The combat system, yet again.

[kailhun]

New thread because this gripe about the combat system doesn't involve planes and ships.

I was playing Civ 3 last night. My Legionaries were attacking Middelburg. I noticed that broadly speaking there were two phases in the attack.
The first phase was me losing. Badly (or very well, depending on how you look at it). Many legionaries bit the dust and little damage for the Dutch cheese-heads.
In the second phase the Dutch lost. Badly (see above). The entire defense crumbled and died. Huzzah, I win.
I've noticed this before and it seems odd to me. The lack of randomness especially.
I read in the manual, I think, that units get boni based on the other units around them. If this applies to stacks, then that would go some way to explain what happened.
However I get the impression, and it is little more than that, that you are doomed to lose the first say 5 or 6 attacks on a city. Almost regardless of the unittypes involved.

I was also pissed of when a longbowmen took out my musketman without so much as a 'by your leave', even though a legionary has trouble with a pikeman.

Robert

[Zachriel]

Re: The combat system, yet again.

Originally posted by kailhun
. . . The lack of randomness especially. . . .

Typical gambler's fallacy.

A gambler with a sore leg went to the racetrack. Because of the pain, he stood on one leg. He won big that day. Forever after, he stands on one leg for "good luck."

[kailhun]

Re: Re: The combat system, yet again.

Originally posted by Zachriel


Typical gambler's fallacy.

A gambler with a sore leg went to the racetrack. Because of the pain, he stood on one leg. He won big that day. Forever after, he stands on one leg for "good luck."

The story was meant to illustrate the impression I had gotten over a number of games of these two phases. Combat is supposed to be random, but if that is the case there can not be two so discernable phases.
This means that there are boni at work that lessen as more units are fed into the grinder or that I'm paranoid.

Robert

[SpencerH]

I was also pissed of when a longbowmen took out my musketman without so much as a 'by your leave', even though a legionary has trouble with a pikeman.

If you're playing with unmodified unit stats I would think those battles are pretty much 50/50 propositions.

Combat is supposed to be random,

I dont think combat is supposed to be random but there is supposed to be en element of randomness (luck) that is present in real combat. Perhaps this was what you meant?

As for losing 5 or 6 then the AI losing the remainder. I havent seen it to that extent, but I have come to the conclusion that units stacks have a combat benefit.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SpencerH
If you're playing with unmodified unit stats I would think those battles are pretty much 50/50 propositions.

I dont think combat is supposed to be random but there is supposed to be en element of randomness (luck) that is present in real combat. Perhaps this was what you meant?

As for losing 5 or 6 then the AI losing the remainder. I havent seen it to that extent, but I have come to the conclusion that units stacks have a combat benefit.

"stacks have a combat benefit" Other than the obvious -- best defender, rotating defender, etc -- what benefit? I haven't seen that.

I have found the randomizer pretty close to random in my games. (That is not to say my evidence is more reliable or more scientific than anyone else's.)

[Willem]

Re: Re: Re: The combat system, yet again.

Originally posted by kailhun


The story was meant to illustrate the impression I had gotten over a number of games of these two phases. Combat is supposed to be random, but if that is the case there can not be two so discernable phases.
This means that there are boni at work that lessen as more units are fed into the grinder or that I'm paranoid.

Robert

Well I think you're paranoid. I have never seen these phases you're talking about in any of my battles. Sometimes I win, sometimes I lose and that's about all I see.

[BillChin]

Today is the beginning of the NCAA basketball tournament. A shooter that makes 45% of his shots may often make five or six in a row or miss five or six in a row. Same deal with combat results. Combat results with a 45% chance of winning will sometimes come up five or six times in a row for one side.

I much prefer the Civ III combat system to Call to Power, where superior forces almost always won. Adding an element of luck and the possibility of a super-lucky defender adds to the game. In Civ III a single spearman has a chance against three swordsmen. A small chance, but a chance. He has to win the first combat and get a promotion. Odds of this are about 30% for winning and 6% to get a promotion. Very slim odds, but players remember when it happens.

[SpencerH]

"stacks have a combat benefit" Other than the obvious -- best defender, rotating defender, etc -- what benefit? I haven't seen that.

I havent spent many long hours analysing CIV3 combat its just an impression I've gotten that the odds are modified slightly by the presence of a stack. Instead of 50/50 battles favoring the defender slightly they'll favor the attacker if its stacked with other units.

[Zachriel]

Check out the Civulator:

http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

The swordsmen v. pikeman 3-3; Longbow v. musket 4-4, also about even odds.

Now veteran swordsmen v. veteran spearman fortified in a city is also about even odds. The chance of 4 wins in 5 combats is about 20%. Not very unusual at all, indeed, typical.