You want the Reality? You can't handle the reality!

[Deornwulf]

A common complaint in many threads has been about Ancient Units like a Phalanx defeating Modern attacking units like tanks and such. This is totally unrealistic and unacceptable to many players but I doubt they would like the solution.

First, one must consider that to the computer, it is not a phalanx being faced by a tank but two sets of binary bits that have certain values attached to them (Attack/Defense/Hit Points). When that 1/2/3 unit is attacked by the 16/8/4 unit, the computer only crunches the numbers. I'm not a statistician but I know that the 1/2/3 unit will win a certain number of times.

A solution would be to add a flag that renders an unit from an ancient era useless against units of a superior era. Just think, he or she who controls the oil controls the world! You could go storming all over the board running roughshod over the puny computer and its silly spearmen with your tanks. The downside would be that the computer would be able to do it back to you and worse yet, to one another.

The options are limited to solve this "reality" question.

"But still, things like that can't happen in the real world!"

You only think you want realism! Here are some "realistic" ideas to consider.

For military units - Attrition, desertion, morale, supply lines, incompetent military leaders, weather, (un)friendly fire

For cities - plague, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, famine, drought, floods, collateral damage

For civilizations - Civil War, slave revolts, government scandals, iconclasm and heresy, religion, incompetent civil leaders, Osama bin Laden, scientist defections

I think the level of realism is just fine for the game. If it will take me 2 or 3 tanks to defeat a fortified spearman then so be it. I just think of it as a poorly armed militia unit. After all, it's hardly realistic to think that the phalanx recruited back in 2400 BC is still really armed with the original spears and shields.

I know this was a long post but this issue has always bothered me since I started playing the civ games.

[HugoHillbilly]

I agree, Civ3 isnt a war game, its an empire building game. War and combat are just different options/strategies you have to create and run your own empire. Using random numbers to determine outcomes of battles is unrealistic anyway.

[Moraelin]

Actually, I think it's simply an issue of "too close values, too little rounds". You don't really need any special flags to solve it. Just move the values to an exponential scale, and/or double the number of hitpoints.

It's also a problem that the attack and defense values are totally uninspired, to say the least. A lot of stuff that looks obvious and is historically accurate, actually works totally the wrong way around in the game. E.g., a Warrior attacking Longbowmen has a 50/50 chance to win. Agincourt, anyone? Right. The Warriors wouldn't be abled to get anywhere NEAR the longbowmen before they're mowed down.

So basically, what a lot of what people have been complaining about isn't really just that "spearmen can defeat tanks", but that you really have to think purely in terms of numbers, like in a maths class. Obvious assumptions, even within the same tech era, just don't work. E.g., common sense says that on flat ground Longbowmen vs Longbowmen should be an equal fight, or even favour the deffenders. I mean, wth, I'm willing to accept that, say, a cavalry charge gives the attacker an advantage, but you don't charge with a longbow. It should be equal, right? Bzzt, wrong. The attacker will win 9 times out of 10, common sense be damned. It's not a statistical fluke, it's broken by design.

That said, I have no problem with accepting a bit of randomness. It's more like what I wrote above that bothers me. I might accept that an unlikely situation happened once. WTH, nothing is 100% sure in war. I have more problems accepting that something is screwed up ALL the time.

That said, I DO think that Hoplites defending against Tanks is a bit silly. Again, not the fact that it happened once, but rather that it happens a tad too often. Why?

First, because a unit of hoplites might be something like a couple hundred people with spears. The hoplites had to provide their own weapons and armour, so only the relatively wealthy could afford the privilege.

In the famous battle of Thermopilae, the number of Spartan defenders who gave their lives was 300 men. That's all. Not thousands, not tens of thousands. Compared to a modern armour division, the infantry support alone is not just enough, but overkill to mow them all down. Even without the tanks themselves getting into the act at all. The whole Greek retreating ARMY for which King Leonidas was trying to buy some time, was something like 5000 hoplites. Again, that's not enough to pose any signifficant threat to a single modern division.

Second, because tactics have evolved. Historically, a Hoplite Phalanx was already obsolete in ancient times. Their compact formation may have looked like a wall of spear tips from the front, but was so slow to maneuver that it stopped being effective as soon as someone finally figured how to do a flanking maneuver. I.e., with more modern tactics, a modern officer would have no problem dispatching them even if he had no firearms. A modern unit with modern tactics, wouldn't even need more than swords to win that fight. With firearms, the Hoplites die before getting their spears anywhere near the modern unit.

And third, because in gameplay terms it make more sense to have to upgrade, than to go "oh, my pikemen should still hold those tanks for a couple of rounds". It's not like there are even that many upgrades you can go through, so taking at least every other upgrade is not that much to ask for.

[flbknight]

Just move the values to an exponential scale, and/or double the number of hitpoints.

I think this (and increasing the number of moves on some of the naval units) would indeed be better. I'm surprised there aren't any mods out yet that do this, that have fully reworked units.
Anybody know from such mods?

[Seeker]

Actually, in Civ 2 the calculation involved Attack, Defense, Firepower, and Hit Points.

