Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[VetteroX]

No GP, your wrong. I play on Monarch and Emperor, and will soon move to Diety. (waiting for patch) I do not like it easy, but a musket man CAN NOT beat a tank. I know attacking a city is hard, I know all about stalingrad etc... thats not what im talking about. I specificly said in open terriotry tanks would annihilate knights and musketmen, and they would still annihilate musket men in a city. Uncertinty is fine if a modern armor attacks Mech Inf, but it is not ok when a tank attacks anything of lower tech then infantry. If its gonna be so random, why dont we not have units at all? Just role dice to determine weather or not we take a city.

BTW, someone said in Civ 2 Knights had an attack of 6, and riflemen were 4. Actuall knights were 4/2/2 1/1 and riflemen were 5/4/1 2/1. They had 2 health, which means compaired to a knight they are like 6 defence. I personally never saw a knight beat a healthy riflemen in any of my 200 or so games of Civ 2.

[WhiteElephants]

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.

I was unaware that, as well as having two arms and one functioning eye, you also had to be a magician to use a longbow. I suppose cleaning and loading a rifle properly in order to prevent it from blowing up in your face is a regular walk in the park.

And lord knows mining for iron, melting in down, and forming it into a barrel, a chamber, a trigger, and a cocking arm that fit snuggly into a pre-craved length of wood is far easier than the tedium of chopping down a tree and carving it into a bow. We all know how scares trees are. And making bullets is as easy as tying your shoes.

[WhiteElephants]

China is building tanks.

Russian model tanks?

Israel is building tanks too.

American model tanks?

[Sevorak]

WhiteElephants,

You'd be surprised at how much training it required to successfully use the Welsh longbow effectively. The government had to mandate specified hours for the yeomen to train with it.

Serious training and practice was required. The use of a longbow isn't as easy as a crossbow or firearm, where you point it at the enemy and fire and your projectile goes straight towards your target. That's easy. With a longbow, the bowman points it at the sky, aiming to create an arc that ends at where your target will be at the time the arrow lands. Cleaning and loading a rifle properly is far simpler - there are tools to assist you in cleaning it out, and instructions as to how to load it. Using a longbow is relying on the eyeball Mark One and practice - learning how to fire those long arcs over hundreds of feet of distance.

In addition to the arcs, the longbowmen had to learn how to draw and fire quickly. A trained longbowman could unleash in excess of 40 arrows per minute, far exceeding the rate of fire of crossbows or firearms. That took training as well, and the combination of the skill needed to fire quickly and with accuracy was only accomplished through extensive, long-term, training. That's why, historically, the other European powers didn't simply pick up longbows and start countering the English longbow-for-longbow - they didn't even begin to have the trained population base the English had in Wales.

-Sev

[Karhgath]

On thing people seems to neglect...

"Offense is the best defense."

When you are attacking, you mostly have offensive units. So, why oh why, are you entrenching yourself in the just conquered town, waiting for the enemy to attack?

I mean, longbowman(if we are talking the english archers here) can easely wipeout cavalry when ATTACKING. I mean, heck, they could pierce thru plate armor worn by knights, so why couldn't they wipe out men with no armors standing on the other side, waiting for attackers? However, rush the archers with your cavalry, and see them run and be dealt with very very quickly.

Often, and more so when not in a city, ambushes and just plain surprise plays a big role on the battlefield(hey, the cavalry defending the city was sleeping or in the bar, taking a drink).

So, is the Civ3 combat broken? If we take the values of each units, and check it against the system used in Civ3, no, it isn't.

Is the Civ3 combat realistic? No. You would need to add a LOT more complexity. (unit X good vs Y, but bad vs Z, etc.) It would take a LOT more than only 2 variables like the way too abstracted Offense and Defense. Heck, there shouldn't even be those 2 distinctions.

Is the Civ3 combat like Civ2? No. It gives a LOT more rooms for chance. In Civ2, whoever had the tech edge wins, easy. So, if you are used to Civ2, sure, it's a LOT unerving and frustrating to see warriors killing you musketmen.

