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

[Monoriu]

Re: Any solutions for unbalanced combat?

Originally posted by Nuke gay whales
(Copy of post)

There have been too many complaints about advanced units losing battles to vastly inferior units, which is not conducive to fair play - especially when units like tanks could just run over units like spearmen (I would love to hear the sound effect for that!)

But that is not the issue. We ALL know that a tank being defeated by a spearman makes no sense, so there is no point arguing in circles about it. Why don't we try and come up with a solution instead?

I strongly think that there should be a "non-competition" factor when certain units battle each other. If there is a two age period difference between the units, the inferior unit automatically surrenders and returns to their side of the border - with the option for the superior forces to wipe out the unit instead of allowing them to retreat, with a political penalty imposed by the rest of the world.

I know that this is not something that can be "patched", but I like the sound of this type of combat system better than the existing one... . I do not enjoy the careful building of a modern army after advancing ahead of my enemies in the science race just to have my tanks lose a fight against pikemen.

Any other suggested solutions out there?

Edit your game. Make your tanks or mech. inf. 3 times or 4 times as powerful. They won't be invincible against ancient units, but it'll be close.

[Nuke gay whales]

Re: Re: Any solutions for unbalanced combat?

Originally posted by Monoriu

Edit your game. Make your tanks or mech. inf. 3 times or 4 times as powerful. They won't be invincible against ancient units, but it'll be close.

Okay... but this would also mean that tanks are that much more powerful than infantry/rifemen etc., which would not be right. You could edit ALL the units in each age period, but this seems to be just asking for trouble. I would prefer to see a change in the coding, but... I don't think that this will happen any time soon, if ever. I have changed a few of the units to what I feel is more realistic:

- all navy more powerful (especially subs) with destroyers given more range
- ability for cruisers to carry and fire missiles
- all artillery units more powerful
- explorer available once map making is discovered
- air units MUCH more powerful (wars are won by air superiority alone) with increased range (max is only 8 )
- Pirates get to use privateers
- Armies can unload so that you can upgrade units (don't know if this works yet)
- etc.

My point is while you CAN edit the game to your own personal preferences, SOME things should be fixed by the game developers due to the need to change the game's code - unless there is another solution that would made more sense without the need to edit the code - but I am still not sure there is a good, simple solution...

Any one else?

[Grumbold]

Re: Any solutions for unbalanced combat?

Originally posted by Nuke gay whales
(Copy of post)
...
But that is not the issue. We ALL know that a tank being defeated by a spearman makes no sense, so there is no point arguing in circles about it. Why don't we try and come up with a solution instead?
...
Any other suggested solutions out there?

(partial copy of post)
FACT: An italian armored column WAS destroyed by tribal infantry armed with brains, knives, brushwood, torches and makeshift rams made from railroad sleepers and treetrunks. But dont let historical events disturb your prejudice that the US 1st Armored is invulnerable to anything more low-tech than Anti Tank rockets. In fact the most low-tech thing capable of rendering tanks and motorized infantry almost completely useless is .... mud.

[Akka]

Originally posted by zapperio


What is more pointless is not reading posts before shooting off your top.

Remember this?



hmm, could it be I was addressing something else then?

My point is that it is pointless to discuss further changes to the combat system without taking the resource system into consideration, regardless whether you think the system should serve the combat or not as it apparently doesn't.

Zap

Ok, seems that I lost a good occasion to shut my big mouth

Incidentally, the extra attack was a potentially infinite set of extra attacks since it would repeat provide the unit continued to take no damage.

I don't feel good about the repetitive attacks. Don't feel it would be efficient to solve the underpower of modern units, and it's too random, while the game is already a little too much into randomness...

I wouldn't object too much except you are also making units one era or even 1 tech behind significantly weaker too.

Units one era back SHOULD be weaker. Not overwhelming weaker, but weaker anyway.
Let's be serious, if you have 1 tech less than your ennemy, you'll catch him in 2-3 turns, 5 at most. If he's able to start producing units, bring them to your borders, destroy your entire army here and invade and conquer your territory in this set of time, it means that you had already screwed it up.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Units one era back SHOULD be weaker. Not overwhelming weaker, but weaker anyway.
Let's be serious, if you have 1 tech less than your enemy, you'll catch him in 2-3 turns, 5 at most. If he's able to start producing units, bring them to your borders, destroy your entire army here and invade and conquer your territory in this set of time, it means that you had already screwed it up.

