Is Combat Screwed up?

[Jurassic Joe]

I disagree. Custer was not fighting against an up to date unit. Those were mounted archers who had equipped themselves with firearms through other means. they did not have a country that produced them and they didn't have the tech. I don't think that they even made their own ammo. It's a clear case of a modern unit losing a battle to an obsolete one. Sh*t happens!

I'm sorry that your modern units keep getting killed by inferior ones, but I have been playing since day one and this just doesn't happen all that often. I have lost modern units to obsolete ones, but it is so rare that it doesn't affect my game play. I do use combined arms for most of my battles and I take casualties, but I dish out far worse than I recieve.

I'm not saying that you are a bad civ player, I'm sure you rock at this game, but you have to look at this in a different light. So the idiot AI beats you in a battle, big deal! I bet it doesn't follow up the victory with any kind of a plan, while we humans plot and scheme the eventual destruction and subjegation of the AI's entire civ.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Jurassic Joe
I disagree. Custer was not fighting against an up to date unit. Those were mounted archers who had equipped themselves with firearms through other means. they did not have a country that produced them and they didn't have the tech. I don't think that they even made their own ammo. It's a clear case of a modern unit losing a battle to an obsolete one. Sh*t happens!

Huh? Who cares HOW they got those rifles? Who cares WHO produced those rifles? In both the US independence war and the secession war, there were a lot of foreign weapons and ammo used. Does that mean that the US forces using them were not really modern units? They were, what, then? Hoplites?

Those indians had rifles which shot 2-3 times more often than Custer's, and you're telling me it's not an up to date unit? Then WHAT would count as up to date for that era? X-Wings and battle-mechs?

The fact remains, those indians did have rifles. In game terms, it's an UPGRADED unit. You know, same as when you upgrade your own horsemen to Cavalry. Noone says they're still not up to date, just because 2000 years ago they had spears instead of rifles. NOW they have rifles, and are trained to use rifles. They're Cavalry. That's it.

[Jurassic Joe]

No, they are not up to date units. You can't update your units unless you have the tech, the resources and a barracks. They don't qualify in all 3 areas. Mabey they have a barracks, but not the other 2.

In the revolutionary war we had the tech, the resources and some sort of barracks. I would agree that our units were inferior to the british, but it's just another example of an obsolete/inferior unit defeating a modern army. We bought lots of rifles from the French, we captured british cannons and we had a great leader. The British were the worlds super power at the time and we beat them.

Tell me this, are you actually losing any games because of the combat system or is your victory timetable just pushed back a bit?

In my games the timetable gets pushed back a bit or I go off on a tangent for a short time. I do get upset about it, but when I sink their navy, enslave their people and smash down the gates of their capitol, you know I'm dragging the dead bodies of those spearmen behind my tanks!

[Boney]

In the revolutionary war we had the tech, the resources and some sort of barracks. I would agree that our units were inferior to the british, but it's just another example of an obsolete/inferior unit defeating a modern army. We bought lots of rifles from the French, we captured british cannons and we had a great leader. The British were the worlds super power at the time and we beat them.

So it is another 'we beat the brits' american post. Now first thing is that the majority of people fighting on noth sides were ethnic Brits, so who beat who? In fact there were a lot of mercenaries in the British army at that time, so it is quite possible that there were actually more Brits in the revolutionary army than the British army. The fact that it was a 'revolution' seems to acknowledge it was a fight from within. Also the British army was far from home and many did not want to fight their ethnic brethren. The British generals were totally inept. And the revolutionaries were on their home soil, which always creates a greater fighting spirit.

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Zachriel


"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.

Yeah well I guess that comes down to how you interepret things once again. I suppose you could say that when two units fight eachother it's not just one quick battle but a series of battles/campaigns fought over many days, weeks or months (I seem to remember somebody suggesting this in the Europa Universalis forums for its battles).
Personally I just see two big fat units bumping into eachother but each to his own I guess.

As for set piece battles, would you rather I have said 'pitched battle' instead? Yeah I know that in this modern day and age with insidious terrorists, guerillas and other nasties the idea of a set piece battle might seem rather odd. But nonetheless there is no denying the fact that regular armed forces are still drilled and trained to engage the enemy battle-line to battle-line.

