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

[GePap]

Real strategy!

To Monoriu, and those that belive higher is better:

First, game mechanics should work the same at all levels unless told so by the designers and according to Fixaris, the same equations are used at all levels, so if the combat system is different higher up, this is a mistake, not a plus.

But moving on to REAL STRATEGY: As someone said earlier (I believe Venger the Avenger ), strategy can only be made if one is able to make a set of assumptions, which will allow you to make a long term plan (a strategy). In WW2 the U.S. did not keep huge masses of troops in the U.S. fearing invasion because after a certain time, we assumed (correctly) that the enemy lacked the ability to mount such an operation. This was not an oversight by our generals, it was a sound military decision. Or look at the Gulf War- coolition forces attacked Iraq with inferior numbers because they trusted (correctly) the power of air power in that situation- again, good strategic thinking.
Lets say I face two enemies- Germany and Zululand. Germany has Panzers, Zululand at best has Cavalry (of course lots of impis). Both decide to attack at the same time. Who do you concentrate on? The Germans, of course, since they have technologically advanced weapons, amking them more dangerous, or so it should be. Because of the combat system the Zulus, with Masses of impis waking by your borders and winning odd battles vs. your defenders might be far more dangerous than a few panzers ( alot more expensive than impis and one can sabotage their construction by attacking resources) also winning, but also loosing, a few odd battles. This makes no strategic sense and nor does it allow you to really create a strategy. Quick story:

I decided to attack some Zulu cities on another continent because I love RR's and the continent I commanded had no coal So I send a combined force of Rfilemen, cannons, and cavalry on galleons to take them out. Eventually I would reeinforce with Infantry and artillery. I also took workerss to build defenses. I land on jungle and move to make good defenses to set up a siege. Well, masses upon masses of Zulu and allied forces (Chinese, Aztec) come pouring forward and overcome, after great losses, mind you, my defenders, including infantry dug into jungle fortresses backed by mighty artillery (my cavalry had been killed long before). So here I go, create a combined arms army (or as much as one can before tanks), send tyhem in force to take a city of 4 and all that is detroyed by guys without not only guns, but metal- for god's sake, no METAL The strange combat results undermine attapts at combined arms many times too.

[Monoriu]

Re: Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff

Originally posted by n.c.


That is fine, what is not okay is why this is true and how it gets implemented.

-"shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level?"
Not necessarily, as he may have encountered a seriously backward civ.

I don't understand your first point. What do you mean by "that is fine" and "what is not okay is why this is true"???

Your second point: I have played 3 games in Regent, Monarch and Emperor. The AIs trade techs among each other very frequently. Most AI civs I encountered have more or less the same technology, the most backward ones are only 4-5 techs behind. If he encounters a civ with knight as the most advanced units, chances are, most other AI civs are only 4-5 techs ahead of them, or 4-5 techs behind.

[Monoriu]

Re: Real strategy!

Originally posted by GePap

I decided to attack some Zulu cities on another continent because I love RR's and the continent I commanded had no coal So I send a combined force of Rfilemen, cannons, and cavalry on galleons to take them out. Eventually I would reeinforce with Infantry and artillery. I also took workerss to build defenses. I land on jungle and move to make good defenses to set up a siege. Well, masses upon masses of Zulu and allied forces (Chinese, Aztec) come pouring forward and overcome, after great losses, mind you, my defenders, including infantry dug into jungle fortresses backed by mighty artillery (my cavalry had been killed long before). So here I go, create a combined arms army (or as much as one can before tanks), send tyhem in force to take a city of 4 and all that is detroyed by guys without not only guns, but metal- for god's sake, no METAL The strange combat results undermine attapts at combined arms many times too.

You forgot one thing: sufficient numbers. If you are fighting an alliance of several AI civs, you should be bringing huge numbers. I fought and won against a coalition of 7 AI civs with the same tech as mine in Regent level, with an army of about 150 units and I constantly found myself lacking in numbers. How many units did you send?

Combined arms, AND sufficient numbers, AND sufficient technology, AND tactical sense, AND careful planning, AND a good production base. You need all that.

[n.c.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff

Originally posted by Monoriu
What do you mean by "that is fine" and "what is not okay is why this is true"???

Of course the game's combat system should be unforgiving. Achieving this via unrealistic results is not the way to go.

[WhiteElephants]

This is precisely our point. You haven't modified your strategy to fit the mechanics of the game. Instead you continually use units in ways you believe are possible, but are clearly not possible if the mechanics of the game were taken into consideration.

I think that you gave combined arms a valiant effort in your example, but lets face it you were attacked by three other civs. I don't think you can expect to land a force of combined arms on someone else's continent and be laid seige to by three other civs and rightfully expect to win. Next time you know to bring more, no?

Strategy is not about coming to a game with a strategy in hand and expecting it to work. You have to develop a strategy to fit the game model, but what I'm hearing around here is that the game model needs to fit someone's preconceived strategies. Not so.

[Monoriu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff

Originally posted by n.c.
Of course the game's combat system should be unforgiving. Achieving this via unrealistic results is not the way to go.

