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

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
...tactical organization & coordination stuff is "technology", too, in the Civ sense...

I guess this is where I fundamentally disagree with the "modern units must always win" supporters. Once adapted to the nature of modern warfare and trained appropriately, minimally equipped infantry can be surprisingly effective. Modern armies have been completely changing their command and control systems in order to counter the modern guerilla warfare that proved so effective in several theatres against their high tech but rigid armies since WWII.

If you look at Civ and see a pike unit that will march onto the battlefield in tight formation with big pointy sticks to oppose the machine gunners they have been living next door to - or even fighting - for the last century then I can understand why you want them to lose. Every time. Despite mud, fog, night ambush or anything else. What I see is a bunch of troops who will have adapted fast but be using low-tech tools to get the job done. You don't need to have discovered the tank in order to develop and employ anti-tank tactics. Rather than face the enemy in open battle, over the course of the extended period a turn represents they will be using all the tricks at their disposal to inflict harm on the enemy. If you want to talk real life comparisons, they'll have smuggled AK47's and land mines no matter how stone-age their own country might be or tight an embargo you try to put on them.

[woody]

Originally posted by Grumbold If you look at Civ and see a pike unit that will march onto the battlefield in tight formation with big pointy sticks to oppose the machine gunners they have been living next door to - or even fighting - for the last century then I can understand why you want them to lose. Every time. Despite mud, fog, night ambush or anything else. What I see is a bunch of troops who will have adapted fast but be using low-tech tools to get the job done. You don't need to have discovered the tank in order to develop and employ anti-tank tactics. Rather than face the enemy in open battle, over the course of the extended period a turn represents they will be using all the tricks at their disposal to inflict harm on the enemy. If you want to talk real life comparisons, they'll have smuggled AK47's and land mines no matter how stone-age their own country might be or tight an embargo you try to put on them.

They don't even need modern weapons. They could use their pointy sticks to lay over pits duggen into the ground. With a bit of camoflage, a tank could fall into the pit. The pikemen could then bury the tank, killing the driver inside.

It only takes a little amount of imagination to come up with ideas on how modern tanks could lose 1% of the time to guys with spears. Just a little! The Civ3 haters can't even come up with that small amount of imagination. Sad.

[WhiteElephants]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't let the big numbers scare you

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Ok. I spent several posts ONLY to try to explain you that it's NOT THE SAME AT ALL. What it means is either :
- you don't read my posts
- you're mentally challenged and don't understand them
- you're basically trolling

You have yet to mathematically explain the difference. You can tell me there different all day long, you can attempt to belittle my arguement by claiming it is a troll, and you can even try to degrade me with childish insults, but the one thing you've failed to do was prove mathematically, within the bounds of practicality, how a unit with more fire power stastically differs from a unit with more attack.

The only instance you can refer to where there are fundemental differences is in the case of a unit with fire power that is equal, if not more than, the amount of hit points the unit he is attack has. I don't feel this quantifies for a dramatic change in the combat system to appease this one request for an extremely unstrategic luck of the die unit.

[Venger]

Originally posted by woody
They don't even need modern weapons. They could use their pointy sticks to lay over pits duggen into the ground. With a bit of camoflage, a tank could fall into the pit. The pikemen could then bury the tank, killing the driver inside.

Why do you insist on A-Team or McGyver combat models?

It only takes a little amount of imagination to come up with ideas on how modern tanks could lose 1% of the time to guys with spears. Just a little! The Civ3 haters can't even come up with that small amount of imagination. Sad.

Who hates Civ3? Repeating a false assertion won't make it right...

Venger

[karlmarx9001]

I didn't include the cost of research in my tank vs. warrior analysis because I couldn't come up with a good way to discount the side benefits to researching technology. You get lots of other stuff you need to actually win the game from technology, so you can't just claim the full cost of researching up to tanks against them. I can't imagine a zero-technology civ that would be able to support 561 warriors, for example.

