Fire power is not what we need, we need modern units to have more hit points

[Grumbold]

An individual tank can engage multiple soldiers simultaneously assuming they are all in range. A unit of 100 tanks can pin down a unit of 1000 soldiers, and ultimately defeat or be defeated by them. But it can't be defeating 5 units of warriors all moving in different directions at once. I think this is where the concept of a 'tile' gets blurred. Its a huge area of space. If it is not being treated as such, you would start to have to consider stacks defending simultaneously against an attacking unit, which leads to wanting to have stacked offensive units, i.e. proper implementation of armies. It is something CtP did very well and I had hoped for in Civ 3 but did not happen.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Big long post

You make a nice argument and have done some reasonable work. But in your practical examples, what about the role of bambardment?

[rid102]

By the time you get tanks, most of your cities can turn out a tank in 2 or 3 turns. Do you want 5 tanks or do you want 15 warriors?

The scenario you're talking about (i.e. overproduction) was also present in Civ2, though.

In the case where you're not overproducing, it's not quite so clear cut (see my previous example).

Thus, the real relative cost of a tank to a warrior is 3:1, on average.

Excuse me? LOL

So, if you can build a Tank in 3 turns (say, taking your example) then you're producing (at a minimum) 34 resources/turn. This means that you can also build (e.g.) one Swordsman per turn, so by your logic the "real" relative cost of a tank to a Swordsman is also 3:1. Yet, the Swordsman costs 3 times as much as a Warrior. However, a Warrior is also 3:1 with a Tank... see the contradiction?

I'd say a Tank was a lot more effective than just 3 times a Warrior. E.g. going back to Civ2, Armour was more like 30 times more effective on attack and 15 times on defense.

The shield cost of a unit is irrelevant to me. What's relevant, is how many tanks I can get within a given time frame.

OK you don't care about how many resources it takes to build rather, you're more concerned with time to build. So, why don't you just wait until most of your cities can knock out 1 Tank (100+ resources) per turn?

BTW: Sheild production (and hence unit cost) is entirely relevant to how many units you can build per turn.

[woody]

Well, I'm just glad the the folks at Firaxis have enough of a brain and an imagination that they produced a game which is FUN, rather than a boring game that is based solely on reality.

So, to the people who lack the ability to understand that a few pixels is not a real tank, you should probably go play something else. Civ is for players that enjoy a good strategy game. Civ isn't for people who just want to whine and complain about everything.

The fact that they still cry about the rules, when the editor allows them to change the rules to make "tanks" almost invincible to "spears", just shows how pathetic their complaining really is. Grow up, guys, and put your efforts into something more constructive.

[TCO]

Hey! What happened? The level of discussion has gone up at least 2-fold! We've got smart people on both sides discussing the issues and comeing up with new insights.

Lock the door and don't let Venger back in here.

*GP slowly realizes he's going to get tossed out the door, like a mangey cat, also... *

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by rid102


The scenario you're talking about (i.e. overproduction) was also present in Civ2, though.

In the case where you're not overproducing, it's not quite so clear cut (see my previous example).




Excuse me? LOL

So, if you can build a Tank in 3 turns (say, taking your example) then you're producing (at a minimum) 34 resources/turn. This means that you can also build (e.g.) one Swordsman per turn, so by your logic the "real" relative cost of a tank to a Swordsman is also 3:1. Yet, the Swordsman costs 3 times as much as a Warrior. However, a Warrior is also 3:1 with a Tank... see the contradiction?

I'd say a Tank was a lot more effective than just 3 times a Warrior. E.g. going back to Civ2, Armour was more like 30 times more effective on attack and 15 times on defense.



OK you don't care about how many resources it takes to build rather, you're more concerned with time to build. So, why don't you just wait until most of your cities can knock out 1 Tank (100+ resources) per turn?

BTW: Sheild production (and hence unit cost) is entirely relevant to how many units you can build per turn.

Where is the contradiction? Yes, because my cities usually overproduce so much, producing a swordman cost exactly the same as a warrior (1 turn, in both cases).

