Is Combat Screwed up?

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Some of the examples had significant strategic effects. But that aside, I frankly do not have the problem with the combat system a lot of people are complaining about.

No city defended by a phalanx, or a bunch of pikemen, has ever stood up under the firepower I deliver in the gunpowder age. There is so much lead flying that they had better have some serious firepower of their own, or they will lose. Phalanx's are just not as good as Riflemen and Cannon and will not survive a well-planned onslaught. Of course, I've lost an overextended tank or two to lesser units, but that is what happens when you take chances (usually trying to cut the roads, or reach a defensible position). The general rule is to have at least 3-1 advantage, 10-1 against fortified positions.

I have had battles where I just ran through the enemy cities one after the other (just finished one this morning with Immortals v. Spearmen, another with Tanks and Veteran Infantry against mostly Conscript Infantry last night). I recently played a game where I started a war invading with a Riflemen and Cannon army, then the enemy upgraded to Infantry just as I reached their first city. What a mess that was! I bombarded each city for 5-10 turns first, making sure to destroy the barracks. I prevailed, but a lot of blood was spilled.

There is absolutely no way any Pikemen or Phalanx's could have even begun to stand up to the combined arms I presented to the enemy.

Zachriel

PS. I usually play Monarch, Continental, Wet, Roaming

It's obvious from your examples that you've had immensely good fortune with the combat system. Riflemen (A: 4) vs. Infantrymen (D10 +bonuses)? Dude I once lost almost a dozen cavalry just trying to pick off a single 1hp infantryman (after I had bombarded him of course). And this wasn't just a chance disgrace either. This is a regular occurance. It seems to me that a lot of the people saying they like the combat system are getting good results from it. The fact that some people are doing really well from it and others are doing really poorly shows that something is seriously wrong with the system.
And I'm getting kind of tired of hearing this combined arms crap. Look if you're (not you personally) disputing that is was ok for your tank to be destroyed by his longbowman because you didn't have it guarded by an infantryman then you really don't a leg to stand on in this argument. There is no excuse for obviously inferior units regularly defeating superior ones.

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Code Monkey


Give me a break. Steel Panthers = wargame, Battle Isle = TBS. These aren't my classifications, they've been around a lot longer than I've been gaming.

I actually agree with you that Civ3 is not a wargame. Call it a strategic simulation of time and space or whatever.
However there is no denying the fact that the game revolves primarily around war whether this was the intention of the designers or not.
Look at this way; what do build in civ3? Units, lots and lots of units. And how many of those units are non-combat? Lets see, 1, 2, 3, 4 . . . . wow a whole handful of fingers!

[Aurochs]

Originally posted by Calorman
It seems to me that a lot of the people saying they like the combat system are getting good results from it. The fact that some people are doing really well from it and others are doing really poorly shows that something is seriously wrong with the system.

Sounds like it shows precisely the opposite.

And I'm getting kind of tired of hearing this combined arms crap. Look if you're (not you personally) disputing that is was ok for your tank to be destroyed by his longbowman because you didn't have it guarded by an infantryman then you really don't a leg to stand on in this argument.

heh. Of course he does. Realism. Rule #1 of armored warfare in the real world: Never, ever, ever send your tanks anywhere without infantry support. They're remarkably easy for enemy troops to disable/destroy.

There is no excuse for obviously inferior units regularly defeating superior ones.

There is no excuse for obviously superior units to always defeat apparently inferior ones.

***

Oh, and, btw, 10 to 1 odds is about the right minimum for launching a siege/assault against a fortified defensive position (especially in a city).

***

And also, for whoever said any game with a plane in it should be a detailed flight sim...and any game with a car in it should be a detailed racing sim... Did you expect Super Mario Brothers to be a detailed simulation of the life of a plumber? With accurate detailed modeling of his digestive tract? Do you think Galaga was an accurate flight sim? Complain about the modeling of the airflow over the trunk of the car in Spy Hunter? Complain that Duke Nukem 3D doesn't accurately model strategic logistics? heh.

