Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[TCO]

1. nice post, Volcano.

2. Some people here are not just complaining about the basic system (no FP/HP) but saying that they think the computer doesn't even do the claimed system correctly. Let's get it straight. Can't defend two fronts here. My suspicion is that the latter are "hate losing a unit-whiners".

3. Is anybody else tired of this thread?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
What nonsense! I'm talking about fortress/city siege of course! After you had taken out the best defenders one by one, the last guy always had some 'extra zing', i.e. it didn't go out as easily as it should judging from its stats.

Yeah, like that extra "zing" packed by the transport or engineer that was left in the city.

Really, Civ2 judged defense order by defense values, so hp/fp was not used (i think) to judge who defended first. So it's possible that your lowest D unit has a high hp and that would be a tough final defender, but there was no actual feature in the game that stipulated that the last defender had to be better than its predecessors, or that made the last defender stronger on simple cirtue of being last.

[TCO]

Grim Legacy, you seem like a whimpy whiner. Civ2 was easy!! And the comp did not cheat on combat. If the others are like you, that is useful info to judge their arguments.

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by GP
Grim Legacy, you seem like a whimpy whiner. Civ2 was easy!! And the comp did not cheat on combat. If the others are like you, that is useful info to judge their arguments.

You seem pretty masochistic about wanting the odds stacked against you. Deity not hard enough?

Go play a Koei game. I recommend Genghis Khan 2. Good luck trying to beat it. Ever. I never could conquer more than half of the map before it all fell apart.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GP
3. Is anybody else tired of this thread?

Yes, it's like arguing that the bishop in chess should be incapable of beating the knight and that there's not historical relavence for the Queen being able to move as she does.

I challenged them (Venger) to use the editor and show us some numbers to prove that combat is broken, but "where are they now"?

As far as I can tell this is an argument based on the fact that the WORKING game mechanics offends some people sense of reality. Well, I've got bad news, very little in this game is an accurate depiction of reality.

[Roman]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
Yes, it's like arguing that the bishop in chess should be incapable of beating the knight and that there's not historical relavence for the Queen being able to move as she does.

Bad analogy - unlike chess, civilization is a combination of strategy and simulation that tries to evoke historical relevance. Hence there is a need to be able to represent relative strengths of units reasonably accurately.

I challenged them (Venger) to use the editor and show us some numbers to prove that combat is broken, but "where are they now"?

As far as I can tell this is an argument based on the fact that the WORKING game mechanics offends some people sense of reality. Well, I've got bad news, very little in this game is an accurate depiction of reality.

My complaint does not center on specific units. It centers about the removal of the concept of Firepower, thus giving us fewer options in designing units for scenarios. Civ3 therefore has an inferior combat system as compared to Civ2. (At least that's what it sounds like - I haven't bought it)

[Velociryx]

After reading this entire thread (and yep...that took a while!) I have come to the conclusion that this thread is PROOF POSITIVE that the Civ series is clearly NOT a wargame.

The complexities you guys are looking for exist in.....well, just about every wargame ever made (just check out any of Gary Grigsby's games....he's the Sid Meier of war games, btw).

If that's what you're looking for, I would humbly submit that you're playing the wrong game.

The fact is that Civ3 is an abstraction....6000 years of history compressed into a weekend of gaming.

I've played scores of partial games from ancient to the industrial age, and a handful all the way through.

In those games, there have been scores, if not hundreds of combats.

In all those combats, I've had perhaps ten results that were total surprises.

Ten, in perhaps 60,000 years of Civ history.

I'd say that's a pretty good record, and a strong selling point to the fact that the combat system is not broke.

But, that's just me.

-=Vel=-

[Steve Clark]

Awww, Vel, you had come in here and raise the IQ of this thread considerably. (Actually, I would put John Tiller right up there with Gary Grisby as well.)

It is absolutely amazing how some of you seem to know the game engine better than Soran Johnson, who has said that firepower is not needed for this type of abstract combat. I think Vel's experience proves that, but some of you don't want to listen.

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Let's analyze this:

A cavalry unit with muzzle-load rifles (civil war era) is defeated by a unit of longbowmen.

Why, Here's why:

Longbows are actually more accurate than these 19th-century firearms, especially when you consider that fighting from horseback made the fire ever more innacurate. Firearms used during the civil war actually had a very short effective range, and I would not be surprised if longbowmen inflicted serious damage on riflemen in favorable circumstances. Cavalry should do even worse, given that they are large targets and must close to melee before fighting. Cavalry really isn't a missile unit; swords and even pikes dominated even into WW1. A cavalry charge against a block of longbowmen would result in heavy casualties to the cavalry, perhaps even loss.

A civil war rifleman was lethal at over 600 yards whereas the longbow's range was only 200 yards. I fail to see how the longbow is superior to the rifle and if it were, why were rifles used instead of longbows? History does not support your opinions in this matter.