No, the game mechanics are the same for everybody, the AI doesn't have an "edge". YOU can kill the AI's units with ancient units as well. It doesn't necesarily make the game hard, IF you are willing to spend the time to micromanage and change your style to fit the system.

What I mean is, you have to think hard to win even if you are playing on the lowest difficulty levels and is fighting a backward opponent.

[GePap]

REAL STRATEGY 2

If one were to have counted the units that were involved that little story, one would find that the enemy did not have a significant numerical advantege over me, yes I was fighting three civs but as backward civs they could not maintain as many units as I (which is a bit of game realism I like). Lets say the enemy, several levels of tech back, had about 2 times the number of units I had? Is that enough to overcome my technological superiority? Then whats the point of technological superiority? Why should I strive for greater and greater knowledge if it gives me bu a miniscule advantage. Think, if the hundreads of gold I spent reaserching replaceable parts had been channeld insteat towards supporting masses of knights and swordssmen I would have taken that city (incidently, i made peace with these guys soon after and took advantege of culture to get what i could not through war- I have RR's everywhere!).

On the game model: The folks at fixaris tried to make a model in which wars of endless expansion driven by megalomaniacal perons with one or two armors would crush their poor tech backwards foes would be a thing of the past -qudos to them! But the way they did it was wrong! Resources have become a serious chokehold on players (why did I get into that failed enterprise in the first place?) so they decided that players without resources need a chance (the only reason backwards units are so relatively good here) because they saw problems ahead. well, if they saw problems ahead, they should have fixed them and not weakened the combat system.
The addition of bombardment and making you pay out of a central treasury and so forth were great cahnges and I have changed my strategy (thank you very much )but If i can't make any assumptions besides-must have a three to one superiority regardless of tech levels- then what I can do strategically has been greatly curtailed. By emphasizing mass beyond its true (no matter how great) weight, they have handcuffed players, not made them free.

[Monoriu]

"Lets say the enemy, several levels of tech back, had about 2 times the number of units I had? Is that enough to overcome my technological superiority? Then whats the point of technological superiority? Why should I strive for greater and greater knowledge if it gives me bu a miniscule advantage. "


I have a proposal: let's stop arguing now, go play civ 3, make 100 warriors and send them against AI musketeers. See how long your army will last. Tech gives you an edge, just not as much as you'd like, because getting higher tech is the easy path, managing a huge army effectively is the hard path and you want the easy way. I am saying, you need both.


"The addition of bombardment and making you pay out of a central treasury and so forth were great cahnges and I have changed my strategy (thank you very much )but If i can't make any assumptions besides-must have a three to one superiority regardless of tech levels- then what I can do strategically has been greatly curtailed. By emphasizing mass beyond its true (no matter how great) weight, they have handcuffed players, not made them free."

You maybe handcuffed because of your mindset, but I am sure that I am not handcuffed. What prevents you from taking advantage of the new rules and make a 200 unit army? In my last game I had 300 and that's on Monarch level, the AI actually had a production bonus over me.

edit: sorry, quoted the wrong sentences in my first try.

[n.c.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff

Originally posted by Monoriu
[1] the AI doesn't have an "edge".

[2] It doesn't necesarily make the game hard

[3] you have to think hard to win even if you are playing on the lowest difficulty levels and is fighting a backward opponent.

1) I never said it did.

2) Some here like to think it does (makes them feel superior).

3) Of course you should have to think hard. The problem now is that you can think all you like and the combat results border on random.

Look, all I/we want is realism. If you and others prefer this notion of ancient units killing modern ones, fine. There are actually reasons for such a preference that make sense.

Just don't concoct post-hoc rationalizations why what we want is inferior or the because of wanting an easier game. (This is a general comment.) It's simply a different preference. Essentially that is all we are saying, only that our preference not being met causes us to like the game much less.

Well, that and a certain "re-write history" slogan that some of us took to imply realism.

Good night all.

[Monoriu]

"Just don't concoct post-hoc rationalizations why what we want is inferior or the because of wanting an easier game. (This is a general comment.) It's simply a different preference. Essentially that is all we are saying, only that our preference not being met causes us to like the game much less. "


I respect your preference. So just edit the game. The rules editor is there for a reason, and you have just stated one. You can't give more hps or fp to a unit, but you can increase the att. and def. values of modern units. That will have similar effects as the hp/fp system: modern units win more often.

I respect the people who want realism. What I cannot stand, are people using bad tactics (cavalry used as city defenders, an invastion force that consists of 3 units etc) and then complain that the system doesn't work. The system rewards good management of units and penalizes recklessness. Hence it works.

