this combat system has to **GO**

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
I think I've just been insulted...I believe my arguements have been better than that.

I know it was not meant seriously (that part about being insulted), but anyway...

What I meant by saying "they just repeat this spearmen can't beat tanks argument" was that the only real argument against the current combat system is that it does not realistically enough model the real world combat. However, Civ3 does not realistically model the real world... generally! Some time ago, I wrote a long, sarcastic post on why Civ3 "was" a fantasy game for me. Some people liked it, if you feel like reading it, it is here.

Look, Civ3 is a game. A game resembling the real world. RESEMBLING the real world. A game can't do more than that. You play with units you know or think you know from the real world. But it's just a game, it is not a real world simulation. The combat system is not broken, as it does not detract from the gameplay (at least most people do not complain of being detracted...) - the principle (a unit is either a good attacker/bad defender, a good defender/bad attacker, or an average universal unit) is common to large number of computer games. Your RPS combat model is not very far from what Civ3 uses right now (basically AD - one variable less), just a bit different.

Civ3 is not primarily a warfare game. Warfare is a very important part of it, but it isn't a warfare simulator. Civ3 is about building a civilization, peacefully or forcefully, as needed. The problem is that many people focus ONLY on the conquest part (I admit that the higher difficulty levels somewhat force players go that way). They play Civ3 the warmongering way and thus give the combat too much credit/importance.

For me, a Civ3 game is about epic story telling. If I feel like playing/watching the real world, I shut down my computer... Civ3 is meant to entertain, not to create a great real world simulator. Thus the arguments about not being like it is in the real world are missing the point.

Civ3 is FULL of things that are completely unrealistic. Actually, I can't think of ONE SINGLE thing that would perfectly reflect the real world. EVERY SINGLE aspect of the game is simplified or twisted in order to make the game fun to play. Asking for a realistic combat model simply makes no sense to me... why should we bother to have a realistic combat model in an unrealistic game?

If the current combat system forced us to do things that would be boring, annoying, and generally not fun, then it would be appropriate to change it. But - at least, IMHO - it works fine, AS FAR AS YOU DON'T WANT TO FEEL LIKE WATCHING CNN. Occasionally, there is an event that makes me shout "wow, what fantastic, brave, godly guys!" (when it is my unit that surprisingly wins) or scream "wtf, the AI must be cheating!" (when it is just the contrary). But these events are too rare to make any difference in terms of the whole game. I sometimes unexpectedly lose a battle, but I never lose a war I am supposed to win.

I can definitely imagine a combat system that would be closer (not close!) to reality. But you would have to redesign the whole game, adjusting other aspects to match the change done to the combat system. Why? The game is not broken, so why would you like to fix it? The lack of realism is a reason too weak, as the game lack realism generally... or do you really believe that the Great Pyramids should give you a free granary in every city on the same continent?

[Tiberius]

Please tell me Vondrack, what is your occupation? Teacher, writer, journalist, what?

Your posts are so well-thought, intelligent, well-written in a clear and logical (but not boring) style, that the only things I can feel about them are admiration and ... envy.

[vmxa1]

vondrack, although I do not disagree with you and your post is reasonable, I would point out that does not mean minor improvement would hurt.
When the game came out I recall lots of forums, not just the fans sites, but places like GoneGold that are not about this game or any game, had many posters making the complaint that the combat system ruined the game and they took it back. I would say that people that are still playing are not up in arms about it and the majority of those problems have been adjusted. The reason that those people hate the combat is that intuitively people are going to say a spearmen can not beat modern arms, in spite of the fact that a very rare case can be made. They will reject it. This should have been avoided and with the patches it largely has been, but many customers were lost and will not be back. They felt it was not real, as if a game was real anyway. This could have been avoided if the concept of being able to survive when way behind in tech was not implemented. It could never work for the AI, only the humans. Once the AI falls far behind either human or other AI players, it is cooked, unless the human comes to its aid.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by vmxa1
vondrack, although I do not disagree with you and your post is reasonable, I would point out that does not mean minor improvement would hurt.

And I will grant you that. I believe that implementing a mechanism similar to what happens to workers (they automatically change their appearance according to the age) would be nice. It would be PURELY a cosmetic change that would involve calling the very same unit a different name and visualizing it with a different animation, like spearmen changing automatically into a home guard or something..., so that it would not seem so weird if they beat a lot more modern unit from time to time. Even though it would most probably end these endless discussions about spearmen beating tanks forever, it would NOT change the combat system in any way. And that (changing the combat system fundamentals) was what Blue Moose was speaking about... at least I understood his posts in that way.