Firepower was removed in Civ 2, and Hit Points were simplified. This was a mistake. There was only a snow balls chance in hell that a Phalanx could stop a tank in the open in Civ 2.

Examples of other strategy games:

In Panzer General, units have soft, hard, air, torpedo, and close att/defense values, modified by terrain.

I actually think that a Panzer General -like system would've been very good for Civ.

In the Operational Art of War, units have base combat stats like in Pz Gen, but modified by more than terrain.

Values were modified by supply route, force supply, morale, air interdiction value, etc. Too complex for Civ, but it is possible to approach realism.

one of your ideas was good, the ability to flag ancient, medieval, renaissance, and modern units. Civil War riflemen should be able to deal handily with medieval knights.

[jadlakha]

The solution for Civ III in solving all combat woes would have been to just copy verbatim the exact combat system of the Call To Power series. Combat was the best part of the series. Call To Power had quite the realistic combat system. To bad its not possible to implement the combat system of Call To Power into Civ III anymore now that its been released. With the new Air combat stuff and bombardment, it would have been interesting to see how combat played out combined with the Call to Power system. But to late for that..............

[yin26]

to the computer, it is not a phalanx being faced by a tank but two sets of binary bits that have certain values attached to them

Yep, and when the gamer is forced to adopt that same, stale way of thinking, you get a ... well ... stale product.

[Moraelin]

Actually, I wouldn't say "stale", I'd just say it seriously detracts from the immersion if I constantly have to think about numbers.

As for flbknight, actually I already have a mod that does exactly that kind of an exponential scale, and a lot of other changes that make it more historically accurate. (E.g., fighting in cities and metropolises favours the defenders A LOT more, and it's far harder to flatten a city with catapults. E.g., archers can bombard weakly, which doesn't really make them able to flatten cities, but makes them fire a volley before my pikemen are engaged. Stuff like that.)

Only problem is that currently I have no web site of my own. Does anyone want to host it?

[yin26]

Agreed. The immersion factor drops to the floor. And that, IMO, is a kiss of death.

[flbknight]

Moraelin,

you can email (blackknightofdoom@yahoo.com) it to me and i will put it up for you on my website. Or you can get a free account for you on geocities or another free webspace provider and host it there. it's the same, your call

BK

[Moraelin]

Thank you. I've sent you the files in an e-mail. Please tell me what you think of it. (E.g., whether I've totally screwed up the game)

[flbknight]

I sent you an email back with the location. to you the honors to announce it

[Moraelin]

I just did. Thanks again.

For the rest of the people who'd like some more historical accuracy, you can get it from the Creation forum (hopefully it will get promoted to the Files forum) or from flbknight's site:

http://www.blackknight.be.tf/

http://users.pandora.be/benedict.verheyen/

[dweez]

Re: You want the Reality? You can't handle the reality!

I think the problem is that people imagine the combat occuring on a big field with the units marching against each other. Wrong!

When the samurai defeats a tank, it's because they sneaked into the camp and cut the crew's throats.

Of course attacking archers defeat defending archers 9 times of 10. You just wait until they sit down to lunch and then rain arrows on them from a hidden position.

And so on, and so on.... just use your imagination a little bit.

[Moraelin]

Dweez, I've heard several rationales for the broken numbers, but somehow neither impressed me. Let's have a look:

1) Your idea that archers wait around until the enemy goes to lunch. I'd have no problem with that if it were some ninja unit, supposed to use stealth. Then ok, it makes sense that they kick righteous donkey if they caught you unaware, but will have a problem defending if you spotted them and attack with a regular army's superior numbers.

But somehow I have a problem with the idea that all of a city's defenders go to lunch at the same time, and only if they're archers. Why don't pikemen go to lunch, too? For that matter, why doesn't everyone go to lunch, so everyone just marches into an enemy city without any resistance?

2) The "but it's a long and epic battle, with attacks and counteratacks, searching for each other, ambushes, etc, over tens of miles, where spearmen can use potlids and surprise and any s**t can happen". THAT would be good and fine, but it would also defeat having separate attack and defense numbers.

I can accept that in a _short_ battle, say, Knights would get a massive attack bonus because of charging, but aren't that hot in defense if the enemy is all over them and they can't charge. Fine. Or that pikemen would be good in defense, but slow and unmaneuverable if they have to charge the enemy. (Guess why the Gauls' uncoordinated spear charges lost to the Romans' gladius and shield IRL. Right. The Romans' short stabbing sword was far better suited in close combat.)

But if we're talking a long convoluted engagement, then there's nothing preventing those knights from retreating and THEN charging in counterattack. And there's nothing preventing those longbowmen from sometimes being on the offensive, or from trying to set up an ambush, or whatnot. Briefly, you'd get an average of those numbers, NOT the Civ 3 screw-up.

Also in a long and epic situation, spanning many months and miles, I'd expect that all the units in a square fight together, not one by one. E.g., I wouldn't use only my pikemen to stop that knight charge, but also I'd use my own knights to harrass them, and my longbowmen for fire support.

Briefly: nice idea, but there's nothing in the current implementation to support it.