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

[GePap]

From a cold, dark place...

From a cold, dark place....(or Canada as many know it )

I ask you WhiteElephant to address the gist of my argument. Why should I, or would I, expend the time and effort necessary to gain units above those of ancient times if they are many times not siginificantly better than what was there before? This is not an issue of 'whinning' nor inability to 'change strategy', this is an issue of gameplay. We have been given multiple win scenerios, most peaceful, and yet, according to those that like the system as is, we have to amass huge armies to have a chance to do anything, including vs. those poor saps who because of their own incompetence, got themselves stuck before the industrial age (again, after nationalism is discovered, the A.I. should upgrade ALL it's infantry units!). I then, it seems, according to this line of arguement, spend my resources and build time mostly on units, and not all those toehgr things i may want to build. Heck, what if I want to use espionage but need 25k to do anything, if i need to amass 300 units to survive then how will I have 25k to spend? This system limits players in many wyas which were unnecessary. I guess a great question to ask you and all other defenders of the current system is this: Did you dislike FP? If the Fixaris people had kept those concepts and added what they added, would you feel the combat system broken? In fact, why was FP added to Civ2 in the first place? Heck, on the whole attack, defend bit Civ1 was the same, if just with one HP-but in theory the percentages should work the same, no?

Also, if you like the system, why do you seem to agree with Elrad, whose proposal would make it possible for me and others refusing to 'change strategy' ignore combined arms and carry our old tank blizts?

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stone.

[Monoriu]

"Why should I, or would I, expend the time and effort necessary to gain units above those of ancient times if they are many times not siginificantly better than what was there before? This is not an issue of 'whinning' nor inability to 'change strategy', this is an issue of gameplay. "


You cannot deny with a straight face that 30 modern tanks is better than 30 longbowman, can you?



"We have been given multiple win scenerios, most peaceful, and yet, according to those that like the system as is, we have to amass huge armies to have a chance to do anything, including vs. those poor saps who because of their own incompetence, got themselves stuck before the industrial age (again, after nationalism is discovered, the A.I. should upgrade ALL it's infantry units!)."

I agree with the comment on the AI. You DO NOT need a huge army to do anything. You need sufficient numbers, and tactical sense. However, you cannot and should not be able to make 10 tanks and then declare yourself a winner.


"I then, it seems, according to this line of arguement, spend my resources and build time mostly on units, and not all those toehgr things i may want to build. Heck, what if I want to use espionage but need 25k to do anything, if i need to amass 300 units to survive then how will I have 25k to spend? This system limits players in many wyas which were unnecessary."


It was I who said 300 units. Yes, I did build a 300 unit army, but it was way overkill. What you need is sufficient numbers. Unfortunately, I still see a lot of people who still expect to produce a few tanks units and win the game. There is somewhere in between 300 and 15.

Yes, the current system does limit player choice. Whether this limitation is necessary is up to each player to decide. Let's compare the following hypothetical example:

1. Making 15 tanks and you are guranteed to win over ancient opponents even though your generalship suck (not implying anything here, just an illustration to make a point).

2. You will need to use 10 mech. inf., 10 artillery, and 10 tanks and carefully coordinate their every move in order to win. However, you'll have a much easier time than using 10 infantry, 10 cannon and 10 cavalry.

I myself prefer a game system that forces (2) on me. (1) should be discouraged whereever possible.

"I guess a great question to ask you and all other defenders of the current system is this: Did you dislike FP? "

No, I didn't. I like civ2's system, its faster and easier and less troublesome. I could finish a civ 2 deity game in 2 or 3 days, but it sometimes takes me half an hour just to move one turn in civ 3. Yet, I like civ 3's system even more.

