I can't believe this..

[Qilue]

Story time.

During one game, I was positioning my fleets when an elite galley and a regular battleship from two civs who were at war with each other, moved into the view range of my ships. I remember I totally screwed up my next turn because I was in tears laughing.

The battleship attacked the galley and lost.

History time.

Anyone ever read about Rorke's Drift? This was a battle where 150 British soldiers defended a supply station against 4000 Zulu warriors.

http://www.rorkesdriftvc.com/

To use a Civ comparision, 1 rifleman defends (and survives) the attacks of 26 Impis.

[spy14]

Originally posted by Zachriel


A Veteran Frigate will beat a Veteran Galley 82.67% of the time -- better than four out of five on average.

Civulator
http://207.191.20.18/civ3/lwc-civulator.html

In theory yes. In practice no. Make a scenario and try it

[Average Monkey]

interesting discussion

i've not really played Civ3 enough to make a decision about the combat model, but in my current game i'm using Knights and Swordsmen against my german neighbour who is similarly armed.

most times i get the results i would expect, though obviously i havn't seen any battles with a civ with lesser or greater military technology.

anyway, what this all kinda reminds me off was the arguments i used to have with a group of friends i regularly played board games like Diplomacy and Risk with.

a few of us loved Diplomacy as it had none of the dice rolling that took place in Risk, but others hated it because they felt this made the game too predictable, especially if you were one of the central powers...

my argument was always that the game was called Diplomacy for a reason, and the nay-sayers should have concentrated more on making successful alliances to balance any geographical weaknesses of their nation

from what i'm hearing here, there's a lot of disagreement about the way the combat model works, but most of the examples are on a tactical level - if you know there's uncertainty over a battle, do as much as you can to limit that uncertainty and plan for the worst - - at the end of the day the war option is only a part of the game as i play it, and all-out war is the FINAL option for when all else fails

anyway, thats my first post done with and gotten outta the way - didn't know where to jump in there!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by spy14
In theory yes. In practice no. Make a scenario and try it

I have tested it extensively. Generally, those who make extraordinary claims would have to provide the evidence. If there is a pink elephant in your garage, perhaps you would consider showing it to us.

In this case, if you could provide us a proper demonstration.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Average Monkey
if you know there's uncertainty over a battle, do as much as you can to limit that uncertainty and plan for the worst -

Good advice. There is much more uncertainty in real battles. At least we have the exact percentages.

[vondrack]

I have fought thousands and thousands of battles in Civ3, with expected results most of the time. The exceptions were just to the extent of probability count, as given by mathematical formulas expressing odds of winning/losing. Yes, there were times when I was screaming at the monitor, because I lost something like two vet swordsmen to one unfortified regular spearmen in the open grassland... but that's what happens. Military campaigns should not be based on the existence or non-existence of two or three units. If you want to win a campaign, you have to be able to replenish your fighting forces on the fly.

The Civ3 combat system is not flawed. Just the combat results are a bit less predictable that in other games... you sometimes lose even if you think you must win. And thanks God it is so - otherwise, Civ3 would be about mindlessly moving hundreds of units... no surprises, no excitement, no thrills... just tedious battling to the eventual victory.

[The Puny Celt]

In a recent game I played I was keeping track of how many units I lost in battles compared to my opponents, like a football score. So the Egyptians (me) slaughtered the Greeks 47-6, we beat the Russians 41-10 and 27-5 against the Germans. This was from just using basic strategy like avoiding battles when the odds were against me, increasing my odds by attacking from hills and mountains, protecting my attacking units with strong defensive ones, using bombardment to soften up the enemy, etc. When I'm getting overall results like the above, I don't worry so much by the occasional AI Spearman victory over my vet Cavalry.

However I can sympathise with those who get frustrated. I avoid sea-battles as much as possible, because I can't use terrain advantages etc to tilt the odds in my favour. I'll attack caravels with my ironclads, frigates with my battleships but even then I do it with a sense of dread.

