Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Venger


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

okay you build longbowmen, i'll build cavalry. lets have a fight and see who wins (since the game is 'broken' you can be sure that it will be your longbowmen, right?)

[Monoriu]

"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"




I disagree. The Cavalry is an OFFENSIVE unit. Its used in a hit and run mode, picking on weak units then withdraw. Using it in a city defense role is bad tactics and it should be no surprise that it losses. Expect it to win in an unintended function is wrong.

[Surgeon]

Technology aint everything. I like the combat system.

[Be Quicker]

Using cavalry for defending is indeed stupid. It is also stupid in CivII. It was also stupid throughout history. I agree with the people that say that in CivII it is to easy for modern units to win. I also belief those who say that throughout their games they have NOT been frustrated by the design decision made in CivIII for the combat.

[Grim Legacy]

There is also still the old tricks played in Civ2 already:

1) The last defender is still much stronger than the rest.

2) The obsolete units have a distinct bonus over the newer units. I have had several battles with my best knights, which went 'painful' for me... upon a desperate bid with my rusty horsemen (HALF the attack strength of the knights) I won easily. Hmmmm at least. Likewise, your rifleman take the most damage from the 2att from the Archer, not from the 3att Musketman.

[Max Webster]

Re: Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

Tell that to my neighbours, they are running around with swordsman, knights, bowman and I'm kicking their butt with artillery, cavalry, infantry. I get the odd time where one of their units gets lucky in battle but there are times when i get lucky with an older unit as well. Evens out for me.

[Wrong_shui]

I agree with the ppl who say combat isnt broken.

Its well documented that the japanese samurai had an anti-tank sword.

You ppl should read up on your history.

[Evan]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


Um. Actually the fact that its not guaranteed does sort of bother me. Tanks do not lose to knights. ... 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.

Sheesh. You lack both imagination and a grasp of real-world combat.

The only you thing you can think of is that because the knight doesn't have a gun, a tank should never be lost when attacking.

In the Gulf War, depending on which source you want to believe, some, most or nearly all casualties were the result of friendly fire, accidents or catastrophic mechanical failure.

Heck, tanks are lost in TRAINING EXERCISES using DUMMY AMMO because of accidents and catastrophic mechanical failures in the real world. There aren't even any enemy around.

Its like you think combat takes place by having both participants meet somewhere, get positioned and start fighting after someone says "Go!".

Maybe the tank had a catastrophic mechanical failure causing a shell to explode inside when trying to fire. Maybe when chasing the knight, the misjudged a turn and ended up overturned in the ditch.

The fact that you think victory should be "guaranteed" for the sake of realism is a joke. That wouldn't be realistic - bad things happen in combat and the stronger unit is NEVER "guaranteed' a win.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Wrong_shui
I agree with the ppl who say combat isnt broken.

Its well documented that the japanese samurai had an anti-tank sword.

You ppl should read up on your history.

Oh, you mean you haven't been watching Rurouni Kenshin?

[Venger]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste...

Originally posted by Monoriu
I disagree. The Cavalry is an OFFENSIVE unit.

First of all, cavalry is an offensive unit due to their mobility - that's it. Frankly they should only be a point or so better than riflemen on offense if we assume superior equipment (such as Union cavalry with repeating carbines, shorter range but a lot more firepower than riflemen). Cavalry when attacking units usually will not do it on horseback...

Its used in a hit and run mode, picking on weak units then withdraw. Using it in a city defense role is bad tactics and it should be no surprise that it losses.

I wouldn't expect cavalry to hold out very well in defense against same era attack forces. But against an equal sized unit without gunpowder? I should win so often that losing becomes a talk out loud astoundment. This is the problem - the medieval to industrial age transition is not scaled properly. The change to gunpowder revolutionized freaking warfare, just not in Civ3...there is no reason my legion should defeat a cavalry unit half the time. That...is...broken...