"If the Fixaris people had kept those concepts and added what they added, would you feel the combat system broken? In fact, why was FP added to Civ2 in the first place? Heck, on the whole attack, defend bit Civ1 was the same, if just with one HP-but in theory the percentages should work the same, no? "

All the combat systems in civ games are sound. I just think that civ 3 combat is the best of them all. You cannot compare combat in civ 1 and 3, they differ too much from each other. Civ 1 has things like zoc, killing one unit kills one stack, completely different maintenance system, etc. I see lots of people complaining that civ 3 has "gone back to the days of civ1". I wonder if these people have played civ 1 at all.


"Also, if you like the system, why do you seem to agree with Elrad, whose proposal would make it possible for me and others refusing to 'change strategy' ignore combined arms and carry our old tank blizts? "


Even if they change the whole thing back to civ 2 combat I'll still like it, I just like it less. Say, civ 3 combat gets a 9.5/10, civ 2 is like 8.5/10. Get it?

[GePap]

Looking at data

30 tanks better than 30 longbowmen?, yes, but 30 longbowmen overcoming two or three fortified mech infantry? NO.

I never say, build ten tanks, your the winner (my smallest total (defense, offense) army yet in industrial age consisted of 87 inf, 30+ tanks, about 30 arty, 14 bombers) all of which got upgraded after requsite tech- and yes, I was whipping the enemy with this force over and over. I think people need to realize, if I have not said it before, that I am in the FP/HP side not due to experience ( I have lost some strange battles, never wars) but out of principle, and making the best game possible. Is the combat system, with the new rules for planes and arty better than that of civ2, calling for better strategy? YES. With all the work they have done out there in previous games like SMAC or civ2, was this the best combat system we could have expected or hoped them to make? NO!!!!!
With all the new rules FP would not really unbalance the game (enemy tank giving you problems, hit him with arty, or bombers, get him weak and counterattack-without ever loosing that arty or bomber) as much as some say- it would get rid of unnecessary, and in terms of gameplay, unwanted results. Should a tank always beat a spearmen? I would have to say YES. Always beat a musketman? Well, probably but not always. Always beat a rifleman? NO. I don't know about you folk, but I have yet to get such a technical lead over the A.I. that they can't make riflemen by the time I have tanks. Heck, the A.I. should be punished for being stupid enought to keep ancient spearmen guarding cities when it can make guns (or is that the designers at Fixaris?)
If they had kept FP (remember, they dropped this and their argument over why is not particularly credible) and given bombardemnt units a chance of killing units every once in a while, improving with tech (how can b-2 with guided bombs not sink a transport?) then this wouldd be, by far, no doubt, the best combat system in any of these games, period. BUt they didn't, and THAT's the problem

[n.c.]

Some of you seem to think there are only two choices: a) no balance or b) unrealistic combat. Was that your experience in Civ II or SMAC? Did you comment on it?

Are you the imagination-challenged ones: can the game have both? If there is a reason Pizarro's 400 men should have lost to the 60,000+ strong Incan armies, can't we put it into the combat system?

[GePap]

It is modeled

n.c.
Pizzarro was damn lucky. In game terms, he would be one lonely musketman vs. dozens of spearmen, warriors, and archers. In any system, both the one we have now, and the one that is proposed, it would be very hard for Pizzarro to win at all.

I thought Civ2 comabt was a bit simplistic (planes had no effect vs battleships, how the hell could I lose my arty even if it did no damage?, killing all the units in a Stack? COME ON!, and whats with all my loses to fuel shortages?), and all of these things were fixed by Civ3.
I thought combat in SMAC was great though arty overpowered, and still lost planes to fuel issues (its the future, darn it!). Again, Civ3 fixed this.
But why could they not keep the best aspects of both of these systems as well as making improvements? WHY?

[n.c.]

Re: It is modeled

Originally posted by GePap
Pizzarro was damn lucky.

Perhaps, but he was lucky enough to take down an empire. The worst unbalanced scenarios dreamed up by Firaxis defenders are nothing compared to what he did (even before the germs).

[N. Machiavelli]

Forgive Me

For those who care, the screenshots are going to have to be post-poned until I am able to have access to my home computers. Currently, I am one my lap-top on a plane head for Moscow on business, and the files wouldn't be available for at least a week, if at all. For this I regret.

