this combat system has to **GO**

[Destroyer]

wheres my damn post?

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Zachriel


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.

I agree that the *game* of Civ3 is very well done, but the combat system, while ok, could certainly do with some work; most notibly the additions of some of CtP(2)'s features.

Originally posted by Destroyer

wheres my damn post?

Lost to the sands of time...

[Destroyer]

God damn it, it took me ages to bloody type. Well Im not doing it again!

Combat needs improving! There you bloody well go!

Bah! Im going to bed.

[tinyp3nis]

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.

If you like fantasy games, then I'd recommend civ 1. It was full of cool battles ie. rambo militia (militia = civ 3 warrior) that could defend succesfully versus battleship and cause the ship to sink.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Destroyer
God damn it, it took me ages to bloody type. Well Im not doing it again!

Its a good idea to type up big posts in Notepad but since posts often get out of hand I rarely do it myself since I hadn't planned on a large post.

What I do instead is hit CONTROL-A CONTROL-C to first highlight the whole post in the box and then copy it to the clipboard. Sometime I do this after I hit submit especially if it seems to be taking a while to get going. Sometimes I find I was too late and then fume at not doing it before hitting submit.

[Destroyer]

I normally do that, but I had not planned on such a long post. my "muse" was working overtime so to speak.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Bribing is a very, very rare occurance, especially if you know you are going to win.

You're right. I mean, who could imagine someone betraying their own country.



You have conspired against our royal person,
Join'd with an enemy proclaim'd and from his coffers
Received the golden earnest of our death;
Wherein you would have sold your king to slaughter,
His princes and his peers to servitude,
His subjects to oppression and contempt
And his whole kingdom into desolation.

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?...enryv/ii_iii//

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose Slitting throats in the night is also next to impossible, as armies have scouts and lookouts for a reason.

When marching through enemy territory, it is considered prudent to post auxiliaries as scouts along the sides of the road in order to be forewarned of any danger. However, this slows the advance. There are instances where it may make tactical sense to advance rapidly without regard to the army's flanks. This is not one of them:

The only danger I apprehend of obstruction to your march is from ambuscades of Indians, who, by constant practice, are dexterous in laying and executing them; and the slender line, near four miles long, which your army must make, may expose it to be attack'd by surprise in its flanks, and to be cut like a thread into several pieces, which, from their distance, can not come up in time to support each other."

He smil'd at my ignorance, and reply'd, "These savages may, indeed, be a formidable enemy to your raw American militia, but upon the king's regular and disciplin'd troops, sir, it is impossible they should make any impression." I was conscious of an impropriety in my disputing with a military man in matters of his profession, and said no more.
. . .
This whole transaction gave us Americans the first suspicion that our exalted ideas of the prowess of British regulars had not been well founded.


Ben Franklin's Autobiography

http://earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/chapt12/

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Zachriel


You're right. I mean, who could imagine someone betraying their own country.

Are you purposefully being obtuse? I said it was very, very rare. I did not say it was impossible. In all of America's history, I can only think of Benedict Arnold as a traitor to the nation's military, and technically this happened before America was even a country (with the appearence of very heavy odds against it becoming one). Sure, you could try to argue the civil war, but since Civ3 doesn't support civil wars, it is not a fair example. Citing a fictionalized account of history doesn't help your case, not that even one or two accounts would show that it is more than a very, very rare event.

So that's over 200 years of history with no military betrayals, and America has been in many wars.

Seriously, how many battles can you name in history that were won by betrayal or the cutting of necks in the night? Basically none, I wager (I can certainly think of very few). Thermopylae with the Greeks and Persians doesn't even count, since they would have lost anyway (though they would have done more damage). It certainly isn't at the rate of 1 in 100 (the chance that a spearman who just ran into a fort on a mountain will beat a tank and suffer *no* damage, which is also the same chance that a musketman will kill a tank in an open field--actually he has a slightly higher chance of doing that). Remember, 1 in 100 is very high, since we are talking about *battles* and possibly even just skirmishes as part of a larger battle, we are not talking about 1 in 100 wars.

The game might be fun to play and all, but the combat system is simply unrealistic in the extreme. Vivid and wild imagination are required to delude oneself into thinking otherwise (or some of that combined with sheer ignorance). My intention is to only point out this lack of realism, and to provide some ideas as to how you might design a better system, I don't intend to imply *you* can't have fun playing the game.

The combat system doesn't really encourage the use of combined arms to win battles, and I have a feeling it might be encouraging it even less in multiplayer. Historically certain military technologies were developed to counter the use of pre-existing tech, and so forth. Tanks were designed to counter trench warfare, for instance. Heavily armored knights would stop most arrows (though the english longbowmen was pretty effective against this). Pikes were also good against stopping a cavalry charge, but men on foot were more able to slip through the pikes, and archers could hit them from afar (and pike formations were vulnerable to flanking). This sort of give and take, is simply not present in any real sense in Civ1/2/3, nor is an even semi-realistic portrayal besiegement. It's disappointing that no progress has been made in this area...and, if anything, the situation has worsened (pikes no longer have a bonus against horse units).