[Cypselus]

It must also be added that we Americans had plenty of French help against the British. Also, any characterization of George III's Great Britain as a "super-power" defines the term rather too far downward for my tastes. Britain never, even in the salad days of the mid-19th century, had the degree of military dominance that the US does today, or that the Soviet Union had only a few years ago.

And Civ III combat is still broken.

[Boney]

Cypselus, I agree with you. But it must be taken into account the time period in question. In the 'Salad' days Britain was pretty powerful, especially when considering its size. Though its power was not militarily huge its cultural power could give it the right to 'superpower' status. Even the US, as we know it, for the most part derived from Britain and retained many cultural aspects including both religion and language, even US football derived from the British game of rugby, and arguably, baseball derived from the British game of rounders.

Also the British influence was strong internationally, with Thailand even benefitting. The Brits managed to keep the french from taking Thailand. This led to many Brits coming to work here, including the guy who made the first map of Thailand. Thai people still seem to hold the British in special regard.

As to CIV3 Libertarian has spelled out what needs to be done. Combat in CIV3 sucks but can be changed (I think). I do not play CIV3 now, but will when I have more time and when bugs are fixed.

[Zachriel]

I knew what you meant with "set pieces".

Once it was said that "the sun doesn't set on the British Empire." That was just a fancy way to say Britain was a global power.

Yes, the French helped the Americans. They were the other superpower. Check out the battle of Yorktown. The French fleet cut off the supply and evacuation routes of the British, and then French mortars bombarded them into submission.

I like the combat system, and think it works quite well. On the other hand, corruption and cultural flipping . . . well, are playable, but a little overwrought.

[korn469]

Lets Discuss Custer

Obviously civ3 is not a historical war simulation, it is basically impossible to simulate anything with the scale that civ3 uses

if we just take the custer example, first thing that battle happened in 1876, so that turn represents all of 1876 and 1877 and not just the clash in the summer of 1876

it also represents something far greater than the amount of men custer had under his command, Custer is at best a hitpoint and not an entire unit

all of the battles from custer's last stand to wounded knee was only eight turns
the entire US civil war was only three turns
world war II was only four turns, and if you count US participation it was only 2 turns

so instead of trying to balance civ3 to anything historical it needs a historical flavor, and part of that flavor comes in the form of tanks beating spearmen...

even if you try and argue that spearmen are really AK-47 armed insurgents, and use Vietnam as your perfect example of a super power losing to those same insurgents, what you have to realize is that war weariness and not military defeat was what ended Vietnam

guerrilla war is poorly modeled in civ3 so there isn't much room for hit and run attacks, so we have toe to toe slugmatches between two armies and balance should come from comparing the cost of units to each other

balance should come from the following

*combined arms tactics should alway beat a unit type strategy
*if both sides have invested equal amounts in tech then the one with the larger army should win most of the time relative to their size advantage
*if both sides have invested equal amounts in shields then the one with better tech should win most of the time relative to their tech advantage

so a player with tanks, planes, and infantry should never lose to a force composed only of ancient infantry, especially if the first player spent 1000 shields on their army and the second player spent 100 shields on their army

if civ3 had more hit points per unit then the combat results would be better

[Moraelin]

OK, since we're basically going in circles, let's make a few things clear. (So we at least know what we're talking about.) My problem isn't with the combat system itself, but with the numbers in the game. An offense vs defense system isn't that bad an idea, and fire-power can be abstracted out after all. But no matter how good a system is, if you feed it the wrong numbers, you end up with a case of "garbage in, garbage out." And, yes, the numbers can be edited, which is what I did.

And my gripe about the numbers used is that in some cases they produce wild results very often. I'm not as much concerned with stuff that happens 1% of the time (tank vs warrior), as with stuff that happens all wrong half the time.

The point is that the only way to play the game is to learn those numbers and think those battles in terms of numbers. And THAT is what I dislike.

And it looks to me like there are basically two groups of people.

1) The "maths commander" group, who has no problem seeing it as purely a 6 attack unit vs a 3 defense unit. Now let's roll your 4 sided die against my 6 sided die, and see who won. Darn. Let's try again.

