Phalanx defeats Tank! What can be done!

[OrangeSfwr]

Ok, I suppose my title was a little extreme, but hey, I needed an attention getter. I noticed that although Civ 2 was supposed to be more accurate because of Hit Points and fire power, it is only slightly more accurate as far as military units go, than Civ 1. Certain Units do not have an attack number that correctly represents their strength. Musketeers can successfully be defeated by Chariots, as can Riflemen be defeated by Elephants, Knights, and Crusaders. Why should the defense of a Musketeer be 3 when a legion attacks at 4? Even if the hit points and firepower are supposed to obscure this, it doesn't always happen. There should be some way of showing that certain units have a HUGE chance of defeating other units. E.G. make the game so that Armor always defeates legion, Ironclads always defeat Phalanx. I think a more accurate depiction of unit strenght would make the game much more accurate and give an added bonus to those who possess knowledge of higher military sciences. Maybe there should be a constraint on the unit against certain time periods...

Phalanx - x100% against bronze age units (horsemen, phalanx)
x75% against iron age units (legion, chariot)
x50% against R+R (knights, crusaders)
X25% against industrial age (musketeers, ironclad)
x0% against modern units (armor, mech inf.)

Armor - x200% against bronze age units
x175% against iron age units
x150% against R+R units
x125% against industrial age units
x100% against modern units

but put this on defense only that way you don't get confusing with giving the Armor added defense against a crusader while also taking away from the crusader. I don't know if that made sense or not, It's late and I'm incoherent.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Earthling7]

Phalanxes should be able to defeat musketeers, but only in numbers. One phalanx against one musk, easy. One musk against 5 phalanxes, not so easy... which brings us to stacking. One of the good things in CTP was the battle system. Civ3 should learn and improve on that.

Think about it. One musketeer. 10 riflemen. Open field. Musketeer is lucky and kills the rifleman while the rest watches. When their fellow rifleman is killed, they are so shocked that they all die too... hmmm.

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[MidKnight Lament]

CTP made some good improvements to battle, but there's still plenty of room for improvement. There were still some rather unlikely battle outcomes that resulted.

I don't think that your unit strength should be linked to which Age you're in. That's sort of a patch on the problem, when it needs to be fixed at the roots. Balance is a key issue.

If you're pretty interested in how battles could work, I suggest you go take a look at the List 2.0. There were some rather invloved models in there that went much further than the old A/D/M. Classic example is not so much Phalanx v Tank, but Phalanx v Bomber. How in hell is a Phalanx even going to touch a bomber? That's why some of the suggestions added both Air and Sea defense and attack values.

Anyway, give it a look if you're interested in the way battles could work. Perhaps steal a few ideas out of there. It looked like plenty of people had put a lot of work into it.

- MKL

[OrangeSfwr]

Cool, I'll check it out

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Seeker]

But there needs to be some 'faint hope' for ancient units, or how would you explain Zulu warriors defeating British riflemen?

[Slingshot]

After say, 7 turns, every civ should be able to buy (if not manufacture) their own tanks.

They would be expensive and slightly inferior to the ones owned by civs with the required techs.

But they would be tanks nonetheless.

And I would be less upset about losing to inferior tanks than losing to a bunch of phalanx units.

Besides, the trade of weapons would add a new dimension to the game!

[Sirotnikov]

I think this all can be solved by increasing the attack defense of modern units much more.

that is:
phalanx: 1 att 2 def
musketeer: 10 att 10 def
armor: 90 att 20 def
but also
mech inf.: 40 att 75 def

see?

as time progresses the def/att values should raise a whole lot. and stacking, if implimented should ... I don't know, sum the values maybe, so 10 phalanx units will have 10 att and 20 def.

but, i'm not sure how i stand in regards to stacking. and I think that battle was one of CTP's great weaknesses. I didn't play it much (for a couple of hours at my friends house) but it seemed to suck. the friend mentioned above also dislikes CTP and it'a battle system.

but that's my opinion, folks.

[MidKnight Lament]

Seeker, you're right. One unit should not always win against another. The problem is deeper than that.

CTPs battle system was a noble attempt. It may not have had everything a military game had, and it may not have been balanced that well, but it was heaps better than the system in Civ2 imho. Just the fact that it included Stacking was a huge leap forward. CTP2 (and Civ3) just has to build on those ideas now. Credit where credit's due.

