Is Combat Screwed up?

[Zachriel]

Re: Lets Discuss Custer

Originally posted by korn469
Obviously civ3 is not a historical war simulation, it is basically impossible to simulate anything with the scale that civ3 uses

Absolutely correct. Thank you for saying that.

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

The division of units is somewhat arbitrary. You could just as easily believe that Custer had several Cavs at his command, his unit was destroyed, but the others survived.

Indeed, perhaps a Legion represents 5000 soldiers, a Cavalry unit only 200, considering the cost of raising and outfitting these units being not all that much different.

------------------------------

In any case, the destruction of Custer's unit did have strategic effects. Custer would have been a candidate for President, and may have won. It also whipped the U.S. into a war frenzy, which gets back to my point. Isolated units are vulnerable. Massive retaliation (stacks) is the appropriate military response.

The morality of the Indian wars and the breaking of solemn treaties is another issue.

[Zachriel]

Ben Franklin explains how to lose a "superior" military force

Ben Franklin explains how to lose a battle to an "inferior" force:

----------------------

This general was, I think, a brave man, and might probably have made a figure as a good officer in some European war. But he had too much self-confidence, too high an opinion of the validity of regular troops, and too mean a one of both Americans and Indians. . . .

In conversation with him one day, he was giving me some account of his intended progress. . . . "I see nothing that can obstruct my march to Niagara."

Having before revolv'd in my mind the long line his army must make in their march by a very narrow road, to be cut for them thro' the woods and bushes, and also what I had read of a former defeat of fifteen hundred French, who invaded the Iroquois country, I had conceiv'd some doubts and some fears for the event of the campaign.

But I ventur'd only to say, "The only danger I apprehend of obstruction to your march is from ambuscades of Indians, who, by constant practice, are dexterous in laying and executing them; and the slender line, near four miles long, which your army must make, may expose it to be attack'd by surprise in its flanks, and to be cut like a thread into several pieces, which, from their distance, can not come up in time to support each other."

He smil'd at my ignorance, and reply'd, "These savages may, indeed, be a formidable enemy to your raw American militia, but upon the king's regular and disciplin'd troops, sir, it is impossible they should make any impression." I was conscious of an impropriety in my disputing with a military man in matters of his profession, and said no more.

The enemy, however, did not take the advantage of his army which I apprehended its long line of march expos'd it to, but let it advance without interruption till within nine miles of the place; and then, when more in a body (for it had just passed a river, where the front had halted till all were come over), and in a more open part of the woods than any it had pass'd, attack'd its advanced guard by a heavy fire from behind trees and bushes, which was the first intelligence the general had of an enemy's being near him.

This guard being disordered, the general hurried the troops up to their assistance, which was done in great confusion, thro' waggons, baggage, and cattle; and presently the fire came upon their flank: the officers, being on horseback, were more easily distinguish'd, pick'd out as marks, and fell very fast; and the soldiers were crowded together in a huddle, having or hearing no orders, and standing to be shot at till two-thirds of them were killed; and then, being seiz'd with a panick, the whole fled with precipitation.

-----------------------------

Strategically, the commander in Philadelphia sees only this: He orders his veteran musketmen to march to Niagra. They don't make it. Of course, they blamed the Firaxis combat system, but now Franklin is aware that even the vaunted British could be beat by "irregular" tactics.

[Whoha]

yes it is.

One unit can raze a city. How is this possible since all civilians are experts in panzerfaust use? It should be impossible to raze cities in the same fashion that it is impossible to hold cities.

As for the musketeer thing, well the british commander should have known that he had a defensive unit. He should have brought along some knights or longbowmen, or even swordsmen, as they all have higher attack values then muskets.Though its a good thing for us that he didnt, or we might well not be americans now. Now you could argue that the British didnt have an easily available iron ore site to make knights or swordsmen, but then how did they get their Man O' Wars, it should be obvious that they were trading for iron. Even catapults would have served him well, bombarding those pesky american spears er musketmen.

[Jaybe]

Re: yes it is.

Originally posted by Whoha
One unit can raze a city. How is this possible since all civilians are experts in panzerfaust use? It should be impossible to raze cities in the same fashion that it is impossible to hold cities.

As for the musketeer thing, well the british commander should have known that he had a defensive unit. He should have brought along some knights or longbowmen, or even swordsmen, as they all have higher attack values then muskets.Though its a good thing for us that he didnt, or we might well not be americans now. Now you could argue that the British didnt have an easily available iron ore site to make knights or swordsmen, but then how did they get their Man O' Wars, it should be obvious that they were trading for iron. Even catapults would have served him well, bombarding those pesky american spears er musketmen.

Hey, the city razing is OFF TOPIC -- it's a gameplay thingy!

The muskets vs. 'savages' is all about TACTICS, not equipment. The main point, as good ol' Benjamin said, is that this commander would have done fine in a European battlefield, where 'guerrilla' warfare was rarely seen in this period.

And when a tank unit gets destroyed by spearmen, it's because the tanks were early versions, had inadequate mounted machine guns or stayed buttoned up, or had no infantry support. Pure tank charges against foot sloggers is a bad idea -- and it had to be learned and relearned many times in history.