Is the Civ2 combat realistic? No way. While it is better than the very very simplified Civ1 combat system, it is in no way realistic. In my opinion, it's worse, reality-wise, than Civ3. Tech is everything, not fun and strategy, just conquer Europe with 1 tank and 1 howitzer and a flow of mech inf to fortify in the city you leave behind you, and you need just one defensive unit per city, more is useless. Howitzer was the only unit that had a chance against a fortified mech inf defending a city with a wall, the tank is just there to defend the howitzer by attacking close enemy units foolish enough to wander out of their city. And anyway, you have the tech edge, so they are still defending with musketeers. And, if you are unlucky and get attacked by another tank, you loose both your tank and howitzer, and all the rest in the stack. Talk about realistic here.

So, Civ3, while not being accurate, is NOT broken, just another combat system, with different rules and feel. Whether you LIKE IT or NOT is another thing completly, but it is NOT broken.

[CyberGnu]

GP, would you stop the patronizing? I beat the computer on Deity by exploiting the flaws in the combat system and early AI behaviour... I obviously don't need to 'learn to play better'. But winning that way isn't much fun. Feels the same way it would feel to win by using the billion gold bug...

The combat system is broken. Period. I think that both the combat system and the AI were optimized to play well in the modern age, with the result that all the other ages reek.

First of the math is screded up here. A warrior with attack 1 has a 14% chance of killing a defending rifleman with defense 6. But this is only for one hitpoint, right? So the chance of a regular warrior to kill a regular rifleman is only 2.3%.

While that is a fairly low probability, it is still way to high. Consider historically. How many battles have there been between nomadic warriors and riflemen? How many have the warriors won? Way less than 2%... As the now almost extinct natie americans can attest.

Now consider the next example, horsemen against riflemen. Horsemen attack 2, vs riflemen def 6. All of a sudden we have 10.3% probability. That is pretty high. Way to high for historical accuracy. And way to high for me to feel comfortable with.

The reason I and I think many others don't like this combat system is not because we want to kill the AI every time. It's because we don't get a intuitive feeling for the game.

Example:
I want to defend my border town against my evil but inferior neighbours. Seeing that right outside my border town there is a mountain range, my intuition (or rather, my sense of history and tactics) tells me that there is a good place to make a defensive stance. My intuition also tells me that if I station a modern infantry unit there, nothing less than a combined arms attack using artillery, mountain troops and aerial bombardment should be able to dislodge them.

Imagine my suprise when
1) His knights waltz past my infantry through the mountains. Sure, it takes him one turn, but that isn't much...
2) His knights without much trouble kills my infantry and spreads all over my heartland.

Ok, so the defense didn't work. I go on the attack. My tanks kills scores of his knights, but for some reason takes damage while doing so. Wear and tear, tracks falling off and such, I guess.

The next turn more of his knights arrive, and massacre my tanks out in the open. With the current rules, it only takes two knights to have a more than average chance of taking out one modern armor...


Now, compare to Civ 2. If your tank was suprised out in the open by a few knights, you still felt pretty safe. Occaisonally your tank would get killed, and it would piss you off, but you would usually claim it was the vagaries of war... As it should be. This is not the case in Civ 3. I'm not even suprised when my tanks get killed anymore...


Which leads me back to my original point... The combat system is broken. Not in the sense that a bike without a chain is broken, but more like a bike without a saddle. Sure, you can still use it, but it is not an enjoyable ride...

[CyberGnu]

Dobeln: GulGnu? Que?

Och vem fan aer stabil? Inte jag i alla fall... Labilare aen shockskadat nitroglycerin.

[Venger]

Combat wackiness

Originally posted by dexters
Sure blame the combat system.

We will - it's broken.

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

I've done the same, and witnessed the same retarded results. Not only are the attack/defense values and entire combat model a little iffy, I've seen combat results that make no sense.