As for the experiment itself, and Mr. Elephant's questions.... Is the AI pathetic? No. Predictable? Yes. Behave like a human? Certainly not. No human player would have allowed me to be isolated on that map for so long. That's one factor for the 'success', but the purpose of the experiment was not for the testing of the AI...it was to prove whether or not numbers was the deciding factor regardless of age/tech. As I said, the 5 remaining AI's were late industrial/early modern and the majority of defending units were riflemen and infantry. Units sent to counter-attack were cavalry and regular tanks. I kept none of the cities I conquered, razing them all; reinforcements coming in a steady stream from my island. I was constantly on the offensive, stopping only to allow some units to heal, although I simply had enough units such that when 5 were injured, 10 more took their place in the offensive. Every unit that attacked my warriors were triumphant, save a few, but that didn't matter. When the AI sent 4 cavalry against my stack of 20-30 warriors, they could only kill 4 before I could counter and slowly kill them all. Out of that original stack, half would survive to move on and be reinforced.

The whole point was to prove whether tech made any real difference in combat victory and if the current combat system allowed such an unbelievable strategy as the one I employed to be viable. I think that my ability simply swarm over much more advanced troops proved that point rather well. As for my only being able to practice it against a AI, well, you figure out a way to play Civ3 multiplayer and let me know. My views on FP have been stated, and doing so again is pointless.

As for 'convincing' you WhiteElephants, don't over-estimate your importance. This was not done for yours, nor anyone else's, benefit apart from my own. I posted the results for others to use in their points. And as for what 'we' can conclude about a battle vs an AI...whether or not it's the AI is moot: numbers are numbers are numbers, odds are odds are odds.

[Monoriu]

Re: Looking at data

My position:

1. The current combat system is not broken. I haven't experienced any of the "spearmen killing tanks thing" because a) I haven't got such a tech lead and b) my tanks always defeat the AI's spearmen (maybe because I always bombard them to 1 health before attacking?)

2. You have no right to complain if you do stupid things like trying to defend a city with cavalry against longbowmen or make an invasion force with 3 units in the modern age.

3. The current combat system is better than all other previous civ combat system, because it forces you to use combined arms, attack in sufficient numbers, and use good tactical sense. Any changes to the combat system should retain those qualities.

4. Making 10, 15, 20 tanks, blindly rush them forward should NOT be a valid tactic even if against a stone age opponent.

5. Can the current combat system be improved? YES, YES, YES. Heck I am playing the game too, OF COURSE I want an even better game. If you can come up with good suggestions, why not? Have I made myself clear?

6. Bombarding occasionally kills, yes I think that's a good idea. Aircraft always killing ships? That's a bad idea, why then do you want ships?

7. The AI SHOULD upgrade all its obsolete units.

8. If you don't like the way it is, edit the rules.

9. FP/HP. Explain to me why increasing the att./def. values of modern units will not yield the same result.

10. Do I mind adding/subtracting some att./def. points here or there to improve the combat system? NO. If you have a specific suggestion to improve the gaem, by all means post it. "let's increase the attack value of tanks by 2 because......" is fine, "THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS BROKEN BECAUSE MY 1 HEALTH TANK WAS KILLED BY LONGBOWMEN" is NOT acceptable.

11. Realism vs fun. Both are good, but fun comes first. I refuse to judge a game feature based on realism alone. Graphics and names are fine, but don't tell me this or that unit should have 10, 20 values in attack because so and so did this in history. If you really want realism, edit the rules in your games, I respect your choice.

[GePap]

Re: Re: It is modeled

Originally posted by n.c.
Perhaps, but he was lucky enough to take down an empire. The worst unbalanced scenarios dreamed up by Firaxis defenders are nothing compared to what he did (even before the germs).

