Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[F18fett]

That's what the combat system in Civ 3 keeps wanting me to believe! Here's a story from a recent game...

I was playing as the French, and was bordering the Aztecs. I was very far ahead of the Aztecs in terms of technology, and had Riflemen, Cavalry, and Artillery. My Aztec neighbors were guarding their border with knights, longbowmen, and spearmen. I discovered Replaceable Parts and found to my dismay, that I had no rubber. I looked on the border and saw two rubber resources in Montezuma's empire. I figured I could capture just one and be fine. I gathered a force of cavalry and an artillery piece and moved into his land to capture the city with the rubber. First, one of my cavalry (that was fortified in the jungle) was killed by a knight. I wondered how armor clad men with swords could wipe out my mounted and fortified riflemen, but went on. I used my artillery to decimate the knight and had another cavalry kill it. I then assaulted the city, captured it, and garrisoned it with two cavalry.

Then the Aztecs attacked. Their all powerful, fear inspiring, longbowman attacked the fortified cavalry and won. How could men armed with bows and arrows shoot into a city guarded by men with rifles? It makes zero sense. Another longbowman attacked and killed the last valiant cavalry, and retook the city. If this had been Civ2, my cavalry would've repulsed every pathetic unit in their ancient/medieval era army. Please Firaxis, do something about this combat discrepancy.

Also, for anyone wondering, I was playing on Chieftan level. I wouldn't mind if this happened on Diety, but Chieftan?

[Transcend]

Zulus with only spears and arrows wiped out an British Army of several thousands at Isandlwhana in 1879.

Afghan Tribesman destroyed an British force of 12000 in 1842.

Ethiopian warriors armed with primitive rifles destroyed an Italian Tank Division in 1934.

A Morrocan insurrection of few thousands tribesmen destroyed a Spanish Army of at least 30,000 men, killing as many as 19,000.

English Longbowmen massacred over 10,000 French knights at Battle of Agincourt. The French army outnumber the English by 5:1.

History is full of example of weaker force wiping out the stronger one. Your cavalry has a defense value of 3, while the longbowmen has 4. It's no wonder that your cavalry got massacred here. Next, show some better leadership and garrison the city with riflemen and infantry.

[jbird]

In Civ3, in my experience, combined arms are essential. Simply attacking with a horde of advanced units of all one type is not enough.

Heck, even in later times, tanks unsupported by artillery and infantry are quite vulnerable. Also, tanks on defensive duty are pretty vulnerable as well. I've found that i've needed to drastically alter my tactics from Civ2, and now use tanks to break through enemy lines and provide an alley for my infantry to advance with artillery support. Then, the tanks have to seize the high ground in strength, and protect the flanks from fast-moving raiders that might try to hit my infantry. Then, the infantry moves up covering the artillery, the artillery hits the city, and the infantry move in to take it.

I'm actually finding that Civ3's combat, while different from Civ2 and sometimes having strange results, requires much more of a tactical mindset, and that combined arms are the *only* way to go.

Jbird

[Setsuna]

That's all well and good against a scientific equal jbird, but not against someone who hasn't even figured out that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

[F18fett]

Zulus with only spears and arrows wiped out an British Army of several thousands at Isandlwhana in 1879.

And then 100 British riflemen held off 4000 Zulus at Rorke's Drift. It was also only 1500 British and Native soldiers. If you haven't noticed, my favorite movie is Zulu.

But the thing is, you posted many exceptions. The Italian Army wasn't exactly all that great either. The British and French thing I could understand, since they were both of the same time period. But a lot of your examples rely on the use of terrain. Terrain was in my favor, not their's.

History is full of example of weaker force wiping out the stronger one. Your cavalry has a defense value of 3, while the longbowmen has 4. It's no wonder that your cavalry got massacred here. Next, show some better leadership and garrison the city with riflemen and infantry.

My cavalry were fortified though. That provides a 50% increase. 50% of 3 is 1.5 so my total defense was 4.5, a little larger than the longbowman's attack. However, shouldn't it be taken into account that my men were fighting from within a city, and with more powerful weapons?

jbird:

How could I have used combined arms in my situation?

[Venger]

A kind word and a gun gets further than a kind word...

Originally posted by Transcend
Zulus with only spears and arrows wiped out an British Army of several thousands at Isandlwhana in 1879.

And a tiny band of British defended against a mass of Zulu at Rourke's Drift...numbers will outweigh technology. Quantity has a quality all it's own. But technology can make one man fight as many...

Afghan Tribesman destroyed an British force of 12000 in 1842.

Again outnumbered by what? 10 to 1? 100 to 1?

Ethiopian warriors armed with primitive rifles destroyed an Italian Tank Division in 1934.