A veteran ironclad attacks a veteran caravel. Guess who loses 4 hits to 1? Now, in this combat model, the chance of scoring a hit for the ironclad should be 2/3 (4/4+2) and 1/3 for the caravel (2/4+2). The chance that after 4 rounds of combat the Ironclad should remain have only one hit on the caravel is only 16%. The chance that after 4 rounds the caravel would have scored 4 hits is 1% !!! The chance in that matchup for three rounds where the caravel hits and the ironclad doesn't is under .01%. But I've seen it more than once in ONE GAME. Something is not right here...

If you're just going to mindlessly throw units at the AI, you won't win.

Apparently that only works for the AI - he can mindless throw a longbowman against your in city fortified Cavalry and 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.

Nothing wrong with that. I *LOVE* the fact that you must quell city resistance, this is a great add on.

Also, because of the new culture border system, there are no longer zones of control that forbids enemy units from moving into your territory.

The lack of ZOC is a frightening ommission!

Venger

[jbird]

A long time back in this thread, someone asked me how to use combined arms with cavalry and riflemen.

It's basically the same as with tanks and infantry with artillery.

The cavalry punches a hole in the enemy lines, and secures the lines of advance, taking particular care to secure high ground, chokepoints, and supply routes (roads). The city in question should be, ideally, isolated as much as possible by your military from resupply or reinforcement.

Doing things like cutting all roads coming into the city, as well as seizing any hilltops and/or mountians around is key. This prevents the town from producing any units that require resources, and strips them of any luxuries that were keeping them happy. Classic battlefield isolation.

Oh, and when I say "secure" the high ground and important terrain, you can't do this with just one unit per tile. These terrain features must be taken and *held*, as strongly as possible. The old Civ2 method of one unit holding out against superior numbers just doesn't work anymore, and I find it somewhat realistically challenging (your units are far from resupply, etc).

Now, as your cav moves in to secure the advance, there must be two separate efforts underway as well. One is the reinforcement for the cavalry. They can't hold out forever, they *need* infantry (not the Civ3 unit infantry, but whatever the strongest defense ground trooper you have is) support to hold that ground (which also frees them up to make local counter-attacks on any reinforcement attempts by the AI). Slap a Musketman on a mountain, and you completely hose the AI trying to move near it, giving you more turns to attack the city. (Your own obsolete swordsmen and the like are excellent for this task as well, as you're buying time and securing space, focusing on defense, with the Cav providing the mobile counterattack force)

The second force is the assault force. Ideally, some catapults (which stink) and/or cannon (which are okay) defended heavily by infantry (I generally stack two defensive units with two bombardment units) are the main punch of the force. The rest of the force are any other units with high attack ratings, everything from Knights to surplus Cavalry to whatever else you have lying around. Use the bombardment units to wear down the defending troops if possible (sometimes, they just won't get hurt with catapults and cannon), then when you're relatively sure of victory, attack with your ground units and take the city.

As to defend it, heck yes you need more than one ground unit in each city to defend it. Not only that, you need to station some other units with bombardment ability in there to help with the defense, as well as some units with some offensive punch to hit units like those longbowmen (which only have a defense of one).

Not only that, but you must *continue* to secure those important terrain features around the city. The same spots that prevented enemy reinforcement now prevent (or at least hinder) the enemy's attempts to retake the city.

In Civ2, you could use a single unit to hold a city, and a *very* small force to take one, without needing to isolate the battlefield. This is *not* the case in Civ3, and I for one *like* the new requirments to plan an assault in depth, use terrain, and methodically surround and reduce the enemy's city.

In Civ3, if you want to go to war, you have to PREPARE for war. A handful of units won't cut it. You must outnumber and out-think/out-execute the enemy, using any advantage (including but not necessarily advanced tech) that you can use. This includes strategic warfare as well. If they only have 2 supplies of horses, and one of them is vulnerable to either a quick dash of a pillaging mounted unit or an amphibous pillage mission, *do it*. It doesn't take away their last source, but they might have been trading that extra horse to another Civ, and if they were, they're now hosed, because the other civ is ticked at them. Same with luxuries or any other resource you can pillage. Deny use of it to the enemy, for even a couple turns, and he'll be hurting at *least* on some level.