Its called an upgrade button and railroads. Quite enough for them to reach, assault, capture and expand beyond every single one of your border cities. If you no longer need to rely on 1mp artillery to back you up, tank waves can achieve a two city depth overrun in 5 turns. Just have every city with pre-invested production points ready to switch over on the turn you make the discovery. While the AI may be too dumb to do it, in MP this WILL happen.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Grumbold


Its called an upgrade button and railroads. Quite enough for them to reach, assault, capture and expand beyond every single one of your border cities. If you no longer need to rely on 1mp artillery to back you up, tank waves can achieve a two city depth overrun in 5 turns. Just have every city with pre-invested production points ready to switch over on the turn you make the discovery. While the AI may be too dumb to do it, in MP this WILL happen.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Give me an example where having 1 HP more and being 1 tech ahead will give you an overwhelming advantage compared to having only 1 tech more.

You look like caring more about contradicting than to think five minutes about if really the change would have such a big impact.

[Grumbold]

double post

[Grumbold]

triple post

[Grumbold]

By the same token I could accuse you of being so convinced it needs changing that you are ignoring the full ramifications but that would just make us both look equally petty.

Units already get dramatically stronger in later eras, with the AF leaping from 4 to 6 then 16 and 24. That gives you very good odds against anything except extreme defenses, where you always have the option to bomb them to bits first.

If you go back a page or so I have already shown that +1 HP has an immediate impact in excess of 25%, which is enough on its own to give an unsupported tank rush a good run for its money considering most towns will not have more than 1-2 modern defenders. The current rules encourage you to do it properly, with artillery attacks followed by elite force assaults to crack hard defensive positions like cities and still take a rare casualty when doing so.

[Venger]

Re: Re: Any solutions for unbalanced combat?

Originally posted by Grumbold


(partial copy of post)
FACT: An italian armored column WAS destroyed by tribal infantry armed with brains, knives, brushwood, torches and makeshift rams made from railroad sleepers and treetrunks. But dont let historical events disturb your prejudice that the US 1st Armored is invulnerable to anything more low-tech than Anti Tank rockets. In fact the most low-tech thing capable of rendering tanks and motorized infantry almost completely useless is .... mud.

FACT: The Italian 'tanks' used during the Ethiopian war were turretless, armed only with a pair of machine guns in the front hull; no main gun, no ability to fire at anything but what was directly in front of them. It was possibly the worst tank ever used in action.

FACT: A troop of 13 CV.33s was caught in a narrow strip of road, where they couldn't turn around to use their guns, and some Ethiopians rushed them, poured gasoline over them, and set them on fire. Presumably low tech gasoline. 'Tech' is another word for 'octane' right?

FACT: The Ethiopians still lost the war.

FACT: Tanks sometimes get stuck in mud; they don't disolve in it.

A special thanks to orc4hire, who couldn't be here to post this today, so I will be posting it here for him...

Venger

[Grumbold]

Re: Re: Re: Any solutions for unbalanced combat?

Originally posted by Venger


FACT: The Italian 'tanks' used during the Ethiopian war were turretless, armed only with a pair of machine guns in the front hull; no main gun, no ability to fire at anything but what was directly in front of them. It was possibly the worst tank ever used in action.

FACT: A troop of 13 CV.33s was caught in a narrow strip of road, where they couldn't turn around to use their guns, and some Ethiopians rushed them, poured gasoline over them, and set them on fire. Presumably low tech gasoline. 'Tech' is another word for 'octane' right?

FACT: The Ethiopians still lost the war.

FACT: Tanks sometimes get stuck in mud; they don't disolve in it.

A special thanks to orc4hire, who couldn't be here to post this today, so I will be posting it here for him...

Venger

Ahh, finally someone does some research, although that was not the incident I was referring to where the rams were used. So now we accept tanks can be destroyed by "tribal" infantry, but only bad non-american ones. Well, thats a start. Perhaps orc4hire can enlighten you about the (then) state of the art german tank columns that got totally bogged down in Russian mud and destroyed by horse riding sabre and carbine cossacks, or the others that froze up in the winter so their crews froze too because the cavalry would ride down any who tried to escape. Then we can move on to even more recent examples. A tank is just a lump of metal. Used badly or in the wrong environment (pretty much anything except open plains on a clear day) can easily be destroyed by an enemy that employs brains instead of a suicide charge.

[Nuke gay whales]

Re: Re: Any solutions for unbalanced combat?

Originally posted by Grumbold

(partial copy of post)
FACT: An italian armored column WAS destroyed by tribal infantry armed with brains, knives, brushwood, torches and makeshift rams made from railroad sleepers and treetrunks. But dont let historical events disturb your prejudice that the US 1st Armored is invulnerable to anything more low-tech than Anti Tank rockets. In fact the most low-tech thing capable of rendering tanks and motorized infantry almost completely useless is .... mud.