[Grumbold]

I thought that Firaxis had bowed to the demand and introduced a seed-randomiser option so those who dislike the extreme results can reload and get a better one?

I'm a fan of the CtP army system. Not only does it allow ranged combat, flanking and sheer weight of numbers to be a factor but it also compresses so many "random" numbers into one fight that it is very hard to have completely absurd results.

OT: The Spanish Armada was not defeated by the English fleet. Its orders were to sail up the channel, allow the army to board then sail them over to England to invade. They proved that they could easily achieve this had circumstances not prevented the army from being ready to embark. Most of the casualties only came when they were on their way home and struck by a huge storm off the coast of Ireland.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Grumbold
OT: The Spanish Armada was not defeated by the English fleet. Its orders were to sail up the channel, allow the army to board then sail them over to England to invade. They proved that they could easily achieve this had circumstances not prevented the army from being ready to embark. Most of the casualties only came when they were on their way home and struck by a huge storm off the coast of Ireland.

That means, of course, that they were defeated without the help of the enemy. They were sailing around Ireland to avoid contact with the enemy.

Not really off-topic. Storms, and other local events, are represented by the randomizer. The Spanish knew this, and thought they had brought along sufficient numbers to overcome any bad rolls of the dice. Unfortunately, they miscounted the tiles and their two fleets didn't quite meet up on time.

[Grumbold]

They were sailing around Ireland because that was the way the wind was blowing, but I take your point. Its just that some people have a misguided impression that the Armada was defeated by plucky English ships sinking a lot of them. Most sunk weeks after the English harrassment of the fleet had ended so you need a Civ timespan of 1 year/turn to be able to claim those as combat losses In civ terms it is a good example of an aberrant result.

[I-iZ-1337]

S0undz likez a n00b

Hap33 d00dz, j00 muzt b33 a n00b if j00 cantz b337 th33 AIz. J00 shoulz g0 t00 th33 stratz sectionz and l00kz atz m33 1337 h4xx0rz threadz aboutz stratz. 133arnz fromz th33 1337, bringz morez knightz nexzt tim33z, thenz j00 mightz winz.

[dunk]

I used to complain about seemingly "obsolete" units defeating my more modern ones. I'm certain you're exaggerating your losses. "It happens every time!" is utter crap. It may happen in a string, but that type of thing happens. I've gotten just as lucky as the AI has in individual battles.

Then I got better at Civ III and I stopped whining.

When you get better, you'll quit whining too. and the game will be much more fun.

Yes, listen to the "cool guy" who types like he's illiterate. The Strategy Forum here has plenty of helpful hints.

[HappySunShine]

Maybe you should shut the **** up dunk. My real name is EyesOfNight. I was the best civ2 MP player ever. I spent 2 years at number 1 on the ladder and I have written more MP strategies than anyone. I've been playing this game for over a decade and civ3 isn't what you would call a challenging game. But that's beside the point. Only newbies worry about the AI anyways, I'm worried about the combat model as it applies to MP. So why don't you sit back and keep your stupid rookie assessments to yourself? Got it? Anyone else want to act stupid like dunk?

[Ribannah]

C'mon, play nice! Not everyone can grasp the subtleties and annoyances of a master strategist.

I think you're right about the random factor being too high for a sophisticated MP-er. For less experienced players, however, that is not necessarily the case. Let's hope Firaxis has planned an option to control the randomness of (especially) battle outcomes with a slider (from pre-determined to even a little beyond the present toss-up). That shouldn't be too hard to implement, and practice will show what feels comfortable and just.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Grumbold
They were sailing around Ireland because that was the way the wind was blowing, but I take your point. Its just that some people have a misguided impression that the Armada was defeated by plucky English ships sinking a lot of them. Most sunk weeks after the English harrassment of the fleet had ended so you need a Civ timespan of 1 year/turn to be able to claim those as combat losses In civ terms it is a good example of an aberrant result.

Yes, the money was on the Spanish. Who would have thought they would roll snake-eyes -- twice or three times in a row?!