Disenchanted - Modern Era

[Kevin Ar18]

This message is kind of in line with Velociryx post Disenchanted. Much like him I have found myself playing and enjoying Civ III until I am confronted with something in the game that really leaves me thinking, that could have been done sooo much better.

I have played a number of games so far, but have yet to finish a single one. I struggle with the AI from one age to the next and finally to the modern age to find it "tasteless" and tedious. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely love using the tanks and later the advanced tanks and mechanized infantry. However, after that, I have absolutely nothing to look forward to and this is where the modern age weakness comes in.

Ok, I must admit that finally getting to the advanced tanks is quite fun, and I enjoy attacking with them. And if Firaxis left the Modern Age as is, I would continue to enjoy that aspect. However, after I get advanced tanks, I essentially have no units to look forward to. The reason for this: among other things is the failure to capitalize on the power of missiles, nuclear weapons, and air units. As is, these weapons offer no threat to the game.

I can't say I know the solution, but if you will consider.... There are so many unique units available in this era that it is possible to make the modern era feel almost like playing a different game. Due to the overwhelming power and abilities of units in this era there are possibilites for new strategies not used anywhere else in the game. However, many of these abilities and strategies are watered down or left out completely in Civ3.

For now, I'll only look at the negative aspect on units that I consider to be falling short of what they could be.

Let's look at a few units:
Aircraft -
*THOUGHT*
Now these will surely make me rethink defense and attack. If not, they are just gonna be fun to use -- not so. I build a number of F-15's only to have them sit there and do nothing. If I tell them to attack a unit, they never kill the units, so what's the point? Well I can scratch that out as something to look forward to in the game.
*END THOUGHT*

Cruise Missles -
*THOUGHT*
Hmm now these ought to be interesting. They can take out units just like that and hit any target you want in a city. I've read on the forums that they are weak in the game though, so let me try a missile on this ironclad. It didn't even detroy it. Well there's another unit that's worthess in this era.
*END THOUGHT*

Nuclear Missiles -
*THOUGHT*
I haven't gotten far enough in a game to build any of these units, but from what I've been hearing they sound pretty boring. I guess it's good to try to balance things by making them weak, but, Sigh, it sure is gonna make the nuclear era pretty much same ol' same ol' like the rest of the game.
*END THOUGHT*


Random thoughts from other eras that overflow into the modern era.


Armies -
*THOUGHT*
Yeah, I got a leader and I can build an army. I'll put three of my elite calvary into it and this thing will be really powerful.
*Attacks a few Cities...*
Hmm that didn't work out too well. It only killed one unit and look at all the damage it got. I could have killed three units with 3 calvary and gotten less damage. If only I could have attacked three units with the army and if only it had gotten as little damage as 3 separate units.... What's the point of these armies? I'll just take a few units out of the army, I mean it's an army isn't it?, ah... I can't take out any units.. This doesn't seem very fun, it would be so much more fun if armies were useful enough so I could group all my units together. Of course I don't want them to be invincible, but as they are are they are just too weak to be much use to me. Oh well, there goes another good idea.
*END THOUGHT*

Artillery -
*THOUGHT*
I remember in Civ2. I loved using those artillery. I'm gonna really take out the enemy with these things. Is that all the damage they do? Well, I guess that's ok. I mean it does balance the game and make war harder and it is kind of realistic I guess. So I guess they're ok.
*Later on...*
Hmm, I think I'll try just an army of calvary. Well this isn't right, these things are killing everybody and I'm hardly losing any. I guess those artillery are pretty worthless after all. At least the calvary don't destroy improvements in a city before I capture it. So, I'm not gonna build any more cannons or artillery in a game. There goes another unit that is worthless for the whole game.
*END THOUGHT*




I would like to offer some suggested solutions to these ideas, and I will if this thread is received well. So, what do you think? Have you found the units of the modern era to be same 'ol same 'ol with little changes in the way you play? I know for me it has really contributed to end game "boredom."

[lightblue]

The endgame in civ games has always been a bit of a slog. In civ3 I seem to finish the game before I get all the techs, which is kinda new to me.

I agree with a lot of what you said, however there are a couple of things.