Anyway, to the 561 warriors vs. 47 tanks example:

'This allocates just under 12 warriors per tank. Assuming the tanks strike first, 47 of them kill two warriors each without trouble. Each tank has a 77% chance to take no damage in one attack, and a 59% chance to take no damage in two attacks. Therefore, of the total 47*4 = 188 hit points that the tank army contains, on average and at minimum (since 'damaged' results include results where the tank takes 2, 3, or 4 points of damage), 58 of them are lost in the attack phase. Then the warriors counter attack. There are now only 467 warriors. When a warrior attacks, a tank has only a 65% chance of escaping without damage. Therefore, 467 attacking warriors do a total of 163 damage to the tanks' remaining pool of 130. However, we are neglecting two important conditions here. First, the possibility that one of the 561 warriors deals two or more damage. We will assume the chance is two percent, combining attacking and defending percentages. With two percent of the warriors dealing two damage, we gain 11 points of damage to raise the total to 174. Then, we consider the probability of the tanks promoting to elite, which has a chance of 98%, meaning that 46 tanks promote, raising their hit points to 176.'

The math is correct, but one of your starting assumptions is way off:

'Furthermore, let's assume that each side will have enough banked gold to maintain their army for a period of twenty turns.'

That's 10,000 gold for the warriors vs. 1000 gold for the tanks. *Of course* if you give the warrior side 9000 free gold they'll win! If you just bought more tanks with the 9000 extra upkeep money, that roughly doubles the size of their tank army, and they'll have about 40 tanks left after the warriors attack.

Also, you can't seriously factor the entire cost of getting far enough up the tech tree to produce tanks into the cost of the tanks themselves; the empire that gets all the way to the industrial age will able to far, far outproduce one that didn't research at all and spent the money on warriors. As just a quick example, the extra production you'd get from researching railroads along the way will probably let you add another 40 tanks or so. This is going off the rails into entire-game speculation land. As a summary:

An equal "cost" of tanks are at least twice as effective as an equal "cost" of warriors. I suspect the multiplier is much, much higher, but it's hard to properly discount the side benefits of the technology you research to get to tanks.

The gain from technology is interesting, now that I look at it. Railroads increase the factors of production of any given square by about 25%, assuming 2 food/1 production/1 trade per square. A factory + coal plant combo costs 360 and doubles production, resulting in somewhere around another 40 tanks if you use part of your 4600 production for 46 tanks to build those two buildings before starting your tanks. Aquaducts increase a cities FOPs by at least 25%, probably more. Those are the easy ones, too; it wouldn't surprise me if an industrial era city is at least 2.5 times as productive as a stone age one, all else being equal.

[karlmarx9001]

Another bit I forgot: comparing attack vs. defense like this without terrain is a bit silly, considering the way the game is actually played. I'd guess the average defense bonus units have, weighted for frequency, across the game when I play is somewhere between 10 and 50%, depending on how frequent you think city attacks are.

[karlmarx9001]

A thought: figuring out how effective warriors will be at killing tanks in the open isn't an evaluation of the game balance, or the combat system in general, or even realism; it's an evaluation of how warriors will fare against tanks that are being misused (that is, tanks defending). If you're going by the realism standard, modern militaries don't buy tanks and leave them parked defending places; there's better ways to defend. If you're using the gameplay balance standard, you shouldn't defend with units not meant to defend.

A more accurate measurement, for both realism and game balance, would be to look at warriors assaulting infantry, which cost 10% and have a 50% higher defense value. Even comparing a 2 to 1 or 1 to 1 tank/infantry mix would be more useful.

Either of those, of course, would be a much better deal than just tanks, going off the previous analysis (where tanks are 50% better if you factor the entire tech cost to research them into the purchase price).

Civilization abstracts out the movement part of post-stone age combat (that is, everything past horseman) through the "this unit is good at attacking and moving but lousy at defense" shorthand. The system isn't that bad, it just gets kind of fuzzy when comparing the extremes. Tweaking firepower, hit points, and the like won't remove this, as it's fundamental to the design that movement units will suck on defense.

[Sze]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I guess this is where I fundamentally disagree with the "modern units must always win" supporters. Once adapted to the nature of modern warfare and trained appropriately, minimally equipped infantry can be surprisingly effective. Modern armies have been completely changing their command and control systems in order to counter the modern guerilla warfare that proved so effective in several theatres against their high tech but rigid armies since WWII.

