! It's amazing that Montezuma would fight a war just for that one town..I guess I'll break my vow and return to the save. This time I'll see how much I have to give him before he hands the city over.

Even in Civ2, it would not be unusual to lose a rifleman (def4) to a vet knight (att 6). You really like to whine about combat a lot. Learn to play better.

[TCO]

Originally posted by VetteroX
Now, I like Civ 3 a lot, it is an evolution over Civ 2, for the most part its better, but the combat in Civ 2 was better. A knight NEVER beat a healthy cavalry, not EVER. A tank NEVER lost to a musketman, a Battleship NEVER lost to an ironclad. How hard can it be? Just bring back the combat system you made in 1996 to Civ 3, Fix a bug here and there, and the game will be excellent.

You want things too easy. Do you really want to know exctly how many tanks it takes to take a city. Learn to cope with uncertainty.