Numbers...and hey, they were Italian!

A Morrocan insurrection of few thousands tribesmen destroyed a Spanish Army of at least 30,000 men, killing as many as 19,000.

Don't know nothing about this...

English Longbowmen massacred over 10,000 French knights at Battle of Agincourt. The French army outnumber the English by 5:1.

Got to love the ranged attack...

The original point...leaps in military technology aren't reflected on the Civ3 battlefield. In fact, it is likely that your musketeers will be defeated attacking my legionarys. Dude, THATS $@#ED UP!!! Civ2 for all of it's combat faults had the best trans era rules concept, firepower. A legion should not be able to defeat musketeers. But that is the defacto occurence under the default combat rules. And it's dumb as all hell. 2000 years of military advancement between the legion and musketeers and all I got was a lousy T-shirt...

History is full of example of weaker force wiping out the stronger one.

It's filled with far more examples of stronger forces defeating weaker ones. The reason you remember the "weaker" unit victories is because they are anamolous...

Your cavalry has a defense value of 3, while the longbowmen has 4.

Cavalry should savage a non-gunpowder unit. Why does the knight have the same defense as the cavalry?

It's no wonder that your cavalry got massacred here. Next, show some better leadership and garrison the city with riflemen and infantry.

The same riflemen that cannot attack and defeat Persian immortals?!?

The solution is probably beyond a patch...firepower needs to be reinstituted. Instead, we're gonna have to monkey with all the attack values to make them work...and that sucks.

Venger

[Soapyfrog]

You should have had musketmen or riflemen following up to garrison the city. Cavalry blows hard on defence. In any case an archer has an even chance of taking out a fortified cavalry of equal experience level... sounds like you were unlucky, to boot (that does happen you know!). A single rifleman probably would have killed both archers no sweat.

In my experience the offensive units are very poor defenders, and should always be backed up by a defensive unit. It makes warfare a little more challenging and thought-provoking instead of the blitzkreig that always occurred in Civ2.

[Provost Harrison]

Perhaps someone needs to modify all the attack and defence values in the game, it isn't too hard a task, just requires a bit of thought...

[dexters]

Let me put it as lightly as I can.

Forget Civ 2 and relearn Civ 3. It's a different game. don't expect to use the same strategy in battle.

Gone are the days of boring combat. Good riddance.

[Setsuna]

Neither was SMAC, but that didn't mean we had to put up with Impact Chaos Rovers being defeated by Synthmetal Sentinals.

Your point is irrelevant.

[Venger]

Let me put it as lightly in your can...

Originally posted by dexters
Let me put it as lightly as I can.

Forget Civ 2 and relearn Civ 3.

Let me put it as lightly as I can.

Screw your patronization. Civ3 has a broken combat system.

It's a different game. don't expect to use the same strategy in battle.

What strategy is that? Oh, of using more modern units against older units, because now it's just a crapshoot in every battle. Civ3 combat is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.

Gone are the days of boring combat. Good riddance.

Yeah, I just hate it when game results make sense, much more fun to go back to the days of the phalanx battleship scenario.

Civ3 suffers from a total lack of gameplay testing. And it shows.

Venger

[RichM]

Quantity is much more important than quality in this game. 15 of anything will overrun 2 mech infantry. That was not the case in previous civs.

[Evan]

"In fact, it is likely that your musketeers will be defeated attacking my legionarys. Dude, THATS $@#ED UP!!! "

?????

An essentially defensive unit losing when trying to attack is f-ed up? Sounds right to me.

Musketeer's guns are pretty much single shot guns. While that make work pretty good on defense when you can duck behind cover to reload, it is pretty tough to do while advancing on the attack.

Muskeeteers losing while attacking a fortified melee group is perfectly reasonable.

[dexters]

Quantity is much more important than quality in this game. 15 of anything will overrun 2 mech infantry. That was not the case in previous civs.

That is true, but I prefer this style of play over the overwhelming superiority you get in Civ 2 once you get ahead technologically.

If you talk in real terms, things aren't that simple. An advance army will still find tough resistance from an outdated obsolete army.

And because the battlefield is more even, tactics and strategy matter much more than in previous games where you basically line up a few units and know you'll win.

(don't get the false impression technology doesn't matter. having better units is a major ADVANTAGE but its not the only advantage. Knowing how to use your units matters very much)

[SuiteSisterMary]

musketeers will be defeated attacking my legionarys

Spelling aside, this example is poor.

Think to the most famous of Musketeers, The Three Musketeers. What are they best known for? Their awesome sword skills. Why? Because muskets were BLOODY USELESS WEAPONS!

Longbowmen take out calvary in a city

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.