Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[TCO]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy

Then again -I never played anything else but Deity.

Good man!!

So combat was the same regardless of playing Chieftain or Deity? Whaa... never thought it would be like that.

I beleive that Cheiftan has a combat "cheat" to the human player and that on all other levels combat is "straight".

[TCO]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
GP directed me here to answer some of the combat issues. Please, stop flinging the insults for a minute! I didn't bother to read the first 9 pages, just number 10.


Gameplay is foremost in the structure of how it works. I don't have Civ3 yet so I can only speak from what I've read in posts. I am a fan of firepower, but I suspect the removal of this factor was done for one simple reason -

TO FORCE THE PLAYER TO USE MORE STRATEGY WHEN BATTLING!

Should archers kill cavalry in the field? No! But they will if the cavalry is not used as intended. The addition of bombardment, retreat, and other elements simplify the combat a bit (too much?), but force you to play with multiple unit types and a strategic approach. I think most of the "bugs" or complaints are simply people who haven't adjusted to the new system. In a year you'll read your own post and laugh that you were so frustrated with what will then seem so obvious.

Thanks, Marquis. It's good to bring in the "howitzers" like you when needed.

To: combat whiners
From: combat apologist

Please keep your facts straight. If you have misconceptions about Civ2 and think that the computer cheats agains you there, you may have misconceptions and bad facts in Civ3. Oh...and just a bit of a poor loser attitude about losing battles.

[zapperio]

You tell them GP!

[wipes proud tears from eyes]

Zap

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Let me put it this way.

I cannot accept:

I have cavalry, you only have musketeers, I make 20 cavalry and wipe out 10 of your cities in 5 turns.

Playing as Deity level, I am in the middle ages, and the AI is in industrial age. AI makes a bunch of cavalry and overrun my empire in no time. I counter-attack with longbowmen when the AI makes the tactical mistake of fortifying a city with cavalry and I still have zip chance.

A modern age power making 3 modern tanks and over-run a stone age power (and you complain when it doesn't).

People complain that combat is broken when they use the units carelessly (cavalry fortied in city example).

That's many turns behind in research. I would think the Cavalry would have a decent, but not unbeatable, advantage.

You would have a chance, it would just be much smaller. Did you expect a Deity game to be easy? Besides, what if they did bring Riflemen with them? You'd really be in a pickle then.

Are we talking three tanks running over cities and razing them as they go? Since you can't really conquer them with just three tanks. I think razing itself needs reexamining (i.e., why can a small army raze an enormous city?) Anyway, if they're THAT far in behind by the modern age they deserve to lose as fast as possible (It's insulting to you and the other AI’s that they lived THAT long!)

Against an equal or greater power, I'd agree. Cavalry are an offensive unit. But remember, it's not another Cavalry that said people are being attacked by.

As for this:

"I can accept: A modern age power over-running a stone age power with a 30 unit army within 10 turns."

Come on, man! You're talking about WWII level mobilization to defeat the Native Americans!

[Ludwig]

Originally posted by Setsuna


I made it abundantly clear that enemy civs on an equal footing should require some thought to defeat. That’s where I want the challenge to be. Against my contemporaries. When it comes to easy wins I am strictly speaking of hapless civs that are backwards and out of date. You'd still need more than "a few tanks," even with the changes I would like to see happen. No, I don't want to build five or so units and crush every enemy no matter how they stack up in the rankings.

But if you attack a hapless, backwards civ that has out of date units, you will defeat it. There really isn't any question of that, is there?

The question seems to be, should you be able to beat it without losing any units at all, or should you lose a couple of units in the course of beating it?

I don't think there is a technological advantage available to the tech tree in the game that can guarantee a 0% casualty rate, if you hold nukes off to one side and don't consider them part of "combat" per se.

If a civ armed and led to the standards of France in 1935 invaded and attempted to occupy a civ armed and led to the standard of Castile in 1450, the French would win. Unquestionably. They would take each and every objective they tried to take with any determination. But would they do it without losing a man?

It seems to me that they would lose enough men to make losing a unit or two in the game more realistic than not. It doesn't really matter if a clinical examination makes the prospects of 10 knights facing 10 tanks look grim. What matters is that armies that attack other armies - of whatever quality - take casualties. When you get a Grenada - or even a Gulf War - outcome, it's cause for celebration. It's not the normal course of events. And the forces represented by a single unit aren't your army; the set of all of your units is your army. For the game to model the fact that your army will take casualties, you have to lose a unit once in a while.

I think there's a lot of room to be angry with the naval and air combat in the game. The air units are much too weak, even when they work [and Firaxis admits they aren't working]. And for naval units, at least, the tech advantage complaint is valid - while it's almost impossible to invade and occupy a less advanced nation without taking any casualties at all, it goes beyond possible and becomes likely, almost certain, that a navy with a pronounced technological advantage will win its battles without losing a ship. But the ground combat is surprisingly well done.

I realize that it may seem somewhat inelegant, as someone pointed out earlier, to have to slog 100 units at the AI to be sure you'll out-attrit him. But 90% of warfare to date has been about attrition. Firepower advantages haven't made commanders into geniuses; it's just made attrition faster and easier to accomplish. Commanders who consistently win with elegant strategies in the face of superior numbers end up with cities, colleges, and months of the calendar named after them precisely because this is rare. Build the 100 units and use them. If they're better tech than the AI's 100 units, you will always win in the end.

It pleases me greatly to reply to this thread because the combat argument deserves to live on.

