Combat System Explained

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Catt
You could be right, but I certainly see a lot of battles between units that differ by two tech progressions - and the smart human player would rush like hell with the first significant tech lead. Get to chivalry (knights) before neighbor has large numbers of pikemen (or is without iron)? Bye-bye neighbor. Get to cavalry and a neighbor has no saltpeter or hasn't upgraded all pikes? Bye-bye neighbor. And so on.

I do not mod. First let me contgratulate you for keep the discuss civial.

You did not say what the out come of those battles was, when they are two ages apart. If as I suspect in 129f the out come is a smashing success for the new units, then it is as I claimed, not much of a factor. I would submit that the human players already rush when they get a tech lead in units. If you get to Calv first, you are going to starts somw scuffles. I would expect the correction (whatever it could be) to not make it so a defensive unit like the pikemen would not hold its own if fortified in a city against say Knight or even an occasional Cal, but no MA, please. If it attacked or attacking on the field, sad movies. The case you mention are already bad news for whomever is missing the key tech or resource. Again the tweak would not make much difference. All I would lobby for is no more warriors or spearmen beating anything form two ages away, ever or nearly so, no matter what stories or icon respresentation one wishes to propose. Finally, it is not a big issue to me, I am not one of the one who hate the combat any longer after all the patches. Originally it was bad, not so now.

[Catt]

Originally posted by vmxa1

You did not say what the out come of those battles was, when they are two ages apart. If as I suspect in 129f the out come is a smashing success for the new units, then it is as I claimed, not much of a factor. I would submit that the human players already rush when they get a tech lead in units. If you get to Calv first, you are going to starts somw scuffles. I would expect the correction (whatever it could be) to not make it so a defensive unit like the pikemen would not hold its own if fortified in a city against say Knight or even an occasional Cal, but no MA, please.

Ah - but I'm not commenting on two ages apart. I'm commenting on two "tech progressions" apart (from the original post). To be honest, not sure exactly what that means, but the examples given were (1) warrior versus knight / longbowman, (2) cavalry versus any ancient age unit, and (3) riflemen vs. tanks. I interpreted this to mean essentially two steps forward in the military chain, offensive units attacking defensive units.

And I'm arguing that the game plays better, IMHO, if (1) a knight will not always defeat a warrior fortified on a mountain, if (2) a cavalry is not a shoe-in against a spearman fortified in a city (or town) on a hill, and if (3) riflemen in cities had some chance against a tank assault.

The case you mention are already bad news for whomever is missing the key tech or resource. Again the tweak would not make much difference.

Yes, bad, but not hopeless. I defend (and have enjoyed seeing the AI defend) with technically inferior units but better tactical positions. If the "two tech progression" is cavalry to pikes, for example, the human can have XX horsemen / knights ready for immediate upgrade in a border town, hit Military Tradition, upgrade, and carve through a neighbor without taking any losses. The AI isn't capable of this foresight and planning as it stands today. Big advantage to human player.

In my mind, being the tech leader is so important to the game as it is that handing out "Do Not Pass Go" cards to other civs because they fall two techs behind makes for a less interesting game.

All I would lobby for is no more warriors or spearmen beating anything form two ages away, ever or nearly so, no matter what stories or icon respresentation one wishes to propose. Finally, it is not a big issue to me, I am not one of the one who hate the combat any longer after all the patches. Originally it was bad, not so now.

I can empathize - I am still waiting for the spearman vs. tank (even though I saw a more extreme RNG string some time ago, I haven't seen the ancient era unit defeat an industrial age unit yet). Also, I really don't care how anyone wants to mod their game - mod it in whatever way makes it more fun (or don't mod it at all if that's preferable, as it apparently is for both you and me) - but since the discussion drifted to modding and I didn't see anything but positive comments on modding the HPs or combat related stats, I decided to throw my $0.02 in on some of the potential side effects of modding that aren't necessarily readily apparent when someone first starts modding the game.

And now it's late and I'll go to bed .

Catt

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Catt
"And I'm arguing that the game plays better, IMHO, if (1) a knight will not always defeat a warrior fortified on a mountain, if (2) a cavalry is not a shoe-in against a spearman fortified in a city (or town) on a hill, and if (3) riflemen in cities had some chance against a tank assault. "

I could have sworn I said that the fortified stuff is not at issue, it is a special bonus, just talking about no bonus combat, straight up. I agree about those cases, they are not an outrage.

Originally posted by Catt
"I can empathize - I am still waiting for the spearman vs. tank (even though I saw a more extreme RNG string some time ago, I haven't seen the ancient era unit defeat an industrial age unit yet). "

Prepatched, I saw the tank lose many times to spearmen and even occassionlly to warriors, no longer see that. They do beat Calvary units at times (no bonuses for either). That is strange, but not heinous. BB losing to galley is quite common and is silly.

