Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[zapperio]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

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.

Civ3 doesn't make any claim to represent accurate history. It is however a game that abides by rules of game mechanics that are designed to make the game experience *fun*. Not accurate, historically or otherwise, not even logical, but fun.

On the other hand, if they could marry the concept of 'real world combat' and this nifty new resource system and make it work then I think what would be important, as regards the fun-factor, is not whether it depicts 'realistic' combat but that it works. In other words, and this probably makes me a non-grognard, I think whether a game is fun is more important than whether it is realistic.

And in Civ3, as is, if a tank could roll over a knight *every time*, *guaranteed*, it would, kinda, kill the fun factor for the rest of us.

Zap

[dexters]

Originally posted by zapperio


Civ3 doesn't make any claim to represent accurate history. It is however a game that abides by rules of game mechanics that are designed to make the game experience *fun*. Not accurate, historically or otherwise, not even logical, but fun.

Zap

Thank god. Zap, you and a few others on this thread are the only ones that see the big picture.

There is such a tendency to play the "reality" card. Accusing the combat system of this and that because it isn't realistic. what the people really want is to steamroll over their opponents ala Civ 2. God, I remember those boring wars. In Civ 3, war is an EVENT. In Civ 2, it was a joke, especially if you're ahead in technology.

Even if it isn't realistic (and that's arguable) Civ 3's war model is far more fun, and fun is what matters.

[Steve Clark]

zap: Those that are not playing the game anymore (read: CyberGnu) don't want to have fun, they just want to get them to fix things that may or may not be broken so others can have more things to complain about.

Again, read the stuff in Civ3-Stories or those at civfanatics. How can you deny the fact that perhaps alot of civers are having fun playing Civ3 (just like alot of us had fun playing Civ2 despite its problems)? I look forward to a patch or two (as long as they don't fix things that are not broken) and of course, to the scenarios. But in the meantime, I'm going to have some challenging fun and not sweat the small details.

[WhiteElephants]

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.

Well, I offered you my bit of sanity among your long winded bellows for realism in a game that is clearly unrealistic. Ceratainly we could argue that soldiers wearing boots gave them a tactical edge in combat and should be represented in the numbers for the sake of realism, but wouldn't that be going too far?

Monoriu, summed it up far more eloquently than I so I'll refer you back to those posts.

What I'm seeing is that you are visually dismayed that a tank unit would lose to a knight and that it really has little to do with the mechanics of the game. I think that what would satisfy you most would be a graphical change of units as one civilization progresses into the next era. For example, would satisfy your sense of reality if that spearman was holding a rifle, or musket, as the eras changed even though his stats did not?

[Kc7mxo]

And in Civ3, as is, if a tank could roll over a knight *every time*, *guaranteed*, it would, kinda, kill the fun factor for the rest of us.

Um. Actually the fact that its not guaranteed does sort of bother me. Tanks do not lose to knights. There should still be a possibility of it happening, and in fact, it did happen in civ2. But it was so rare that it was not a problem. In civ 3 its so common, its become frustrating.

And I'm sick to death of people rationalizing bad combat design. He is a knight. he's wearing armor. and he has a sword and shield. THATS WHAT HE IS. HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY GUNS. if you like it the way it its, that fine. but don't just say to people who have real gripes that we should just imagine that the unit is NOT WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE.

[Monoriu]

"In civ 3 its so common, its become frustrating. "


Sorry, it seldom happens to me, and I have played 2 full games, one on Monarch and one on Regent. Once in a while, yes. But its no where near "common".

One more time:

If you bombard a spearman to 1 health sitting on a grassland tile then attack with a full strength veteran modern tank unit and you still lose more than 5% of the time, then come back and complain. I'll be with you and I'll throw the game away until they fix it.

If you attack a veteran full strength musketman sitting in a large city with a 2 health tank unit without bothering to bombard the city, and lose, I'd say its working fine.

If you garrison a city with a 1 health tank unit and expect it to hold against 3 veteran full strength swordmen units and it doesn't, I'd say its working fine.

If you leave your wounded 2 health infantry unit out in open grassland, and then 3 full strength longbowmen came and destroyed your infantry, I'd say its working fine.

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Monoriu
"In civ 3 its so common, its become frustrating. "


Sorry, it seldom happens to me, and I have played 2 full games, one on Monarch and one on Regent. Once in a while, yes. But its no where near "common".

One more time:

If you bombard a spearman to 1 health sitting on a grassland tile then attack with a full strength veteran modern tank unit and you still lose more than 5% of the time, then come back and complain. I'll be with you and I'll throw the game away until they fix it.

If you attack a veteran full strength musketman sitting in a large city with a 2 health tank unit without bothering to bombard the city, and lose, I'd say its working fine.

If you garrison a city with a 1 health tank unit and expect it to hold against 3 veteran full strength swordmen units and it doesn't, I'd say its working fine.

If you leave your wounded 2 health infantry unit out in open grassland, and then 3 full strength longbowmen came and destroyed your infantry, I'd say its working fine.

You're exaggerating the situations in which people lose. Give them a little credit.

