Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[TCO]

Think, please

Originally posted by davwhitt


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?

The combat ratings are such as to assume that the lesser units are able to get these things once the tech is around...

You're really reaching for things by trying to be overrealistic. Gueass what, phalanxes don't exist in modern days...

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by davwhitt


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?

So your complaint lies in the fact that the graphical inadequately represent what you're seeing happening, no? You also might take into account that the game fails to adequately represent where you population goes to the bathroom at. Perhaps this will also be addressed in the upcoming patch.

Here's my advice. Take the game back. Go to the shelf where you got the game. Side step on or two paces to your left or your right. Pick up game box that is in front of you. Before you were in the wrong section, you were in the strategy section, now you
re in the war game section. Good luck.

[dexters]

Speaking of realism, if you want it realistic, why not ask for the automatic upgrade system to be removed?

i don't think its realistic that you pay a few bucks and voila, your entire army of outdated spearman is now a formidable force of infantrymen. Is that realistic? No. But its there as a gameplay mechanism to speed things up and to avoid excessive micromanagement.

The combat system, like it or not, is designed the way it is as part of the gameplay.

As stated before, part of its job it to give obsolete units a fighting chance. If you don't have oil, at least you know you can try to hold off a Tank attack because you're units can actually fight and kill these things instea of having a totally hopeless situation. I would argue this is a positive element. If the situation is switched and you are the one with the Tanks, I can unstand why people want to roll over everybody. But a game where you dominate so utterly is no fun. If you want that, go play Civ2

[Velociryx]

I posted this in the strat section but thought it might be relevant to the discussion here as well, soooo.....

Okay, since I've been reading a lot of the threads over in the general section, it's got me thinking about something.

In the broadest sense of the word, you can break gamers down into two camps. You've got your scientific gamers and your romantic gamers.

Scientific gamers are all about the numbers. They want to know what the specific attack and defense numbers are and WHY. They want to change them if they don't suit (see the NUMEROUS threads in the general section re: combat). These guys are all about realism. Unfortunately, they'll probably find Civ3 not much to their liking. The reason for that is that Civ is not a wargame in the classic sense (certainly not in the sense of Panzer Blitz or Wester Theater). The kinds of detail in combat they're looking for are staples of the wargame genre, but have NEVER been implemented with great success in 4x games.

Why?

Mostly, because 4x games MUST, by their definition abstract combat in order to devote time to what the game is really about....that is, growing an empire!

Romantic gamers exist at the other end of the spectrum....they're the ones who see past the abstracted combat at what's going on behind the scenes. They're the ones who recognize that it's not "really" a spearman that just beat that tank, but an "ill-equipped partisan rebel" who somehow....somehow carried the day.

History is full of wildly romantic tales like that, and they tend to be our favorite stories.

From Thermopalye to the Russian withdrawl of Afghanistan, it sticks in our minds BIG TIME when the underdog pulls one out on the big dog.

And, IMO, since the game we're now playing represents the whole sweep of history, it's important that the combat system leave room for events like this.

Frustrating as it is when it happens to me, that's what history is all about....

-=Vel=-

[davwhitt]

Re: Think, please

Originally posted by GP


The combat ratings are such as to assume that the lesser units are able to get these things once the tech is around...

You're really reaching for things by trying to be overrealistic. Gueass what, phalanxes don't exist in modern days...

Oh my bad. I was assuming all along the phalanx was a phalanx and not a modern patisan unit. I suppose that chariot is really a futuristic hovercraft unit too?

[WhiteElephants]

Re: Re: Think, please

Originally posted by davwhitt
Oh my bad. I was assuming all along the phalanx was a phalanx and not a modern patisan unit. I suppose that chariot is really a futuristic hovercraft unit too?

Well, I guess we're both at fault here because all along we were assuming a game was a game and not an accurate simulation of reality.

[davwhitt]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
So your complaint lies in the fact that the graphical inadequately represent what you're seeing happening, no? You also might take into account that the game fails to adequately represent where you population goes to the bathroom at. Perhaps this will also be addressed in the upcoming patch.

I do not think I'm asking too much when a unit, say a spearman, is really a spearman as the game and documentation states and not a bazooka-toating mine-laying tank-killing partisan. I do not expect complete realism but I do expect the combat to be logical and consistent. I am aware that as a game it has certain limitations but the combat system should not be one of them.

Here's my advice. Take the game back. Go to the shelf where you got the game. Side step on or two paces to your left or your right. Pick up game box that is in front of you. Before you were in the wrong section, you were in the strategy section, now you
re in the war game section. Good luck.

A large enough portion of civilization is warfare so I believe it should have an accurate combat system. This isn't Sim City. Battles do take place and they should reflect reality.

[Venger]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Monoriu

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.

Having under standard circumstances a longbow unit defeat a rifle unit is a mistake.

Venger

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by davwhitt
A large enough portion of civilization is warfare so I believe it should have an accurate combat system. This isn't Sim City. Battles do take place and they should reflect reality.