Anyway, I was not looking for a editor mod, but a game correction. It is not going to happen, so it all just for fun.

I still do not see the AI as having any chance, once you get ahead in unit tech at any level. The game is over, so all of the things that you mention as tactics that will kill the AI are irrelevant as the AI is a dead man walking at that time. I have Calv and they don't or I have Tanks and they don't, turn out the lights.

[Blue Moose]

By "two technology progressions" I did indeed mean 2 steps up the combat chain...the 'chains' would be:

defense
(1)warrior - (2)spearmen - (3)pikemen - (3.5)musketmen - (4)riflemen - (5)infantry - (6)mechanized infantry

offense
(1)warrior/chariot - (2)swordsmen/horsemen* - (3)knight/longbowmen - (4)cavalry - (5)tank - (6)modern armor

Musketmen fit in a little oddly, I think**. It might be better to think of the units as ealy/late age units (though ancient units are more along the lines of warrior/not warrior). In my mind, the units that come near the tail end of an age should pretty easily win against units that are from the previous age. Early units from an age should be able to fairly easily win against early units from a previous age. In standard circumstances. Now, a late unit from one age might have a hard time against a late unit from the previous age if that unit is fortified in a fortress that was built on a mountain, or the like. But in most circumstances, I think this should hold. If you are that far behind in tech, or aren't updating your units, then you deserve to have your men slaughtered.

This would help the game feel more realistic without a significant handicap, I think. I've never noticed the AI to be this bad at upgrading (by and larger, occasionally they will have a couple non-upgraded units, but it is a small percentage, and they aren't on the front lines). So I think this would work rather well. Again, I am not saying these units should always win though, in exceptional causes (really rare or really well fortified defensive troops), then things could be different, I am just talking about your 'typical battle'.

Btw, in my riflemen vs. tanks scenerio, I meant to say modern tanks (I haven't double checked to see if I have or not). Against regular tanks they should just be a noticeable disadvantage (but not a crippling one).

*With Swordsmen, they are argueably a "2.5"

*Musketmen are an early age unit, and they aren't too different defensively than pikemen...so they are a bit hard to rate, and they'd push all the defensive units up by one. You could argue this makes sense though, since in later wars you should be using artillery and bombers to support your troops.

[Zachriel]

I'm certainly not against improvements in the combat system, but more modern units already get significant advantages. For instance, the defensive units:

warrior 1
spear 2
pike 3
musket 4
rifle 6
. . .

The Rifleman has six times the defensive power of warriors. If anyone advocates bloodless combat, then I think you are the one being unrealistic.

[Proteus_MST]

Any knight could gain Victory over a Line of Riflemen (unfortified) in ~30% of all Cases:
Listing of Chance of the Unit winning with x HP remaining
Knight vs. Rifleman (Regular)

Knight:
HP remaining	Chance (%)
3	         6,4
2	       11,52
1	       13,824
Rifleman:
HP remaining	Chance (%)
3	       21,6
2	       25,92
1	       20,736

I usually double the Hitpoints of the Units (and the Firerate of Artillery) along with other modifications (for example giving Ranged Attack Units such as Archers a Bombarding Value [and a Range of 0], to simulate the Capability of such Units to give Fire Support [just imagine a Defensive Volley of Arrows while a Horde of Warriors is approaching the Prime Defenders of the City, a Bunch of Speramen])

The doubling of HPs lowers the knights Chance of winning to ~22%

Knight:
HP remaining	Chance
6	       0,4096
5	       1,47456
4	       3,096576
3	       4,9545216
2	       6,68860416
1	       8,026324992
Rifleman:
HP remaining	Chance
6	       4,6656
5	     11,19744
4	     15,676416
3	     16,7215104
2	     15,04935936
1	     12,039487488

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Any knight could gain Victory over a Line of Riflemen (unfortified) in ~30% of all Cases:

Actually, Veteran Knight v. Veteran Rifleman is 25%

http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

If the defenders are prepared for the attack (fortified) they will win five out of six combats.

That means that most of the time the Rifleman will win, however, occassionally the Knights may attack from a flank (presumed) and overwhelm the defenders. Think of it this way. Consider six Riflemen and six Knights (individual combats for simplicity, stacking would usually favor the defenders). When all is said and done, only one or two of the Riflemen may be dead and nearly all of the Knights, excepting those Knights with the sense to retreat.

The Knights may attack at night. They may blow up the enemy ammo. They may bribe a few of the guards. The Riflemen may be led by an idiot. Anything can happen in war and victory is nearly always purchased in blood.