As it is now, longbowmen (the original complaint in question) will defeat cavalry. More often than not. And you have yet to come up with a reason why this makes any sense, except to hem and haw about "it's not real" - no $hit it's not real.

Expect it to win in an unintended function is wrong.

If it's not intended to win in defense, why give it any defensive strength at all? Why not make it defense of 1, so any unit can beat it? After all, it's an offensive unit right, we should expect it to lose when attacked? So let's get right to the point - cavalry should just lose everytime in the game engine regardless of how it's attacked...

Or did it get a defensive value for a reason?

Venger

[Venger]

What's not to like? Well first, theres...

Originally posted by Surgeon
Technology aint everything.

Tell that to the subjugated peoples of the world...

I like the combat system.

What about it do you like? I like much of the system, I do not like what some improper values combined without a firepower attribute does to middle game play.

Noting what is broken in the system doesn't equate to an all out offensive against the game. Why such fawnish overreaction occurs any time you point out reasonably seen flaws puzzles me...

Venger

[Venger]

Do you like the emperor's new clothes?

Originally posted by Evan

Sheesh. You lack both imagination and a grasp of real-world combat.

The only you thing you can think of is that because the knight doesn't have a gun, a tank should never be lost when attacking.

A tank? Or the 12th armored division? Your tank represents more than a single unit on the map... so should the 12th armored division be defeated when attacking the King's knights? Hell no.

Heck, tanks are lost in TRAINING EXERCISES using DUMMY AMMO because of accidents and catastrophic mechanical failures in the real world. There aren't even any enemy around.

Maybe the tank had a catastrophic mechanical failure causing a shell to explode inside when trying to fire. Maybe when chasing the knight, the misjudged a turn and ended up overturned in the ditch.

Nobody argued that the tank unit ought to emerge with no damage whatsoever. We simply state that the odds of some units beating others is not realistic to the point of being absurd.

The fact that you think victory should be "guaranteed" for the sake of realism is a joke. That wouldn't be realistic - bad things happen in combat and the stronger unit is NEVER "guaranteed' a win.

Which argues for the phalanx beating the battleship. Sorry, that is a bankrupt argument and I dismiss it out of hand. Nobody wants a guaranteed outcome, but longbowmen from 1100 AD should not defeat the 10th Cavalry Regiment more than 50% of the time! Dude are you just that blind?

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
There is also still the old tricks played in Civ2 already:

1) The last defender is still much stronger than the rest.

This absolutely did NOT happen in Civ2. You attacked the unit that advantaged the defender best in every round.

2) The obsolete units have a distinct bonus over the newer units. I have had several battles with my best knights, which went 'painful' for me... upon a desperate bid with my rusty horsemen (HALF the attack strength of the knights) I won easily. Hmmmm at least. Likewise, your rifleman take the most damage from the 2att from the Archer, not from the 3att Musketman.

I've seen this wierdness as well - I've seen a veteran cavalry die attacking a fortified swordsman only knocking off one hit point, I sent a veteran legionary in and he knocks off EVERY DAMN HP without a loss.

This reminds me of SP:WAW, when we complained about combat results that didn't make sense until they finally found the wierdness causing the problems...

Venger

[zapperio]

As has been suggested, many times in many threads, the gameplay, as is, would suffer if some units automatically rolled over other units. And, hate to burst your bubble venger, but the gameplay is a bit more important then your obstinate take on real world combat.

It may be due to my limited imagination but i don't see how "tank automatically wins against cavalry" factor could work in Civ 3, as is, and as could resonably be modified. Educate us if you can, please.

Zap

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Venger


I've seen this wierdness as well - I've seen a veteran cavalry die attacking a fortified swordsman only knocking off one hit point, I sent a veteran legionary in and he knocks off EVERY DAMN HP without a loss.

Venger

How is that wierd? Improbable perhaps but not wierd. In countless battles in my five games I've not seen one result that seemed impossible given the understood mathematical model of the combat.

Zap