infantry and tanks playing tag wrestling?

[Der Teddy Bär]

quote: The unit with the best defense will stand up and do the defending until he gets worn down by the battle, then he will stop and the other will stand up and defend. The same thing happens in attack.

I would have expected that when I stack a tank batallion with a few infantry that they would act in a concerted effort in attack and/or defence.

Not have my infantry and tanks playing tag wrestling.

This type of engagement in no way represents a realistic battle.

Of course, correct me if I have taken this out of context but be gentle

------------------
Cheers,

Der Teddy Bär

[Zanzin]

Teddy, I understand it the same way you do. It's most disappointing, isn't it?

[Ralf]

There are RTS military-simulations available for those who wants realism on a tactical level. Civ-3 is suppose to be a lighthearted strategy-game, with its emphasize on civil development and expansion. Besides, im sure there are tweakable rules in which order certain type of units should attack and/or defend.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]

[Mark_Everson]

I'm with Der Teddy Bär and Zanin, Yuck

Ralf, I don't think they want a detailed combat model at the regiment level, just something beyond a modest extension of the tired old Civ2 combat formula. This approach gives small elite forces much more of a chance than they'd have in the real world when heavily outnumbered.

IMO it only needs to have a little change in approach to get a Lot more realistic. Notice I didn't say more detailed, just use the same unit numbers in a slightly different way. That is the critical thing Firaxis is missing with its approach.

[airdrik]

I don't like this system either. A better system would be to say that an army's fp, and hp are the total of all the units present, the movement is the average (rounding down) of all units, and the attack and defence is some function on the defence of the units. An idea I have for the attack/defence would be that you find the defence for each type present and total it. The defence of one type would be the defence of one plus half the defence of the second plus half again for the third, etc (so an army of 2 tanks, 3 mech infs and 1 howitzer would have an attack of 10+5 +6+3+1.5 +12=37.5 and a defence of 5+2.5 +6+3+1.5 +2=20)

[jdlessl]

Are they keeping the same old Offense vs Defense system here? Nobody fights with their armor, except maybe to bash someone with a shield because you lost your sword. Please, Firaxis, make the combat not crummy!

--
Jared Lessl

[Der Teddy Bär]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-30-2001 09:06 AM There are RTS military-simulations available for those who wants realism on a tactical level. Civ-3 is suppose to be a lighthearted strategy-game, with its emphasize on civil development and expansion. Besides, im sure there are tweakable rules in which order certain type of units should attack and/or defend. [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]

War is represented and an integral part of the game. Whether I be an active war munger or a peace loving greeny. Therefore why should it not, in an abstract way, represent an army of mixed composition instead of 1 unit at a time.

I have for defence purposes some soldiers and a with a few anti tank guns. The soldiers get up alone and defend against the tanks, which give them a very big bruising, whilst my anti tank guns wait in the blue corner to be tagged! Just a tad silly?

I would like an accurate representation of having a mixed army. My anti tank should engage 1st (that is fire from a protected position, not actually get into the trenches) and then as the tanks get within range of the soldiers they do as best they can.

All that happens when you have single unit against single unit is a focus on a select few units.

If I have to go to way why should it not be tactical?



------------------
Cheers,

Der Teddy Bär

[Vrank Prins]

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin on 04-30-2001 05:32 AM Teddy, I understand it the same way you do. It's most disappointing, isn't it?

And so do I. I've just found out how to make an sophistaced stack in CTP. It's an art in itself to do so because units can have complementary characteristics which strenghen the whole stack. And that's not what will happen if you still have a situation where in a stack single units fight single units. Bugger !! (I hope that last word is not too undecent)

[Der Teddy Bär]

quote: Originally posted by Vrank Prins on 05-01-2001 11:52 AM And so do I. I've just found out how to make an sophistaced stack in CTP. It's an art in itself to do so because units can have complementary characteristics which strenghen the whole stack. And that's not what will happen if you still have a situation where in a stack single units fight single units. Bugger !! (I hope that last word is not too undecent)

I would expect, dare say demand that all I should have to do is have a stack. Why should I have to arrange in a special order the units within the stack.



------------------
Cheers,

Der Teddy Bär

[ancient]

actually ive heard that if you want their will be a battle system close to whats was in gettysburg but with a broader array of units smaller map and less formation and stuff...

[Warm Beer]

I tend to agree with the general concensus here in the thread. Although I do understand that the Civ in not a war game proper, I would expect a little more than a step up from the old stacking system. It seems this looks like the old system, only automated for efficency. For instance, when you attack a city in civ II, doesn't this alread happen? You attack with one unit and the best defender defends untill it is warn down, then, another rifleman, or whatever, takes the brunt of your attacks.

Yes, I am excited at the idea of a new civ game, but please make it a little more complex.

------------------
"When you have to shoot - shoot, don't talk." -Tuco Benedicto Juan Ramirez

[Zanzin]

I think we'd all agree that one thing CTP got right was the combat engine. If civ3 is similar to civ2, ie one unit vs another until all units are finished, it will feel like a major backwards step in the genre and will be most disappointing.

[Capt Dizle]

quote: actually ive heard that if you want their will be a battle system close to whats was in gettysburg but with a broader array of units smaller map and less formation and stuff...

I wonder where this came from. If this were true and the tactical battles were fully fleshed out...then Civ3 would become the mamoth all time grandfather of games. Can you imagine the time it would take to play out all that combat if even slightly similar to a real wargame.

[JamesJKirk]

quote: Originally posted by Zanzin on 05-06-2001 01:26 AM I think we'd all agree that one thing CTP got right was the combat engine. If civ3 is similar to civ2, ie one unit vs another until all units are finished, it will feel like a major backwards step in the genre and will be most disappointing.

YES! and CTP2 even improved on something (namely, that). Can anyone here recall actually ever ATTACKING with an infantry unit it Civs 1 or 2? It's necessary in CTP to defend the ranged units, as in real life. If CTP's allowed to steal things from Sid, it should go the other way too! And if copyrights are involved, I don't think Activision would turn down a couple token firaxis dollars anyway.

[Kc7mxo]

what do you people want? this is why civ 1 and 2 didn't have stacked combat. because it makes the game TOO complex. Either you want him to give you a small combat engine within a game that already takes days to play, or you want him to figure out some way of representing an accurate result of a battle given only information about the unit's stats and numbers. Don't you think that would be ab it hard to model?

And if you don't, you figure out some math formulaes they could use and mail it to them, then everyone will be happy.