[Calorman]

Well after looking at this argument all I can say is thank God I'm not the only one who thinks this game has problems.

Now personally I don't give a damn about real-life and historical analogies. As people here have already mentioned this is a game and it is a game based on numbers. When you quantify something like say, an ironclad you immediately limit it. In real-life an ironclad had thick armour that could not be penetrated by contemporary weapons. In civilisation 3 it has an attack/defence rating of 4. This makes it more than vulnerable to even a galleon's attack. Thus it is limited to a cold unforgiving statistics table and virtual dice rolling. But I accept that. That's just the way games are. Even if you gave the ironclad an attack rating of 100 its number would still come up eventually. And I'm not personally bothered about the whole loss of firepower and whatnot. This is the way it is and that's fine by me.

However there is the second problem people seem to be having and this is stupid, unlikely combat results. I've read the tomes of information here and the slanderings thrown at oneanother. Many of you have droned on about how you should play the game strategically and use combined arms, artillery support blah blah blah. Very nice-totally misses the point.

Tell me on average should a cavalry with an attack rating of 6 defeat a knight who has a defence rating of 3 (no modifiers). Yes or no?
It's not a hard question is it. So why then in every game I have played does the exact opposite happen? Why am I constantly losing when plainly I should be winning? The stories I could tell you . . .
Why just 4 hours ago fought 4 submarines battles and lost them all to transports. What's the point!?

Now this would be absolutely fine if it was
A) the exception rather than the norm
B) It happens in my favour as well as the computers

Unfortunately neither of those is true (well the second one is about 5 percent of the time).
Nope sorry but something is definetly wrong with the combat system. A bug a glitch something is screwed there and it is annoying. I can accept that I'll lose units. As I've said this is a game of numbers and inevitably big numbers will eventualy lose to small ones.
But I am fed up of seeing wave after wave of my brave cavalry boys getting mown down by spearmen. Disheartened at the sight of yet another destroyer getting blown away by a frigate. And when that longbow archer took out yet another panzer, well, that was just the final nail in the coffin.
Some of you guys don't seem to have this problem. So what did Sid take a leak on every other copy of the game or something? Unlucky me I guess.
I just wish for once one of my guys would put up a heroic struggle like the comp always seems to. I just saw a lone AI infantryman hold off 12 of my cavalry (if I was in his shoes I would have gone down after the 2nd attack). Brravo! I thought. Good on the little bastard.
But earlier I had fought a similar battle as the Americans. I had a lone outpost just under Joan De Babe's nose. Apparently she wasn't too impressed with the way I kept touching her breastplate and decided I must be done away with. Suddenly little old "Boston" looked 100 times smaller.
Fortunately though-being the **** that I am-I already had a massive invasion fleet on its way. They were going to dock at Boston and use it as a base of ops. If boston could just hold on for long enough. Great I thought it'll be like the Alimo or somthing. It was defended by 3 rifleman and a cannon btw.
Sure enough Frenchie moves her 40-man army right next to it.
How many units did it take to overwhelm the city? She lost 2 swordsman and 3 archers. Now that's just messed up.

Eh long post.

BTW Venger: I agree almost 100 percent with just about everything you said (don't agree with you about the real-life analogy crap though-just my opinion) and I personlly think you are one of the funniest wisecrackers I've ever seen. I'm going to steal some of your comebacks and use them against my friends. Top thumbs to you sir.

[Monoriu]

"But I am fed up of seeing wave after wave of my brave cavalry boys getting mown down by spearmen. Disheartened at the sight of yet another destroyer getting blown away by a frigate. And when that longbow archer took out yet another panzer, well, that was just the final nail in the coffin.
Some of you guys don't seem to have this problem. So what did Sid take a leak on every other copy of the game or something? Unlucky me I guess. "



Come on, we are all playing the same game (unless you have changed something in the rules editor).

Honestly speaking, I can tell you that I haven't experienced anything you mentioned in your post and it appears that I am not alone. Once in a blue moon I also would get absurd combat results, but nothing even close to what you mentioned in your post.

Why do we get results that are so different? I seriously suspect (though its just speculation), that its a matter of style.

These are some of the possible explanations:

1. Do you ALWAYS produce veteran units (meaning no drafting and always build barracks, harbours, airports before building units)?
2. Do you ALWAYS melee attack with full health veteran or elite units only?
3. Do you ALWAYS withdraw wounded units from combat?
4. Do you ALWAYS protect your wounded units that cannot withdraw to a friendly city in the current turn with at least two 4 health defensive units (or one, in the case of naval units) ?
5. Do you ALWAYS bombard an emeny unit to 1 or 2 health before melee engaging it?
6. Do you ALWAYS bombard a city to below pop. 6 before melee attacking it?
7. Do you ALWAYS avoid combat across rivers?


For me, my answer to all of the above is an unqualified yes. In case you are wondering, YES I ALWAYS bombard a warrior on grassland to 1 health before I attack it with a tank. You may laugh, even I sometimes wonder if that's really necessary, but the fact is, I seldom get wacked combat results.

I guess we may never understand each other until the day that we watch each other play a full game. My prediction is that we'll both be very surprised at how differently we play our games and that's likely the reason why we disagree so much.


And Setsuna, you call a 30 unit army a WWII mobolization? I have 160 mech. inf, 60 artillery, 40 tanks, and 60 workers in my current game on Monarch level. Again, this maybe one of the reasons why our opinion on the combat system is so different.