Is Combat Screwed up?

[HalfLotus]

Because of the removal of firepower in civ3, the power curve of units is flattened a great deal. It is no longer possible to swarm with howies and dominate. This is a good thing!

Because the margin of error is reduced in war, I now have to place myself ahead of the AI in tactical ways. Terrain, combined arms, and land/sea/air campaigns are neccessary for success. This is a great thing for a TBS! Realism be damned! I dont want to be able to steamroll with 20 howies on rail. I bought civ3 so I could implement strategy and tactics and win.

People have said that civ3 rewards mediocrity (though I agree that the tech caps do just that). In terms of combat, a poor general is sure to be frustrated by civ3 combat. A good general is rewarded for his superior tactics.

[TrainWreck20]

Just curious....do most people prefer the 'best- defender-destroyed - so-everyone-falls-dead' style of combat? Yes, it is kind of 'unrealistic', but in other ways makes for a fun game. I too have been frustrated in a game in which I did not have saltpeter, iron, coal, or rubber. I was so irritated that I did not have any of the above I almost quit that game. However, turned into an interested stretch to reach riflemen w/o being destroyed. Also, I made some interesting deals and trades to aquire resources to upgrade. Turned into a terribly fun (and unrealistic?) game.

[Bad Ax]

Originally posted by Geez
What happens when or if your civ loses access to iron, rubber, oil, and saltpeter? (or a combination thereof) Tell me what units you will build if ever confronted with that scenario? I know, it's a long shot, but then there are many successful longshots in the game (sigh). I think that makes it obvious why they didn't make longbowmen or spearmen obsolete. It simply prevents what would be a quite fatal flaw in the game.

Hence my point that bad combat mechanics are a side effect of careless resource implementation. I described an alternate implementation in this thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37860

which would, hopefully, enable a more reasonable combat system. Not that it can be implemented at this point, but maybe some Firaxians will keep it in mind for CivIV...

Tell me, if any country on earth lost access to oil or gunpowder, would they still defend themselves any way they could? You bet they would - spears and all! Not just roll over because they couldn't build tanks like everyone else.

You forgot to mention... in such a case, they would use spears, or whatever... and LOSE.

Badly.

Unless they were in CivIII.

[Jaybe]

Arrggh!! So many new threads being started, can't keep a decent poll up front! So bump!

[Akka]

Sigh, another clueless wanabee teacher...

Originally posted by Geez
Hmmm....I know of a few nations that wouldn't have guns were it not for them being smuggled into the country, donated by foreign militaries, etc. and also have little to no iron manufacturing in place. Were it not for trade, there are PLENTY of countries on Earth that would not have these things like....uhhh Afghanistan or uhhhh......the bulk of sub-Saharan Africa. Get it together, boy! Show me a fine iron product from India. Show me a good Tanzanian rifle. Duh. Riflemen are not found ubiquitously around the world. There are civilizations that still fight without guns. You just obviously have never heard of them. You're probably better off in your world....

Duh. Is reading somehow hard for you ? I was talking about access of ressources. You talk me about iron manufacturing places. I don't care about manufacturing, I just told that iron was practically everywhere on the Earth.
Nations that could not build guns are nations that would not have the technology/infrastructure/money to build them, not about the material impossibility to get the raw material.
Get a clue and get a brain before acting so high.

I hope for your country's sake that you never enroll in the military. Did the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans give up when the Spanish came to the Americas? No, they were decimated by gunpowder weapons and disease, but they didn't fall on the ground with their legs in the air. They fought. You need to do some more reading before trying to defend your reveries....

Some people pi$$ me off.

I hope for your country's sake that you never get anywhere high in the military, considering you'll send spearman against semi-automatic weapon.
Aztecs, Mayans, Incans fought, yes. And were slaughtered, yes. And it happens that now, every nations that is badly overpowered by its ennemy surrenders to avoid the complete slaughter of its army and population. There is still resistance, guerrilla and partisants, but it's usually not the "official" government that is still fighting. And when it's the case, there is often a large part of the country that surrender anyway.