Overproduction is a huge part of the equation and you cannot ignore that. I am never concerned with the shield cost of a unit. What concerns me, is when I pull down the production menu and have to decide what unit to produce, how many turns will pass until I get what I want. In this example, its:

infantry (3 turns)
tank (3 turns)
swordman (1 turn)
warrior (1 turn)

Which one will you choose? I choose tank or infantry in all cases. Under no circumstances will I consider a warrior or a swordman in the above example (which, BTW, is the most common production manual in my games, the second most common one is tank 2 turns and infantry 2 turns).

Hence, technology IS useful, because the most high tech unit is the most efficient and the most effective one.

[Akka]

What will always amaze me is the capacity of people to only see what they want and when it's convenient for them.
Here two examples :

1)

If the modern units were given any greater advantages there would simply be no point in playing on should you fall behind on the tech race or not have the cash to upgrade your troops when you discover a new one

If I remember my last post, what I suggested was giving respectively 2, 3, 4 and 5 hit points,to ancient, middle-age, industrial and modern units. I don't think it's overpowering the modern units, and I don't think it'll be horribly imbalanced. In fact, a modern unit would only have 20 % more hit point than an industrial unit, and not even twice the hit points of a medieval unit. When you think what represent two whole era in technology, it makes sense.

Considering the modest modification and modest power boost that I talked before, you are basically telling me "if I was not able to reach the middle-age technological era while my opponent is in the modern era, then I'm screwed and it's not even worth to continue as I won't be able to win". Then I would answer : YES. If you are still in the ancient era when someone is in the modern, THEN you are screwed. And I think that the TOTAL IMBALANCE would be that someone so late in tech was able to still win the game. You consider that somone who has 10 times less units than its opponent should die. I do agree. But then be logical with yourselves, and accept that the same thing happen when someone has 10 times less tech than its opponent.



2)

In practical terms, when a civ discovers infantry (please not infantEry) it normally has cities capable of building them in 2-3 turns. It is normally intending them to be used defensively too, so the defence factor of 10 is more likely to be 15+ when combat modifiers are accounted for, resulting in a much higher success rate defending against the hypothetical warrior wave attack. Its ability to survive and rise to veteran and elite is an additional advantage that low cost high expendability units are unlikely to achieve, even giving the possibility of a leader.

If I am still able to read latin alphabet and standard english, I wrote before :

1) Warrior vs fortified infantery.
1A vs 10D, bonuses : +100 % due to city, +25 % due to fortification.
Final values : 1A vs 25D. Warrior hits 1/26, infantery 25/26.
To kill the Infantery, you have then to use 26 warriors to kill the infantery.

Now it's perhaps just me, but I do actually think I talked about FORTIFIED intantry ? Ok, perhaps it was because of the additionnal E that you could not get the link. I stand corrected, my mistake.



Now, to the serious part.
As Monoriu said it, it's true that production of late cities is much higher than backward ones, and that in fact, the RELATIVE cost of tanks is less than 10 times the one of the warrior. But I say it's not sufficient. Ok, let's take a big deep breath, and see the whole thing.

Why all this fight ?
Basiqually, someone eventually came and complained about some unrealistic fight where a man with an axe destroyed a tank (I know, some hundred people with axes destroying a tank section). He thought it was not logical, and said "we have to change this !". I, and all the people with more than two brain cells too, DO agree with him, it's utterly unrealistic and should be changed.
BUT...
Someone else here said "hey, man, ok it's not realistic, but if we give to the modern units too much power, the game will become annoying very fast. It's a question of balance !". And then again, I, and all people with more than two brain cells, DO agree with him, balance is important, and shouldn't be sacrified.

Where is the good balance between realism and playability ?
The good balance is when there is :
1) enough realism to allow you to build a strategy based on common assumption (ie : a tank is stronger than a knight, a phalanx is weaker than musketman, cavalry move faster than infantry, planes fly, ships float, submarines move underwater, etc...). I doubt strongly than even the strongest of the "it's just an icon over stats" would sincerely support an attempt to make carriers available with polytheism and with a weaker defense than a trireme.