And I dare say that you are wrong for all of your examples. If both civilizations were scientific equals (And both had the accompanying units), you would be absolutely correct. Making any of those mistakes under such circumstances would be a tactical blunder.

But the exorbitant difference in equipment would mean the fatigued units should still be more than a match for their lesser foes. As such you would have significant breathing room to pull off such a stunt.

Look, if an AI civ is that far behind, they deserve to lose, and lose fast. Either by your hand or another advanced civ. That's a reflection on actual civilization. The weak, inept nations are absorbed by the powerful.

If the AI/Player has little land and few cities, is it not done for?
If the AI/Player has no unique offerings and artistic contributions and consequently culture, is it going to avoid absorption?
If the AI/Player has no charismatic sense and infuriates its neighbors, how is it going to avoid getting hit by the metaphorical blackjack of oblivion?
If the AI/Player neglects its infrastructure and economy, is it really going to be able to compete with the other civilizations?

Why then should it be able to ignore science and still have equal footing?

[Monoriu]

"You're exaggerating the situations in which people lose. Give them a little credit. "



Good. A request: those who are saying that their modern units are consistently losing to ancient units, can you describe the situations that you have lost with more detail, like terrain, health, quantity, exact type of unit, who is attacking etc? Up to this point, I still haven't seen people with concrete examples like:


"I bombarded a musketman sitting on a grassland to 1 health, charged with 2 full strength veteran tank units and both of them were destroyed/forced to retreat".


The reason why I put up those examples, is because the starter of this thread complained because he fortified a city with 1-2 cavalry units and expected them to hold against an assult (sorry for being so blunt).

[Venger]

Duh

Originally posted by zapperio


Civ3 doesn't make any claim to represent accurate history.

Really? You may want to check the game box, because that word is plastered all over it...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Well, I offered you my bit of sanity among your long winded bellows for realism in a game that is clearly unrealistic.

You offered some obsequious rationalizing that ignores bad unit conceptualization and gameplay testing.

Ceratainly we could argue that soldiers wearing boots gave them a tactical edge in combat and should be represented in the numbers for the sake of realism, but wouldn't that be going too far?

I don't know, you have to have a rubber resource to build marines. Is that for their boots? Or condoms?

What I'm seeing is that you are visually dismayed that a tank unit would lose to a knight and that it really has little to do with the mechanics of the game.

So what DOES it have to do with then?

I think that what would satisfy you most would be a graphical change of units as one civilization progresses into the next era. For example, would satisfy your sense of reality if that spearman was holding a rifle, or musket, as the eras changed even though his stats did not?

No, that's what unit upgrading is for.

You still don't get it - a unit representative of 100AD technology shouldn't fend off an attack by musketeers. You cannot justify in any way, shape, or form, the combat results you get from this. Note that much of the problem lies in the early infantry units - tanks frankly are fine by me (at least what I read of them - 10 defense) The problems lie in combat results that seem a little shaky and in unit values that make no sense (musketmen, privateer)...

Bring back firepower!

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu

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.

If I wanted to have to make the game myself I'd have asked to join the Firaxis team and get paid, as opposed to paying to be their gameplay tester.

Venger

[Venger]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Monoriu

The reason why I put up those examples, is because the starter of this thread complained because he fortified a city with 1-2 cavalry units and expected them to hold against an assult (sorry for being so blunt).

An assualt from a LONGBOWMEN. That's broken gameplay buddy. Add firepower to the mix and it never happens (only happens one time in seven actually - don't fix it and it happens nearly half the time) and if it's in a city with a 100% bonus, it happens only about 7% of the time.

Venger

[Fidel]

okay return it since it is 'broken'

i played 4 games and the odd results vere VERY rare, both for and against. and boy was it fun when my hoplite managed to hold off some tough cavalry assault. and yes, it was fun when their rifleman cracked my tank. i would not like it otherwise.

cybergny: PG was great but turning civ3 combat into PG would be a death sentence and would really 'break' the game.

all combat needs is elimination of air superiority bug and precision bombing and B key hold bugs

[Monoriu]

quote:

Originally posted by Monoriu

[quote]The reason why I put up those examples, is because the starter of this thread complained because he fortified a city with 1-2 cavalry units and expected them to hold against an assult (sorry for being so blunt).



An assualt from a LONGBOWMEN. That's broken gameplay buddy. Add firepower to the mix and it never happens (only happens one time in seven actually - don't fix it and it happens nearly half the time) and if it's in a city with a 100% bonus, it happens only about 7% of the time.

Venger



Cavalry is 6-3-3. Not 100% sure on the longbowmen but out of my head its 4-1-1 or 3-1-1. 3 vs 3 the cav. don't have a lot of advantage. If the cav. always win in this situation then its broken gameplay.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu
quote:

Cavalry is 6-3-3. Not 100% sure on the longbowmen but out of my head its 4-1-1 or 3-1-1. 3 vs 3 the cav. don't have a lot of advantage. If the cav. always win in this situation then its broken gameplay.

If a unit that requires two strategic resources and hundreds of years of research loses mano a mano to archers it's not properly configured.

Firepower. I'll say it over and over. It is the fix.

Venger