Originally posted by vmxa1
This could have been avoided if the concept of being able to survive when way behind in tech was not implemented. It could never work for the AI, only the humans. Once the AI falls far behind either human or other AI players, it is cooked, unless the human comes to its aid.

I do not dare to directly oppose, since you obviously (judging from your posts) play Civ3 much more than me, but I distinctly recall many games (in fact, I guess lots of my games fall into this category) that had one or two AI civs grow to heavenly heights (in terms of the histograph performance) and than simply crumble to dust without my direct involvement. Which in turn means that there were other AI civs (not only me) that fell - in a certain moment - behind another one, but managed to get back on the train.

I really believe that changing just the visual appearance and names of outdated units would be the easiest, while very effective solution...

P.S.: Tibi, spare my blushes... I am none of what you'd guess... I got my degree in programming, but I am now an ordinary businessman, making my living by reselling software...

[Nubclear]

I am going to sound like Coracle...Forgive me.

Vodrack, I completly and totally disagree with you. For me, the combat system is the single biggest flaw in the game, and yes it is because of the ridiculous results that it produces. I'm the type of person who can frustrate easily, and gaming is my escape from the real world. When I'm playing AoE I want to feel like I'm making an empire....I 'name' cities, I build walls and establish borders....I just have fun with the game. This is why I'm highly anticipating Rise of Nations because it looks like it will deliver an extremly high value of fun. Not everything is realistic, but Brian Renolds just knows how to "get to the fun". He's demonstrated that repeatedly (I don't think I need to tell someone such as you that Sid shouldnt be the one taking credit for Civ2, its Brian. And Alpha Centauri was a great game as well).

Anyway, back to Civ3. I was expecting a fun game. And for a while, it was indeed fun. I liked buildling up borders, i liked buildling up my cities and knowing I was the BEST civ in the world. But slowly that began to change. As I grew out of chieftain, I looked at a part of the game I usually didn't look at....Combat. I was incredibly dismayed that even though I had most of the territory, had the most advanced cities...I always had an incredibly low score. So I decided to try to go warmongering. I started a new game...but had to leave. When I came back, I started the game again but I did not have that goal in mind. I built up...until the modern age I believe, and then I decided to just build military units. This was on chieftain, pre 1.29 so....the game ended before I could do anything. But I was amazed at my score! Near the end, it just seemed to double even triple!

Wanting to build up my score, I of course started a NEW game on chieftain with just war in my mind. I had read the forums so I decided to pick China as my civ because I hear that China is very good at warmongering. I was excited because I was already doing very good at empire buildling without military, I could only imagine how good my Civ will be once I capture OTHER cities used by the computer! Well...I was in for a disappointment. Before I did all this, I had tried Civ2 and at the time I hated it (if you look at my posting history, you may see one of my first posts was in defence of Civ3 and it actually put down Civ2). the only thing I liked was the combat system (and even then it annoyed me because I didnt know how to play the game! i was backwards in all of my games, and so I was easily defeated.). Back to the then-present, all my soldiers had FINALLY arrived at Washington. I was looking forward to the easy battle because although my numbers were not large, my troops were far more advanced....Well, all of my riflemen were completly killed by yes, the infamous spearmen in Washington.

Although I had won the game eventually (though a culture victory) the combat system had completly disappointed me. My modern units should NOT lose to those of lesser evolution. Eventually I learned that you ahd to mass produce x unit in order to conquer a city, and that was just boring. Before I sold the game, I used to simply 'hang around' in the science area....Not backwards, but nowhere near the front either. I was middle, because thats about all you had to be. I could mass produce cossacks or riflemen or whatever and I'd probably win. But the entire process of moving them from A to B was frustrating.

So I simpy played Civ3 as a peaceful builder game. And it worked for a while. But then, at the risk of sounding arrogent, I simply got too good. So i stepped up....The AI seemed to FORCE me to become a warmonger and although that normally wouldnt be a problem, it was because the combat system simply wasn't fun. I couldnt stay on lower levels because it was too easy, but I couldnt go higher because it was quite simply boring.

So this leads me to my final conclusion: It's simply not fun in my opinion. So I sold the game, and am planning on using the money to buy Rise of Nations when it comes out. Because again, I know that Brian knows how to "find the fun" and I have confidence in that. As someone I think in this very thread said, "Brian was onto something when he said 'we wont have phalanxes defeating tanks'.".

I think I just ranted....

[Tiberius]

To Radek:
Well, you could have been a taxidriver or a bartender, it doesn't matter, all of what I've said is true (or, at least, sincere ).

PS I'm sorry for being off topic, but I feel that everything that could have been said about the subject was already said.

