this combat system has to **GO**

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by faded glory
Actually. Judging by the popularity of these forums. I would say I was right.

Funny I think its exactly the opposite. Both the forums and the game are popular so its obvious that your level of disapointment is unusual.

My opinion. Im not a Troll, but some people here are just hardcore fanboys IMO

Only trolls call people fanboys. You have been doing that for a long time.

See and pre patch the bombers were invulnerable. And as for a handful of men armed with clubs fighting off my tank divisions. It happens to me ALOT.

The game was patched long ago and you still are complaining about the same thing. That is trolling at best. I have NEVER lost a tank to a warrior. If it happens to you a lot:

You must still be playing the game after nearly a year so the game must be better than you are trolling.

You must be incompetent on top of being a troll. What did you do, mod the game to give Warriors an anti-tank ax?

The only obsolete units that beat my tanks fairly often are cavalry and they still lose most of the time. Takes several of them at least to beat a tank and it has to be on open ground.

No cause the human will actually be worth playing. And wont be a retarded, random set of actions.

Unless I am playing someone that frequently loses tanks to spearman and guys armed with clubs.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Theseus
1) Hell, I'm a Marine... give me a spear, and show me a tank.

Steady soldier. We admire your courage, but that won't be necessary. You will be provided the best weapons, training and support we can muster. War is dangerous enough as it is.


EXETER: There's five to one; besides, they all are fresh.
SALISBURY: God's arm strike with us! 'tis a fearful odds.
. . .
WESTMORELAND God's will! my liege, would you and I alone,
Without more help, could fight this royal battle!

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Word=_&Path=shakespeare/histories/kinghenryv/iv_iii//

[vondrack]

This post will seem rather off-topic now, since the thread is quite fast-growing, but I can't help...

Originally posted by Ethelred
I thought I had the coolest avatar. My mistake.

This is the way to go, Ethelred!

Originally posted by Ethelred
I like FG's avatar too. However I am an equal opportunity picker onner and will pick on any, all and sundry. Whether they have a neat avatar or not.

Yes, Ethelred is 100% serious about this. I have to confirm that. Any, all and sundry! Beware, everybody!


EDIT: I have read several very good arguments in favour of the current combat system here. As this is perhaps the 368th thread on the topic, it strikes me that those defending it can always come up with new examples, parallels, and reasons why it's okay, while those that oppose it just repeat "spearmen can't beat tanks" over and over... must be a crucial lack of imagination or something...

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I have CTP. I loathe its combat system. First of all, the "randomness" you experienced is expanded 10-fold... I had an abolitionist, a 0/0 unit, sink one of my men-o-war and damage another. By herself. So please, before you vouch for the virtues of the CTP system over the Civ3 one, do a little more research.

There isnt, and never has been a Man O War unit in CtP1 or CtP2, and an Abolitionist simply couldnt do that. It helps if it looks like you know what your talking about before you randomly bash something you dont like simply because its different.

Randomness is not the only reason it's [CTP] bad.

Very sound argument coming from a Civ3 lackey

I can only stack 9 units in one tile, for obvious gameplay reasons. First of all, I have a hard time suspending disbelief that 10 units of musketmen, or anything else, can't "fit" in a tile (which is many, many square miles).

As i understood it 1 musketmen represented a small company, and not simply one man. Thats the reason theres stacked combat, because there is no need for piles of the same units rushing at the same target over and over again. CtP2 has a 12 limit. To have an infinite limit on size would negate the need for true stacked combat, because it would be simply be about number of units, which seems like less strategy to me. *shrugs*

Second, It actually interferes with the movement of troops, so I can't do things like, say, moving a stack of my units through a road occupied by another without un-fortifying, moving all stacks, etc... very tedious.

You dont need to unfortify anything, you just have to move them in groups of say 2 or 4 through the fort, as i would think an army would march, through a crowded fortification, but neverless its a (small and rarely seen) gameplay annoyance, i agree.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
There isnt, and never has been a Man O War unit in CtP1 or CtP2, and an Abolitionist simply couldnt do that. It helps if it looks like you know what your talking about before you randomly bash something you dont like simply because its different.

Sorry, I meant ship of the line. And an abolishionist did do that. I attacked a city garrisoned by only one abolishionist with two ships of the line. The abolishionist killed one of my ships and damaged the other into the yellow. I was playing no mods. I would give you a save, but I uninstalled the game a long time ago.

As i understood it 1 musketmen represented a small company, and not simply one man.

That's how I understand it, too.