You may even have to build up your military while you're at peace for 30 or 40 turns, so that you have the ability to take and *hold* what it is that you want.

==================================

Regarding tanks, read Jane's more often. America, Britian, Germany, France, Russia, China, and a couple others are all currently building their own tanks (not licensed from other countries). The German tanks have *superior* guns, and are truly a great weapon. The British units are actually quite good, and the American designs often steal their good ideas (just as they steal ours lol). The current russian offerings are also top-notch (the ones in Afghanistan and the Gulf War were outdated designs, not Russia's best stuff for the most part). Now France's armor leaves some things to be desired, but they've made a choice to sacrifice both firepower and armor for mobility and lower cost. I forget what this entire subtopic has to do with Civ3 anyway lol.

Jbird

[orc4hire]

Originally posted by SuiteSisterMary

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!


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.

I hate to break it to you, but The Three Musketeers was a MOVIE (well, it was a book first, but I doubt you've read it). If the musket was so useless, why did every nation that encountered it adopt it as soon as they could? And why did it blow pikes, swords, and bows off the battlefield? The fact is, the musket was quite effective. That's why people used it, you see.

'calvary' [sic] (hint: if you're going to bust someone on their spelling, be sure to get yours right.) may lose an advantage in the city, but the longbow was not a better weapon than a 19th century rifle-musket. The mythical powers ascribed to it by its fans are just that; mythical.

--Robert

[CyberGnu]

Jbird, I don't mind at all having to use more units. But only when it makes sense to do so!

WWI and II saw millions of men in uniform BECAUSE THE SIDES WERE EVENLY MATCHED. Contrarily, Cortez (IIRC) conquered the ~15 million Inca kingdom with a few hundred men... Armed with firearms and the knowledge of superior tactics.

[pchang]

And a deity myth which was an incredibly bad (for the natives anyway) coincidence with the appearance of Cortez and his men.

[Venger]

I have five bucks Ezekiel gets quoted here soon...

Originally posted by orc4hire


I hate to break it to you, but The Three Musketeers was a MOVIE (well, it was a book first, but I doubt you've read it). If the musket was so useless, why did every nation that encountered it adopt it as soon as they could? And why did it blow pikes, swords, and bows off the battlefield? The fact is, the musket was quite effective. That's why people used it, you see.

'calvary' [sic] (hint: if you're going to bust someone on their spelling, be sure to get yours right.) may lose an advantage in the city, but the longbow was not a better weapon than a 19th century rifle-musket. The mythical powers ascribed to it by its fans are just that; mythical.

--Robert

Hooray, he's here...

Venger
P.S. It wasn't so much a misspell on my part as the improper pluralization of legionary...

[WhiteElephants]

Serious training and practice was required. The use of a longbow isn't as easy as a crossbow or firearm, where you point it at the enemy and fire and your projectile goes straight towards your target. That's easy. With a longbow, the bowman points it at the sky, aiming to create an arc that ends at where your target will be at the time the arrow lands.

I can agree that using a longbow takes a bit more finesse, but I think the cost in terms of time and resources required to produce one rifle are far and away more expensive than the time and resources required to train a man to properly use a bow.

Thanks Jbird for the heads up on the tank issue.

Now back to the topic -- No, no one has convinced me yet that the combat is broken. I too am under the impressioin that the game changed, but the tactics the players are attempting to use has not.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
WWI and II saw millions of men in uniform BECAUSE THE SIDES WERE EVENLY MATCHED. Contrarily, Cortez (IIRC) conquered the ~15 million Inca kingdom with a few hundred men... Armed with firearms and the knowledge of superior tactics.

... and smallpox and influenza and...