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
In all of America's history, I can only think of Benedict Arnold as a traitor to the nation's military

Not to be an ass, and certainly not meaning to setp on Zachriel's toes, who knows much more than me but:

Rob. Hanssen (that pic Zachriel had)
Aldrich Ames
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg
Alger Hiss
Ronald Pelton
John Anthony Walker

etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
The game might be fun to play and all, but the combat system is simply unrealistic in the extreme. Vivid and wild imagination are required to delude oneself into thinking otherwise (or some of that combined with sheer ignorance). My intention is to only point out this lack of realism, and to provide some ideas as to how you might design a better system, I don't intend to imply *you* can't have fun playing the game.

I don't think anyone actually thinks the game realistically models reality. At least, I hope not.

It would be great if the combat could be beefed up. but I am pretty happy with what it is today. I do wish there was the anti air and anti horse etc. units, those would be very nice to have.


On another note: Why is it that Faded Glory hasn't replied to any of the refutations of his CTP arguments? I would say that IF he had any credibility, it has now faded much like a certain game he touts.

[Cyclotron]

The combat system doesn't really encourage the use of combined arms to win battles,

Actually, I can't think of a single time I have not used all types of units available to me in a campaign... defense, attack, and bombard, often together in the same stack. IMO, Civ3 encourages combined arms significantly more than Civ1/2 and makes their use take more strategic thinking than CTP (the strat there was "fill up the front line with the best melee and fill the rest with missile," which worked well but was the only real strategy throughout every age).

Let's analyze:

Tanks were designed to counter trench warfare, for instance.

Tanks punch through infantry, even fortified in fortresses.

Heavily armored knights would stop most arrows (though the english longbowmen was pretty effective against this).

Bowmen are hard pressed to kill knights, but longbowmen can do so reliably.

I'll give you the one on pikemen, I also think their anti-horse bonus should have been kept.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
The game might be fun to play and all, but the combat system is simply unrealistic in the extreme. Vivid and wild imagination are required to delude oneself into thinking otherwise (or some of that combined with sheer ignorance). My intention is to only point out this lack of realism, and to provide some ideas as to how you might design a better system, I don't intend to imply *you* can't have fun playing the game.

I agree that realism is lacking, but I don't think there is a better system. Why? Because in the end, gameplay is more important. I completely agree that Civ3's combat system is not very realistic... I won't try to make any kind of historical parralells to justify why it is. It isn't. I know that.

But, the truth is, I could care less, because there is a distinct gameplay reason it is like this and if Civ were played with the same probabilities of real life it wouldn't be worth my time. Thus, i don't want another system.

Indeed, you have succeeded in pointing out a lack of realism. You have not succeeded in pointing out to me why exactly the combat system should change because of it, and you have not given many good suggestions for real, gameplay-saving improvements, IMO. However, if your goal was only to point out lack of realism as you say, congratulations. You and I agree entirely.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Not to be an ass, and certainly not meaning to setp on Zachriel's toes, who knows much more than me but:

Rob. Hanssen (that pic Zachriel had)
Aldrich Ames
Ethel and Julius Rosenberg
Alger Hiss
Ronald Pelton
John Anthony Walker

etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, but how many of those actually caused the loss of a battle? Things like that, if you are going to posit them as reasons for losing a battle, you should be able to counter through the intelligence system. At least as far as I know (all the ones I recognize were spies or supposed spies). Benedict Arnold is the only military commander I know of.

[Jaybe]

Regarding combined arms, while the mechanics of civ3 do not show it explicitly (i.e., you don't normally bring up the infantry and then punch through with cavalry/tanks), if you are punching through withOUT infantry support, you will be properly rewarded via the loss of your attack force. Assuming the defender is not already beaten, of course.

As to arguments of tanks vs. spears, it seems that most everyone has forgotten the case of Mussolini's attack on Ethiopia (10/3/1935 - 5/3/1936)! Of course, those were early tanks and Italy's army were definitely NOT veterans, except for a very few units. Perhaps, due to inept leadership, they were conscripts in civ3 terms.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I agree that realism is lacking, but I don't think there is a better system. Why? Because in the end, gameplay is more important. I completely agree that Civ3's combat system is not very realistic... I won't try to make any kind of historical parralells to justify why it is. It isn't. I know that.

But, the truth is, I could care less, because there is a distinct gameplay reason it is like this and if Civ were played with the same probabilities of real life it wouldn't be worth my time. Thus, i don't want another system.