[GePap]

GePap departs HP thread

This is my last post here today:

I think, MOnoriu, that you have made a good point, my point
Yes, I could build a 300 unit army, but then who's building culture? Or infrastructure. I don't want to be a war economy, with all my cities dedicated soley to unit production. I want to be able to conduct short wars for specific gains without always having to be ready for a WW. I want to be able to carry out small operations and big, not just big. Many have commented that squashing your enemy with better tech is boring. I agree (again, the A.I. needs to cull out old units promptly) but so is winning with a steamroller all the time. What you offer is one strategy-that of masses of units ala WW1. Why do you think that army size has shrunk in the past 40 years? (in 1939 the SU had a standing army of 4 million, in 1989 of about 2 million) Because we have substituted advaced tech, wich can deliver more punch more accurately, making mass somewhat obselete. As I have said many times (but not on this forum), any war today that would trully require us to bring back the draft, would be over in 30 minutes (Nukes are too weak in this game). By the time I get to modern, to those B-2's and m1a1 and m2's and so forth, I should be able to switch cities to the spaceship without worring that my cavalry wielding enemies might come and raze my empire.

I say, if your going to do something, do it for real. If the folk at fixaris wanted a resource system implemented to force people to change strategy and make endless wars of expansion too difficult, DO IT!, but don't create eccentricities just to cover your arse and save your selves from complaints from people unable to change their strategy .

[barefootbadass]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff

Originally posted by n.c.


Well, that and a certain "re-write history" slogan that some of us took to imply realism.

Good night all.

One word: gullible. Of course it was used to imply a certain level of parallels to reality, and the game delivers with some level of parallels to reality, at least as much as previous games in the series(which wasn't much ).

[N. Machiavelli]

FP isn't 'realism'

I suppose the main cry for FP stems not from 'realism' per se, but the fact that currently, all damage given and taken regardless of unit is equal. Take for example a warrior and (everyone's favorite) the tank. The attack and defense properties of the two units means nothing more than what chance the two units have of hitting one another. However, the damage inflicted upon the warrior by the tank is equal to the damage a warrior could inflict upon the tank. Why? By this model, the warrior could do the same damage to a musketeer as a fortified tank on a hill. The only difference is if he get REALLY lucky in how he throws his axe. Perhaps his axe ricochets off a rock, causing an avalanche to fall upon the tank from his hilly-position, I don't know. In any case, it makes a warrior and a tank have little difference to each other as a rifleman and a machine-gunner: both inflict the same damage (a bullet), but the machine gunner can throw a crap-load more of them at an enemy, thereby increasing it's odds of hitting them. Granted, I've seen few primitive warriors, but I think few of them were carrying around 105 mm cannons on their backs. Firepower represents the fact that the 105 mm cannon is going to inflict more damage (no matter what the 'odds') than an axe.

The other argument is that you really aren't placing a warrior and a tank against each other....The warrior, you see, is symbolic of a crazy guy with a pistol attacking that tank. The units seem to be reflective to what they are up against. That warrior could be a rag-tag militia man attacking a musketeer one turn, and a man with a anti-tank missile attacking a tank the next...wow. If units are merely reflective of the age (they actually aren't what the text says they are), then why does the game consider these units to be 'obsolete' and restrict me from building them. Heck, if these are really militia/partisans, I should be able to build 10 of them in every city in the last age; even if they lose, their sheer numbers prevent any 'modern unit' blitzing me. Sure, it may cost some cash, but I'll be ni-invincible to the AI, who is ignorant to combined arms/tactics.

As an experiment, I spent the last few hours playing an interesting game. It was a large 'pangea' map, in which there was 1 island (interesting). The map had 7 Civs other than myself and I started on said island just off the coast. It was played on Monarch-difficulty. I purposefully did not advance beyond map-making, and after reaching that tech, I cut all funding from my research department. This island had NO early strategic resources (iron/horses) and was filled to the brim @ 7 size-6 (No aqueducts) cities and all 'gold' as directed towards cash to fuel my army. And what an army. The only units (besides settlers and workers) I built were warriors and galleys to ferry them across. The only contact with the mainland civs was to periodically sell my world map for a few bits of gold. From the beginning to 1926 AD, I made no move to get off the island, and had every city building warriors and galleys at a 2:1 ratio. At 1926, I moved these warriors, who had never seen any other civ, nor had been introduced to their technology, swarm the German beaches by the hundreds (at the peak, there was 473 warriors). These warriors proceeded to die by the many but overwhelmed all (by then 5) civs on the continent. There was no tactics involved. There were no combined arms. I stayed in the ancient age while every other civ was at least late-industrial. I even razed every city I conquered....all with a million men with axes. But they weren't men with axes, they were nothing more than %'s multiplied by the hundreds. Attila should not have been able to take his hordes and over ran modern-day Europe.

BTW: I should be able to get a copy of Photoshop tomorrow, so I could be able to make some nice screenshots later on ( I have all the memorable dates saved ie The Landing, and The Conquest).

[GePap]

All hail Machiavelli, and I lied

Yes, I am posting again, so sue me

Finally, someone has taken the time to conduct an empirical test of this combat system, and his results seem to speak for themselves. (all of those, and there are many, who have been involved in this debate over many threads await eagerly.) A better argument for FP could not have been made with words

[Setsuna]

Re: FP isn't 'realism'

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
*Snip*

Ah, your post does justice to the historical name you bear. I salute you, sir. You went out of your way in order to prove a point. Bravo!