2) The rest of us who actually play a game (ANY game) as a thing to be immersed in. And who actually see that battle not as a 6 sided dice vs 3 sided dice craps game, but as an Infantry division (complete with howitzers, mortars and squad LMG's, in addition to each soldier's assault rifle) taking on a few hundred guys with bronze tipped spears (which is what a Hoplites unit means).

And I'm sure that the "maths commander" group will cheerfully point out "but why the heck are you using Infantry on offense?" Because a lot of actual wars were fought that way, and because if you think of it as INFANTRY and HOPLITES, not as a generic 6/10/1 unit vs a generic 1/3/1 unit, it makes sense. The squad weapons alone should be enough to make mincemeat out of those hoplites.

Yet on grassland, and without the hoplites being even fortified, between veterans, they'll slaughther the attacking infantry about 25% of the time. Not in mountains (a la Thermopilae), not in jungle (a la Vietnam), but on flat ground and non-fortified to boot. Between regulars or conscripts, even more battles will be won by the hoplites. Now I don't have a problem with stuff that _occasionally_ goes pear shape (ambushes, Custer forgot his Gattling guns, etc), but THAT kind of probability isn't an accident any more. ONE general may leave his Gattlings behind, but if 25% of your generals leave their Gattlings behind, you have a major problem there. (Not to mention they'd also have to leave all other firearms behind to lose to an unmaneuverable hoplite unit.)

But that will still not stop the first group from going "yeah, ok, but why the heck don't you look at those numbers before attacking? Infantry isn't an offense unit."

And in fact THAT is the whole point. If I have to play a numbers game instead of an "infantry attacking hoplites" game, then suspension of disbelief goes right out the window. I've never memorized all the numbers in, say, Panzer General.

[Libertarian]

I see your point, Moraelin, and believe that it is well taken. What sort of rules set would you use in lieu of the numbers? Or do you simply believe that the numbers, as are, are skewed? Or that the units are misnamed, etc.?

[Moraelin]

I think that the system itself is actually pretty good for the scope of the game. But the numbers it shipped with are skewed. The scale flattens way too much at the higher end, not to mention that some high end units like the Marines got slapped with some totally ridiculous numbers. (And if Firaxis didn't beta-test the modern days, that would explain it.) Simply raising the numbers at the higher end works like a charm. (And it still won't make it totally impossible for hoplites to defend against infantry, just less probable.)

[MORON]

the poll is at 50-50

yes, combat is screw up, but this isn't real life simulator (TM) so I don't mind.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by MORON
the poll is at 50-50

yes, combat is screw up, but this isn't real life simulator (TM) so I don't mind.

I don't mind either, but then again, I almost never see the results some of these guys are complaining about. I have never lost a tank attacking a phalanx, even in a city on a hill across a river, and I rarely lose a rifleman defending against a bowman. When I do, I just assume some idiot forgot to post guards that night, or that the troop got drunk the night before (Washington v. Hessians).

Have you seen my barbarian defense against tanks? It involves taunts, yo mama jokes, pride, elephant pits, stolen gasoline and a match. They fall for it every time.

[Zachriel]

Re: Lets Discuss Custer

Originally posted by korn469 Custer is at best a hitpoint and not an entire unit

so instead of trying to balance civ3 to anything historical it needs a historical flavor, and part of that flavor comes in the form of tanks beating spearmen...

Most of the time.

what you have to realize is that war weariness and not military defeat was what ended Vietnam

You may believe it was war weariness that lost Vietnam, but it was exactly the attitude that superior units will always win -- hubris -- that lost that war. War weariness was the result of poor combat strategy. Why fight? Why plan? Just shove your pieces into combat and they should win. Right? Not so fast.

Only if soldiers are willing to fight and DIE are they capable of winning. If your infantry men go native, prefer getting drunk, have poor morale, or scatter at the first sign of trouble, they will lose. It doesn't matter how many guns they have. In Civ3, this factor is accounted for with the randomizer.

*combined arms tactics should alway beat a unit type strategy

Nothing always wins every time. Now, if you think the numbers are somewhat skewed, I can better understand the argument.

so a player with tanks, planes, and infantry should never lose to a force composed only of ancient infantry, especially if the first player spent 1000 shields on their army and the second player spent 100 shields on their army

There's that "never" word again. Hubris loses wars.

if civ3 had more hit points per unit then the combat results would be better

That is probably true.