Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[Steve Clark]

But Venger, even if the odds we increased to 100:1, someone will still complain about the 1%, esp. if it comes up. This cry towards to more predictability will soon lead a chorus of folks saying that the AI is too easy and beatable.

[CyberGnu]

Kargath, I don't want civ3 to be the same as Civ2. But the combat system was actually better in civ 2 than civ 3... Is it then so wrong of me to at least wish for the better of the two?

Or course, I'd rather have a good, functioning system...

[Tauklon]

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.

I was thinking the same thing. By having a larger range of numbers you could add small civilization advancements. For example change the basic tank from 16.10.2 to 50.30.2. Have the small wonder "Military Academy" add +2 to attack and defense rating. Researching Synthetic fibers could add +2 defense. These small increases help civizilations who are farther advaced technically. There are many tanks in todays world but they vary quite a bit based on the technology of the country building them. Add in the age difference bonus suggested by Blackadar1 and we should have a much better combat system.

IMHO: I've been playing about a week and think Civ3 is very good but has two flaws, corruption and the combat system. "Fix" those and you'll have another greatest game of all time candidate.

[CyberGnu]

Steve, Civ2's odds were good in that respect...

And I don't think the AI needs breaks in the 'old units defeating new ones'. Have you tried deity yet? The level of AI cheating is immense... So the odds of you leading in tech are pretty slim.

[CyberGnu]

Oh, Kargath, there a few million Palestinians eager to learn your crowbar vs. tank tactics... There's a real market for you...

[N. Machiavelli]

For all it's game-play flaws and balance issues, I found the CtP 2 combat system most enjoyable and prepaired me best for Civ3-style combat. For one thing, it forced you to attack as an army, simply not as a few units. Most combat was done between armies of 5-10 units; this way it seemed more believable that your army of 3 tanks could be destroyed by 12 cavalrymen in a single battle. In the usual Civ system, it was always unit versus unit, or many units versus one unit, each at a time. Outside of the Gladiator pits, what real-world combats between two forces ever fought soldier vs soldier?

But perhaps the best feature was the requirments for combined arms. Your army of 10 cavalry would most likely be mopped up by his combined army of 5 pikemen, 3 archers, and 2 catapults. Both equal in number, but the industrial-aged units (cavalry) would probably be defeated by his middle-aged army that incorporated even primitave artillery and ranged units. This also led to 'specialized' armies. One army would be nothing but cavalry and light-artillery; you wouldn't assault a fortified city with this, but to mop-up smaller, retreating armies. One would, conversely have an army consisting of infantry and a great deal of artillery to assault the cities and hold onto them.

The use of armies and combined arms is how real war is fought, regardless of age or technology. The problem with Civ3 is that it kept with the old Civ style of single-unit combat, while requiring you to use combined arms to accomplish anything decent. Some of the more veteren players made the jump fairly easily, while others did not. This is nothing to be ashamed of, nor does it reflect your ability as a player; jeeze, the game has been out for less then 2 weeks, give folks time to adapt.

Like I said, it's not that the Civ3 system is broken per se, it's more like incomplete. If they were to attempt to force you to attack that fortified pikemen on the mountain with combined arms, they should have allowed you to actually attack with combined arms. You should be able to hit that one darn guy with the entire army of knights AND catapults instead of each of your five knights dieing one by one after a futile attempt at bombardment.

That's how combat works. Sending one man from an army to hit one man in an another army is a losing strategy. They neutralize technology advantages is Civ3 for the most part (that is, unless it's grossly lop-sided i.e. modern tanks vs spearmen) since they do not allow you to take full advantage of it very easily. Sure, an army of dug-in Impi SHOULD take out a few tanks if the tank commander was dumb enough to send them into the hills alone. However, if those tanks were guarded by a few infantrymen with machine guns well......that's alot of dead Impi. All I'm saying is that the Civ3 system makes it very difficult to use such combined arms effectively for most to get. They switched from a macro-warfare system to a micro-warfare system without an easy way to deal with it. Perhaps if Leaders and Armies were more numerous, or they allowed all units within the armies to attack en masse instead of one at a time.

Personally, I think CtP2 sucked overall, but Civ3 should take a page in concept from them in regards to combat and making combined armies more available.

Sorry for the lengthy post, I had to kinda get that out.

[Venger]

If you dropped dead in a forest, would you make a sound?

Originally posted by Karhgath

And, also, just to answer one question "could a frigate kill a battleship", well, just look at the USS Cole. Take that frigate and use it to ram the battleship, or fill it with explosive, and there you go, easy =)

The only thing analgous in Civ to the USS Cole incident is the use of a spy to sabotage a unit. Do you really think that a rubber dingy deserves your side in this discussion?

