Still Don't Like the Combat system

[Zachriel]

Not the combat thread again!

Time to dust off the John Paul "I have not yet begun to fight" Jones story. Using a merchant vessel to capture a British frigate in a fair fight.

Or how about how about the "unreasonable" effectiveness of Taliban infantry on defense?

Or poor Xerses with more than 100-1 odds being stopped by three hundred Spartans, only winning through betrayal. Xerses, "We will darken the sky with arrows." Spartans, "Then we will fight in the shade."

[kailhun]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Not the combat thread again!

Time to dust off the John Paul "I have not yet begun to fight" Jones story. Using a merchant vessel to capture a British frigate in a fair fight.

Or how about how about the "unreasonable" effectiveness of Taliban infantry on defense?

Or poor Xerses with more than 100-1 odds being stopped by three hundred Spartans, only winning through betrayal. Xerses, "We will darken the sky with arrows." Spartans, "Then we will fight in the shade."

I've found that if you want to believe these popular stories, it's best not to read up on them.
The same goes for heroes. If you start reading up on them, you discover that they were only human and had faults, made mistakes etc. This is not a good thing for a pure hero. Not even R.E. Lee can stand up to this kind of scrutiny.

Robert

[dunk]

I'm wondering if Dienstag was actually talking about the Riflemen unit instead of the Infantry unit. Cavalry and Riflemen are equal footing as it comes to attack and defense values. 6 attack for Cavalry nad 6 defense for Riflemen.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Quick! Contact Britannica so they can update their encyclopedia:

Some quotes from the battlefront.com forum (link )

Originally posted by von Lucke
here's the poop:

Seems a mounted Polish Cav unit took a horse drawn German supply column by suprise and was laying about destruction in a good old-fashioned Cav-raider-like manner, when they, in turn, where suprised by an advance element of a German Panzer Rgt (most likely PzII's). Said Polish Cav took some casualties and then proceeded to ride off into the sunset (as any out-gunned force would/should do).

Well, some hours later an Italian war correspondent arrives on the scene, sees all these dead horses lying around (some Polish, mostly German), a few Polish prisoners, and a platoon of panzers on security... Seniore Reporter evidently didn't sprechen all that much Deutch, and prolly no Polish, so he basically invented the whole "gallant but mislead Polish Lancers charge German Panzers" story from the aftermath of what was, in all truth, a successful Polish cavalry action.

And through such lies are legends born...

Originally posted by Formerly Babra
The tale of Polish cavalry "charging" German tanks is false. However, there were many combats between German armoured forces and Polish cavalry brigades, particularly in Silesia.

The Wolynska Cavalry Bde significantly delayed 4th Pz Div between 1st and 3rd September. 4th Pz lost 28% of its tanks during these battles, about 80 tanks.

The Krakowska Cav Bde, at first successful against the German 4th Inf. Div at Koszecin, was pushed back by the German 2nd Light Division. Krakowska Bde was hit again by the 3rd Light Division and finally broken with heavy losses.

Interestingly, the first tank battle of the war, at Piotrkow, ended with the loss of seventeen German tanks, two self propelled guns and fourteen armoured cars. Two Polish tanks were knocked out.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by kailhun
I've found that if you want to believe these popular stories, it's best not to read up on them.
The same goes for heroes. If you start reading up on them, you discover that they were only human and had faults, made mistakes etc. This is not a good thing for a pure hero. Not even R.E. Lee can stand up to this kind of scrutiny.

Robert

I'm not sure I even understand your comments.

Anyway, the reason we remember these incidents is because they were contrary to normal combat results. In 6000 years of history, you should expect a few extraordinary incidents, some of which may even be strategically significant.

There are always explanations after the fact, but these factors are not always apparent from the strategic viewpoint. Sure, the British frigate should have simply pulled off, but he was deluded by the viewpoint that he couldn't lose to a merchant vessel. Does that viewpoint sound familiar?

[Sava]

Yes. The combat system is totally unrealistic. But you need to adjust your strategy accordingly. I don't attack unless I'm 99.9999% sure I'm gonna win. If there is a city with like 3 spearmen fortified and I have cavalry. I will cannon the sh!t outta the city so that they all have 1 HP. Then the comp can't shaft me.

Yeah, combat sucks, but learn how to play within its rules and its easy

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Hurricane
However, there were many combats between German armoured forces and Polish cavalry brigades, particularly in Silesia.

So it is true that Cavalry engaged German armor.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Sava
Yes. The combat system is totally unrealistic. But you need to adjust your strategy accordingly. I don't attack unless I'm 99.9999% sure I'm gonna win. If there is a city with like 3 spearmen fortified and I have cavalry. I will cannon the sh!t outta the city so that they all have 1 HP. Then the comp can't shaft me. Yeah, combat sucks, but learn how to play within its rules and its easy

Ground combat works fine and is a reasonable approximation of reality. Generally, the odds work fine, with few exceptions. Any good commander can account for the occassional bad roll of the dice, which does happen in real life as often as it happens in the game.