[saxamaphone]

just a thought,
I usually get done building warriors and such before 1000 ad, I can only guess that the ai does too. When I attack in the modern area of 1500 or later with calv. and >1900 with tanks, these warriors are really, really old guys, and they're still swinging!!! That's totally unreal!!! Maybe they are just made of stronger stuff than the rest of us.

I mean if you can accept the abstraction that these guys don't die of old age 2 turns after creation, why can't you accept that they send away for handguns (or whatever) from ads they find in magazines like "Soldier of Fortune"?

[korn469]

Zachriel et al

while we can justify the results using any farfetched dellusion we want, what it comes down to is that a regular pikeman (cost 30 shields) fortified on a mountain will beat a veteran paratrooper (cost 100 shields) 40.1% of the time according to the combat calculator, when it has the following description in the pedia

The growing deployment of knights on the battlefield demanded that foot soldiers develop new means of fighting
that would lessen their vulnerability to mounted opponents. One of the best ways to do this was to lengthen the reach of the infantrymen by arming them with long, sturdy spears known as pikes. Massed infantry armed with pikes -- particularly in conjunction with archers -- managed to even the battlefield odds. Armies equipped in this manner were able to hold their own until the invention of gunpowder made archers, pikemen, and knights a thing of the past.

and if you compare a veteran pikeman compared to a regular paratrooper it will win 70.9% of the time!

this is not a random occurance, troops that cost less to build, take less technology and have less training can give a competitive fight to well armed modern troops, i mean the 101st airborne in WW2 armed with garands and BARs wasn't going to lose to your average conscript from braveheart probably ever, much less on a fairly consistant basis

elite hoplites versus regular mech infantry in the same situation will win 49.1% of the time, and if you add a fortress to the mix, the hoplites will win 59.6% of the time, and versus regular marines the hoplites will defeat them 78.5% of the time

elite samurai's on a mountaintop fortress would defeat regular marines 88.1% of the time

certainly the defenders at Iwo Jima were better than Samurai, and yet they never managed these impressive results

guerrilla warfare is certainly one way to wage war, but the guerrillas certainly don't always win, and in virtually all cases it takes a powerful backer for the guerrillas to achieve victory, for anyone who cares the Viet Cong lost the Tet Offensive on the battlefield, but they won a political victory

combat is not balanced, neither historically nor on the amount of value derived from a unit based on the effort out into creating that unit

[Calorman]

IMO, Most of the civilopeadia entries are just meanginless fluff with little bearing on the actual game system. I mean, in the entry for the nuclear sub it clearly states that it is faster than the older sub and yet in actual fact they both have the same sea-slug speed of 3.

[SiriusX]

In fact..

The Nuclear sub does go faster than the standard model. It travels at a sluggish speed of 4!

[Calorman]

Re: In fact..

Originally posted by SiriusX
The Nuclear sub does go faster than the standard model. It travels at a sluggish speed of 4!

Just the other day I went into the editor and changed its speed from 3 to 4. Perhaps you have done the same and forgotten that 3 was its original value?

Or am I just crazy?

[Moraelin]

Thanks for illustrating the point much better than I could, korn. THAT indeed is my whole problem with the shipped numbers. Not that some stuff happens 1% of the time, but that some things happen all wrong over half the time. I'm willing to accept that maybe once a century something totally unexpected may happen (like Custer's case or whatnot), but there are plenty of cases where the screwed up results are the NORM, not the occasional exception. ONE general may well underestimate guerilla tactics, but the next one would think twice before repeating the same mistake. If 50 generals in a row do the exact same mistake, wth, ANY nation would realize it needs to do something about those generals.

[Whoha]

Disabling animations really helps with believing wierd combat results

[Grumbold]

The poll being 50-50 pretty much shows the dilemma Firaxis are in. No matter what they do, many people will see it as a step in the wrong direction.

With the current resource-based units it is essential (imo) that they not be unbeatable by effectively used resourceless units. If Firaxis actually release a true super-editor so that the likes of WesW can produce a mod with 30 more techs, 60 more units and more sensible upgrade paths then hell, yes, lets make pikemen lose to tanks every time, even up Mt Everest or in the middle of the Amazon jungle with a supply line 2,000 miles long. If the AI can cope and upgrade then it will probably improve the game no end.

Until that point, if we are going to play a resource based game I want to be able to fight a war to obtain the resources I need, even if the enemy has the new units I cannot build. The alternative is to produce a mod that eliminates the importance of strategic resources completely because Civ 3 just can't handle the real life ability to mine, import and stockpile those resources properly. Its likely to be the only fair way to get a multiplayer game (assuming the expansion is not pure myth) since lacking iron and saltpetre is not going to be as easy to overcome as it is in the current single player game.

[korn469]

Until that point, if we are going to play a resource based game I want to be able to fight a war to obtain the resources I need, even if the enemy has the new units I cannot build. The alternative is to produce a mod that eliminates the importance of strategic resources completely because Civ 3 just can't handle the real life ability to mine, import and stockpile those resources properly.

well if someone had the stamina they could make a mod where each unit that requires resources had a non resource version which would be more expensive, though with modern armor you would need a large number of replacements since it requires three resources, but using E_T's upgrade path this is possible and it would appear seemless to the user