Is Combat Screwed up?

[Ghengis Brom]

Is combat screwed up?

[Bad Ax]

Is combat screwed up?

Can my mighty warrior slaughter a cavalry brigade with his great stone axe?

These questions have the same answer.

[Ghengis Brom]

Originally posted by Bad Ax
Is combat screwed up?

Can my mighty warrior slaughter a cavalry brigade with his great stone axe?

These questions have the same answer.

That's funny

[TrainWreck20]

Comments:
Mighty warrior (single) or rampaging hordes represented by a single unit?

Also, don't take the units too literal. If you have a warrior in the later ages, think of it as a militia unit.

[Jurassic Joe]

I agree with trainwreck, don't take the obsolete units literally. The AI never upgrades, but since they can and do beat us in combat, we will just have to look at it in a different light. At least now we lose some battles, unlike civ2 where you could just walk all over the AI at will. How many times in civ2 did you see 20 units massing on your border? never, they would always sneak attack with an obsolete unit and then send wave after wave of 1 or 2 guys your way. From now on lets just refer to the obsolete units as militia like trainwreck suggested. We also need to swallow our pride and accept the fact that sometimes the underdog will prevail.

[Bad Ax]

Originally posted by TrainWreck20
Also, don't take the units too literal. If you have a warrior in the later ages, think of it as a militia unit.

This approach to conceptualizing units that go obsolete when you get iron is something that bulls make. And I'm not talking about "more bulls".

If the unit goes obsolete when you can make a sword, then it, ipso facto, is not some kind of pseudo-modern militia unit. It's a guy with a stone axe. And one on one, there is no way a guy with a stone axe should defeat a guy on a horse, with a gun, in open combat.

[Moraelin]

Well, I have no problem accepting that SOMETIMES crap happens. I also don't have a problem when a whole horde of men with axes defeat one unit of horsemen. I tend to have a problem when it happens way too often, one-on-one. Like attacking Pikemen with modern Infantry, for example.

Either way, while I'll aggree that out of the box the numbers are way screwed up (and I voted as such), that can be changed quite easily with the editor. And you don't even have to do it yourself, just go to the Files forum and have a quick download.

[Venger]

Do we really need a poll on this?

New poll:

Is the sky blue on your planet?

Venger

[Kolyana]

LOL @ Venger.

You know, Ven, I've been reading a few posts topnight and chuckling away to myself ... only to realize that you are the one that has been making most of them.

I also chanced across you over at CTP2 when I had the same question: which mods?

Seems that I'm walking in your footprints recently. Must be a Civ3 thing

Btw, I was going to post a poll entitled "Is Combat screwed up?" with two possible answers:

* Yes
* Ofcourse it is.

[Marko Polo]

Long same streaks of random numbers

Actually, this works both ways and adds more to the game IMHO. So when that humble conscript infranty man has killed my attacking 5hp elite modern armor without a scratch, I might get him with my next last unit that has only one hit points left..

So in the long run, it's more fun that not all battles are so predictable like it was with Civ2. So, if you really want to annihilate a whole nation during a single turn with 100% certainity, just play Civ2 and use those almighty howies, stealth fighers and spies..

[Cypselus]

Think of it as a militia unit? No, the warrior or swordsman in the 20th century is not a militia unit. A militia unit would be a 2 hp rifleman or infantryman, not some guy with fur BVDs and a cudgel. The poorest, most benighted countries in the world, places like Afghanistan and Somalia and Liberia, places that don't have enough money to feed all their people, can still afford AK47s.

So yes, Civ3 combat is hosed, and not just because you get a lot of weird results out of it. Reversion of recently conquered cities is ridiculous, the resulting necessity of razing cities is worse still. Navies and air forces are simply not worth building. Fewer units, and still fewer useful units. In Civ II, you'd just pump howitzers, in Civ 3, you just pump modern armor. Woohoo! AI expansion and strategic resources force you to fight early and often, but for the most part (though I'm fond of the abstracted air combat), the system is a big step backwards even from Civ II's admittedly very primitive implementation.