Pizarro hapened to come accross a civ in civil war, and while he was able to take out one of the contenders through force and surprise (something not yet modeled in civ) he captured the other through guile (also not modeled in civ). Let me add that unlike Cortez, Pizarro did not conquert the Inca in a few Years. It took decades of fighting for the Spaniards to destroy all pockets of Inca resistence and they were able to do this (and Cortez able to do what he did) because large numbers of native leaders hated thier local overlords enough to side with the Spaniards (the majority of the troops use to destroy the Inca and aztec were-inca and aztec). Perhaps unfortunitely (or fotunitelly if you were playing the Inca), something as complex as the conquest of the americas and all the politics,deceit, hate, plague,and so forth that went into making these things possible have yet to be modeled, by either any game, or any academic for that matter.

[n.c.]

Re: Re: Looking at data

1. The current combat system is not broken. I haven't experienced any of the "spearmen killing tanks thing"

In your opinion. Many people have.

2. You have no right to complain if you do stupid things

Of course people can complain. Why do you care? Heck, the complaint you allude to has given you an excellent out-of-context rejoinder.

3. The current combat system is better . . . because it forces you to use combined arms, attack in sufficient numbers, and use good tactical sense.

Explain how these were not present in SMAC. I sure as heck used them.

4. Making 10, 15, 20 tanks, blindly rush them forward should NOT be a valid tactic even if against a stone age opponent.

Why not? Because you wouldn't enjoy it? Are you not simply assuming a set of standards?

5. If you can come up with good suggestions, why not? Have I made myself clear?

Make it like SMAC (with a few tweaks), which we have said many times. Apparently we are not being clear.

7. The AI SHOULD upgrade all its obsolete units

and yet it doesn't always do so. Whatever you do, please don't describe that as "broken."

8. If you don't like the way it is, edit the rules.

Great. Tell me how to make it like SMAC.

9. FP/HP. Explain to me why increasing the att./def. values of modern units will not yield the same result.

See the many posts above on this subject.

10. "THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS BROKEN BECAUSE MY 1 HEALTH TANK WAS KILLED BY LONGBOWMEN" is NOT acceptable.

Who said this? Seriously!

11. Realism vs fun. Both are good, but fun comes first.

Realism is fun. (Hey, if your standards/preferences can be stated as undisputed truths then so can mine.) If you want balance why avoid the possibility that it can be achieved without unrealistic results? Or worst-case, why can't we have a realistic game that you edit to make more fun. that would be easier that what you are asking us to to (since your suggestions are essentially impossible).

[GePap]

Re: Re: Looking at data

Originally posted by Monoriu
My position:

1. The current combat system is not broken. I haven't experienced any of the "spearmen killing tanks thing" because a) I haven't got such a tech lead and b) my tanks always defeat the AI's spearmen (maybe because I always bombard them to 1 health before attacking?)

Again, as i said, my poosition is not based on experience (i have had the same experiences as you) but principle

2. You have no right to complain if you do stupid things like trying to defend a city with cavalry against longbowmen or make an invasion force with 3 units in the modern age.

No one, as far as i know, ever said they did either of these things. These are your persuptions.

3. The current combat system is better than all other previous civ combat system, because it forces you to use combined arms, attack in sufficient numbers, and use good tactical sense. Any changes to the combat system should retain those qualities.

Adding FP would not make combined arms less usefull, especially against opponents also in the industrial age or modern age.

4. Making 10, 15, 20 tanks, blindly rush them forward should NOT be a valid tactic even if against a stone age opponent.

Why not? It cost me 1000 to 2000 shields to make those tanks, certainly more than the entire production output of some stone age civ. It is not pretty, not fair, but it would work nonetheless against such technologically backwards foes.

5. Can the current combat system be improved? YES, YES, YES. Heck I am playing the game too, OF COURSE I want an even better game. If you can come up with good suggestions, why not? Have I made myself clear?

6. Bombarding occasionally kills, yes I think that's a good idea. Aircraft always killing ships? That's a bad idea, why then do you want ships?