It may come as a real shock to some of ya'll, but there are different genres of games. Civ is a strategy game. Its combat model is appropriate to the genre. It's not a wargame, an arcade shooter, a platform game, a simulator, an RPG, or a first-person shooter. If that's what you want, then that's what you should play instead.

Turn-based Strategy games and RTS are not subclasses of wargames. Wargames are a subclass of the Turn-based Strategy genre...that subclass which emphasises accurate modeling of the details of warfare at a specific level or setting. The Strategy genre as a whole encompasses (and welcomes) greater abstraction, including games like chess, go, and Risk. RTSs are a combination of the Strategy and Action/Arcade genres.

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Aurochs


Sounds like it shows precisely the opposite.

Why? Bob consistently does really well and Jill consistently does really bad. There is no average result. I lose approximately two thirds of all my battles, attacking/defending, superior/inferior, combined arms/not, it doesn't matter. Care to explain why?

heh. Of course he does. Realism. Rule #1 of armored warfare in the real world: Never, ever, ever send your tanks anywhere without infantry support. They're remarkably easy for enemy troops to disable/destroy.

Sigh. Should a tank with a defence value of 8 win more often than not against a longbowman with an offense value of 4, yes or no? If the answer is yes then why is this so frequently not the case?
Look I really am getting sick of what Venger referred to as 'armchair quarterbacking.' My what a lovely imagination you must have, visualising those little longbowmen scurring around the tanks, popping their hatches open and firing a few shots down into them. Err wrong. The longbowman's 4 bumped into the tank's 8, that's all that happened. Forget realism. It's game logic.

Oh, and, btw, 10 to 1 odds is about the right minimum for launching a siege/assault against a fortified defensive position (especially in a city).

Imagine you, your friends, family, neighbours etc armed with spears and standing in ready position at the top of a hill.
A few guys with machine guns assault your position. Who is going to win?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Calorman



It's obvious from your examples that you've had immensely good fortune with the combat system. Riflemen (A: 4) vs. Infantrymen (D10 +bonuses)?

I lost a ton of riflemen, probably 20 on the first city alone.

First I forted my riflemen on a mountain next to the city. I created a rifleman road to protect my units as they traveled through enemy territory to the mountain. I brought my settlers in to build a road for cannon up the mountain, then a fort. I bombarded for several turns first with probably 30 cannon. The city was rubble, there was no defense bonus, and very importantly no barracks. Riflemen are good on defense, so I used them singlely or in twos to tear up the roads, so the city couldn't produce more infantry. My men fought very, very hard. Many died. It was the most exciting battle I ever had.

Most combat is not that difficult. Sometimes I just roll over the enemy. I've done it with Immortals, Swordsmen, Mounted Warriors, Cavalry, Tanks. Most of the time, I can only take a city or two before my forces are extended, then try to reach a peace treaty. I also use solo cavalry or tanks to raid behind enemy lines, but I expect to lose a few to counterattacks.

And of course, I don't win every game either. Sometimes I try to be the junion partner in a winning coalition. I was "Luxembourg" once -- just one city. I specialized in defensive units and obsequiousness.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Calorman

And I'm getting kind of tired of hearing this combined arms crap. Look if you're disputing that is was ok for your tank to be destroyed by his longbowman because you didn't have it guarded by an infantryman then you really don't a leg to stand on in this argument.

Generally, the "strategy manual" states that tanks should be provided infantry support. Tanks strike out, make a hole in the enemy lines, which are then plugged by infantry. Repeat as necessary to breach the enemy lines. I usually provide plenty of infantry support, if only to hold the city after combat.

However, I use solo tanks, cavs, horse, whatever, to disrupt the enemy rear. and to counterstrike the AI's raiders. The only difference is, I expect to lose a few. So, of course, I only accept ambitious volunteers who want to be promoted to elite.

And yes, a tank division can be stopped by as little as a lighted match.

[Smash]

poll currently tied 62-62

62 of you are wrong

[Moraelin]

Jeeze, it's almost frightening how many people don't have a freakin' clue about history.