Then it wouldn't be a 4x game, would it? Exterminate is just one of them and should only account for 25% of the game, ideally. What would you say to someone who favors eliminating all combat from the game? That's no different than one who favors much emphasis on military realism at the expense of all other elements in the game.

[Venger]

Psst buddy, wanna buy a gun?

Originally posted by davwhitt


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.

This reiterates a good point, that trading units SHOULD be in the game. It allows countries without some resources to obtain high tech units they themselves cannot build. This is how nearly all nations of the world arm themselves...

Venger

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by davwhitt
I do not think I'm asking too much when a unit, say a spearman, is really a spearman as the game and documentation states and not a bazooka-toating mine-laying tank-killing partisan. I do not expect complete realism but I do expect the combat to be logical and consistent. I am aware that as a game it has certain limitations but the combat system should not be one of them.

And here is where your argument fails. If you really felt this was the case you would then be clamoring for several other modifications for the game. For example, when was the last time you went to a city with a functioning aqueduct? Granary? Pre-historic temple? City walls? SAM sites? Nuclear missile silos? When was the last time your hometown built part of the space shuttle? The list goes on.

They're all abstracts used for the purpose of playing the game. If you can't get over that then do as I've already suggested and pick up a copy of the latest war game where most, not all, relie heavily on historically accurate combat systems. Your differences would satisfied in that scenario.

[TCO]

Re: Re: Think, please

Originally posted by davwhitt



Oh my bad. I was assuming all along the phalanx was a phalanx and not a modern patisan unit. I suppose that chariot is really a futuristic hovercraft unit too?

Well...maybe you should protest the fact that Phalanxes continue to exist in the game in the modern day.

[Kc7mxo]

Rationalization does not an argument make.

There are backward units in modern times. There are backward nations in modern times. Just because the US sends tanks into the amazonian jungle doesn't mean that the few barbaric tribes that are still there are suddenly going to be using stinger missles and anti tank rockets rather than the arrows they had a few minutes before.

I never felt this way when i played civ 2. For two reasons.

1) I understood the combat engine. I understood its numbers, so when a defense 4 riflemen, fortifed, behind city walls, hurt my tank, i knew that it was because that riflemen had a defense of 10 instead. (Walls are 200% right? or was it 100?)

2) In civ 2 while it was possible for primitive units to damage modern units, but because of the firepower and hitpoint system, the damage was rarely fatal. a frigate might hurt my destroyer, but it WOULD NOT SINK IT. In civ 3 I've watched ATTACKING destroyers at full health lose to a stinking ironclad that I bombarded.


Would someone please slap sid and ask him why he took firepower out?

[F18fett]

A few points:

1. To those that say spearmen are actually guerillas with modern weapons a la the Northern Alliance, that could work except for one thing. The Aztecs I am playing against don't even have gunpowder. How would they be able to have these sort of weapons without having any knowledge of gunpowder, or any prerequisite knowledge?

2. What is the point of researching new units if they lose to old ones? The AI is supposed to be challenging, so should it now be able to keep up with me in technology? In Civ 2, the civs that only had pikemen and knights were trampled by other civs with cavalry and artillery. It's just survival of the fittest. To fix the problem of there only being 3 AI and a human at the end of the game, they should've made it so that the AI can keep up with the human a little better. An AI that has crappy units shouldn't win against my modern army.

3. I have nothing against a weak unit winning because of terrain modifiers though. I lost a cavalry attacking knights in the jungle and I didn't mind. It makes sense that the knights knew the terrain and could've slaughtered my cavalry. What doesn't make sense is that my fortified cavalry defending a town were somehow slaughtered by longbowmen. As for the idea of a powder explosion, that should be considered a "random combat event" and specifically told to the player. It should have a higher chance of occuring the further away you get, but shouldn't be above 35-40% chance of occuring.

4. Nobody has told me how the riflemen defending a size 12 city managed to die to an attacking knight.

Also, does anyone have any ideas on what other paths I could use to capture the city? Combat and trying to buy the city haven't worked.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm....well, I dunno if this will convince you or no, but....

When America was colonizing deeper into the USA, the Indians there started off using bows.

They never did actually make their own gunpowder, but they sure were using lots of rifles and other begged, borrowed and stolen modern equipment to fight us.

Nonetheless, the image of the bow, or spear-wielding Indian stays with us in art and popular images today.

As to the point of research....as you climb the tech tree, your units not only get more deadly, but more versatile. Witness the transformation of horseman to knight to cavalry (extra movement in the case of the latter, ZOC in the case of the former)....those advances *alone* are worth the effort to research for.

Also keep in mind that if you plan your battles correctly, that longbowman *won't* win via attacking your rifleman (posted earlier in this thread) because you will out manuver him with better, faster units (cavalry) and attack him and his 1 defense first.

As to the rifleman/knight thing...I dunno....perhaps he caught the rifleman company napping a la Washington vs. the Hessians on Christmas Day in the Revolutionary war?

In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is that technology alone does not a victory make. If you don't use the technology properly to take command of the battlefield, there WILL be times when you lose to an inferior force.

-=Vel=-