The facts on Spear/Tank Phenomonon, please

[Cyclotron]

I only installed Civ3 a few weeks ago, and have played at least 6 games (most of them up to the modern age). It seems that every now and then, a post pops up here about how the combat system is flawed. Most notably, there seems to be a recurring reference to a spearman winning against a tank... but I have not seen anyone actually refer to this as a disticnt instance )rather than just as abstraction).

In my experience to date, I have never seen this phenomonon. The most grevious "anachronism" I've seen yet was an elite pikeman winning against a veteran cavalry... and even that isn't too far-fetched.

I'm not trying to start an argument about whether the combat system is flawed or not, that's been done and re-done. I just want people to post specific instances, with all relevant details, to observe how widespread this "problem" really is.

[Munroe]

I really agree here. In all my games I have never encounted something like this. I have had a few battles were I lost a unit that I thought was a sure win but when you do the math the odds weren't so great and does it even matter ?? One battle shouldn't change the outcome of a war. IMO there is no problem. A few people come here and rant non stop because they lost an advanced tank to a spear holding guy and go on how we need firepower + hitpoints etc etc. I for one like how every unit still has a chance... It gives people behind a bit of a chance.


Btw go check this out if you wanna see the numbers behind the battles:

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

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

I've personally lost a couple of tanks to fortified/forest/elite spearmen. Sure it pisses me off, but so does losing tanks to cavalry which happens far more often than statistically probable. But I hate losing any of my brave soldiers

[Coracle]

I had a situation where two units, both full strength veterans, fought: a longbowman attacked cavalry. The rifle-armed cavalry was destroyed by guys whose arrows had about a third the range of rifles, who had a limited suplly of arrows, and cavalry being mounted could better get into supoerior tactical position by being mounted.

I've also had far too many ironclads defeated by frigates.

There are other examples I consider sufficiently idiotic to require me to Edit all unit values; those post-gunpowder have gone way up. Knights are now 5.2.2.

Firaxis admitted their stupid unit values were the result of their brainless resource allocation in which they made resources far too rare - requiring them to keep advanced units weaker than they should be to give players without those resources "a chance". And that is a CROCK.

EDIT, EDIT.

Longbowmen, BTW, should be English-specific; everyone else should get crossbowmen.

[Zachriel]

It's very rare. Mostly because tanks rarely encounter spearmen. I finally encountered a spearman in the modern age in a recent game. I had to kill several riflemen and a couple of mustetmen in the city first.

The spearman was probably the palace guard, but I had heard about the "killer spearman" and the soldiers were getting a little nervous, with talk about spirits of the past and what not. And how this particular spearman was a top elite unit, with an ancient reputation, and funny ancient clothes to match. Once they fought to the last hitpoint, but had saved the city from a barbarian horde. That was about 1500 years ago.

I wasn't taking any chances, so I rolled up some artillery and bombarded them for about a dozen volleys. After that I started hitting the spearman with tanks. Well, only one tank, because that's all it took.

But I wasn't taking any chances!

[MOHonor]

Originally posted by Zachriel
It's very rare. Mostly because tanks rarely encounter spearmen. I finally encountered a spearman in the modern age in a recent game. I had to kill several riflemen and a couple of mustetmen in the city first.

The spearman was probably the palace guard, but I had heard about the "killer spearman" and the soldiers were getting a little nervous, with talk about spirits of the past and what not. And how this particular spearman was a top elite unit, with an ancient reputation, and funny ancient clothes to match. Once they fought to the last hitpoint, but had saved the city from a barbarian horde. That was about 1500 years ago.

I wasn't taking any chances, so I rolled up some artillery and bombarded them for about a dozen volleys. After that I started hitting the spearman with tanks. Well, only one tank, because that's all it took.

But I wasn't taking any chances!

You should turn that into a short story and send it to Sid!

[Journier]

heh

ive had the spearman bring a full health veteran tank to red before dying... which was... crazy...

Anything above a spearmen i just imagine they are like some villagers with pitch forks and !!!Grenades!!!

its imaginable that a pike could hold off a tank with a few grenades and good defensive lines of houses ))

heh...

spearman i think not...

[TitanTim]

I think the key fact being missed here isn't that the unit ADM values are incorrect but rather the randomization of this game is so bad it competes with Heroes3.

My example is simple. A veteran Legionary (3-3-1) attacking a normal Archer (2-1-1). I can't remember if plains give defense bonus but I don't think so. My legionary lost all hit points and didn't even take out one HP of the Archer. For his Archer to do damage to my Legionary it is a 25% possibility. It's been a while since I've done finite mathematics and propability but I believe that for his Archer to obliterate my Legionary as he did it works out to a 0.4% possibility. Remotely possible but possible right? Maybe but when I attack again and the battle wavers back and forth with my veteran Legionary (another one) barely making it out alive makes you wonder how that Archer could be defending himself so well.