Let's take some of those examples, and what REALLY happened there:

1) Custer. Custer had THOUGHT that the indians are poorly armed, but the case was exactly the opposite. Custer's men had one shot rifles, where you had to manually put a new round in after every single shot. I don't mean from a magazine or such, but fish a round out of your pocket, shove it in the barrel, close, shoot.

The indians, by contrast had quick loading winchesters. Every single indian could shoot 2-3 times before one of Custer's men shot once. They also had vastly superior numbers.

And the only thing that WOULD have given Custer some superior firepower, his Gattling guns, he had left behind.

So basically what happened there was closer to Cavalry vs Musketmen in game terms. (With Custer's men being the Musketmen. Well, actually something half-way between musketmen and riflemen.) And the Musketmen lost even in defense.

2) Spain vs Aztecs. The Aztecs had in fact surrendered without a fight.

What the Spanish eventually had to fight was a rebellion, which is already modelled differently in the game. We already have revolting cities as a very different scenario, so don't tell me anti-tank spearmen are that.

The Aztecs rebels also had to do a bit of an upgrade before they did any damage to the Spanish. Some deserters from the Spanish army had taught them to make crossbows, among other things.

It's also worth mentioning that the invading Spanish army wasn't THAT modern or large in the beginning. Long supply lines as well as underestimating the natives, meant that in some of those battles the Spanish fought with cold steel, not with muskets.

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Generally, the "strategy manual" states that tanks should be provided infantry support. Tanks strike out, make a hole in the enemy lines, which are then plugged by infantry. Repeat as necessary to breach the enemy lines. I usually provide plenty of infantry support, if only to hold the city after combat.

However, I use solo tanks, cavs, horse, whatever, to disrupt the enemy rear. and to counterstrike the AI's raiders. The only difference is, I expect to lose a few. So, of course, I only accept ambitious volunteers who want to be promoted to elite.

And yes, a tank division can be stopped by as little as a lighted match.

Well that's great and all but it doesn't really make any sense in context of the combat system. Civ3's combat has clearly NOT been designed around the concept of combined arms, especially in respect to how people like Auroch see it. If it had then I'd expect to see in the description of say an infantryman, something along the lines of "Gains a x2 bonus against unsupported tanks" Now if this was the case I'd think "Oh dear, better make sure my tanks are guarded by infantry. It slows them down a bit but hey beggers can't be choosers right?"

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with combined arms. My problem is with people trying to use it as an excuse for silly combat results. I don't care if in real life unsupported tanks will lose to infantry. All I know is that the game told me my tank has a defence value of 8 and that his longbowman has an offense value of 4. To say the tank lost because it was unsupported is a very poor argument indeed.

[Barnacle Bill]

First off, it's not "a tank" or "a stealth bomber". It is an armored division or a squadron of stealth bombers.

The Taliban did not take out a B1B bomber by filling the sky with arrows. They had modern AA weapons (just not very many).

As someone else pointed out, the final destruction of the Taliban forces required a ground assault. Air power vs ground units in Afganistan worked like in Civ3. Ships would be another story, though.

In Afganistan, gunsmiths make AK-47's by hand. Any machine shop in the US (including some that are in guy's home garages) could produce modern firearms, and plans to do so are readily available (don't get caught, though). You don't need factories to make modern weapons, just to make them cheaply in massive quantity.

Fighting a division-sized engagement with weapons even 1 generation obsolete is suicide. How much more so if you are thousands of years obsolete.

The easy fix to the resource issue is a unit in every era that doesn't need resources but is the weakest in that era but better than anything in the last era (representing those militia guys), and to fix the AI so it places a higher priority on upgrading existing obsolete units than on building new units.

The "big fix" that probably has to wait for Civ4 is to model resources and their impact on production more like in the Imperialism games.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Jeeze, it's almost frightening how many people don't have a freakin' clue about history.

So basically what happened there was closer to Cavalry vs Musketmen in game terms. (With Custer's men being the Musketmen. Well, actually something half-way between musketmen and riflemen.) And the Musketmen lost even in defense.