Now THAT is funny. I bet a few people lost their command over that one - but it was only an Italian armored column after all...

Anyway, you could always argue the exception to the rule, but that does not get us anywhere. If it was only on rare occasions that this happened in the game then I am sure that we would not be discussing this problem. Just as if it was common for tribal infantry to defeat armored columns, then I am sure the army would re-think the whole concept of armored divisions. Obviously, armored divisions were extremely successful, and that is why they have made up the backbone of modern armies for the last 50 years or so (I believe that the Air Force rules the battlefield today).

I agree that mud was a problem for the early tanks - as was hills, streams, snow, etc. - which was why many the early tanks were quickly re-tooled as technology advanced. The fact remains that the potential of the tank was understood, and they learnt the hard lessons taught by failure fairly quickly. The tanks represented in the game are NOT these very early tanks like at the end of WW I, but are later tanks like those used in WW II.

[MKSheppard]

Originally posted by uXs


No you don't. The only thing you want is a horribly unbalanced game where the first guy who gets guns wins.

uXs

Man, are you stupid.

"Thank God we have the Maxim and they do not!"
-attributed to British Colonial Officers - Late 19th Century....

The early rifle units (like musketmen) could be defeated
by primitive units, but when you get riflemen, and then later,
infantry, well........the natives w/out guns are going to
get screwed royally.....

[orc4hire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Any solutions for unbalanced combat?

Originally posted by Grumbold


Ahh, finally someone does some research, although that was not the incident I was referring to where the rams were used. So now we accept tanks can be destroyed by "tribal" infantry, but only bad non-american ones. Well, thats a start. Perhaps orc4hire can enlighten you about the (then) state of the art german tank columns that got totally bogged down in Russian mud and destroyed by horse riding sabre and carbine cossacks, or the others that froze up in the winter so their crews froze too because the cavalry would ride down any who tried to escape. Then we can move on to even more recent examples. A tank is just a lump of metal. Used badly or in the wrong environment (pretty much anything except open plains on a clear day) can easily be destroyed by an enemy that employs brains instead of a suicide charge.

Grumbold, I'm afraid you're missing the point. Yes, relatively primitive field-expedients can occasionally destroy a tank or two(usually involving gasoline, though when you're talking about a 'tank' that only weighs in at 5400 pounds and is notably lacking in armor or armament you may be able to do the job with a pipe wrench). But unless the Armor units in Civ represent Bolos, based on the amount of resources involved in creating the unit we've got to be talking at least a regiment. That is, a minimum of 100-200 tanks. Find me an incident where, at any time or place in the 85 years tanks have been in use, an entire, full strength, regiment was wiped out by an opponent using nothing that wouldn't have been available in, say, 1300AD.

The incident with the Ethiopians catching an Italian 'tank' (in quotes because they weren't really tanks, having no turret, and being armed only with a single machine gun; tankettes, really, and barely that) company by surprise and wiping it out is the equivalent of an attacking armor unit losing a hit point or two while wiping out the defending phalanx. I don't believe that anyone has argued that advanced units should never be _damaged_ by more primitive units, just that in Civ 3, in a 1 on 1 fight, the primitive unit now tends to win more often than seems reasonable. 1 legion should never defeat a full strength rifleman unit, for example... 5 or 6 legions, however, may very well do so.

[mmike87]

I too am sometimes frustrated by combat in Civ3. However, although I agree that some things need or could use some tweaking, let me point out one thing.

Civ3 is a game. Ity plays like a board game, and that's OK. No where do I recall Civ3 claiming to be a simulation of warfare. This is sort of like complaining in Monopoly that there is no way Park Place would really sell for $350. It's not really relevant.

Perhaps if Civ3 did not use the names of real military items things would be better. I know darn well the F-15 with external FAST tanks has a combat radius of well over 1000 or more miles. This is not modeled in the game. The AEGIS cruiser DOES carry cruise missiles in real life, but not in the game. I can go on.

You have two options. 1) Play it as it is 2) Edit the rules. That's the one thing I always LOVED about Civ is that the rules were editable. You can really play the game any darn way you want to, within limits. Want to make the tank invincible, do it. Why does it have to be an official mod? So people will not think you're a wuss or something? Who cares.

I editied my rules and reduced curruption and war discontent a little bit. I thought they were a tad high. I don't care what people think, I enjoy the game more now and I am happy with the rules as I have edited them.

Edit the rules until you are happy and then play the game. Civ3 is INSPIRED by history - it is NOT an episode of the History Channel.