units-representing real life or strategy?

[johncmcleod]

Are units made to represent things or real life-or just for strategical purposes? I first thought of this when I looked and saw how the musketman-rifleman-infantry-MI units are all so much better at defending than attacking. This didn't seem to make sense. If a bunch of WW1 infantry charged some other infantry that wasn't entrenched or anything wouldn't they be pretty evenly matched? But not in civ3. The attacker woujld probably get blown away. And the same goes for tanks. If a tank platoon attacked another tank platoon why would the attacking platoon have a way better chance of winning? And then it hit me. If it was made to be like real life, it wouldn't be very strategical. You'd just send in tanks for everything. You wouldn't need foot soldiers. But if there were offensive and defensive units it would've made the game more strategical and probably more fun.

[Catt]

It is definitely a decision to enhance gameplay. Remember, it's not designed as a simulation of reality - it is a strategy game. The "real life" touches / flourishes / basis of the game go a long way to immersing the gamer in the game, but the game designers themselves have on more than one occasion stated that obvious departures from "real life" were made "millions" of times in the game in the interests of making the game more fun and engaging.

Catt

[Zachriel]

Re: units-representing real life or strategy?

Originally posted by johncmcleod
If a bunch of WW1 infantry charged some other infantry that wasn't entrenched or anything wouldn't they be pretty evenly matched?

Catt is exactly right that game decisions are made on the basis of making the game more strategic and hence more fun. However, soldiers advancing over open ground are at a severe disadvantage to those in defending positions. Even lying down is better than walking upright in a fire zone. A simple fortification can be created in minutes for increased protection.

Fact is, infantry is defensive.

BRITANNICA
In the last years of the 19th century, infantry, no longer able to survive the storm of steel sweeping the open terrain, was forced to seek refuge underground. The tactical defense, rendered invisible by the substitution of smokeless powder for black powder, became much stronger than the offense.

This development, the first signs of which could already be seen in the 1850s, dominated the South African War (1899–1902) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904–05)—although most European commanders refused to look facts in the face until the butchery of World War I. During that war, fronts, manned by armies whose troops numbered in the millions, solidified into continuous trench systems that were sometimes hundreds of miles long. Often there were two and even three lines of trenches protected in front by belts of mines and barbed wire hundreds of yards thick. From the rear they were linked to communication trenches, which led into them and allowed reinforcements to arrive without leaving cover.

[Zachriel]

Gunpowder and liberty are historically intertwined. A man with a musket is no longer a peasant, but a citizen with rights. With a musket, a man can defend his home from even the king's army. He will probably kill at least one invader trying to enter his home, and probably more.

Also, they don't give infantry shovels just to build latrines. The defensive power of infantry and the battlefield stalemate that resulted only ended with the advent of the tank and associated blitzkrieg tactics; hence tanks are treated as offensive units in Civ3.

Of course, as you and Catt point out, even though one can find some historical justification for the unit values, it just wouldn't matter if it didn't advance the game.

[Sean]

Gunpowder and Liberty. Very perceptive Zachriel.

[Lecommencement]

Not many tanks can deal with Infanty, in real life, hence the idea of combined arms. A platoon of inf can easily deal with a platoon of tanks, if they arnt supported.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lecommencement
Not many tanks can deal with Infanty, in real life, hence the idea of combined arms. A platoon of inf can easily deal with a platoon of tanks, if they arnt supported.

I agree. I think tanks should have a lower defense to force players to use infantry to support them. (The gamemakers were probably assuming the tank unit was combined armor, infantry and artillery like the U.S. 1st Armor Division.)