How could technology not win against lower tech? Well, look what they did with those nice planes on NY, and the fact that the US still hasn't had any real victory yet in afghanistan.

The United States didn't have any real military victories until the battle of Coral Sea in 1942. Give us a chance to get it going here Mac...

Tech means nothing if you are bright enough to use what is available at its fullest.(Not that I condone any of those example above, just facts here)

What fact? How do you consider terrorist acts as military combat for model use in Civ?

Not that it has any impact on Civ3(it's a game), but yes, a frigate could(if they REALLY REALLY want) destroy a battleship.

No, they REALLY REALLY couldn't. If you fill it full of explosives and blow it up next to the Missouri, it wouldn't sink, but even if it did, it's not functioning as a frigate but as a giant bomb. Maybe you should create a giant floating bomb unit in your Civ3 editor...

Those saying they expected a more historically accurate game because it's called Civilization, well, wake up, it's the third iteration and nothing shows it has ever been any kind of historically accurate game, and never was close to be. It's a stupid game. They want it more like Civ2, but they want it to be accurate, realistic and historical. So, which want you really want, like Civ2, or realistic? Those 2 are pretty different you know.

No, it's not. Civ2 had it's flaws, which to some point have been addressed. But at it's core it's pure combat model was pretty sound actually. And Civilization IS designed to be a historical game - ask anyone on the Firaxis team if they've not attempted to incorporate real history into the experience. Why do you build The Pentagon instead of the Octagon?

And beside, those that think it's broken are those playing(and having tons of fun) civ2 at deity and 'cheating' by using all the flaws in Civ2 to win(and there are TONS of them). Using game flaws are some of the only way to win in Deity at Civ2, and I expect the same thing here. Those flaws are just different.

No, I'm still playing my first game on regent and am noticing the gameplay as it occurs, using strategies devised based on the information the game presents.

Venger

[CyberGnu]

Tauklon, not a bad idea... I quite like it

[CyberGnu]

Machi, I agree wholeheartedly. Not using the stack concept after it was demonstrated by CTP is quite sad. As I said in a different thread, it's like using chopsticks when there is a fork available... The only possible reason you would use an inferior instrument is pride...

[TCO]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
GP, would you stop the patronizing? I beat the computer on Deity blalbla bla

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.

blablabla

1. I don't mean anything patronizing against, you fellow chemist.

2. You are complaining about 2% losses of units??? WTF? Does that affect your game that much? Are you riding that close to the edge.

3. I do buy your argument in terms of "historical acuracy" that battleships should always beat phalanxes (although we could argue about how a phalanx would ever coexist with a battleship...or we could think of the phalax as a guy in a sampan putting a mine in the water). But fine you win the historical accuracy debate.

4. I just think that in Civ2, it was too easy to steamroll over other units. I like a system with more evenly matched units and one with more chance. I think that such a system brings out the better generals.

[Venger]

Wacky unit comabt hijinks!

Originally posted by Steve Clark
But Venger, even if the odds we increased to 100:1, someone will still complain about the 1%, esp. if it comes up. This cry towards to more predictability will soon lead a chorus of folks saying that the AI is too easy and beatable.

Then it'd only occur rarely and would be noteworthy but rare. But this crap is happening ALL THE TIME.

You must have a combat system that makes sense - and the current one is simply broken.

It reminds me of a problem with Steel Panthers:WAW. Many people were reporting that infantry versus tanks was too effective. But oh boy were there the defenders saying that's just the way it was, that it was perfectly accurate, that we were just complainers or whiners.

Turns out there was a flaw in the algorithm causing the chances to be improved several times over. But people defended it, because it was "in the game".

I, for one, expect a game I buy to make some sense...

Venger

[TCO]

Originally posted by Monoriu
I really don't see the problem of a 3-2-1 unit attacking a 6-3-3 unit and winning 50% of the time. In game terms, we happen to call it swordmen and cavalry, but their stats should tell you that its very possible to happen.

This is a game, not a simluation, I said so in my past post in this thread. So we adopt to the rules of the game, and my experience tells me that is very possible and easy to win combat in this game unless your strategy is bad.

Think about these situations:

1. You don't have oil, and nobody sells it. Does it mean the end of the game for you? If riflemen have a chance to defeat tanks, at least you have a chance.

2. You just got cavalry, and the AI is 8 turns behind you in tech. Does it mean you can produce 4 cavalry units, and these are invinciable until the AI catches up?