Not true. (And please avoid your ad hominen attacks. I am fully aware of how the battle was fought and lost. Indeed, modern ballistic analysis of bullets found at the site, demonstrate that Custer's men hardly even had a chance to fire any shots at all.)

The U.S. sent an advanced Cavalry into the western wilderness with what it thought was sufficient forces. On the local battlefield, mistakes by the commander and brave action by the enemy defeated Custer. Just because they didn't use the Gattling guns doesn't mean they didn't have them. That is the whole point!

Indeed, Custer is an excellent example. From the viewpoint in Washington D.C., they did everything right. They trained and supplied their men with the latest equipment and technology, then sent them out with their best general -- and still lost. Of course, there was an investigation and it was determined that the combat system was unfair and that Firaxis was ultimately to blame for the debacle.

This strategy game does not directly simulate the decisions made by the local commanders. That is left to the randomizer. That is the very purpose of the randomizer.



Another example:
You send your men out in the latest 21st century destroyer, including the best training and equipment. Radar scans the skies, sonar scans the seas. You are certainly invulnerable to any attack less than a nuclear missile, right?

One day you pull up for gas at the local gas station. A teeny, tiny boat pulls up beside you. Two guys in the boat stand up and salute you. How nice. Suddenly a flash, an explosion, some of your people are killed, the ship is in actual danger of sinking. Fortunately, your well-trained crew bravely saves the ship from sinking, but it is totaled just the same.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Barnacle Bill
First off, it's not "a tank" or "a stealth bomber". It is an armored division or a squadron of stealth bombers.

The Taliban did not take out a B1B bomber by filling the sky with arrows. They had modern AA weapons (just not very many).

Actually, the B1B bomber dropped out of the sky over the Indian Ocean. It was probably mechanical problems, but the U.S. lost it just the same. It is certainly considered a combat loss. The crew, who survived, will receive the appropriate combat ribbon.

As someone else pointed out, the final destruction of the Taliban forces required a ground assault. Air power vs ground units in Afganistan worked like in Civ3. Ships would be another story, though.

I agree with you there. They should beef up the bombard on coastal forts too.

Fighting a division-sized engagement with weapons even 1 generation obsolete is suicide. How much more so if you are thousands of years obsolete.

You are right. But people will fight a "suicide battle" if they believe they have no alternative. Through determination, bad decisions by their enemy, and a little luck from the randomizer, they may actually win a few engagements.

What usually happens is that the "superior" power misjudges the situation. They believe in the hype about their own superiority, so they will commit their advanced military to unwise engagements without a full analysis of the danger of the situation, and a full understanding of the proper strategy to prevail (think Vietnam, British v. American Colonies, or the Romans in Germany in the time of Augustus).

Just like many players in Civ3, they advance with their Tanks believing that if they do, they will be invulnerable, that they don't have to plan, that no one would dare strike back.

What makes superior forces superior is the methods of war as much as the materials of war. To paraphrase a line from Star Trek, the good guys win only when they are very, very careful.

Another example:

Spartacus, leading a rabble, destroyed an entire Roman Legion. The commander didn't build the legally required fort. If the Roman commander had just used the methods of war that were available, that were mandated by the "manual," they wouldn't have prevailed. Just like Custer, they disarmed themselves because of their hubris, because of their pride.

Like many a Civ3 player, they left themselves vulnerable to a counterattack thinking they were invulnerable. Once the Romans realized the danger, they got serious, and Spartacus was destroyed.

Here's another way to plan your attack: Pretend that it is me! I will make you pay in blood for every inch of territory. I will fight with bowmen in the hills, with phalanxs on the beaches, but I will fight.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Not true. (And please avoid your ad hominen attacks. I am fully aware of how the battle was fought and lost. Indeed, modern ballistic analysis of bullets found at the site, demonstrate that Custer's men hardly even had a chance to fire any shots at all.)

I didn't give any names there. If you are aware, ok, you have my respect. Must have mis-understood what you wrote. Either way, let's be honest here. Some of the posts seem not to even have half a clue, or at least aren't worded in a way to suggest that. I've seen far worse assumptions than "Custer lost to mounted archers" in these forums.