Artillery/Bombers are very handy in the modern era. You take enough of them with you and you can bomb all the units in any given city down to the last bar, after which your cavalry/tanks/modern armor can mop things up. In Civ2 I never built armor, I just built howitzer after howitzer with some mech infs as defense.

Just my two cents.

[Kevin Ar18]

Originally posted by lightblue
The endgame in civ games has always been a bit of a slog. In civ3 I seem to finish the game before I get all the techs, which is kinda new to me.

I agree with a lot of what you said, however there are a couple of things.

Artillery/Bombers are very handy in the modern era. You take enough of them with you and you can bomb all the units in any given city down to the last bar, after which your cavalry/tanks/modern armor can mop things up. In Civ2 I never built armor, I just built howitzer after howitzer with some mech infs as defense.

Just my two cents.

Good point about the howitzer and bomber. And I completely agree with you on the thing about now I finally am using tanks instead of mechs and howitzers. The only problem that has come in for me is that I've found artillary and cannons pretty much useless. And I want soooo much to build cannons and artillery, but they have proven to not be worthwhile for me. As for the bomber, issue, I have yet to use them, but again, with the tanks being the way they are I have found little need to build any air units.
Again, you have some good points, and they are something I'll have to give some more consideration.

I have lost all but one of my CivIII games so it's gonna take a while to get back to the modern era again in some harder games.

[Fidel]

artillery should be a help to ground units, not an self-sufficient attack force. civ2 grossly distorted their place in combat.

[Dis]

it should be nearly impossible to conquer a city without cannon, artillery, or howitzers. And infantry should be required to take over cities as well.

aircraft need not be necessary. but land forces attacking a city should be subject to counter attack by fighters and bombers.

those are just a few things. the whole combat system is crappola. even smac's terrible combat system is better. Infantry 25% bonuse attacking cities- nice touch. Although I still rarely built them . I think rovers should of had a 25% reduction against cities as well.

[Cunctator]

The way artillery and air mission are modeled is indeed an improvement. May be they should be strengtheened so that is really difficult to conquer cities without air superiority or a strong artillery force. At least this require a building plan other than "build the best attacking unit".

The introduction of units bonus like the 25% infantry bonus attacking cities or specialization would add depth to combat system.

What the game really misses about warfare is ZoC. Without ZoC the map is no more a variable in the war equation. So no need to occupy stategic positions of the map, no fronts; only big stacks thrown against the next city

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Dissident
aircraft need not be necessary. but land forces attacking a city should be subject to counter attack by fighters and bombers.

marching in a perfect formation?

[Navyman]

Bombers may not be necessary but they sure are helpful. In my current game, Me, the Indians, and the Russians are the two superpowers with the Russians slightly behind in tech but with a larger continent. I decided that while I still have the upper hand I would attack the Ruskies and knock them down a few pegs or so. But they have huge reserves of infantry and knights and I didnt like the idea of hordes of knights coming after my invasion force.

My strategy was to use 4 carriers full of bombers and put it right up to their coast and for 6 turns straight bombed every square i could around my target "beachhead" city. The bombing not only severed the road/rail links of the city but also, when my ground troops did land on the Russian continent the Russian counter offensive was as the same pace as my offensive.

By destroying vast swath of the enemy road/rail network you are leveling the playing field because you will not get the road/rail movement bonus in the enemy territory. If you can't get that movement bonus, no point in letting the enemy get it either. I could have wiped out the entire Russian road/rail and tile improvement if I had wanted. And that is where I believe the true power of the bombers come in. The bombers are great at denying the enemy access to its own infrastructure and leveling the playing field for the invader.

[Fidel]

exactly

[Calorman]

Originally posted by Navyman
Bombers may not be necessary but they sure are helpful. In my current game, Me, the Indians, and the Russians are the two superpowers with the Russians slightly behind in tech but with a larger continent. I decided that while I still have the upper hand I would attack the Ruskies and knock them down a few pegs or so. But they have huge reserves of infantry and knights and I didnt like the idea of hordes of knights coming after my invasion force.