If you play the game, you gotta play within its rules, and I have shown that its very possible if you know what you are doing.

If you can accept that the government can always decide what tech to research, that pyramids somehow are related to granaries, that all the people do exactly what the government tells them to do, that you can predict exactly when you'll get a tech, then you'll also have to accept that a frigate can occastionally sink a battleship. This is civ 3, its a good design decision, and it can be overcome.

Stunning post!!!

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu
I really don't see the problem of a 3-2-1 unit attacking a 6-3-3 unit and winning 50% of the time. In game terms, we happen to call it swordmen and cavalry, but their stats should tell you that its very possible to happen.

And I'm telling you that shouldn't happen - think about it, why should a unit from 1875 be defeated by a unit from 1100? And we're not talking about a case of massive outnumbering, we're talking about a game that has these numbers BY DESIGN.

This is a game, not a simluation, I said so in my past post in this thread.

And I dismiss it out of hand, it's a feckless argument to justify any damn fool thing the game does. Refuse 100 gold for 10? It's not a simulation. Get your Battleship defeated by a Phalanx? It's not a simulation. What kind of asinine answer is that?

So we adopt to the rules of the game, and my experience tells me that is very possible and easy to win combat in this game unless your strategy is bad.

Why should we have to suspend common sense and close our eyes and click our heels for a combat system to make sense? For all it's flaws, the Civ2 combat model was limited by programming, not concept.

Think about these situations:

1. You don't have oil, and nobody sells it. Does it mean the end of the game for you? If riflemen have a chance to defeat tanks, at least you have a chance.

So let's screw up the combat model to fix a game design problem. Look, if you don't have oil, you are fuçked in the real world too. The real fix for this is to allow UNITS to be traded, just like the real world. Japan doesn't have any oil, but they seem to have cars, because they trade for it. And if they can't buy it, they have to conquer for it or submit, and that's just the way it is.

2. You just got cavalry, and the AI is 8 turns behind you in tech. Does it mean you can produce 4 cavalry units, and these are invinciable until the AI catches up?

Since when are cavalry invincible? Two fortified musketeers ought to be more than a match for cavalry. Even with tanks, there is a way to defend with massed units. However, don't try and sell me on weakening tanks so the game is "balanced", cause that's robbing Peter to pay Paul...

If you play the game, you gotta play within its rules, and I have shown that its very possible if you know what you are doing.

This isn't some obtuse rule, this is the basic combat model. Finding it's kinks and quirks isn't fun. I'd rather beat it with strategy and planning than trickery and tom foolery.

If you can accept that the government can always decide what tech to research,

I for one think that only certain government types should be able to choose which technology to research (Communism, at a 40% penalty in science rate). But it's not a game breaker for me, because it doesn't really affect the gameplay all that bad, rather it keeps advances coming in general order. SMAC had a more realistic tech model...

that pyramids somehow are related to granaries,

Enh, they just needed wonders of the world. Why should half of the wonders do what they do? This part also doesn't bother me much.

that all the people do exactly what the government tells them to do,

They don't hence corruption and the requirement to manage happiness...

that you can predict exactly when you'll get a tech,

Come up with a better solution. We have.

then you'll also have to accept that a frigate can occastionally sink a battleship.

The other things enhance gameplay, this detracts from it.

Venger

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GP Stunning post!!!

I second that!

[WhiteElephants]

And I'm telling you that shouldn't happen - think about it, why should a unit from 1875 be defeated by a unit from 1100? And we're not talking about a case of massive outnumbering, we're talking about a game that has these numbers BY DESIGN.

Damn it man! It's not real. It's not even what it says it is. It's a clever name with a clever graphic so that you'll buy the game. What it really is is a ambiguous mathematical equation that has an attack and defense value, whether it's a tank or not. It's a 6-3-2, or whatever, not a cavalry unit. It's a 10-6-4 not a tank! Call it whatever you want, a dragon, a unicorn, a spaceman from Mars. They just give it a name so that it has some commercial and historical appeal. The unit isn't any more a tank than the boot in monopoly is a land owner. When you build a muskeeter think or it as a 4-4-1, or whatever, and not real life unit that is reflective of history. Its a mathematical representation of nothing that is, or ever will be, real. It's a number pluged into a game in order to make sense. Lord knows the king in chess isn't really representative of a king. The same logic applies here as well. Forget reality. Forget all you know about reality and think of it in terms of the game. If a 6-3-2 attacks and loses 50% of the time to a 1-1-1 then there is probably a problem. Set it up in a scenario and run some tests to let us know your results, otherwise your application of reality to a game futile.