My final words about it:
It's a freaking game, not reality. War is fun only in games, not in reality. Odd result can happen, just like in real life. Maybe it happens more often in civ3, but it is part of the fun. If you are good, you will win ANYWAY, odd results or not. For christsake, a f***ing spearman won't stop you from winning!

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I am going to sound like Coracle...Forgive me.

Heh, Tass... your post lacks much to be a match for Coracle...

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
I just have fun with the game. This is why I'm highly anticipating Rise of Nations because it looks like it will deliver an extremly high value of fun. Not everything is realistic, but Brian Renolds just knows how to "get to the fun". He's demonstrated that repeatedly (I don't think I need to tell someone such as you that Sid shouldnt be the one taking credit for Civ2, its Brian. And Alpha Centauri was a great game as well).

Correct. The same Brian Reynolds that was behind Civ2. That Civ2 that had so many design flaws, mostly arising from unbalanced aspects (like certain great wonders being greater than others... huge stacks of units going poof after just ONE of them being defeated... spies that were actually businessmen buying cities right and left... howitzers capable of destroying a blossoming empire in a single turn etc. etc.). I guess as far as the combat system principles are considered, Brian Reynolds' possibilities were just about the same few years ago as they would be now. And yet, the combat model of Civ2 is (well, it is IMHO, sure, but is there anyone able to submit valid arguments for the contrary?) vastly inferior to that of Civ3.

I can't comment on Alpha Centauri... Although I did my best to love it (everyone told me it was great!), I simply did not have fun with that game and quitted playing after about 20-30 hours.

As far as your complaints of the warmongery in Civ3, that I will grant you. Civ3 really isn't for peacebuilders. I have had just one totally peaceful game on Regent as an "islandish" Germany (won by diplo in 1900 AD without firing a single shot throughout the whole game). But again, that has very little to do with the combat system. It is a matter of the general AI tuning and fundamental gameplay principles (the more territory, the higher your potential/power... which means if you want to succeed, you have to start warring for land eventually...).

Regarding your note about scoring... this somehow interferes with another statement of yours (the one about having fun with the game). Why would you play the game for score? I thought building your empire was the fun you wanted... not score. Just BTW, the scoring system really is something that deserves adjustments or complete rehash... I would agree on that. But it does have some logic behind. If your empire is large, your science well ahead, your treasury full, but you lack military to protect it, then your empire still lacks a good deal to be perfect, since it is VULNERABLE. Your less developed, but better armed neighbors would be able to take it from you easily (as was the case many times in the real world history).

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Back to the then-present, all my soldiers had FINALLY arrived at Washington. I was looking forward to the easy battle because although my numbers were not large, my troops were far more advanced....Well, all of my riflemen were completly killed by yes, the infamous spearmen in Washington.

Tass, sorry to say so, but this was entirely bad tactics on your side. First, riflemen are not good attackers (A=4 only... the odds might have very well been against you, since Spearman's D=2 can rise up to 4-5 thanks to the defense bonuses). Second, why did you not use some bombardment to soften Washington defenses?

I do agree that combat in Civ3 is not easy, it is in fact more difficult/complicated than in Civ2, but - for me - that is a good thing.

In the abovementioned Washington example, the problem was not with the combat system, but with the visual representation of the units. You were convinced (judging by the names of the units and their animations) that your riflemen should beat the AI spearmen in no time. But it was your 4/6/1 unit attacking the AI's 1/2/1 unit that probably had lots of defense bonuses on its side. No wonder you got your a$$ kicked. The key was to realize that the names were just that... names. They had no other meaning, what mattered was the ADM values.

While I do admit that it may be confusing sometimes, especially to casual players, there is no easy fix. The only thing I am able to think of is what I proposed in my previous post - implementing an automatic "visual/name upgrade" that would make sure you are not so easily confused by the unit names.

I believe that solving this "problem" by simply making more advanced units win every time would ruin the gameplay.

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Eventually I learned that you ahd to mass produce x unit in order to conquer a city, and that was just boring. Before I sold the game, I used to simply 'hang around' in the science area....Not backwards, but nowhere near the front either. I was middle, because thats about all you had to be. I could mass produce cossacks or riflemen or whatever and I'd probably win. But the entire process of moving them from A to B was frustrating.

I believe there are many veteran players that would explain the basics of city conquering better than me. Amassing riflemen (=defenders) is hardly the correct way... believe me, cavalry would do better... and supporting it with a cannon or two would definitely do no harm (even though cannons are not that great, better wait for artillery...).

