What's missing in the combat realism debate

[Bubba_B]

If you can't beat em join em.

At the other end of the spectrum are the romantic-oriented gamers. The guys who LOVE underdog fights. Whose favorite stories are about little guys beating impossible odds, and our own world history is full of such stories.

Custer's Last Stand, where ill-trained, ill-armed indians took on a much better equipped American Military unit.

Scotland's Highlanders (a ragged, peasant army if ever there was one) defying British Knights and Longbow and WINNING!!!!! NONE of this should or would be possible under the purely scientific/mathematic approach, and IMO, it would be a loss to the game, because THESE are the stories we remember.



-=Vel=-

Sorry to disagree Vel but I think Custer was the Underdog there IMHO

Anyway good post

Go Scotland!!

[wingman]

So?.let?s take a look at the real world, and begin with the assumption that ancient units and modern ones cannot exist at the same time.

The British Army, when colonizing Africa and India, encountered primitive, savage tribes armed with bows and spears vs. the British cannon and rifle. IMO, that is an example of the very thing we?re talking about.

And, to their credit, those primitive, savage tribes dealt a blow or two DESPITE their technological inferiority before being conquered. (In game terms...the bowman beat the rifleman!)

Same thing was true of the Americas.

True, true, true....BUT NOT FUN!


I can undestand that if I am English and I invade the Indians on the other side of the map they are using warriors. However when both my English and the enemy French empires have coexisted on the same contenent for 5000 years, and we are equall in tech. Then the final showdown comes when we both get tanks, but I build tanks and the French are still using spearmen, while they can easily get alll their units to be at least infantry. This is not a fun scenario and it ruins my enjoyment of the game

[Velociryx]

Numerically, yes...but not technologically. That's the point tho....everyone who keeps saying that the high tech unit should always win aren't looking at history.

It hasn't happened often, but high tech units (Custer) are overrun by low-tech rivals now and then.

It doesn't happen often in the game, but high tech units (cavalry) are overrun by low tech units now and then (longbow).

I think the game paralells history fairly well in that regard.

-=Vel=-

And thanks!

[Barnacle Bill]

Actually, I can offer non-romantic explainations for each of those examples.

Custer's last stand - the Indians were not ill-trained, they were considered the finest light cavalry in the world at the time. A little shy on firearms, but this was a cavalry on cavalry fight so that didn't make so much difference. Plus, Custer was outnumbered over 10-1, and was the attacker. So, in Civ3 terms, Custer's 1 Cavalry unit attacked a stack of 10 Horsemen, and ended up retreating after reduced to 1 hit point (of course Georgie was one of the guys that got reduced). Even with a proper combat results table, that should be a bad move. The idea is not that having a gun makes you invulnerable, just that in an even-numbers fight you are going to kill the enemy a lot faster than he can kill your guys.

Isandwalla - Again there was a huge numerical advantage on the winning side. This time lets call it 10 Zulu Impis attacking one British Rifleman. There were some abstract factors here as well - the Brits were caught by surprise (not fortified, in Civ3 terms) and effectively had an ammo shortage due to inefficient distribution of the available supply. You can't really model that last one in Civ3, but you would not need to. With a good CRT, sequential attacks by 10 Impis should be enough to overwhelm 1 Rifleman unit.

Thermopolye - Here, the side with the mission win was technologically superior, and fortified in a mountain pass. In Civ3 terms, first imagine that we have two kinds of mountain terrain - "Mountain Pass" works like mountains in stock Civ3, while "Mountains" are impassable to all ground units whatsoever. You have a string of "mountain" squares across the top of a pennensula, broken only by a single "mountain pass" square. In that "mountain pass" square, in a fortress (there was a stone wall across the pass), fortified, squats a single Greek elite Hoplite unit. The Persians bring up 1 elite Immortal, a couple of veteran Archers and a unbelievably large wad of conscript spearman. The present system will model that correctly - where it breaks down is not in different types of pre-gunpowder units but in what happens after that.