Be more intelligent before giving anyone an advise about general culture.
Some people pi$$ me off too, but that must not be the same as yours.

[Jurassic Joe]

Did Custer know this?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Jurassic Joe
Did Custer know this?

GOOD Point!!

[Zachriel]

19 guys with boxcutters strike fear into the heart of the most powerful civilization in history? No way!
(WTC)

Some guy in a refitted Merchant vessal captures a British frigate? No way!
(John Paul Jones)

A bunch of savages with antique muskets and very little ammo killing an advanced cavalry unit with access to machine guns? No way!
(George Custer)

One pistol used to damage and delay two elite mechanized units? No way!
(Warsaw Ghetto)

One guy with a match disability an entire armor corp? No way!
(French Underground)

A couple hundred men holding off an army 100 times their size for several days? No way!
(Xerses "we will blacken the sky with arrows" v. the Greeks "then we will fight in the shade")

The birth of a carpenter's son changing the entire world? No way!
(Jesus)

[Jurassic Joe]

Preach on brother.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Oligarf
Combat is screwed up! Bombing not killing units? Look at Afghanistan and know that it is definitely possible to kill military units with bombing. [/SIZE]

Not quite correct. Without the Anti-Taliban forces, the Taliban would still be in the hills around Kabul. Indeed, the battle in Afghanistan demonstrates clearly how bombarding works when used in conjunction with ground forces.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Plumbean
I served in the USMC and even they wont attack a army on a assult with out 3 to 1 odds

You are absolutely right. The reason you avoid attacking without at least 3-1 odds is because sometimes the unexpected happens. If it is a fixed position, the "manual" usually suggests at least 10-1 odds. Even then, over confidence can lead to disaster.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The birth of a carpenter's son changing the entire world? No way!
(Jesus)

Merry Christmas, One and All!

And I forgot:

The U.S. actually losing an advanced, high-altitude B1B bomber in a war with some backward third world country like Afghanistan? No way!
(It happens. The plane was worth $250,000,000 -- but our guys came out ok )

How about U.S. troops getting bombed by B52's when fighting a primitive third world country without airpower? No Way!
(Way, dudes and dudettes. Colin Powell's company was bombed by our own Air Force during the Vietnam war.)

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Merry Christmas, One and All!

And I forgot:

The U.S. actually losing an advanced, high-altitude B1B bomber in a war with some backward third world country like Afghanistan? No way!
(It happens. The plane was worth $250,000,000 -- but our guys came out ok )

How about U.S. troops getting bombed by B52's when fighting a primitive third world country without airpower? No Way!
(Way, dudes and dudettes. Colin Powell's company was bombed by our own Air Force during the Vietnam war.)

Nice little bits of trivia showing the exceptions that prove the rule. So what do these have to do with whether or not FP should be a selectable option or not?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by korn469
obviously each unit represents a number of tanks, soldiers, planes, ships etc...but it just comes down to the fact that warriors are NOT modern militia...i would take 500 poorly trained millitiamen from any part of the earth today armed with AK-47's and place them on any open plain against 10,000 Roman Legionaries from the peak of the roman empire lead by Julius Ceaser himself, they would win, the firepower of modern automatic weapons is just too great

Probably, but not necessarily, as long as Caesar was aware of the capabilities of the weapons.

For instance, he could lay seige to your 500 poorly led militia. With 10,000 men he could build moats, iron walls, etc. working just out of range of your weapons.

Or he could avoid combat and try to set an ambush, attack at night, etc.

Or he could bribe your soldiers.

Or steal their weapons. They must sleep and eat, too. How long will the militia fight before their morale and ammo gives out in enemy territory?

Pretend you are Caesar. Would you just roll over and play dead if your home, your family, your country were at stake? Wouldn't you develop tactics suitable to the situation.

The flip side, of course, is the leadership of your 500 militia. What do they have at stake in the battle? Who leads them? Will they attempt to break the seige, or wait until it is too late. Will a Caesar rise among them, too?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
Nice little bits of trivia showing the exceptions that prove the rule. So what do these have to do with whether or not FP should be a selectable option or not?

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