[Code Monkey]

The one thing I really miss about SMAC was that no one could get upset about "unrealistic" combat since the units weren't based off of real-world concepts.

The last thing I've ever considered a Civ game is a wargame. All it is is a strategy game with combat rules that are arbitrary yet consistent. My warrior unit is not a warrior, or horde of warriors, or even a gaggle of warriors - it's just a unit with 1a/1d/1m for stats. Cavalry is just a unit with 6a/3d/3m for stats. Combat is not a matter of my unit's modern tank shell versus your carbine rifle, it's just my 16a versus your 8d.

I can see why people who wanted a wargame are disappointed in Civ3, but I can only feel sorry for those who complain endlessly about something that is clearly a non-issue to the designers. In the end, you're no better than the guys who used to argue about Magic cards based on what the picture had versus what the rules said ("But it clearly shows it is flying!")

[Kolyana]

Originally posted by Cypselus
Think of it as a militia unit? No, the warrior or swordsman in the 20th century is not a militia unit. A militia unit would be a 2 hp rifleman or infantryman, not some guy with fur BVDs and a cudgel. The poorest, most benighted countries in the world, places like Afghanistan and Somalia and Liberia, places that don't have enough money to feed all their people, can still afford AK47s.

So yes, Civ3 combat is hosed, and not just because you get a lot of weird results out of it. Reversion of recently conquered cities is ridiculous, the resulting necessity of razing cities is worse still. Navies and air forces are simply not worth building. Fewer units, and still fewer useful units. In Civ II, you'd just pump howitzers, in Civ 3, you just pump modern armor. Woohoo! AI expansion and strategic resources force you to fight early and often, but for the most part (though I'm fond of the abstracted air combat), the system is a big step backwards even from Civ II's admittedly very primitive implementation.

You raise some valid points and I argue with none of them ... except ...

I regularly use bombers in Civ, they're a very useful part of my strat. I have used a medium sized navy, but typically only to transfer troops and protect them ... while airports are being built. After that, they are useless, yes.

Jet fighters have come into my strategy recently to keep the computer bombers at bay - which they almost do since the patch.

So, in short, I think that air units are not 100% useless.

Now, the cruise missile ... that's a different matter. I've never built one. I've captured two and their use was pitiful ... talk about a complete misrepresentation of anything close to a real-life version.

[Skanky Burns]

Most of the problems with the combat system are related to the design decision to allow ancient units a large chance to defeat modern units. I dont agree with that decision, but at least we can change it.

[Cypselus]

I've built lots of bombers, but I've found that with their short range, the frequent necessity of razing enemy cities, and the inability to build airfields, they can't keep pace with the advance of tanks/modern armor.

I can see why people who wanted a wargame are disappointed in Civ3, but I can only feel sorry for those who complain endlessly about something that is clearly a non-issue to the designers. In the end, you're no better than the guys who used to argue about Magic cards based on what the picture had versus what the rules said ("But it clearly shows it is flying!")

I never played Magic. I'm not even sure what it is. I appreciate your sympathy, but I think you miss the point. While it's obvious that the designers don't care, it is by no means obvious to me that they shouldn't. That Civ is not wholly a war game does not change that fact that it is at least partially a war game, particularly in this iteration, where going to war early and often is essential. With that in mind, the combat system needs to be convincing, and I don't think it is. For a game to keep your attention for the hours and hours that a game of Civ 3 can last, it is essential that you be able to suspend disbelief, something that's hard to do when cities swallow 20 military units and spearmen and archers can damage or even destroy tanks. Conceiving of my units as duelling sets of numbers and probabilities, as some have suggested, is even worse. I can get caught up in the idea of leading my cavalry across the plains of Russia, but throwing my "8"s against the Russian "3s" leaves me cold. I don't expect Age of Kings, but I do expect plausibility.