Scotland - that was actually a pretty even match-up. Again, same tech level on both sides. Give the Scots elite status to model being very pumped. It could happen.

The point is, a well modelled system that produces results which "feel right" to the Grognard would still allow the cases you named to be replicated in the3 game, but without allowing Henry V to defeat a WWII panzer division with his army of longbowmen.

And yes, I know all about the design decision to make it how it is because of strategic resources, and have posted a proposed alternative elsewhere, which in short is to let you build things without the appropriate strategic resources at a substantially higher cost, which I have supported in detail with historical examples.

[mindseye]

I think its possible for a bunch of spear wielding men to destroy a tank, but it would be rare.

I believe this very scenario took place in Ethiopia when Italian armor encountered spear-wielding warriors who were sometimes able to immobilize the tanks by de-tracking them.

Another example of ancient encountering modern for n.c.: the Opium Wars. On land, artillery and rifles fought against spears and crossbows. At sea, armored steamships clashed with junks.

Yes these encounters are rare, but they do happen! In fact, one such encounter is taking place right now in Afghanistan: muskets versus stealth bombers.

- mindseye

[zapperio]

[SIZE=1]

And yes, I know all about the design decision to make it how it is because of strategic resources, and have posted a proposed alternative elsewhere, which in short is to let you build things without the appropriate strategic resources at a substantially higher cost, which I have supported in detail with historical examples.

That solution would have to be implemented carefully so as not to detract from the urgency associated with the acquisition of the resources. Gameplay speaking, the resources add a lot to the fun and the strategy of the game and I would be unhappy to see them diminish in importance.

Zap

[TCO]

NC,

Let me step back from the flaming a bit and try to give my analysis more disppassionately.

1. I think the combat was too easy and too one-sided in Civ2. I like the changes descrobed in Civ3. Just my point of view. I'm a pretty darn good civ player. And I'm also very unbothered by losign any individual unit or even city. This kind comes from playing the game a lot. I think of the units as representing their namesakes...but I don't take it completely literally.

2. The people unhappy with combat are unhappy for various reasons.

Some are genuinely unhappy for realism reasons. They are military junkies (although interestingly enough...none seem to have served...correct me if I'm wrong) and they like to think of the tank and it;s incredible power, which truly could destroy any non-gunpowder unit. Some of these people would like to see more power give to modern units AND have the AI be more strategic and keep up better in tech. I personally doubt this is possible. You can change unit numbers easily but the AI is difficult to improve. People like this should go get a war game that doesn't have changing technology. They will find what they want.

Many others are unhappy for realism reasons, but in addition hate to lose battles. They have less tolerance for loss and theyn tend to try to fight with smaller armies (so low prob events are more damaging.) Some of these people use strategies that even in civ2 were considered suspect (using cavalry as defenders for instance). As much as they hat it, I would advise these people to either change/improve their strategies...or tweak the unit values to give themselves more of an edge. (In almost all cases, tweaking the unit values will lead to advantages for the human player...since the AI won't exploit the changes well.)

[Shiva]

Originally posted by D4everman


Hey, Shiva, still in the Infantry? Signal here! Screw that sleeping in the woods crap...oops I forgot. I'm signal. Whenever YOU guys go to the field we gotta go the field! And you guys go a lot! (no matter...I'm a recruiter-in-training now)

Naaa, I got out in the 90's. My first 2 years in I was in the field for about 3/4s of it and loved it. After that I couldnt stand garrison duty and after trying to get posted at NTC 3 or 4 times(if I could have gotten in I'd still be in since their in the field 5 to 6 days a week) the writing was on the wall to get out (plus all the cut backs and promotion freezes after the wall came down).

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
At the apparent scale of Civ3, it is not "a tank", its "an armored division", i.e. a large formation with 10-15 thousand guys built around several hundred tanks but including supporting infantry & artillery, plus wads of guys in non-combat support roles. A couple of neighborhood duds might very well take out "a tank" under the right circumstances, but 15,000 neighbor dudes will never take out an armored division.