Thats the reason theres stacked combat, because there is no need for piles of the same units rushing at the same target over and over again. CtP2 has a 12 limit. To have an infinite limit on size would negate the need for true stacked combat, because it would be simply be about number of units, which seems like less strategy to me. *shrugs*

But a finite and arbitrary limit doesn't make logical sense and gets in the way of troop aneuvers that should be routine. Size is part of strategy, CTP rejects size by "capping" armies to a point where they can no longer grow.

You dont need to unfortify anything, you just have to move them in groups of say 2 or 4 through the fort, as i would think an army would march, through a crowded fortification, but neverless its a (small and rarely seen) gameplay annoyance, i agree.

Without getting too technical about the situation, I experienced such "stack annoyance" upwards of once or twice a turn whenever I was at war (I don't skimp on the units). It was enough of an annoyance for me.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by vondrack
EDIT: I have read several very good arguments in favour of the current combat system here. As this is perhaps the 368th thread on the topic, it strikes me that those defending it can always come up with new examples, parallels, and reasons why it's okay, while those that oppose it just repeat "spearmen can't beat tanks" over and over... must be a crucial lack of imagination or something...

I think I've just been insulted...I believe my arguements have been better than that.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Theseus
1) The Civ3 combat system is the Civ3 combat system. Eihter deal, or play something else.

I'm sorry...it seemed to be the topic of this thread to discuss combat issues, and hence the system itself. If you can't handle that, maybe you should post somewhere else.
(woo, I made a scathing retort...hurrah, no offense intended, naturally )

Originally posted by Theseus
2) For any who complain of unusual results, well, first there's Zachriel's comment, which I think quite elegant:

"What you're saying is that well-trained, committed troops trump technology. . . . That is exactly right.

Untrained, undisciplined troops will break and run. They don't know how to use their weapons, they have little knowledge of tactics, they are susceptible to deceit, and most of all, they have no loyalty to their comrades-in-arms."

Adding to that, and stressing the value of training, comradery, esprit-de-corps, etc., I would point to the many instances of heroic perfromance, starting with Thermopylae and continuing through many unbelievable feats in the 20th century.

Except this isn't how it always works. I am not saything that the Civ3 system totally sucks, I am just saying that it could be much, much better. Yes indeed, it just mostly sucks (hehe...I am going to be less serious about these discussions now since some people don't seem able to read what I say and understand it...though I don't think you are one of those).

Though, in all honesty, if you are going up against machine guns, and you are using a melee weapon, I'd expect you'd need to outnumber the enemy by far more than 100 to 1, even if he was pretty green (though he knew how to operate a weapon). Even 1000 to 1 might not suffice (assuming enough ammo was available).

Thermopylae was a group of hoplites, at least one Elite and several regulars-veterans, in a very narrow pass in the mountains, up against what basically amounted to warriors and a few archers. The cavalry being useless in that scenerio. You'd expect them to do well (and they still lost when they became surrounded, and flanking and the like is something the civ3 combat engine doesn't take into account). Additionally, Persia's foot troops would probably be the equivalent of conscripts in training. So the Greeks had technology and training, whereas Persia only had numbers, and those numbers couldn't be used very well. The result was much as you'd expect (not that I am discounting the final heroism and symbol the 300 Spartans provided at the end).

I still think the Civ3 system is fundamentally flawed though. If a Cavalry unit is on open ground, and it is attacked by another Cavalry unit, assuming equal training, then they should be just about even with each other (equal numbers, the ground favors no one, etc). If anything, the defending unit should have the advantage, since it might know the terrain a bit better. It isn't like the attacking group catches the defender camping or some such, the defenders would have scouts and the like and would be prepared for a fight. This is not how it works in Civ3 though, and the basic system doesn't allow it to work like this (because if you increased the defensive value of Cavalry, then it would defend better against all units). Historically, certain units are better against some other units, worse against some, and even with a few...that can't be modelled in Civ3's system without adding a bunch of special rules, and quite frankly (for me) it is very annoying. I merely think Civ4 could do a much, much better job, and I hope it does.

Originally posted by Theseus
Hell, I'm a Marine... give me a spear, and show me a tank.

Enough of this already.

I hope that, since you are a Marine, you could make a better plan than that : )
And I think a spear would probably break in a tank's treads. I believe against an M1 you'd be better off with flour than with a spear (that is the model that basically has a jet engine, yes? I can't remember which one it was exactly...I think the M1). Of course, you have to know how a tank works to do that. Which primitive spearmen probably don't.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Sorry, I meant ship of the line. And an abolishionist did do that. I attacked a city garrisoned by only one abolishionist with two ships of the line. The abolishionist killed one of my ships and damaged the other into the yellow. I was playing no mods. I would give you a save, but I uninstalled the game a long time ago.

