Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[Be Quicker]

I read this thread yesterday, and played my first game yesterday evening. Since I played on Chieftain, I had a big technological advantage. Therefore my big conquest of the continent I am on was performed with Cannons, Cavalry and Musketman. And I must say the Cavalry ROCKS tha cashba! I conquered I don't know how many cities defended with spearman/swordmen. I lost maybe 3 of them during the whole campaign. And I lost one musketman to an archer (on average the archers weren't able to reach me). So in my personal experience, the combat system is fine. The math is fine. The balance is fine. At least for the units and situations I have encountered so far.

[nato]

I really think my short post on page 7 of this thread solves this debate.

If high tech units are no better than low tech ones, then you only ever need low tech ones.

Don't bother to research! Save all that science money and effort and conquer the world with spears and arrows!

If this seems feasible, then tech does not matter. If not, then tech does matter enough to justify the huge cost and time of research.

How do you play? Research or no? There is your answer.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


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.

Come on I'm not talking about units like that. Pffff. Must I spell out the entire situation?

Example: City holds 3 vet. riflemen, nothing else. 4 tanks attacking, killing the first two riflemen... THEN the last rifleman always seemed to hold it's ground a bit better than the two others... because it was the last defending unit.

I am fully aware that there was no line in rules.txt saying so, but it is my strong experience that the hardcoded combat system in Civ2 did in fact have this small bias.

That's all I wanted to say... and it still happens in Civ3, where the last pikeman fends off 3 knight whereas the previous pikeman was killed by a single knight.

[Grim Legacy]

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.

GP. Thanks for the ad hominem attack.

I don't think Civ2 nor Civ3 is hard. I've never even played Civ2 below Deity level and I haven't had much problems winning, even long before the advent of gunpowder. As for cheating on combat in Civ2: on Deity, combat odds were definitely stacked against you. Not that that helped the 'AI' much.

I also don't think it is an outrage that the last pikeman packs an extra punch, or that the older units seem to be more effective than the newer... it's just a feature of the game, and in fact I can live with it quite well. There are even rationalizations at hand (see this thread) as to why these things (seem to) happen.

[Grim Legacy]

Re: Proof is in the pudding...

Originally posted by Venger


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

Not a stack, a city defender. See my post above. I guess it's my experience and word against yours if you still disagree with the situation I described in that post.

I must add that I find it very odd that I'm met with such hostility on the mention of this AI bias (not particularly your reply, but see how others reacted). It's almost as if it's heresy...

[Grumbold]

Re: Can you count to twenty with your shoes on?

Originally posted by Venger
Hold up four fingers on one hand. That's the longbowmen. Hold up three fingers on the other hand. That's the cavalry. Which hand has more fingers up? That's the one that will win more often.

Jesus, are you that daft that you don't get simple math?

Venger
P.S. According to the combat rules a veteran 4 unit attacking a veteran 3 unit without modifiers will win 66% of the time!

The cavalry is a much superior unit because it can

- Move and fight
- Retreat from combat if losing
- Attack very well and defend moderately.
- It has a 2 point advatage over the longbow in both Af and DF.

Unfortunately the Civ "one size fits all" terrain effects chart means that cavalry get bonuses in cities and hills just like infantry do. Perhaps in Civ XIV they'll actually reverse this and have terrain effects for mobile units improve in open terrain and get worse in hills or cities. Even at that point it won't be right because of course examples like Agincourt prove that even if the terrain is good, the weather and bad tactics can always mess with you. Having variable values like the bow and cavalry do actually promotes tactics. I happen to think the defensive value of the archers is dire - they were always far more formidable sitting on a ridge letting the enemy come to them - but that is game balance for you. If the game had a range factor like CtP did then we wouldn't be having to argue.

[orc4hire]

Originally posted by Monoriu
"I think the point Venger is trying to make is that given a normal archer and a normal cavalry on normal terrain, it is not realistic for the archer to be able to out-fight the cavalry when the archer attacks it. Correct me if I'm wrong..."


I can't resist, I have to correct you

One more time, cavalry units DO NOT defend itself against longbowmen in open terrain. Nobody, at least no good commanders, will do that. Cavalry units attack the enemy, and then withdraw to friendly bases, or tiles containing infantry/riflemen for defence.

Placing cavalry units unsupported out in the open is a mistake, a misuse of technology and you shouldn't complain if you lose it to ancient units with strong attack values.

Yeah, the open plains is the last place I'd expect to see cavalry....

[TCO]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


GP. Thanks for the ad hominem attack.

I don't mean it too harsh. Consider an invisible smiley in the post. Really. Remember our previous exchange from 4 years ago?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


As for cheating on combat in Civ2: on Deity, combat odds were definitely stacked against you. Not that that helped the 'AI' much.