If you look at Civ and see a pike unit that will march onto the battlefield in tight formation with big pointy sticks to oppose the machine gunners they have been living next door to - or even fighting - for the last century then I can understand why you want them to lose. Every time. Despite mud, fog, night ambush or anything else. What I see is a bunch of troops who will have adapted fast but be using low-tech tools to get the job done. You don't need to have discovered the tank in order to develop and employ anti-tank tactics. Rather than face the enemy in open battle, over the course of the extended period a turn represents they will be using all the tricks at their disposal to inflict harm on the enemy. If you want to talk real life comparisons, they'll have smuggled AK47's and land mines no matter how stone-age their own country might be or tight an embargo you try to put on them.

You may want to check what side of the argument you're on. What you're saying is that ancient units gain more battlefield 'clout' or 'savvy' when the enemy forces get more technologically advanced for a cost of zero. That's precisely what is wrong with the combat system, ancient units are too powerful in comparison with the amount of research they require.

The problem with not having HP/FP is not necessarily losing fights outright, although that is frustrating; it's getting your high-tech units damaged so frequently by mediocre units. Damaged units waste several turns returning to a home city, repairing, and redeploying. The Egyptians are currently kicking my butt on my coast with a bunch of ironclads vs. my battleships. I can only take out one ot two before I lose 3 turns to repairing them. I'll do better if I stop building battleships and start building ironclads and that's just wrong. Why did I waste my time researching batleships?

[Sevorak]

'Furthermore, let's assume that each side will have enough banked gold to maintain their army for a period of twenty turns.'

Sorry, bad wording there. I didn't mean adding any extra gold. I meant, assume that out of the warriors' 13,809 gold advantage, they reserve enough in order to maintain their army for 20 turns. You can see this in the math where I kick off 9,460 for twenty turns of upkeep for the warriors and where I knock off only 940 for the tanks, resulting in a final modifier of +5,289 for the warriors. No one's getting extra gold. All clear now?

Also, you can't seriously factor the entire cost of getting far enough up the tech tree to produce tanks into the cost of the tanks themselves; the empire that gets all the way to the industrial age will able to far, far outproduce one that didn't research at all and spent the money on warriors. As just a quick example, the extra production you'd get from researching railroads along the way will probably let you add another 40 tanks or so. This is going off the rails into entire-game speculation land.

Precisely my point! I agree completely. Then you have to factor in the tile penalty or bonus from being in different forms of government, then factor in the tech costs for researching those forms of government, then add in the effects of six turns of revolution each, unless it's religious, in which case you have to fiddle with that too. Oops, just got more complicated. It IS off the rails in entire-game speculation land, and you and I could spit numbers at each other from here to eternity and never prove a thing Besides, I don't mind the combat system as it is, anyway, so my patience would run out early

The only way this is ever going to get properly tested is in a thousand or so MP games, and who's up for that? Not me, for sure, even assuming MP shows up sometime soon. Maybe there is a universal way to compare units, but if there is, it certainly won't be short enough to fit in a forum post

-Sev

[The Rook]

Sorry, this thread is just too long to read the whole thing, but I'd like to add something.

I think once a Civ enters into the industrial age, all of his preindustrial units should automatically be upgraded to Militia units. These units represent the rag-tag armies of 3rd world nations. They should fall somewhere inbetween Musketeers and Riflemen. No nation today uses spearmen, even the most backward of nations has some kind of small arms, and these guys HAVE taken out tanks, helos, and even modern warships.

When my modern tank gets beaten by some archer from ancient time, it's my assumption, that somebody supplied them with anti-tank weapons.

[Venger]

A decent enough suggestion, but this upgrade should still require a cost of some level - either 10 shields per unit, even 10 gold per unit, should be extracted, period. Or, at least the Civ has the option to upgrade, so if they don't have the money, they can get the money, for the upgrade.

Militia - 4/4/1.

Venger

[The Rook]

Originally posted by Venger
A decent enough suggestion, but this upgrade should still require a cost of some level - either 10 shields per unit, even 10 gold per unit, should be extracted, period. Or, at least the Civ has the option to upgrade, so if they don't have the money, they can get the money, for the upgrade.

Militia - 4/4/1.

Venger

Makes sense. How about the final upgrade for all of the ancient units is the militia. Warriors, Pikemen, Swordsmen, Longbowmen, all upgrade to militia when militia becomes available.