The U.S. sent an advanced Cavalry into the western wilderness with what it thought was sufficient forces. On the local battlefield, mistakes by the commander and brave action by the enemy defeated Custer. Just because they didn't use the Gattling guns doesn't mean they didn't have them. That is the whole point!

The fact is that they DIDN'T have them. Not in that battle, and not since it left the base. Fact remains, Custer lost to a SUPERIOR armed unit, not to an inferior one.

But even if you want to go ahead and consider that it HAD those Gattlings, it ends up what? A battle between equal techs, but superior numbers won. A modern Cavalry unit (Custer's) was lost to several enemy modern Cavalry units (the indians'.) NOT to spearmen, NOT archers. To equal tech enemies, and more of them to boot.

At the risk of repeating myself, none of us would have a problem with losing modern units to modern units. Which is what really happened to Custer. (And personally I don't have a problem with losing to superior numbers, either. If half a dozen archers defeat my Infantry, sure, that I can live with. Maybe my infantry division ran out of ammo after shooting the first 50,000 archers, or whatnot. It's the probability of some awfully wrong things happening one-on-one that bothers me.)

One day you pull up for gas at the local gas station. A teeny, tiny boat pulls up beside you. Two guys in the boat stand up and salute you. How nice. Suddenly a flash, an explosion, some of your people are killed, the ship is in actual danger of sinking. Fortunately, your well-trained crew bravely saves the ship from sinking, but it is totaled just the same.

THAT and WTC are already modelled in the game as covert operations. E.g., WTC would fall pretty darn well under the "destroy city improvement" kind of action, which is already in the game, and which does not depend on tech level. It just requires an Intelligence Agency and the gold to sponsor it. Again, WTC wasn't lost to an all out assault of guys with short bows on horseback, against an US infantry division bravely guarding it. So, like, it's totally irrelevant for the combat model.

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Moraelin

THAT and WTC are already modelled in the game as covert operations. E.g., WTC would fall pretty darn well under the "destroy city improvement" kind of action, which is already in the game, and which does not depend on tech level. It just requires an Intelligence Agency and the gold to sponsor it. Again, WTC wasn't lost to an all out assault of guys with short bows on horseback, against an US infantry division bravely guarding it. So, like, it's totally irrelevant for the combat model.

I get the idea that all of the battles in Civ3 are 'set-piece' battles. The attack on the USS Cole would fall under some sort of sabotage/guerilla action that is sadly not modelled into the game (as far as attacking units is concerned at least).
If the advanced destroyer had taken on the 2-man dingy in an open battle then there's no cookies for guessing who would have won. So yes citing the Cole as an instance of an inferior unit beating a superior one isn't really fair.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Calorman


I get the idea that all of the battles in Civ3 are 'set-piece' battles. The attack on the USS Cole would fall under some sort of sabotage/guerilla action that is sadly not modelled into the game (as far as attacking units is concerned at least).
If the advanced destroyer had taken on the 2-man dingy in an open battle then there's no cookies for guessing who would have won. So yes citing the Cole as an instance of an inferior unit beating a superior one isn't really fair.

"Set Piece Battle", a rather quaint idea.

Civ3 is a strategy game, meaing you only see and can control the overall movement of pieces. On a tactical level, of course the enemy will try to pick off isolated units, or split the enemy forces and destroy them in detail.

What if the army commander sends his men into the wilderness in single file along the road without skirmishers (happened to the British in their Indian Wars)?

What if he doesn't bother to post pickets (happened to the Union forces during the Civil War)?

What if your Cavalry commander doesn't follow orders and shows up late for the battle (Stuart at Gettysburg)?

What if the commander is so overconfident, he leaves his Gattling Guns behind (Custer, of course)?

What about friendly fire?
What about mechanical failure?
What if they sneak into your camp and light your gunpowder supply on fire?
What if the men turn and run?

Any of these mistakes can doom a unit without any control or action on the part of the supreme commander behind the lines. He slides his musketman unit into a forest full of barbarians, and they never come back. That is all he can see from his vantage point.

(PS. I do appreciate these historical discussions, even when we disagree.)