It's this stupidity that has me ranting and raving about how the game sucks every time I try to play. Add corruption into the mix and I never make it past the second age before I practically kick my computer out of frustration.

Thankfully, though fully worn out, I can return to my old faithful copy of Civ2. Heck, maybe I'll even try a little round of Civ or CivNet. Anything but Civ3.

[theEntity]

Originally posted by TitanTim

(Snipped story of a Bowman that massacred a Legionary)

It's this stupidity that has me ranting and raving about how the game sucks every time I try to play. Add corruption into the mix and I never make it past the second age before I practically kick my computer out of frustration.

I can understand that corruption adds to the frustration, but I do not understand how such combat results makes you think the game sucks.

The history is full of stories about (seemingly) inferiour troops beating a better equipped army, due to luck, better tactics or whatever. CIV3 is such a large scale game that it cannot simulate tactical battles - but I think the randomization of the battle results is a good way of representing the uncertainty of a war.

Persia did loose at Thermopylae, and I think it makes CIV3 more fun when I sometimes get the same type of suprise.

And finally - is it any fun to have a war where you know the outcome and you never need much backup - knowing that the opponent can never make a stand as the Greek did at Thermopylae?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by TitanTim

My example is simple. A veteran Legionary (3-3-1) attacking a normal Archer (2-1-1). I can't remember if plains give defense bonus but I don't think so. My legionary lost all hit points and didn't even take out one HP of the Archer. For his Archer to do damage to my Legionary it is a 25% possibility.

In the early first century AD, three entire legions (probably 5-10 units in Civ3) were wiped out by barbarian warriors in the Teutoburg Forest. It was a trap, but in any case, there is ample historical precedence.

In Civ3, there is a 5% chance of your legion being destroyed, or a good chance in every war for it to happen at least once. Meanwhile you have probably destroyed their entire civilization. I just don't get it.

Anyway, for your reference, here is the Civulator:

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

[Zachriel]

In war, Son, soldiers die. You must steel yourself and your fighters for losses.

[David Murray]

I've had many infantrymen killed when attacking spearmen, even on grass plains. In my most recent game, I've even lost infantrymen to attacking legionaries. But it doesn't bother me because...well, it's just a game! I treat it like a board game--just follow the rules and use your imagination!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by David Murray
I've had many infantrymen killed when attacking spearmen, even on grass plains. In my most recent game, I've even lost infantrymen to attacking legionaries. But it doesn't bother me because...well, it's just a game! I treat it like a board game--just follow the rules and use your imagination!

Not as "unlucky" as Isandlwana, where British riflemen lost to impis. Of course, what is reflected in the randomizer are tactical decisions which can, indeed, lead to disaster.

The proper use of bombard will negate most ill effects of the randomizer.

[The Rook]

Originally posted by Coracle
I had a situation where two units, both full strength veterans, fought: a longbowman attacked cavalry. The rifle-armed cavalry was destroyed by guys whose arrows had about a third the range of rifles, who had a limited suplly of arrows, and cavalry being mounted could better get into supoerior tactical position by being mounted.

Custer (Cavalry) was defeated by a bunch of indians (Bowmen)

OK, it isn't the exact same thing. The idians did have some rifles and they were mounted too. They also outnumbered Custer. My point is this though; there is more to warfare than just technological advantage. Your cavlary could have been ambushed, trapped, cornered. The longbowmen could have had some rifles to suppliment their arrows. Perhaps they attacked at night while the cavalry was encamped?

Let me ask those of you who are so against a spearmen killing a tank. What if I put YOU as the leader of my elite spearmen brigade and I informed you that a tank unit was heading towards our city. Surrender is not an option, the enemy would kill us all, rape our wives, and force our children into slavery. What would you do? Give it up as hopeless? I know what I would do. I would set to work devising some plan to entrap the enemy tanks. It may not work. We may fail, but it's better than the alternative.

[The Rook]

Originally posted by Zachriel

The proper use of bombard will negate most ill effects of the randomizer.

A more true statement can not be made. I think that is the crux of the problem. People lose their higher tech units due to over confidence and brash moves.

You: "Hah! that city is only defended by a unit of pikemen! Colonel Smith, send in the 356th armored division. I want that city by nightfall.

COL Smith: "But sir, they have had time to prepare for our attack. The 57th Artillery Division is only a day away. Shouldn't we hold our attack until we can soften them up with a bombarment?"

You: "Didn't you hear me Colonel? Those are PIKEMEN down there! They are palace guards, not real soldiers. Send in those tanks now! We will make quick work of them and be ready to move in the morning."