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
So I simpy played Civ3 as a peaceful builder game. And it worked for a while. But then, at the risk of sounding arrogent, I simply got too good. So i stepped up....The AI seemed to FORCE me to become a warmonger and although that normally wouldnt be a problem, it was because the combat system simply wasn't fun. I couldnt stay on lower levels because it was too easy, but I couldnt go higher because it was quite simply boring.

As I have admitted before, Civ3 is not really tailored to peaceful builders. I had to adapt my Civ2 strategies, too - I used to be a builder just like you, only retaliating if attacked. That is pretty difficult in Civ3. The war is an integral part of the Civ3 empire building... and apparently, the higher the difficulty level, the worse it gets. But my experience shows that Regent is quite well balanced, with some games going very bloody, while other games being pretty peaceful, with just a small war here and there.

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
So this leads me to my final conclusion: It's simply not fun in my opinion. So I sold the game, and am planning on using the money to buy Rise of Nations when it comes out. Because again, I know that Brian knows how to "find the fun" and I have confidence in that. As someone I think in this very thread said, "Brian was onto something when he said 'we wont have phalanxes defeating tanks'.".

Your opinion valid and granted. But I haven't heard anything from you that could be considered an evidence against the current combat system based on ADM values and defense bonuses. It is only about the visual representation. The mathematical model behind the combat system is very simple, very reasonable, and works fine. It not only implements just the fine amount of randomness under the factory settings (my opinion only), but lets you adjust it to your taste VERY easily by simply adding hitpoints - it has been suggested and demonstrated many times that by adding hitpoints, you actually decrease the randomness in combat results. Doubling/tripling/whatever the hitpoints actually tweak the combat model in such a way that more advanced units always win. And all that using the factory game engine! Isn't it amazing?

@Tibi: Thanks. It is great to know there is at least one Tiberius enjoying my lengthy posts...

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by vondrack
The only thing I am able to think of is what I proposed in my previous post - implementing an automatic "visual/name upgrade" that would make sure you are not so easily confused by the unit names.

This could be done now by someone with the needed animation skills (Firaxis, if you are reading this thread, I'm talking about you). The file structure supports a different animation for each unit in each era. It's be cool if the spearmen grabbed a shoulder mounted anti-tank missile in the modern defense animations. That's tell you that these "spearmen" are living in Modern Times.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose


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.

I was just following your lead.

What battle did BA cause the rebels to lose? How is he that different than the other spies?

You brought up the BA example and claimed it was the only one of its kind. I countered with others.

You don't consider those who betrayed our nuclear secrets to be traitors to the nation's military?

I certainly do.

[Randolph]

Nicely stated vondrack, you nicely cut the "problem" down to the illusion of appearances vs. the reality of the game. Let’s face it civ 3 is an incredibly fun game, but it’s not that great of a reality simulation. There’s a multitude of instances where the game doesn’t model reality very well, but when you think about it the instances where the game is unrealistic you realize (IMO) that it makes the game more balanced and fun. A “tanks always kill musketmen” game may be realistic, but it wouldn’t be all that fun (for reasons stated in previous posts). You simply have to stop looking for reality and enjoy the game for what it is. Also “it’s not realistic” completes often (like many of the one’s here) boil down to complaining about losing, a justification for why your failed plain “wasn’t your fault”.
Secondly civ 3 isn’t an “all warmonger” game, one will ideally have periods of war flowed by periods of peace, consolidation, and building. Certain periods of the game force you into war, while others force you into peace. For example, while the mid to late ancient period pushes for war, the early medieval pushes for peace (its hard to get all those important wonders while at war), my games tend to have two or three (sometimes four) cycles of peace then war.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel



I was just following your lead.

What battle did BA cause the rebels to lose? How is he that different than the other spies?

You brought up the BA example and claimed it was the only one of its kind. I countered with others.

You don't consider those who betrayed our nuclear secrets to be traitors to the nation's military?

I certainly do.

Well BA was the closest person I could think of that might have actually caused the loss of a battle, all the others would easily fit under the espionage system already in the game.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Randolph
Certain periods of the game force you into war, while others force you into peace. For example, while the mid to late ancient period pushes for war, the early medieval pushes for peace (its hard to get all those important wonders while at war), my games tend to have two or three (sometimes four) cycles of peace then war.