And Slingshot, I don't agree that civs should be able to build units until they've got the right techs. Even if the units were inferior. I think that goes against some key principles in Civ with regards to technology.

Buying the units is a different story.

- MKL

[SailorUranus]

I have an better idea for use of the various Military eras.

For inferior military era units, they do not gain any battle modifiers on offense or defense except for veteren bonuses.

My Eras:

Non-Combat: Spies, Caravans, etc.
Hand-to-Hand: Phalanxes, Legions, Knights, etc.
Firearms: Musketeers, Cavalry, Dragoons, etc.
Modern Warfare: Riflemen, Armor, etc.

[Youngsun]

I'm in the middle of mid-term exams now so I will be quick.

Just add AT/AA/AV stats.

4 basic attacks
1.AP:Anti-personnel
2.AT:Anti-tank
3.AA:Anti-air
4.AV:Anti-vessel

4 basic unit body/hull/structure(whatever)

1.Men
2.Armoured/mechanised
3.Airplanes
4.Ships

Phalanx :men AP3 AT0 AA0 AV0 Def3
Riflemem:men AP15 AT3 AA2 AV0 Def8
Armour :armoured AP10 AT15 AA2 AV1 Def10
Gunship :Air AP12 AT20 AA5 AV3 Def4

Phalanx has no chance to kill armour and gunship at all but slight chance to kill riflemen if lucky

Riflemen can kill phalanx easy but kill armour and gunship with extreme difficulty.

Armour can run down phalanx easy and can take slight casualties when it attacks riflemen and have almost no chance to kill gunship.

Gunship has overall superiority over any ground units except mobile SAM units.

Mobile SAM:armoured AP2 AT1 AA10 AV0 Def4
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited April 15, 2000).]

[Sirotnikov]

Good post youngsun. I've read about a similar idea in some civ site. I agree.

[tniem]

I was going to basically what Crustacian said. While it is unlikely for a phalanx unit to destroy a tank it is a real possibility. The tank fires at the rushing phalanxes. When the tank hits most of the army dies, but some get through. At this point the tank can be jammed and the phalanxes can set fire or whatever else to the tank. Again not likely but a possibility. With hit points the phalanx might win but be all but destroyed. If points are balanced it would secure that it would still be a slight chance but keep it possible.

[Crustacian]

quote: Originally posted by Earthling7 on 04-13-2000 03:10 AM Phalanxes should be able to defeat musketeers, but only in numbers. One phalanx against one musk, easy. One musk against 5 phalanxes, not so easy... which brings us to stacking. One of the good things in CTP was the battle system. Civ3 should learn and improve on that. Think about it. One musketeer. 10 riflemen. Open field. Musketeer is lucky and kills the rifleman while the rest watches. When their fellow rifleman is killed, they are so shocked that they all die too... hmmm.

The stacking idea is a good one, as well as range. But in CTP I lost a frigate in a stack that did not shore bombard an inferiorly defended city to ranged archers. True I should have bombarded instead of attcked..but still

Also one of my first civ1 games the Aztech's came over to my Chinese city with bombers, armor...etc. A phalanx took out a bomber!!!
Well maybe it doesn't matter how many phalanxes you have if they could be jointly grouped in a stack against aircraft, so maybe a goose got caught in the props or a bomb accidentaly went off in the bombay.

Why was I only defended with phalanxes you ask? Its cuz I was still at that time under the impression that resources were more important than growth and trade, instead of understanding that resources (and trade) ARE the result of growth.



------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus

[Crustacian]

So it is hard to say stuff like "ironclads should ALWAYS defeat phalanxes" like i read above. What if a bunch of them swam out and sabotaged it? Nothing is invincible. Maybe an ellement of chance failure is worked into the factors already which allow for this.

Some war planes have crashed accidentally without any direct help from the enemy.

Of course what are the chances a bunch of phalanxes swim out and sabotage a battleship bombarding 2 miles off shore...so who knows.

[OrangeSfwr]

Wow, we're certainly using our imaginations aren't we?

Another point to be made is that certain units can't really be harmed by others. E.G. A bomber attacks a stack of musketeers. How are a group of musketeers going 2 even hope to harm a bomber? It's just not possible. Now I know some of you wish to theorize that the musketeer could fire at the plane and possibly hit its fuel tank and fatally wound the bomber, but I don't think like that. The bomber should not recieve any damage. The musketeers should be partially or completely destroyed. Just an idea...

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~