No not at once, however in tens years of fighting (and ten years are one turn sometimes in this game) neighborhood dudes in Afghanistan killed 30,000 or so Russian soldiers ( more than a division). Since the game doesnt track troop loss or replacements I really dont see the problem with a division being removed from play once in a while since total losses in turn could easily equal the manpower of a unit. Its all abstract and people will just have to deal with the fact that when things are abstracted they dont always work the same way they do in real life.

[Special_K]

Originally posted by GP

Many others are unhappy for realism reasons, but in addition hate to lose battles. They have less tolerance for loss and theyn tend to try to fight with smaller armies (so low prob events are more damaging.)

Part of the problem is that in the current game these things arn't low probability events, instead they seem to happen quite frequently. Also, it seems that the random number generator isn't very random. For example once I attacked a city 4 defenders with something like 12 calvary. All the clavary were either killed or retreated at 1 hp. I reloaded and waited till the next turn to attack. This time I lost only 1 or 2 calvary and took the city easily. I realize you could make up role play reasons (morale and all that), but really the random numbers should be slightly more random so things like that wouldn't happen.

As for those pointing out relatively obscure cases in history where the inferior force beat the superior force, these cases are exactly that OBSCURE. They shouldn't be hapening nearly as often as we see in civ 3.

I also realize this was done deliberately as a design decision. I just think it was a poor design decision and could have been handled differently as has been posted in other places. Now I will stop my b****ing and go back to enjoying the game .

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Special_K

Part of the problem is that in the current game these things arn't low probability events, instead they seem to happen quite frequently. Also, it seems that the random number generator isn't very random. For example once I attacked a city 4 defenders with something like 12 calvary. All the clavary were either killed or retreated at 1 hp. I reloaded and waited till the next turn to attack. This time I lost only 1 or 2 calvary and took the city easily. I realize you could make up role play reasons (morale and all that), but really the random numbers should be slightly more random so things like that wouldn't happen.

Anybody have ideas how we can test this thoroughly? In spite of my romantic inclinations I'd love to see some numbers from controlled battles.

Zap

[Gonzalo Nieva]

Maybe You need a different perspective, forget about historical references and think in the game itself: When a technological superiority must overcome another "age" and keep game balance and a fighting chance if You fall behind?

[LordLynch64]

Question? Do civil wars still occur if you take the capital city of a civ? I really liked that feature in the previous games and I think this game should have that feature. Let me know.

LORD LYNCH

[Chowlett]

Originally posted by Special_K
For example once I attacked a city 4 defenders with something like 12 calvary. All the clavary were either killed or retreated at 1 hp. I reloaded and waited till the next turn to attack. This time I lost only 1 or 2 calvary and took the city easily. I realize you could make up role play reasons (morale and all that), but really the random numbers should be slightly more random so things like that wouldn't happen.

Surely that situation indicates that the random numbers are very random from turn to turn, and that actually you'd like them to be a little less random, to kind of normalise the results.

Or, rereading your post, do you mean that the random numbers, while different from turn to turn, are disturbingly similar within each turn? That's a possibility, I don't know yet, my copy is still shrinkwrapped on my shelf.

[Capt Dizle]

I am not keeping records of this. I do however understand the concept of the odd thing standing out and "seeming" to be more common than it is in reality.

Having said that, let me say this.

I have seen amazing streaks of antiquated units beating state of the art units. Streaks.

If one unit wins with a 1 of 7 chance going in, you say well that happens.

If you see 8 battles and the 1 in 7 unit wins 6 times, then you have a problem.

That is what I am seeing. It doesn't happen all the time, it happens in streaks. That's why I question the way the random numbers are being generated.

Will some math head calulate the odds on something like I have decscribed please?

Lately I have been playtesting. Normally, I would not attack at bad odds like the AI does. I have been trying it and I have had some sucess doing it but no really long streaks yet. I will try to take notes on this sort of thing.