While I actually agree with your sentiment, I disagree with your specific example. The early medieval is a wonderful time for war as it can get you the Great Leaders needed to build the wonders quickly.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Randolph
Nicely stated vondrack, you nicely cut the "problem" down to the illusion of appearances vs. the reality of the game. Let’s face it civ 3 is an incredibly fun game, but it’s not that great of a reality simulation. There’s a multitude of instances where the game doesn’t model reality very well, but when you think about it the instances where the game is unrealistic you realize (IMO) that it makes the game more balanced and fun. A “tanks always kill musketmen” game may be realistic, but it wouldn’t be all that fun (for reasons stated in previous posts). You simply have to stop looking for reality and enjoy the game for what it is. Also “it’s not realistic” completes often (like many of the one’s here) boil down to complaining about losing, a justification for why your failed plain “wasn’t your fault”.
Secondly civ 3 isn’t an “all warmonger” game, one will ideally have periods of war flowed by periods of peace, consolidation, and building. Certain periods of the game force you into war, while others force you into peace. For example, while the mid to late ancient period pushes for war, the early medieval pushes for peace (its hard to get all those important wonders while at war), my games tend to have two or three (sometimes four) cycles of peace then war.

Well, it's sort of annoying how no one has paid any attention to my suggestion on fixing the tech issue. I gave the example that a civilization with computers should find it basically impossible to keep other civilizations from knowing electronics. It seems to me that any advanced civilization is not going to be able to keep it's older technology a secret, such technology is simply too integral to society and knowledge of it would be far too common. Hence you could easily make a system where it became trivial to research such techs, and it would be hard or impossible to be more than an age behind anyone else...and more likely about half an age. You'd need a better combat system to back this up though (IMO).

And going all warmongering is very, very effective. Combine that with Great Leader farms (keeing a few enemy cities alive and constantly at war with you so you can have your elites fight easy battles to general Great Leades), and you have the most powerful gaming style that I know of. All wonders are gotten because of GL generation. You out-research democracies and republics because you have many times the cities that they have. It's all about mass producing units too, and those units better be fast. You want to strike hard and fast, and as I have said, artillery just slows you down too much. While you might lose a few less troops using artillery against he AI on attacks, against a human you will be asking for your troops to be killed as soon as you invade. All the best players I know of say that a pure warmongering game is very, very effective. A huge part of the is the GL system.

[Randolph]

Originally posted by Blue Moose


Well, it's sort of annoying how no one has paid any attention to my suggestion on fixing the tech issue. I gave the example that a civilization with computers should find it basically impossible to keep other civilizations from knowing electronics. It seems to me that any advanced civilization is not going to be able to keep it's older technology a secret, such technology is simply too integral to society and knowledge of it would be far too common. Hence you could easily make a system where it became trivial to research such techs, and it would be hard or impossible to be more than an age behind anyone else...and more likely about half an age. You'd need a better combat system to back this up though (IMO).

did you miss my point completely? aren't you trying to "model reality"?! Yes, perhaps that would be more realistic, it would also be boring.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
And going all warmongering is very, very effective. Combine that with Great Leader farms (keeing a few enemy cities alive and constantly at war with you so you can have your elites fight easy battles to general Great Leades), and you have the most powerful gaming style that I know of. All wonders are gotten because of GL generation. You out-research democracies and republics because you have many times the cities that they have. It's all about mass producing units too, and those units better be fast. You want to strike hard and fast, and as I have said, artillery just slows you down too much. While you might lose a few less troops using artillery against he AI on attacks, against a human you will be asking for your troops to be killed as soon as you invade. All the best players I know of say that a pure warmongering game is very, very effective. A huge part of the is the GL system.

I hardly consider keeping war alive with a mini-civ in order to create GLs a "warmonger" strategy", although technically at war, for practically purposes you are in a period of peace. If this type of GL farm strategy is your style, than have fun with it, personally such strategies don’t appeal to me. Also are you suggesting that you can keep up with research without building city improvements? If your able to out pace the AI in research while under monarchy and at war due to shear size then you’re simply dominating the game: Congratulations its time to move up a difficultly level, trust me you won’t be doing this on deity.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Well, it's sort of annoying how no one has paid any attention to my suggestion on fixing the tech issue. I gave the example that a civilization with computers should find it basically impossible to keep other civilizations from knowing electronics.

I disagree. While computers are common how many people really understand them enough to rebuild all the steps needed to get there from previous technologies and be able to explain that to a complete novice? In addition, while the principles of electronics are commonly available any culture that still doesn't understand electricity isn't going to gain any knowledge. A stone age tribe isn't going to be building radios just because they've been in contact with a modern civilization. (See Cargo Cultists).

In addition to the knowledge gaps, there is the infrastructure issue. The more primitive tribes won't know how to build the tools that build the tools that build the products.

I could only see this working if the culture already had the fundamentals (say they were only one tech down on the tech tree), otherwise they won't understand the basics that are taken for granted by the more advanced tribe.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable form magic.