Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[CyberGnu]

GP:

1) Thanks! Soon to be Dr. CyberGnu!

2) Actually, it's not that I so much worry over loosing to the warrior... It's that I can use the same strategy to the same effect. Look, you know how much people complained about ICS in civ2, right? Well, I feel the same way about the combat system, cause it is set up so that the Human can exploit the AI way to easy in the early age....

3) Thank you, again

4) I see what you mean... Hmm, the only model I've liked that was still quite simple was the Panzer General model, with fortification bonuses and such. I don't know if that would be too much for the AI... But considering that I played PG on an old 486 33MHz it shouldn't be that demanding...

I also see what you mean about more chance. True, having firepower/hitpoints from civ 2 does smooth out the bell curve... Which means the percentage solution might work instead... Cause I don't have a problem with a tank killing a mech. inf. unit one turn, and then the next die while attacking a tank... Quite the contrary.

It's when the Jedi knights kill my tanks I get mad...

[Venger]

Every hall needs a sniveling hall monitor...

Originally posted by WhiteElephants

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.

It REPRESENTS something. What's the point in calling the technology plastics, it's not real plastic. Why build the Pyramids, which aren't the real Pyramids just a placeholder for a multicity granary, which isn't a granary building just a placeholder for a number of units of food, which isn't really food just a number based on products of land, which isn't land just a placeholder that is worked by citizens, that aren't real citizens just a numeric value for your civilization, which isn't really a civilization just an arbitrary sum of a number of integers in a computer program.

Is that what you get from playing this game?

Call it whatever you want, a dragon, a unicorn, a spaceman from Mars.

You had might as well. Myself, I bought a game called Civilization that was to include units from this planet in some recognizable form.

They just give it a name so that it has some commercial and historical appeal.

There is no historical appeal for a tank unit that loses to swordsmen.

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.

Listen you patronizing jerkweed, I've already tired of your nonsense halfway through the post. If this is all you have to offer to the thread, unplug your keyboard and save us all the effort.
Nobody has made the mistake that thinking there are little tiny people in our computers. We play a game that purports itself to be historical (for you people who think it's not, look at the fuçking box) but presents us with perplexing illogical occurances that don't need to be there and reduce our pleasure of the game.

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.

You've clearly got nothing to offer but your overpowering ignorance. Please go enjoy a game of Candyland, if you can get over the fact that it's not candy, just pictures of candy...

Venger

[CyberGnu]

WhiteElefant, I don't think you've understood the appeal this game has to most people... It's not just a numbers game. (In fact, that was one of CTP's main problems... Activision never understood that. CTP played more like an Excel spreadsheet than a game).

I want to build my fledgling civilization from a pathetic tribe to an industrial giant... I want to build the Hanging Gardens and get my little movie-reward when I do. I want to see my panzers crush the French. But I certainly don't want to develop my 3/32/54/81/3-9-2/RM(4:4:1)/6 with improvements just so I can send my 28/16/3 units forward... Man, that would be dull...

[Monoriu]

Venger, sorry but I dislike debating with someone who breaks up a post into various individual small parts and then attack the individual parts.

We judge whether a game design is good based on whether it provides enjoyment or not. What we are really talking about, is the ratio of power between modern units and ancient/middle age units. When you think about it, firepower and hit points can be translated into attack and defence values to produce the same results. It boils down to some people are saying that modern units are not powerful enough vs their older versions.

Do you want to play a game where you can work hard to produce several modern units, march them into AI territory, and expect to slaughter everyone and everything in the process? Or

Do you want to play a game where you can work hard to produce modern units which have a combat advantage, but still have to be carefully coordinated, used in the right circumstances, and used in sufficient quantity, or else they will still lose?

I choose the second one, and civ 3 provides that, so I like the game.

In the games that I have played, I seldom face ancient units. If you are constantly worrying about ancient AI units defeating your modern units, shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level? If you are already playing on Diety and your biggest concern is the AI spearmen defeating your tanks, then, congratulations on a job well done.