Never said all the time. If you ask me, it should be 1/10 for cannon, ironclads and frigates, 1/5 for bombers, arty, fighters, battleships, and destoryers (this is of course if the attack would destroy all the remaining hit points), 1/4 for jets , and 1/3 for units with precision attack.
7. The AI SHOULD upgrade all its obsolete units.

YES, YES, YES

8. If you don't like the way it is, edit the rules.

I'm lazy, andd it's more fun to post

9. FP/HP. Explain to me why increasing the att./def. values of modern units will not yield the same result.

This has been done in other posts by persons more in tune than me with statistics. My laymens argument is this. Take two units. the attacker will have att2, defender 1. Give def FP 2. In three turn attacker should hit twice, defender once. But both took same damage. Now change def to 2 but FP 1. Now its 50/50. Lets say the attacker hit twice again, thought it is as likely that def did also. The amount of damage is not the same at all- one unit suffered 2 HP, the other 1 HP. So, 2 def was not the same as 1 def with 2FP. Why such an analysis should change so drastically with much higer numbers I can not fathom (again, others have done far better math than I, so look towards them.

10. Do I mind adding/subtracting some att./def. points here or there to improve the combat system? NO. If you have a specific suggestion to improve the gaem, by all means post it. "let's increase the attack value of tanks by 2 because......" is fine, "THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS BROKEN BECAUSE MY 1 HEALTH TANK WAS KILLED BY LONGBOWMEN" is NOT acceptable.

11. Realism vs fun. Both are good, but fun comes first. I refuse to judge a game feature based on realism alone. Graphics and names are fine, but don't tell me this or that unit should have 10, 20 values in attack because so and so did this in history. If you really want realism, edit the rules in your games, I respect your choice.

I am not asking to change the specific att/def values. I am asking for the equations ruling the eventual outcome to be changed. This can't be done witht the editor.

[WhiteElephants]

Re: From a cold, dark place...

Originally posted by GePap
I ask you WhiteElephant to address the gist of my argument.

OK.

Why should I, or would I, expend the time and effort necessary to gain units above those of ancient times if they are many times not siginificantly better than what was there before?

Because you know that the more modern units are more capable of offense and defense.

This is not an issue of 'whinning' nor inability to 'change strategy', this is an issue of gameplay. We have been given multiple win scenerios, most peaceful, and yet, according to those that like the system as is, we have to amass huge armies to have a chance to do anything, including vs. those poor saps who because of their own incompetence, got themselves stuck before the industrial age (again, after nationalism is discovered, the A.I. should upgrade ALL it's infantry units!).

I never claimed you were a whinner and you don't have to build a massive army unless you intend to conquer someone's terrirtory and I'm fine with the AI upgrading all it's units.

I then, it seems, according to this line of arguement, spend my resources and build time mostly on units, and not all those toehgr things i may want to build. Heck, what if I want to use espionage but need 25k to do anything, if i need to amass 300 units to survive then how will I have 25k to spend? This system limits players in many wyas which were unnecessary.

No one suggested you needed 300 units to survive, but instead suggested you build many (not neccessarily 300) units to conquer another civ.

I guess a great question to ask you and all other defenders of the current system is this: Did you dislike FP? If the Fixaris people had kept those concepts and added what they added, would you feel the combat system broken? In fact, why was FP added to Civ2 in the first place? Heck, on the whole attack, defend bit Civ1 was the same, if just with one HP-but in theory the percentages should work the same, no?

I don't really feel there is a need for fire power when you can increase/decrease attack/defense and get nearly the identical results. Because there is no fire power there's no need for vast amounts of hit points.

Also, if you like the system, why do you seem to agree with Elrad, whose proposal would make it possible for me and others refusing to 'change strategy' ignore combined arms and carry our old tank blizts?

I hardly think giving every unit ten hit points is going to allow you to ignore combined arms, it would simply even out the averages. There would be less "luck" involved in combat where weak units rely on a couple of lucky hits to finish off their opponent. I didn't say I would definetely support that changes as I would have to consider the side effects more indepth. I feel that the way morale worked by modifying offense/defense worked fine.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stone.