[Vympel]

A lot of good ideas have come out of this thread. I personally think the combat system should be tweaked. The best thoughts that have come out, IMHO, are

1: Units that are two eras behind should die. Period. No fight, no chance of winning, they just die. Its not a question of balance, if you're playing so that someone is that many advances ahead of you, you SUCK, and deserve to lose. If you've given such a virtuoso performance that you're two eras ahead of some poor schmuck (or the AI), then you should be rewarded with a swift, stunning victory in which you GRIND THEM INTO THE DIRT. One era behind, ok you've got a better chance, but more advanced units need to have a better ratio of success, the rewards of high tech units are simply too small. Battleship vs Ironclad classic example.
2: Each era should have a basic unit that requires no resources.

IMPROVE the game. Enough with the Firaxis can do no wrong attitude: perfect example:

">>Air units can't sink naval units: this is a design decision I agree with. If they can, then once air power is researched there will be absolutely no reason to build any naval units but transports.<< "

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. In the *REAL* world, modern warships SHOOT at aircraft that are attacking them. Give destroyers, battleships (despite common opinion, a battleship is an extremely tough target for air attack, tons of AA guns) and especially AEGIS cruisers the capability to defend against air units like SAMs or *something*. AEGIS cruisers, destroyers, and battleships should ALL have the ability to use cruise missiles once you get the cruise missile.

[karlmarx9001]

'That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. In the *REAL* world, modern warships SHOOT at aircraft that are attacking them. Give destroyers, battleships (despite common opinion, a battleship is an extremely tough target for air attack, tons of AA guns) and especially AEGIS cruisers the capability to defend against air units like SAMs or *something*. AEGIS cruisers, destroyers, and battleships should ALL have the ability to use cruise missiles once you get the cruise missile.'

Ships firing back would be cool, but it changes airpower from being flying artillery into just a unit with a lot of movement. Not necessarily a bad thing, it just doesn't look like what Sid intended originally.

Cruisers and destroyers carrying cruise missiles would be nice; as it is I rarely build a navy.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Sze
You may want to check what side of the argument you're on. What you're saying is that ancient units gain more battlefield 'clout' or 'savvy' when the enemy forces get more technologically advanced for a cost of zero. That's precisely what is wrong with the combat system, ancient units are too powerful in comparison with the amount of research they require.

The problem with not having HP/FP is not necessarily losing fights outright, although that is frustrating; it's getting your high-tech units damaged so frequently by mediocre units. Damaged units waste several turns returning to a home city, repairing, and redeploying. The Egyptians are currently kicking my butt on my coast with a bunch of ironclads vs. my battleships. I can only take out one ot two before I lose 3 turns to repairing them. I'll do better if I stop building battleships and start building ironclads and that's just wrong. Why did I waste my time researching batleships?

I've stayed consistently on one side of the arguement. Modern low-tech infantry ARE more effective than their counterparts 1000 years ago because even if they are identical in terms of equipment, their leaders will be educated or just naturally gifted in modern tactics and capable of devising better strategies. The strategies used in ancient times changed dramatically from generation to generation as new weapons, formations and strategies were tried out. Expecting them to freeze into some sort of unchanging time capsule so they march in formation to attack a tank is totally unrealistic.

The reason you research new units is so that, unit for unit, your guys win. Regularly. If you are having problems because your unit has to retire hurt after destroying only two of the enemy then you have allowed yourself to become outnumbered 3:1 or worse. That is your choice, and you should be glad because building libraries instead of more pikemen is probably what gave you the technological edge in the first place. In resource terms, the enemy has permanently lost the cost of 2 ironclads for a temporary ineffectiveness of one battleship worth of yours. You are winning!

Build railroads, harbors and barracks in strategic places and you can lose almost no downtime to heal in a modern war. I've had absolutely no difficulty winning any war I got involved in with even marginal tech superiority, let alone a whole Era. Once you have destroyed a significant proportion of the enemy's massive war machine, the fact that you are producing 10 good units for every 15-20 mediocre ones they do is ensuring you victory since almost none of your units die so your swelling army can kill more and more of theirs every turn.

I don't believe anyone here is a weak enough player to be losing their wars if they have huge tech advantages unless they have no army at all. They are just upset because it isn't quite as easy to win as they want it to be.