Without any intention to enflame, I also find this a bit hard to believe. But like those who claim to have lost 4 Modern Armours to a single spearmen, claims like these can hardly be taken for granted without evidence.

Originally posted by cyclotron7
That's how I understand it, too.

…

But a finite and arbitrary limit doesn't make logical sense and gets in the way of troop aneuvers that should be routine. Size is part of strategy, CTP rejects size by "capping" armies to a point where they can no longer grow.

Accepting the notion that a single unit represents an appropriately proportioned squad/division/squadron size, a cap on the army size makes logistical as well as game play sense. Armies grow more unmanageable as they grow is size, it wasn’t until (and arguably later) modern times that supplying a massive single force was manageable, let alone possible to coordinate. The size cap prevents multi-million man armies, which would be nigh-impossible to coordinate in the best conditions. The cap, apart from game play balance, simulates that. 12 units aren’t 12 men; a 12-unit army can represent hundreds of thousands of troops moving in a single direction, against the same fixed force.

Be careful not to confuse the CtP armies as entire military, or even theater armies. They are meant to represent single groups of force on a single objective.

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Without getting too technical about the situation, I experienced such "stack annoyance" upwards of once or twice a turn whenever I was at war (I don't skimp on the units). It was enough of an annoyance for me.

It’s annoying, yes. But take a military force of 100,000 men moving in close proximity on a road, then have an equally-numbered force moving on the same road in the opposite direction and tell me it’s not difficult. It’s not impossible, even in the game, but annoying as hell like in real life.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Well, taking into account my belief that there is a difference between an attack and a defense (and thus different values for each), the AD system seems perfectly appropriate to me. Having each unit attack and defend the same would make for a very boring combat system... and I'd take an unpredictable system over a boring one

[comment by me inbetween these statements]

Actually it is. The cav's defense is less, so thus it gets less defence value from the fortress than, say, a rifleman. I fail to see the gameplay difference.

[comment by me inbetween these statements]

Units with high attack do well against units with low defense

The problem with the AD system is that it is too simplistic, far too simplistic. As I said in a reply to Theseus's post, a Cav attacking a Cav on open ground should have about an even fight on its hand, it does not. This is because the AD system is a broken system, that cannot model combat well enough. As you say, making A=D in all circumstances would break the fun of the game (which is what I have been saying), and yet not doing so leads one to ridiculous combat situations like that one above. One unit fighting against the same type of unit should have nearly equal chances on equal ground with neither side fortified (the defender might know the terrain a bit better, hence a 10% bonus, but there are still the problems of identical units fighting).

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Originally posted by me!
units that have a long ranged attack should be able to deal damage and possibly kill units before melee units can deal damage to them.

Fair enough, give them bombard ability

Except that doesn't work either, since you can't give every unit with range bombard. Are you going to give infantry bombard, tanks bombard, every other industrial unit and up bombard? It wouldn't work. The range of all those units is much lower than one square away, but it is a factor when units actually engage in combat in the same square. An AD system simply can't handle this without loads of special rules, which would make it very hard to learn. Sure, in Civ2 having pikes have double the defense value against horsemen worked, because there were so few special rules, but there were still the basic problems of the AD system (I guess I found them easier to ignore since the combat behaved in a more predictable fashion). The AD system is also rediculous in the sense that it acts like each attack is a single thrust of a combat in a much longer battle...because that's the only way the AD system really makes sense (and even that fails, really). Combat in a Civ game, though, is much more general than that. You tell your troops to attack, and the *entire* battle should be done by some dice rolling and calculations. That means you should send your entire attacking army to the square, which means horse, swords, pikes, archers, etc. Again, it is impossible to realistically simulate the battles of armies by having a system where only one unit can attack at a time.

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Actually, odd combat results have nothing to do with the combat system itself... they are two different things. It has been shown by mods that so-called "ridiculous combat results" can be all but banished by simply adding additional hit points, or changing the ADM values. The odd results in no way justify a new system.

See aforementioned issue of like units attacking like units.