And think about it, what if the AI is more advanced than you are? Do you want to direct an army of musketmen in Diety level and still have a decent (though small) chance of fighting and winning against the AI hordes of riflemen? Or are you saying that, ok, if the AI beats me in the scientific race, then I may as well restart? I myself would like to try defeating a more advanced army with inferior units, and I don't want that challenge gone.

Now, I am going back to enjoy the game......

[Setsuna]

Re: Every hall needs a sniveling hall monitor...

Venger:

Well played! You have outmaneuvered your opposition at every turn.

Although I have.. absolutely no authority to do so, I declare Venger the winner.

Monoriu: Breaking a post up and addressing each individual point is a time honored Forum/BBS/Newsgroup method. I suggest you get used to it.

Look, the bottom line is, if you fall behind in Science, you deserve to lose as much as if you had fell behind in any other area. Why is it okay to be lax in technology but not other areas, hmm?

[orc4hire]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


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.

Yeah, at some point in every discussion of a game's flaws/bugs/bad design decisions/whatever the "don't think about it" argument seems to come up.

The problem with that argument is that I don't _want_ to close my eyes and try to think about something else....

If the labels don't make sense in the context of the numbers attached to them, I suppose some people would prefer to avert their eyes from the labels, but a significant number of people would prefer that the labels _do_ make sense in the contxt of the numbers. It isn't really that hard.

And it isn't a matter of wanting to win all the time, as some have said. It more a matter of wanting to get through a game without having to shout, "What?!?!? What kind of happy horsesh!t was _that_?!" Win or lose, I prefer a game model that gives reasonable results over one that doesn't.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Venger, sorry but I dislike debating with someone who breaks up a post into various individual small parts and then attack the individual parts.

We judge whether a game design is good based on whether it provides enjoyment or not. What we are really talking about, is the ratio of power between modern units and ancient/middle age units. When you think about it, firepower and hit points can be translated into attack and defence values to produce the same results. It boils down to some people are saying that modern units are not powerful enough vs their older versions.

Do you want to play a game where you can work hard to produce several modern units, march them into AI territory, and expect to slaughter everyone and everything in the process? Or

Do you want to play a game where you can work hard to produce modern units which have a combat advantage, but still have to be carefully coordinated, used in the right circumstances, and used in sufficient quantity, or else they will still lose?

I choose the second one, and civ 3 provides that, so I like the game.

In the games that I have played, I seldom face ancient units. If you are constantly worrying about ancient AI units defeating your modern units, shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level? If you are already playing on Diety and your biggest concern is the AI spearmen defeating your tanks, then, congratulations on a job well done.

And think about it, what if the AI is more advanced than you are? Do you want to direct an army of musketmen in Diety level and still have a decent (though small) chance of fighting and winning against the AI hordes of riflemen? Or are you saying that, ok, if the AI beats me in the scientific race, then I may as well restart? I myself would like to try defeating a more advanced army with inferior units, and I don't want that challenge gone.

Now, I am going back to enjoy the game......

Your posts are very well written. I like the way you frame the issues.

Please feel free to stop by the Off Topic Forum. (This link only works for Moniriou.) Don't worry if some threads are silly, as here. There are some good ones too, and your type of posts are very welcome.

[Monoriu]

Thanks for the compliment and the invitation, GP.

[Soapyfrog]

Well, I for one am ok with the way combat works. You have so examine it on the macro scale...

In my last war pitting my tanks and infantry against his cavalry, elephants, musketmen and spearmen my rate of loss sat around 5% or so for the whole campaign... that is, out of my army of 30 or so units, I lost 2.

If you're careful, and withdraw your wounded units to heal, then you will be overwhelmingly successful with only a narrow technological edge.