For more information on longbows and rifles check out these sites:

http://www.student.utwente.nl/campus/sagi/artikel/longbow/longbow.html

http://www.germantown.k12.il.us/html/weapons.html

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Roman
Bad analogy - unlike chess, civilization is a combination of strategy and simulation that tries to evoke historical relevance. Hence there is a need to be able to represent relative strengths of units reasonably accurately.

I guess that's where we disagree. You're looking for a game that is a reflection of reality (good luck) and I'm looking for a game that competitive and fun.

The fact of the matter is that in all the time I spent playing Alpha Centauri there was never a big uprising when an impact rover (4 attack) happend to beat a silksteel garrison (defense 4). The reason being that there was no sense of history to refer to and therefore the game was played as a game of rules and mechanics, not a historically accurate simulation of man's accent to transcendence.

As Vel points out, the things that are being sought after by the forum historians are just not possible in a game spanning the from the dawn of civilization to the near future, and I might even argue that it is nearly impossible to do in a game that merely covers one theatre of any war. I don't see any complaints about the quality of the Panzer vs. the Sherman here because in this game it's irrelevent, just as it's irrelevent whether an unit that represents longbow men can defeat cavalry. It's an abstraction. It's not as if one year the world used cavalry and then the next they used tanks, correct? Yet this isn't relfected in game play either.

As others have mentioned, if you're looking for a historically accurate war simulation this is the wrong game for you. This game, like any other game, is an abstraction of reality. I would think that would be painfully obvious from the get go.

I would presume you don't load up Unreal Tournament and are peeved because you shot someone with your pistol once in the face and they didn't die, no? It's because you came to the game with certain expectations, just as you've came to this game with certain expectation and the fact remains that those expectations haven't been met. If you want to change the nubmers do so, but know that you may be sacraficing gameplay in order to appease your realistic senseabilities in a game that is a far cry from reality just as the game of chess is an inaccurate simulation of feudal combat, yet survives to this day simply because it is a complex and "good" game.

I patiently await the results of the test you've all been doing with the editor.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by davwhitt
A civil war rifleman was lethal at over 600 yards whereas the longbow's range was only 200 yards. I fail to see how the longbow is superior to the rifle and if it were, why were rifles used instead of longbows? History does not support your opinions in this matter.

Then you probably also know that during the Civil War those weapons were never (harldy ever) used at those ranges so theoretically they could have used longbows and been nearly as effective.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by davwhitt A civil war rifleman was lethal at over 600 yards whereas the longbow's range was only 200 yards. I fail to see how the longbow is superior to the rifle and if it were, why were rifles used instead of longbows? History does not support your opinions in this matter.

But a rifle's effective range is less than that, and it is very innacurate. Why else would Civil War commanders have their troops mass fire, and basically charge into eachother? The tactic with these rifles is to send up a wall of bullets so that you're bound to hit somebody.

In addition, the scenario in question involves cavalry who are carrying pistols (optimally, carbines) and not rifles. Thus, their range is much shorter than a rifle's. Add that to the fact that the cavalry is on horseback (an unstable shooting platform) and that they basically have to close to melee with the bowmen to do any real damage, and it should be obvious that longbowmen could defeat a force of cavalry.

[Cyclotron]

In addition, I did not say that a longbow was superior to a rifle. Riflemen should be able to win most times against longbowmen, especially if the riflemen are attacking. But the scenario involves cavalry defending, an obviously stupid tactic that puts the cavalry at serious risk and the archers at an advantage.

My denigration of rifles was not to prove they are inferior, but rather to point out that gunpowder is not an "automatic victory" chemical, and there shouldn't be any appreciable difference between units on the simple basis that they are "gunpowder units." In no way should a unit receive more power than it's ADM simply because it uses gunpowder to propel a projectile rather than a bow.

[Venger]

Proof is in the pudding...

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


What nonsense! I'm talking about fortress/city siege of course! After you had taken out the best defenders one by one, the last guy always had some 'extra zing', i.e. it didn't go out as easily as it should judging from its stats.

Can you provide any documentary evidence about this? Anywhere? An Apolyton thread? Civ2 has been pretty rehashed so it should appear somehwere other than this thread. Can you provide some proof? Cause I've played the game literally a hundred times, on Deity, large maps with 8 Civs, all bloodlust, and have never, EVER noticed a problem killing the last member of a stack.

Venger

[nato]

I think I may have a kind of answer to whether tech advantage matters for units or not.

If tech does not matter signifigantly then you should feel no real need to use high tech units. Therefore low end units are all you need. You should be able to conquer anyone just with archers and spearmen. If hard pressed, swordsmen can be used.

Think of what you can save on science! Who needs it at all? You won't get city improvements, but starting cities can handle producing such low cost units. To get galleons maybe ... hopefully you can just buy that tech from someone.

Even if you play concventional, you still have the option of building low end units late game, and they cost fewer shields.

So my point is, would you feel confident playing this way? If so, then there really is no difference. If not, tech must count for something ... at least enough to cover the enormous cost and lost gold of game long research.

The revealed preference, as seen through your play, should then give the answer.