My strategy was to use 4 carriers full of bombers and put it right up to their coast and for 6 turns straight bombed every square i could around my target "beachhead" city. The bombing not only severed the road/rail links of the city but also, when my ground troops did land on the Russian continent the Russian counter offensive was as the same pace as my offensive.

By destroying vast swath of the enemy road/rail network you are leveling the playing field because you will not get the road/rail movement bonus in the enemy territory. If you can't get that movement bonus, no point in letting the enemy get it either. I could have wiped out the entire Russian road/rail and tile improvement if I had wanted. And that is where I believe the true power of the bombers come in. The bombers are great at denying the enemy access to its own infrastructure and leveling the playing field for the invader.

Great. Now if only we could destroy the workers that rebuild those improvements as fast as we destroy them.

[Kevin Ar18]

I never really ment to get off on the sidetrack of cannons/artillery, but that seems how this is going.

I see many of your points and agree with them in certain respects. As I mentioned, I started off using artillery in my games, but once I tried out retreatable units I haven't looked back. It's come to the point where I have no need whatsoever for bombers or artillery which is kind of disappointing. Thus, the reason I have found artillery and bombers to be a dead-end road for me.
NOW, if the tanks did not have a retreat ability, then I might actually have to consider bombarding cities to capture it successfully. Hmm... maybe I'll try editing the rules to take out all retreat units and see how they work.
Personally, I only think the unit should be able to retreat when it first starts to attack and not right before it dies, but that would be terrible to micromanage.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Navyman
My strategy was to use 4 carriers full of bombers and put it right up to their coast and for 6 turns straight bombed every square i could around my target "beachhead" city. The bombing not only severed the road/rail links of the city but also, when my ground troops did land on the Russian continent the Russian counter offensive was as the same pace as my offensive.

A carrier full of bombers really is a great force and a good deal. It's 580 shields that has the equivalent bombardment firepower of 6(!) battleships, which cost 1200 shields. And it has three times the range to boot. If you have a decent sized ocean this can really help control the seas, bombard things down to one and have a pack of cheap destroyers finish them, and a few battleships to guard your carriers. And their also good when you decide you want to invade the other continent like you said.

If the enemy has bombers that can reach you you'll probably need a fighter in a carrier, but its still wonderful.

[Willem]

Originally posted by lightblue
Artillery/Bombers are very handy in the modern era. You take enough of them with you and you can bomb all the units in any given city down to the last bar, after which your cavalry/tanks/modern armor can mop things up. In Civ2 I never built armor, I just built howitzer after howitzer with some mech infs as defense.

I agree with you on Civ II's armor. In ToT, I had to readjust their numbers in order to make them useful. In fact, I pretty much redid the whole end game just to make it more interesting for me.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Kevin Ar18
As I mentioned, I started off using artillery in my games, but once I tried out retreatable units I haven't looked back. It's come to the point where I have no need whatsoever for bombers or artillery which is kind of disappointing. Thus, the reason I have found artillery and bombers to be a dead-end road for me.
NOW, if the tanks did not have a retreat ability, then I might actually have to consider bombarding cities to capture it successfully. Hmm... maybe I'll try editing the rules to take out all retreat units and see how they work.
Personally, I only think the unit should be able to retreat when it first starts to attack and not right before it dies, but that would be terrible to micromanage.

It seems to me that's part of the problem with combat as it is now, the retreat aspect is to powerful. If there were terrain restrictions, then this ability wouldn't be nearly as overwhelming. You could even set up ambushes, by being able to predict which square a Knight will have to retreat to and having a unit nearby to provide him with a "warm" welcome when he arrives. Forests are a good example, there should be no retreat possible if they're the only type of square available to move into. IMO, retreat should only be possible onto Plains/Grassland, maybe Floodplain. Everything else would be a no go zone for retreating units.

[Jack_www]

I like to use bombers and tanks. When ever I am attacking a 20+ size city if you dont bombard the city first you end up losing a lot of tanks. Using bombers really helps and when you kill off the population in the city and get it below 6, this really helps in preventing the city form reverting back. I dont really use artillery because when I invade I try to go as fast as I can, and the artillery fall behind do to the fact they can onlyhave one movement point.