2) enough flexibility to allow the player to catch up with a leading opponent (not being overwhelmed and doomed to death just because someone got 1 tech farther than you and this tech allowed him to build the supa-dupa-extra-unit-of-the-game that kills all in one nanosec). I again doubt strongly than even the most fanatic of realism would agree letting a musketman unit being 10A/20B while the more ancient units stay the same.

Some people think that the game already have this state of balance. I don't think it's the case. I think there is not enough power difference between ancient era units and modern era units. I don't want making the more modern units all-powerful, but if lack of military strategy should be paid in losses on the battlefield, lack of tech should be paid the same. I think it's just being fair with a player that succeeded to be in the modern era to allow him to be able to crush an opponent that wasn't even able to reach the middle-age.
What I would like to cease to hear is the always-used motto "if modern units are made more powerful then it's not even worth to play more if you're not in the lead". I would like the people using this sentence able to understand that there is something between "giving later units a bigger edge against low-tech units" and "making later units all-powerfull".

If it's fair for someone to win because he outnumbered vastly its opponent, it's fair for someone to win because he outteched (I know this word doesn't exist, it's just for the sake of the sentence ) vastly his opponent.
Someone one tech era late SHOULD have penalities. Not enough to make the game hopeless, but it was bested by its opponent somehow, so it should show.
Someone two tech eras late is REALLLY late in the game. At this stage, his survival is not really a concern, because is so in late that it would be unfair to other players to let him be able to be anything else than a struggling for its survival civilization.
Someone THREE tech eras late played so bad that he should be crushed, period. Any ancient era unit should be able to only scratch any modern unit, and just while being lucky.

So is what I proposed : experience level improve A/D ratings, era improve hit points (plus, it makes more sense to make a battleship having more hit points than a trireme). As I said earlier, it does not improve dramatically the power of units from one era to another. Only if the gap is too wide the difference will be overwhelming. And if this gap si so large, the backward one SHOULD die anyway.

Last thing : I would like people to read and think before answering, not just contradicting me for the pleasure of doing it. I would like to see constructive propositions and not just flames of answers made while the post wasn't even read in its entirety.

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Last thing : I would like people to read and think before answering, not just contradicting me for the pleasure of doing it. I would like to see constructive propositions and not just flames of answers made while the post wasn't even read in its entirety.

You're preaching to the converted, in my case.

*Bump*

What will always amaze me is the capacity of people to only see what they want and when it's convenient for them.

That certainly has been the prevailing method of some people (Who shall remain nameless) in this argument.

[Ghengis Brom]

Not just modern units

I've noticed the same imbalance with acient units as well. Like my veteran Bowman having his ass handed to him by a regular spearman. Same thing when one of my vet Bowman went after a regular Jag Warrior. It seemed like as soon as I had the slightest upperhand the AI decided it was no longer going to take damage from any of my units.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


So is what I proposed : experience level improve A/D ratings, era improve hit points (plus, it makes more sense to make a battleship having more hit points than a trireme). As I said earlier, it does not improve dramatically the power of units from one era to another. Only if the gap is too wide the difference will be overwhelming. And if this gap si so large, the backward one SHOULD die anyway.

You may have missed the chat with Soren on this subject and the numerous posts regarding this but the debate is not concerning technology but resources. You can have the same or greater tech as the next civ but they are able to make the tanks and infantry whereas you are only able to produce last age units due to lack of rubber or oil or both.

It is not fair for that civ to have greater advantage than it does now, in my opinion, just because of random placement of strategic resources.

To quote Soren:

"gamadictG> Soren, I don't know if this has been addressed before, but do you think low-tech units have too
good of a chance to defeat higher-tech units...??
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> gamad...: concerning the loss of firepower. Firepower added needless complexity to the
game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower
of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1... however
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2.
This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if
you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X."

Important difference and an important point. Personally I think the resource system adds a great deal of fun and strategy to the game and I would be sore to see any addition or changes that would undermine that system.

