Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[F18fett]

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.

I never lost a rifleman to a knight...

As for playing better, what do you want me to do? Put 3 riflemen in every city I have in case a roving knight wanders by and kills the first one? I've decided that the combat system in this game is useless, and I'm not bothering with war anymore.

[Kc7mxo]

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.

um, this is a rather silly example. the difference between 20 and 40 is the same as between 2 and 4. but why did you mention 20 and 15?


I HATE this combat system. Bring back firepower. Why the hell did they take it out?

[TCO]

Kc7xmo,

What firepower did was just tilt the odds more. That and the system of repeated combats. So that a tank going after an alpine (instead of having 2 to 1 advantage had a 10 to 1 advantage.) This made it way to easy for the human player.

Maybe you need to go back to chabbering about how great marines are with the newbies...

[mharmless]

Taken directly from an article on time.com:

Sunday, Nov. 11, 2001
In the dead of night, horses poured from the hills. They came charging down from the craggy ridges in groups of 10, their riders dressed in flowing shalwar kameez and armed with AK-47s and grenade launchers. In the Kishindi Valley below, 35 miles south of the prized northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the few Taliban tanks in the area not destroyed by American bombs took aim at the Northern Alliance cavalry galloping toward them. But the 600 horsemen had been ordered to charge directly into the line of fire. "If you ride fast enough, you can get to them," an Alliance spokesman later explained. "You ride straight at them. The tank will only have time to get off one or two rounds before you get there." The rebels were told to leap on top of the tanks, pull the Taliban gunners out through the open hatches and kill them. The first land battle in the century's first war began with a showdown from a distant age: fearless men on horseback against modern artillery. America's money was on the ponies.

[Evan]

"Your 14% figure is probably a fair assessment of how this battle should go.

"And, if I thought the game was actually producing these odds I would not have said that in the first place. I lose advanced unites to stone age units MUCH more often that ~14% of the time."

Ah, there's the problem.

While you intellectually accept that 14% is an acceptable percentage, your PERCEPTION of 14% is that it feels like a lot more.

You can try to blame incorrectly implemented formulas and/or faulty random number generators but the is truth most likely 14% just FEELS like too much to you.

From my experience, the objective data is probably right. I'll bet that if you had cataloged your combat experiences and then did the calculations as to actual percentages, my guess would be that it is probably not way out of whack, it only seems that way.

To you. Seems ok to me.

[F18fett]

mharmless:

That's a different case. The Taliban's tanks are old pieces of crap. In Civ 3, it's assumed that they're the best ones you've got. American tanks have hatches that can lock. Also, the Northern Alliance uses grenades and other weapons like that to blow up the tanks while riding.

[pchang]

Originally posted by F18fett
How could I have used combined arms in my situation?

In addition to moving in infantry (or musket men), you should have moved in some artillery (even cannon). They get a free shot to weaken any attacker.

[F18fett]

In addition to moving in infantry (or musket men), you should have moved in some artillery (even cannon). They get a free shot to weaken any attacker.

I did use artillery. My problem wasn't capturing the city, it was holding it. I managed to do that in my retry when I sent in riflemen but then an aztec knight conquered a size 12 city with a fortified rifleman. Now my third try:

UPDATE:

Since two different approaches at war didn't work because of a poorly made combat system, I decided to use diplomacy. That's what it's there for, right? Well, the Aztecs clung to their remote border town like a tick on a little kid. I offered them:

10,000 gold
Navigation
Magnetism
Nationalism
World Map
Territory Map
My one saltpeter reserve

And they wouldn't let go of the size 6 border town. Why? This was the deal of a lifetime! And the Aztecs most likely didn't know there was rubber, since they don't look like they've reached the Industrial Age.

[Döbeln_2001]

Originally posted by davwhitt


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.

Add to that the fact that muskets, unlike bows, go 'Boom! Boom!' when fired, and create lots of smoke. Powerful psychological impact, in other words.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

[dexters]

Sure blame the combat system.

I've been using a combination of artillery, riflemen and older units (for fodder) to attack and i haven't had any problems.

If you're just going to mindlessly throw units at the AI, you won't win. Also, in Civ 3, you need a heck of a lot more units than in Civ 2. It's just how the game is played. So if you plan on making an effective attack with 10 units and no reinforcements from your cities, don't count on gaining a lot of ground. Also, because of the new culture border system, there are no longer zones of control that forbids enemy units from moving into your territory. You'll need to station units by your borders for defensive purposes. So you don't get overrun. And believe me, the enemy will swarm your border cities.

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Döbeln_2001
Powerful psychological impact, in other words.

Regards / GulGnu

-Stabil som fan!

A fascinating subject for discussion, too.

[Venger]

Originally posted by pchang


In addition to moving in infantry (or musket men), you should have moved in some artillery (even cannon). They get a free shot to weaken any attacker.

Yes, you should have reinforced your 60 shield 2 resources (ignoring the cost of the technology) cost cavalry with a 40 shield two resource cost cannon on the off chance it may have damaged the attacking 40 shield cost longbowman who likely still would have killed your cavalry but now also get's the bonus of capturing your cannon.

Come the fu$% on! A bunch of longbowmen defeat an entrenched cavalry unit in what alternate universe? Now mind you, if he'd thrown two or three at him, that's one thing. But come on... it's mind numbingly foolish. When Civ2 and it's flawed combat model gives you more realistic results than Civ3, you know something isn't quite right...

Venger

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by F18fett
mharmless:

That's a different case. The Taliban's tanks are old pieces of crap. In Civ 3, it's assumed that they're the best ones you've got. American tanks have hatches that can lock. Also, the Northern Alliance uses grenades and other weapons like that to blow up the tanks while riding.

Old pieces of crap? In comparison to American Abrahms, but who else in the world is even buidling tanks anymore? Germany, maybe? So, besides Abrahms, those probably are the best tanks the rest of the world has, no?

[dexters]

China is building tanks.

[pchang]

Israel is building tanks too.