Cute.

Let me get this straight. The gist of your arguement is that you feel it's a waste of time to move up the tech tree and build more expensive units that, in your opinion, aren't worth the effort based on your perception of realism, yet you're fine with a musketmen holding off a tank column. Fine. That can be a strategy all it's own.

I've grown rather weary of the arguement (or maybe I'm just tired today), but I think the editor allows you to tweak the attack and defense which is what you're going to have to settle for, for now.

(Note: From a realists point of view just how much more likely is a musketmen going to be able to hold off a tank column as opposed to a spearmen? What, 1% more likely? 3%? 5%?)

[GePap]

Sorry

The last post did not come out as I had planned (hey, I'm only a chieftain ) but I think it is not hard to note that my comments are within the 'quoted' area. Again, sorry.

[Monoriu]

quote:

1. The current combat system is not broken. I haven't experienced any of the "spearmen killing tanks thing"

In your opinion. Many people have.


Not my opinion, my experience. I dare say that a lot of the people who have experienced that have done something wrong.

quote:

2. You have no right to complain if you do stupid things

Of course people can complain. Why do you care? Heck, the complaint you allude to has given you an excellent out-of-context rejoinder.

Those people can complain, but they have no ground to complain. Yes, you are right, the more those people complain, the worse your position look.

quote:

3. The current combat system is better . . . because it forces you to use combined arms, attack in sufficient numbers, and use good tactical sense.

Explain how these were not present in SMAC. I sure as heck used them.

But the current system forces you to use the even more. I like it, you don't, too bad.


quote:

4. Making 10, 15, 20 tanks, blindly rush them forward should NOT be a valid tactic even if against a stone age opponent.

Why not? Because you wouldn't enjoy it? Are you not simply assuming a set of standards?


Yes I am, we all are. I prefer the current way, Firaxis agrees with me, and we are both happy.

quote:

5. If you can come up with good suggestions, why not? Have I made myself clear?

Make it like SMAC (with a few tweaks), which we have said many times. Apparently we are not being clear.


No, you are not clear enough, SMAC and civ 3 are very different games, you gotta be a lot more specific.

quote:

7. The AI SHOULD upgrade all its obsolete units

and yet it doesn't always do so. Whatever you do, please don't describe that as "broken."


By your standards nothing is not broken.

quote:

8. If you don't like the way it is, edit the rules.

Great. Tell me how to make it like SMAC.


If you like SMAC so much, go play it.


quote:

9. FP/HP. Explain to me why increasing the att./def. values of modern units will not yield the same result.

See the many posts above on this subject.


I don't buy them.

quote:

10. "THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS BROKEN BECAUSE MY 1 HEALTH TANK WAS KILLED BY LONGBOWMEN" is NOT acceptable.

Who said this? Seriously!

I was making a hypothetical example to make a point, and you knew it. Nobody have said "let's increase the att. value of tanks by 2 because......" either.

quote:

11. Realism vs fun. Both are good, but fun comes first.

Realism is fun. (Hey, if your standards/preferences can be stated as undisputed truths then so can mine.) If you want balance why avoid the possibility that it can be achieved without unrealistic results? Or worst-case, why can't we have a realistic game that you edit to make more fun. that would be easier that what you are asking us to to (since your suggestions are essentially impossible).


Firaxis has decided that fun is more important than realism, that's what this game is about. If you don't like it, don't play it. I am enjoying it and I am happy

[WhiteElephants]

Re: Forgive Me

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
As for 'convincing' you WhiteElephants, don't over-estimate your importance. This was not done for yours, nor anyone else's, benefit apart from my own. I posted the results for others to use in their points. And as for what 'we' can conclude about a battle vs an AI...whether or not it's the AI is moot: numbers are numbers are numbers, odds are odds are odds.

Here's a deal. When you stop over-estimating the importance of your test I'll stop over-estimating my importance. Deal?