Zap

[Setsuna]

The resource system is an argument for another thread. That said, the resource system should adapt to the combat, not vice-versa.

[Ghengis Brom]

Re: Convert? Never!

Originally posted by GePap
Convert? NEVER !
Lets return to those wonderfull numbers those that like the combat system are so attached to. In a large city a musketman has a dfense of 8, if behind a river, of 10. Those are the game rules. Well, my tank has an attack of 16. So we have a situation of 16 vs 10. That's not stellar for the tanks. Spearmen would be 6 at most, ever. 16 vs 6 is much better. But the point is this. Let say i set up the same situation twice. Regular tank vs. Regular musketman. Regular tank vs. regular spearman, with defender in a city 12 behind a river. Could I, with anything even approchiang certainty, tell you how these battles will turn out? Can I even make an educated guess? No! As is, the spearmen may win just as well as the musketman. Hell, the musketman may do no damage to my tank while the spearmen might leave unscathed. That is unacceptable.
There are other reasons, of course, to accept the musketman. A player must invest time and effort to reach gunpowder and have saltpeter, besides the fact that they had to advance a whole age further. So, a lot more went into being able to get that musketman (for me or A.I.) than getting spearment (for some, its immidiate) and there should be some sort of reward for all that time and effort besides a unit that while theoretically twice as good, is empirically not. It comes down the the question- whats the point of advancing at all if all i need to win are masses of weak, obselete units? Why ever try peacefull expansion, cultural improvement, all those other wonderfull victory options I was given, if i must spend all my time and effort creating and managing ungodly amounts of units because I simply can't trust a strategic (i have resources, they don't) or technical edge?

I agree whole-heartedly with this. Also, it's not only modern units that suffer from this imbalance. I'd still like to know how my veteran Bowman lost to a regular Jag Warrior defending in the field, not in a town.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Setsuna
The resource system is an argument for another thread. That said, the resource system should adapt to the combat, not vice-versa.

How can you discuss the reasoning behind unit balance with view to technology and ignore the resource system, when that system is the reason for the current balance.

And no, combat is just one of many tools that allows you to gain and control resources. Therefore the resource system has a greater strategic significance to the game and the gameplay.
Yes, the combat system should adapt to that!

Zap

[E. Goldstein]

GP:

I read the posts as well. Whether or not the tactics were poor was debatable in some cases, but Monoriu jumped to the conclusion that they were without having all the facts. Personally, I can live with cavalry being offensive units only, but there is no reason why a person can't want them to perform more like their historical counterparts.

Woody:

Shut up and go ask mommy for the money to buy yourself some sense (like you did for Civ3). Reality and fun are not mutually exclusive, unless you're grasping at straws in a losing argument.

Zapperio:

"Important difference and an important point. Personally I think the resource system adds a great deal of fun and strategy to the game and I would be sore to see any addition or changes that would undermine that system."

Changing combat doesn't undermine the resource system, the resource system undermines combat. Resources should provide bargaining tools for diplomacy and goals for war. Logical combat results aren't needed to 'undermine' the resource system - the lack of power of advanced units and the ability of one resource to supply an entire empire, regardless of size, already does that.

I would, of course, prefer to have a resource than not, but I know that mass-producing bleeding edge units which don't need the resource will win the day for me, so it isn't that big of a deal. This shouldn't be the case.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by E. Goldstein
I would, of course, prefer to have a resource than not, but I know that mass-producing bleeding edge units which don't need the resource will win the day for me, so it isn't that big of a deal. This shouldn't be the case.

It isn't. You mass-produce the bleeding edge units and I'll mass-produce the cutting edge ones and we'll see who will win.

And tell me, if you can, how does making technology more important, in terms of unit strength, prevent you from using the same strategy, only this time with tanks against riflemen? You can mass-produce units at any age, you know. At least the technologically superior civ has a decent fighting chance against a horde of bleeding edge units. In fact, in the hands of a human, that civ would win every time.

Zap