I may be somewhat cautious, but 99.9999%! Bombard's a good idea, though. And you are right that the mechanics of the combat system is not essential for the enjoyment of a strategy game. Take chess for instance.

Here is a typical combat and the results are obvious and realistic:

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Attack.htm

[Akka]

Ah well.
Again the combat system stuff.

Well at least, now, seems that everyone agree that the results are unrealistics.
Now time to fight on the validity of the system

Personnal view : the system does not SUFFICIENTLY reflect reality. It can be argued that it's because of game balance, or that it's not really a legion and a cavalry but a 3-3-1 and a 6-3-3 unit, or plenty of reasons.
I personnally see that for a historical-flavored game, the lack of credibility of the fighting system just destroy the immersivity. Sure, things like the 50-years by turn or the immortal leaders DO hurt the immersivity themselves (in fact, I always have the feeling that the game is awfully fast and I'm 500 or 1000 AD before I even know it, I would like to slow down the years flow). But fighting system is a lot more present and has a lot more impact in the game (especially considering how warmongering Civ 3 is), and moreover it's a step BACK from previous game, while other irrealist facts are just a carryover, not WORSE.

In short, I'll flag again my motto

GIVE US THE FIREPOWER SYSTEM BACK !

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Well at least, now, seems that everyone agree that the results are unrealistics.

Not everyone.

I play Civ3 as a role playing game, and I find that the combat system works great. When I attack, the results seem reasonably realistic that is doesn't interfere with my fun at all. My armor attacks work against anything short of infantry. Well coordinated combined-arms attacks win as expected. Even when I lose a combat, it is because of my own lack of planning or chances taken through impatience, or due to strategic considerations.

I don't blame the combat system. I buck up, determine where I went wrong, and try to avoid the same mistake in the future.

[Velociryx]

??? What do you guys mean? The combat system is exquisitely balanced!

-=Vel=-

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by kailhun


I've found that if you want to believe these popular stories, it's best not to read up on them.
The same goes for heroes. If you start reading up on them, you discover that they were only human and had faults, made mistakes etc. This is not a good thing for a pure hero. Not even R.E. Lee can stand up to this kind of scrutiny.

Robert

Umm, are you calling R.E. Lee a hero? By any reasonable definition of the word "treason", he commited it...

[Brutus66]

I think we may be missing an important point. Does anybody really know for certain what these units represent? Is an infantry "unit " a division of men? Several divisions? Or just a brigade? How many mounted warriors are in the cavalry unit depicted in the game? I might have an easier time with some of the combat results if I knew the answers.
Speaking of that, I have a hard time with the cavalry unit. Is it supposed to represent the cavalry like that of the American west in the mid to late 19th century? If so, cavalry would really be a misnomer- those men were more mounted infantry than cavalry. The horses gave them mobility, but they were usually dismounted in the combat area. Real cavalry, such as that in the middle ages, was not used seperately but in a force of combined arms. The infantry did the real fighting, and if the enemy was showing signs of cracking, the cavalry were employed for shock value to route them. Using cavalry by itself is a bad idea, and I think the French survivors of Crecy would be the first to agree.

[Brutus66]

Depends on what side you're on, Andrew. Here in Virginia, lots of folks see Lee as a hero, and I think for good reason.
You really have to study the causes of the American civil war to find the truth. When the original colonies were discussing forming a union, some of the southern states refused to join unless they were guaranteed that they could leave the union if they so desired.
Later, Lincoln kept them in the union, and did so at the point of a bayonette.
Many folks are certain that the war was fought against slavery, and that is simply not true. Lincoln is on record as saying that, if he could preserve the union by allowing slavery to exist, he would have done so. The war was fought by the Federal government to preserve the union, PERIOD.
Lincoln denied the southern states the right to decide their own destiny, and Lee reluctantly agreed to lead the armies of the Confederacy because of loyalty to his people and his state.
If you don't like Lee because he defended an institution that condoned slavery, maybe we should discuss Washington and Jefferson, the architects of the US and, also, slave-plantation owners...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Brutus66
I think we may be missing an important point. Does anybody really know for certain what these units represent? Is an infantry "unit " a division of men? Several divisions? Or just a brigade? How many mounted warriors are in the cavalry unit depicted in the game? I might have an easier time with some of the combat results if I knew the answers.

You have hit the nail on the head. The game is heavily abstracted.

For instance, muskets represent everything from 17th-century flint-locks to 19th-century percussion locks. Tanks are everything from WWI-style used to support infantry, to WWII-style used for mechanized thrusts. Spearmen normally use spears, of course, but could also use fire, pits, or avalanches. Units in Civ3 represent different size forces depending on the unit and the era.

But a Legion in Civ3 does not actually represent a Legion in real life. Five Legions was a huge army in Caesar's day, but I've had 20-30 Legions in Civ3.