I'm not sure of that. Sounds more like an urban legend (with a hint of whine). Have you proved it with tests? See this definitive thread on combat. Nothing is mentioned about deity level bonus to AI. And these guys have done lots of combat research and are pretty darn sophisticated.

FYI: I posted there to get some direct answer regarding your allegation.

[TCO]

Re: Re: Proof is in the pudding...

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


Not a stack, a city defender. See my post above. I guess it's my experience and word against yours if you still disagree with the situation I described in that post.

I must add that I find it very odd that I'm met with such hostility on the mention of this AI bias (not particularly your reply, but see how others reacted). It's almost as if it's heresy...

Khan,

This kind of assertion needs to be better backed up with facts. That kind of claim was the norm in the old days, but we are more scientific nowadays from all the OCC and Oedo stuff. You need to have more than a feeling. Read the Civ2 Strategy forum to see how well people understand the game nowadays...

[Wrong_shui]

Some ppl dont seem to be able to listen to reason.

Nukes would kill any unit. The end.

A knight cant kill a tank. The end.

A musketman cant kill a tank. The end.

Making modern units not able to womp lower tech units is a piss poor way of equaling the playing field, its just bad design.

Its a good game though.

[dexters]

Ummmm... the game rules is all the matters.

Don't try to patronize the community by implying all real world rules must apply. Plenty of games break and bend those rules.

Saving each turn is not realistic. Or how about units taking ten years to move in a small area? That's obviously a gameplay design. Do all wonders look exactly the same? I highly doubt the Aztecs would even conceive of the great wall even if they tried. If you really want to get into this reality argument, it should be argued that Wonders must be Civ specific. And that instead of dealing with war weariness, we also have to deal with pesky hippies spreading hate.


So please. Stop patronizing us and play the game. I launched a massive attack with 30 infantry on the low-tech Aztecs last night. I lost 8 or so Infantryman to their fortified spearmen/pikeman. I find that perfectly realistic. And BTW, I reached my objectives.

[BlueO]

I think the combat system works just fine.

Look at the American indians, they don't have the technology to make guns. Yet they managed to acquire guns.

The afgan fighters don't have the technology to make heavy machinguns or stinger missles, but they got them too.

When a swordsman defeats a tank, don't think the swordsman just ran up to the tank and chopped it to pieces. They probably have a few bazookas or mines in their swordsman unit... Its the combat values that should matter. A swordsmen unit of a modern time won't just be consisted of swords.

[Ranulf]

Originally posted by Transcend
Zulus with only spears and arrows wiped out an British Army of several thousands at Isandlwhana in 1879.

Afghan Tribesman destroyed an British force of 12000 in 1842.

Ethiopian warriors armed with primitive rifles destroyed an Italian Tank Division in 1934.

A Morrocan insurrection of few thousands tribesmen destroyed a Spanish Army of at least 30,000 men, killing as many as 19,000.

Grr. Finally got my registration to work. So, now I can reply to this. Of course it prolly has no bearing on the latest posts..

Which Morrocan insurrection are you citing here? The Rif War? IIRC, (I did a slipshod term paper on this a year or two ago =) the Moroccan resistance to Spain and France's colonization in the 1920s was due to several factors. One, they had modern weapons, rifles (bought from Spain and France itself) and stolen arty etc.. The terrain was to their advantage (guerrila warfare) and Spain's army was totally and I mean totally inept. Their was widespread CORRUPTION in Spain's officer core and their army was not trained in how to use their WW1 type weapons. Still, in the end due to massive troop amounts and airpower France and Spain were able to defeat the Moroccans.

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by BlueO
I think the combat system works just fine.

Look at the American indians, they don't have the technology to make guns. Yet they managed to acquire guns.

The afgan fighters don't have the technology to make heavy machinguns or stinger missles, but they got them too.

When a swordsman defeats a tank, don't think the swordsman just ran up to the tank and chopped it to pieces. They probably have a few bazookas or mines in their swordsman unit... Its the combat values that should matter. A swordsmen unit of a modern time won't just be consisted of swords.

Your analogies are flawed. The American Indians aquired guns through trade and theft, neither option are available in Civ3 unless you count the capture of artillery. The Afghans got their stinger missiles and machine guns from the United States - again no such concept in Civ3. You can give another Civ the technology to produce such weapons but not the actual weapons. You say when a swordsman defeats a tank you don't think he "just ran up to the tank and chipped it to pieces" yet when it happens in Civ3 that's exactly what you see him do. A swordsman uses a sword, not a bazooka, or did I miss that part in the Civ3 manual? If so, when does the low-tech civ's swordsmen aquire bazookas and can they only use them against a high-tech enemy's tanks or can they also use bazookas against another low-tech enemy's archers? Perhaps the archers should be equipped with laser-guided titanium arrows?