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

[n.c.]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
I should ask you to show us an example of modern units facing swordsmen at all.

Finally someone else says what I have been trying to get across for days!



Of course, it's used an an example of the most common faulty logic on these threads: "you can't complain about lack of realism because I have an example you didn't mention."



How to fix? 1) Have civs eventually learn techs of their niehbors, and 2) require upgrading or retiring of units. Not that difficult.

[WhiteElephants]

Fair enough, but that logic is only faulty in that we are presented with a game, that by definition isn't "realistic" or an attempt to be so, and then are arguing over realistic combat when before turn 1 elements of the game are unrealistic. In other words, I was attempting to use their own faulty logic to defeat their own faulty arguement.

I think a simple change in graphics would appease those who are infuriated by a musketmen defeating a tank, but isn't that a waste of time as it's only a graphical change and not a statistical change?

For instance the musketmen could be modified to look more like a modern day militia unit and hell, even change the name if need be, yet retain the same statisitics. Sort of like the partisan units that sprung up in Civ2.

[n.c.]

Not all reality shortcomings are equal. Specifically, they are not equally annoying. Some are downright unavoidable.

A graphics change would help.

[Setsuna]

Good grief, some of you are dense.

Changing the graphics would do nothing to help. It's a superficial change that would serve only to divert Firaxis's valuable time and make it less likely that we'd see any real fixes.

[Cavalier_13]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Well, in regards to your poor tactical abilty I don't think you need to say a single word more as we are all thoroughly convinced.

What's wrong with my tactical abilities?

Cavalier

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Setsuna
Good grief, some of you are dense.

Changing the graphics would do nothing to help. It's a superficial change that would serve only to divert Firaxis's valuable time and make it less likely that we'd see any real fixes.

I was under the impression that most of the dissatisfaction revolved around the concept that such and such ancient unit defeated my such and such modern unit, which is claimed to be realistically impossible. The counter claim to that is that such and such unit couldn't co-exist in a realistic setting and that said unit is really a weak modern version of such and such, but still looks like said ancient unit.

Now as far as density is concerned I feel the skull of some posters here are comprised of a very dense material that will not allow for the synapses of imagination to connect properly as imagining that the said ancient unit is actually a weak version of the modern unit only still looking like the ancient unit isn't that much of an imaginative leap and yet satisfies both arguments.

And yes, all along I've seen this arguement as a rather superficial change that would serve only to divert Firaxis's valuable time and make it less likely that we'd see any real fixes.

Frankly, all the proposed fixes can be done through the editor by increasing or decreasing attack and defense ratings. By increasing either you are in effect giving a unit more hit points by reducing the chance that the unit will be hit at all. The same goes for firepower.

I hope this post was constructive and not a simple complaint as I've seen far too often in this thread.

[GePap]

Upgrades, yes!

I have to agree with n.c. over forcing units to be upgraded. As I said in a different post, after nationalism is discovered by a civ, there is no reason for any lower class infantry to be around whatsoever since at 4/6/1 it is as good or better that any earlier unit at all and needs NO RESOURCES whatsoever. Perhaps if they were made cheaper (why does making one from scratch cost as much as cavalry) would encourage the A.I. to do the upgrading.

As for FP/HP and aircraft, Fixaris did screw up: they give us acombat system that calls for real combined arms strategy and using mass armies but then make it a statistical crapshoot and make airpower almost a non-issue

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Cavalier_13


What's wrong with my tactical abilities?

Cavalier

If you can demonstrate for us the fine tuned tactics of dumping four units (tanks to be more specific) into hostile territory I'll refer to you from here out as Generall Patton, but for now you'll remain a Colonel Sanders in my book.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Frankly, all the proposed fixes can be done through the editor by increasing or decreasing attack and defense ratings. By increasing either you are in effect giving a unit more hit points by reducing the chance that the unit will be hit at all. The same goes for firepower.

I think that this argument, the Soren argument, was disproven in an earlier post. While it does make the lower unit hitting less likely, it should already be. Think of Caveliers argument: Modern armor defends at 16 in an army ( at least 16 HP) and he must have had terrain bonuses and such- the attackers at best had 4 or just 1, and they still win. Remeber that it takes three resources to make these babies and they are beaten by units that take no resources to make. Cavalier gives us a great reason to put in FP besides HP. If a unit with 16 HP could not last, then whats the point?

[pchang]

The math of more HPs vs. higher Hit/Defend numbers is not equivalent. Do the math if you don't believe me. Changing Hit/Defend numbers can alter the probabilities of single combats to the win/loss results match that of adding HPs, but the accumulation of damage is not the same, so the effect of multiple attacks comes out different.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
I think that this argument, the Soren argument, was disproven in an earlier post. While it does make the lower unit hitting less likely, it should already be. Think of Caveliers argument: Modern armor defends at 16 in an army ( at least 16 HP) and he must have had terrain bonuses and such- the attackers at best had 4 or just 1, and they still win. Remeber that it takes three resources to make these babies and they are beaten by units that take no resources to make. Cavalier gives us a great reason to put in FP besides HP. If a unit with 16 HP could not last, then whats the point?

Refer to one of my earlier posts where I disprove the disprove. Soren never mentioned anything about hit points.

Cavalier dumped an army consisting of 4 tanks with no support into enemy territory expecting to conquer the civiliation and was attacked by several units and on the sixth attack his army was reduced to ashes. Now mind you that his tanks, that are primarily weapons used for offense, found themselves attacked by an underpowered yet overwhelming force of units. I actually find his example a demonstration of poor tactics.