The fact that obsolete units sometimes beat advanced units (and I have only seen this when a) the advanced unit is heavily damaged already or b) when the obsolete unit is fortified in mountain hex or city) is not troubling to me becuase it is rare enough to ALMOST ignore completely.

Just don't get complacent. Heavily garrison cities at risk, and bring a nice large, well organized force to attack the enemy.

Bah. This is mountains out of molehills.

[Bolleck70]

Originally posted by F18fett

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?

Where have you seen this numbers? I havent seen any fortification bonus in the manual at all!
Perhaps a change from civ2-civ3?

[Monoriu]

2 more things to add:

1. I just captured a Persian city in the industrial age. It was garrisoned by 2 infantry, 2 cavalry, and 1 immortal. I attacked with 10+ infantry units, eventually they killed all the Persian units and captured the city. I suffered 1 casualty, and that was at the hands of the immortals. Reason? My laziness and arrogance.

I bombarded the city with 20+ artillery before attacking. Pop. was down to 1, and all Persian units were at 1 strength. Well, all except the immortal. I was lazy to move a few more artillery to bombard the ancient unit, and I lost an infantry unit in an otherwise perfect victory.

Modern units losing to ancient units can usually be prevented, and its often due to our laziness and arrogance.

2. Why are we even debating this? If you don't like the way it works, just increase the attack and defence ratings of modern units by whatever amount as you please in the editor.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by mmike87
Dexter,
"Again, I ask you folks to be aware of defensive bonsuses in battle. And if one who likes to play the "reality" card, let me remind you that rag tag warriors hiding in rugged mountains can destroy entire Tank divisions as the Russians experienced in Afghanistan in the 1980s. So yes, defensive bonsuses are realistic. "

Not a fair comparison. Our freedom fighting friends were armed with heavy machine guns, anti-tank mines, and shoulder-launched anti-tank rockets. Not to mention Stinger missiles.

Actually, they didn't get the Stinger missiles until later. Before that, they were fighting on their own, scavenging equipment from Soviet soldiers who no longer needed it.

Then again, I'm the smartass who presumes that the "spearman" unit that defeated your tanks managed to acquire the appropriate weapons via some arms dealers.

[zapperio]

Um, a quick question to the people that demand "realism" from the combat. Ok, hmm...Why isn't there a cry for realism and historical accuracy in other areas as well?
City building? Research? Resource gathering? Travelling across goemetrically squared terrain? etc. ...gameplay mechanics you say? So those are important then?

Is it so hard, then, to answer the question whether or not it serves the gameplay to have a slight chance against more advanced units? Specially when those units are fuelled by oil that you don't have access to?

Not realistic? Neither is anything else in this game. Someone figured that realism doesn't necessary equal fun. Damn straight, I say, give them a medal.

Zap

[CyberGnu]

Zapperio, mainly because it is jarring in a way that the other things aren't. We are fine with abstracting research to a function of how much funding you throw at it. Geometrically squared terrain is a representation of the real thing...

But a regiment of knights killing a tank force? There is no way we can justify that... It goes against all our knowledge of history and sense of logic. and for me, that kills the mood of the game.

[Mister Hand]

I see a lot of arguments in the forum that combat is "broken." Frankly, I just don't see it myself. Have I had situations where a weaker unit beat a stronger unit? Sure...but these are the exceptions, not the norm. Most of the examples out there of "broken" combat are:

1) Leaving out crutial details. "OUTRAGE! A spearman just beat my tank!" (poster neglects to tell us that said tank was a regular unit with 1 hp left, spearman was a fully-healed elite unit fortified in a metropolis behind a river, and that the tank managed to reduce the spearman to 1 hp before finally perishing. The more details the better...this includes any tweaks you might have made to the ruleset and whatnot.

2) Exaggerating completely. "A conscript warrior just took out my stack of 20 elite mech infantry!"

What would be helpful is if those who truly think combat is broken start posting savegames instead of anecdotes. Thanks to the saved random seed, the rest of us can load those games outselves and see what's really going on.