Indeed, you have succeeded in pointing out a lack of realism. You have not succeeded in pointing out to me why exactly the combat system should change because of it, and you have not given many good suggestions for real, gameplay-saving improvements, IMO. However, if your goal was only to point out lack of realism as you say, congratulations. You and I agree entirely.

It is a common flaw in these arguements to assume that adding more realism detracts from the fun of the game. In many cases it can add to it, especially if you enjoy learning about history in your spare time (which many who play civ-type games do).

Longbowmen aren't good against horse-units if they are defending, and I don't think that makes a lot of sense. I think the general idea I have expressed is better overall than the current system. The idea of having units and unit-counters. Admittedly it was partially inspired by Empire Earth (an RTS, I know, but that doesn't mean you can't take components and put them in an TBS). It's one reason why I am looking forward to Rise of Nations (which is, admittedly, another RTS). I don't see how realistic combat would detract from gameplay. If you have reasonable features like how tech propogation to other countries would work, then you wouldn't have to worry too much about huge tech discrepencies (given equally or nearly so skilled players). A better system for figuring starting locations would also help. Adding a rock-paper-scissors-like (RPS) combat system would make unit strategies more interesting. Seriously, how many people build long bowmen? answer: those without the iron and horse to build knights, which is silly in the extreme. I'd like a system that encouraged you to make long bowmen to compliment your forces, and encouraged your forces to be varied. Wouldn't that make for a more interesting and engaging combat system? I think so. As it stands now, I don't think things are nearly far along in this area as they should be, and I don't think any reasonable amount of fiddling with the AD values would change this. An RPS system would solve all these problems. Have two or three types of damage, and armor values for those types. Damage could be variable or some such to give it a random element. Armor and damage types would be easily rememberable based on where the units fit into the RPS system. "Rocks" would have good armor against Scissors, and decent armoro against other rocks, and would be slaughtered by paper. I think everyone can play rock, paper, scissors, so the idea shouldn't be complicated. Nor should the simple idea that you should have an army of multiple troop types. I think everyon could easily adapt to that. The system would be more interesting and allow for more depth, and those who like history would appreciate it more. I for one do not think it sacrifices fun in any way, nor do I think anyone that would buy a Civ-type game would be too stupid to use it.

I don't think Civ3 encourages the use of combined arms that much, not against human players. Once you have railroad, you are going to have to strike hard, and strike fast. In this one way is modern war simulated (it's all about mobility). If you move slow with artillery and infantry and the like, then you'll never take a city, because he'll use his rails to destroy your forces before you get to any of his cities. With radar towers and a few ship screens for his oceans, he'll be able to rush defenses to any of his shore cities you might amphibiously assault. Admittedly a good bit of the problem here is the rail system, but even if it is 1/10 or 1/5 movement, there's still be a great, great deal of mobility to defending troops (especially on smaller maps). Additionally, he's going to easily be able to use his artillery against you, since he'll have rails to move them around in, and hence all his artillery will be brought to bear on any incursion force. Once you're troops have been pounded down, the enemy will be able to destroy them and move back to his bases, because of the blitz system (one or two attacks per tank, move to base and rest, and so forth). Hence the only viable strategy would be to blitz him with many tanks, and taking a city in one turn. In most cases artillery won't be able to reach that city (though after you take it, because of cultural borders, his artillery will be able to reach you). Hence Civ3 combat favors the defender as far as I can see, favors taking cities without using combined arms (except maybe with aircraft as support...I've never really had the ai use aircraft against me, so I am not sure how effective interception missions are....if they are effective and easy, especially with the longer range of aircraft in the expansion, then that rules them out too). Occupying a city will be the job of combined arms, assuming you can get your units there in time, but moving inch by inch with artillery will just be suicide, as far as I can see. I guess I'll find out when I read up on how people are finding multiplayer (I don't plan on buying the expansion).

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Jaybe
As to arguments of tanks vs. spears, it seems that most everyone has forgotten the case of Mussolini's attack on Ethiopia (10/3/1935 - 5/3/1936)! Of course, those were early tanks and Italy's army were definitely NOT veterans, except for a very few units. Perhaps, due to inept leadership, they were conscripts in civ3 terms.

The Ethiopians were not using spears! They had a supply of modern arms, and were, at worst, using ww1 era weapons (from what I can gather). Furthermore, the Italian army numbered somewhere in the tens of thousands, whereas, assuming full mobilization, the ethiopian army was half a million. Even so, the Italians didn't take too many losses. It happened slowly because the original commander, De Bono, was slow and careful. They didn't take many losses though, and when De Bono was replaced (mid-december), and by early march the last organized ethiopian force was destroyed. So it happened relatively quickly, and it was against far more equal troops than you implied, and the number of troops were weighted in Ethiopia's favor. Of course, the Italians were bastards and used poison gas, but even before they did, they were doing quite well.