I don't know what tanks defend at, nor do I know how many hit points his army would have had. What I do know is that tactics that rely on "the all mighty tank" are poor tactics. Judging from the his arguement I can only assume that he, and you, feel a army consisting of four elite tanks should be powerful enough to overtake any lesser civilization, which I don't happen to agree with. I think there are many here who can attest to the pitfalls of combat in Civ2 that relied on this type of "realistic" logic.

[DrSpike]

As interesting as discussions about realism are they don't get to the heart of the issue because, as many have said, the game is an abstraction of reality. However, I don't accept the argument that the situation we have now with lots of ancient units easily outclassing a few advanced units is necessary for gameplay. In civ2 being first to discover gunpowder for example was a great force, but it didn't end the game, it just gave that player a window of opportunity.

Of course all comparisons with civ2 or other ganes with firepower are tricky anyway, because the support system in this game is completely different. You were never going to get armies of the size you get now in civ3. Whether the addition of firepower (or similarly a HP change for modern units) would work well as regards balance in the new setting I'm unsure, cos I've just finished my first game. I feel quite strongly that balance in a new game is very hard to call; it was many games into civ2 and smac before I understood the balance, and it is no different here.

[Monoriu]

Re: My 2 cents.....

Originally posted by Cavalier_13
Lemme enlighten some people up with a story from one of my games....

The year is 1937. Huge Map. 16 Civs.

I am the most advanced in terms of technology. I create an army comprised of 4 ELITE MODERN ARMOR( I have the Pentagon Small Wonder). The Zulus, for reasons known only to them, decide it's time to get it on. Woohoo I think, knowing I need some of their space!

I load the army up and take it to them. I disembark with that Army and they attack the next turn. Their attack force consists of 7 Longbowmen, 5 Impi and 2 swordsmen.

Haha, they don't stand a chance! Wrong........after the 6th attack by the longbowmen, my Army of MODERN ARMOR is toast. Say WHAT???

By sheer LOGIC, that should not have happened. I don't know about any of you, but I have yet to see an M1A2 Abrams tank fall to a bunch of Archers. If they could, well, the Afghans could use bows and armor to punch through advanced ceramic plate armor! I can picture the news now......200 Taliban warriors, armed with state of the art Longbows from the middle ages have successfully destroyed the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th Armored Divisions in Kabul today.......General Got-his-arse-kicked commented on the fact that superiour numbers defeated them. "How can you expect 50 tanks with the latest in armor and weaponry AND a 105MM canon to compete with 200 men firing bows and arrows?" was the defensive answer of Defence Secretary Who-needs-tech-when-you-got-numbers concerning this report.

In related news, the German Luftwaffe has recently recommissioned 4000 WI-era bi/tri-planes and analysts conclude the US Air Force, consisting of inferiour F-15's and F-16's, the US Navy, consisting of F-14's and F-18's and Bomber Command, consisting of invisble F-117 and B-2 aircraft will be in deep trouble if the Germans turn hostile.

More at 11.....

Need I really say more?

Cavalier

Sigh. Yet another example of poor tactical handling.

Sending a few high tech units deep into enemy territory and hope to win by tech superiority is NOT the way to go in civ 3. You need combined arms, numbers, terrain, and micro-management of units to win.

Your mistakes:

1. If you make a landing in AI territory, it WILL rush every unit he can grab to attack you as soon as possible. Your first priority is to hold the beach. You should have landed defensive units first. Tanks are NOT defensive units. Try mech. infantry. If you want "reality", did the Allies land a few tank regiments in Normandy in D-day? Nope, infantry and paratroops went there to secure the ground first. Imagine trying to take the beach with tanks first.....

2. Did you land on a mountain squre? By your results I don't think you did.

3. Why do you land only one army there? Its hopelessly insufficient. A successful invasion usually involves at least 10-15 units. I use 300. What do you hope to accomplish with 4 units?!?!?!

4. Where is your supporting artillery? You NEED combined arms in civ3 to do anything. An invasion force with 100% tanks? That's very poor military planning.

[GePap]

Armies=HP

As i said not far above, for those that think all it will take is more hitpoints, look at armies- Armies are units with extra HP- this is specially true when the Army is made up of all equal units - and we still have gotten stories of Modern Armies loosing against ancient enemies- Ask Cavelier_13. If units had FP as well, then these situations would be far less likely. The reason Howlitzers were such killers in Civ2 was not the 14 attack but the 2 FP on top of that. A unit with 28 attack but 1FP would not have been equally as effective. Various times, when making scenerios for Civ 2 I would give some aircraft 3FP to make them killer vs ground units (a-10'a, su-25) but by doing this, I made them very powerful even vs fighters- yes, their defense was only 3 and the F-15 had 12 attack but every time the odd hit would occur the damage done was great and usually my su-25 would survive the F-15; just an example of how trully powerfull FP is.

[Cavalier_13]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


If you can demonstrate for us the fine tuned tactics of dumping four units (tanks to be more specific) into hostile territory I'll refer to you from here out as Generall Patton, but for now you'll remain a Colonel Sanders in my book.

Ah ha!

Well, you'd have to have understood the whole situation and the way the land is divided and such.

The Zulu's best unit was a knight. I dumped my first army as a spearhead to see from where the enemy would congregate (the AI tends to simply take all available units and swarm the opposition) and I had my aircraft carriers and battleships on the coast ready to hit any troop stacks with bombardments. The instand an AI unit is not at 100% strength, it tends to pack up and head to the nearest city to regroup.

I had another army and some other miscellaneous troops about to disembark once the AI's turn was over.

So, as you see, I was NOT expecting the AI to be able to beat back an ELITE army of Modern Armor with Longbowmen. Hence the reason for the drop into enemy territory.

And for the record, I hate dirty-bird.

Cavalier