Lastly, as for you comments elsewhere about unit stack limits in a square and other issues in CTP...I have thought about it some and it makes sense. All you need to do is add in benefits for having flanking units and it will all make a lot of sense and you won't have any difficulty most of the time. Too many men in too small area is unwieldy, as they'd just get in each other's way, hence the limit. If you add flanking bonuses, you'd want to have them spread out anyways, both to prevent the enemy from flanking you, and to attempt to flank the enemy, hence it would take care of itself. Also, the stack limit would then make the scenerio of the Thermopylae quite possible. A narrow straight through which the enemy can pass...they can only take a limited number of units, and so they have to fight the Greeks with about equal numbers of troops at a time, since the troops have less training and are not equipped as well as the Greeks, they get slaughtered bit by bit (and even more so as bad morale quickly sinks in). So such a system would make things feel better, and make simulations of historic events (as in scenerios) or merely events similar to historic ones, a much more significant possibility.

PS. The issue of bombardment and how much it damages tanks is minor, and doesn't play anywhere near a key role in this discussion, so I will drop it. Heh, additionally, I might very well be wrong about it.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Though, in all honesty, if you are going up against machine guns, and you are using a melee weapon, I'd expect you'd need to outnumber the enemy by far more than 100 to 1.

As usual in these discussions, you are assuming the spearman will charge into the machine guns. That is not necessarily so. They may resort to subterfuge, slit throats in the night, commit sabotage, hijack an airplane and use it as a missile, or simply bribe the commander.

Thermopylae was a group of hoplites

Though the techs were closely matched, the strategic odds were better than 100-1. To be fair to Xerxes, he did "win" that battle.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Zachriel
As usual in these discussions, you are assuming the spearman will charge into the machine guns. That is not necessarily so. They may resort to subterfuge, slit throats in the night, commit sabotage, hijack an airplane and use it as a missile, or simply bribe the commander.

Of course, the defending army can shoot down the plane and use similar forms of subterfuge or trickery. And in a situation like the US attacking Iraq, do you really think Iraq could bribe any of the commanders? I don't think so. Bribing is a very, very rare occurance, especially if you know you are going to win. Slitting throats in the night is also next to impossible, as armies have scouts and lookouts for a reason. This gets all the more true the more advanced the technology. And if they can't get close, they can't sabotage. Hijacking a plane also assumes that there are planes to hijack, and planes that can do damage too, in a WWI timeline, this isn't very likely. Also that sort of thing is a trick that can at best work once (and I think it very unlikely one or even a couple planes could take out an army that spans a huge area).

Tactics like these are basically impossible to acheive in most military settings. That's why when you look through history things like this almost never happen, and when they do, it is usually the richer, more overall impressive army that performs them (such as Thermopylae with the Persians using a Greek traitor to reveal a hidden pass), since the traitors don't want to die. Most times when bribery of commanders or the like occured elsewhere were when there was a coalition of forces, and one country backstabbed another...but that isn't want a spearman beating a tank (or any primitive unit winning over a significantly more advanced one) simulates.

Originally posted by Zachriel
[on thermopylae]
Though the techs were closely matched, the strategic odds were better than 100-1. To be fair to Xerxes, he did "win" that battle.

The tech of the melee troops was not closely matched at all though. The Persian foot soldiers were vastly inferior to the Greek hoplites. Hoplites had much better armer, longer spears, and better training.

[Dis]

this debate never ends. I suggest keeping the option of keeping combat the way it is, and including a new option of going back to civ2 style combat. Although that would be difficult to implement and document.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Of course, the defending army can shoot down the plane and use similar forms of subterfuge or trickery. . . .

(Forgot to mention friendly fire.)

In the game of Civ3, a stack of tanks may consist of dozens of units. Losing perhaps one or two when taking over an entire continent is certainly not "unrealistic."

If you are actually seeing Tank v. Spearman situations, then you are not playing at high enough a level, or already have beaten the enemy to the point where they can't mount a decent defense. And still you are complaining because one Tank commander got complacent and lost, even though there was plenty of Artillery nearby but didn't bother.

I almost never see Tank v. Spearman, and have never seen a Tank lose to one. I will definitely post a screenshot when I do.

[vmxa1]

I admire you memory, I can barely recall anything about CTP and very little of CTP2. It was pretty and filled in until Civ3, but I could not replay it for some reason.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Dissident
this debate never ends. I suggest keeping the option of keeping combat the way it is, and including a new option of going back to civ2 style combat. Although that would be difficult to implement and document.

I'm all for improvements to the combat system, though I find the game quite fun the way it is. It has just a reasonable amount of unpredictability to make it exciting and fit my view of how quirky real life can sometimes be.