Expect the Riflemen to win, but not without any losses. Meanwhile, presumably the Riflemen are not fighting in a vacuum, but are backed by other modern weapons such as Cannon and Cavalry and are attempting to use terrain to their advantage. The chances of actually losing significant numbers of units is negligible, and with a little attention to tactics, none of the Knights are likely to survive.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The Rifleman has six times the defensive power of warriors. If anyone advocates bloodless combat, then I think you are the one being unrealistic.

Not sure what you mean by bloodless. but if you mean dead, then I disagree. In the cases that I envision, the "bloodless" battles should be normal. I was only talking about huge mismatches. Warrior vs Calv/Riflemen or better, those types. No cities, no bonus. I am not talking about units with small value differences, 212 vs 321, those are up for grabs. A 111 vs 633 or 461 should be a forgone conclusion. Again, not talking about forted in a mega city with the blessing of the gods, just out in the open no other factors, no support. Yes miracles can happen, but how many have you seen in person?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Warrior vs Calv/Riflemen or better, those types. No cities, no bonus.

Veteran Cavalry v. Veteran Warrior 98.6%
That's about as much of a sure thing as you can get considering the turns last at least a year. There must be at least a 1% chance of bribery, disease or treachery. History is replete with the corpses of "sure things."

Of course, if you are scared, then bring along some cannon.

[Alantus]

Originally posted by Catt
I can empathize - I am still waiting for the spearman vs. tank

I can't remember if I attacked with a Tank, MA or MI but I did get whipped by a longbowman 2 or 3 games back! He was in a size 16 city and it could have been cross river. I wasn't paying careful attention as it was a mop up job. Can't even remember if my guy died or had the sense to retreat. I had a spare unit to finish him so it wasn't a big deal it just upset me when it happened but I got over it fast.

Alantus

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Veteran Cavalry v. Veteran Warrior 98.6%
That's about as much of a sure thing as you can get considering the turns last at least a year. There must be at least a 1% chance of bribery, disease or treachery. History is replete with the corpses of "sure things."

Of course, if you are scared, then bring along some cannon.

1% is still way too high....I think it should be more along the lines of .1% or .01%

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
1% is still way too high....I think it should be more along the lines of .1% or .01%

1. If you have a lot of combats in which the combatants are more than one Age apart, then you may want to increase the difficulty level a notch or two. I almost never see such situations, and when I do, it is because my rival is whipped and I have already won the war.

2. Assuming you have 100 such combats in a game (a lot!); you may see one or two odd results or frequently none at all in the entire 6,000 year history of civilization -- fewer than in real history. Even when such events occur, they presumably represent a small percentage of your total military in the field, so are strategically inconsequential.

3. You failed to address the issues of "bribery, disease or treachery," not to mention friendly fire, weather, logistics, political infighting, or shear incompetence.

4. Do not make the mistake of thinking the spearmen are just going to line up and let you shoot at them. They are presumably intelligent, and sometimes well-led. They will study their opponents. They will hide and organize and wait for the enemy to make a mistake. Occasionally, they will succeed. (Most of the time, they won't.)

5. If you experience the theoretical 1%, it means you are not maximizing your tactical advantages. God gave you artillery for a reason. Why not use it? Or why not use fast units which retreat? Your forces are only "technologically superior" when you use the technology and tactics available to you.

6. In real life strategic planning, no one provides a flat statistic for planning purposes. This is a huge advantage. To create the illusion of strategic planning there must be variability in combat results. Indeed, in real life, there is much more variability than anything ever contemplated for Civ.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Alantus
I can't remember if I attacked with a Tank, MA or MI but I did get whipped by a longbowman 2 or 3 games back! He was in a size 16 city and it could have been cross river. I wasn't paying careful attention as it was a mop up job. Can't even remember if my guy died or had the sense to retreat. I had a spare unit to finish him so it wasn't a big deal it just upset me when it happened but I got over it fast.

Alantus

I do not get upset by losing to a fortified unit in a metro, but it seems strange. I accept their defensive bonus and take my lumps it I had to bombardment units.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Blue Moose

1% is still way too high....I think it should be more along the lines of .1% or .01%

I like your style.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Zachriel [/SIZE]

"3. You failed to address the issues of "bribery, disease or treachery," not to mention friendly fire, weather, logistics, political infighting, or shear incompetence. "

This stuff is just hokkum, I do not see any of these mentioned in the doc. The are a figment of someones imagination. They are for real life, not Civ.

"4. Do not make the mistake of thinking the spearmen are just going to line up and let you shoot at them. They are presumably intelligent, and sometimes well-led. They will study their opponents. They will hide and organize and wait for the enemy to make a mistake. Occasionally, they will succeed. (Most of the time, they won't.)"

Again it does not exist and is not part of the game dynamics. If it did spearmen are not smater than the more modern unit they are facing. In real life you would be correct. I can not consider factors that do not exist such as aliens landing to help out the spearmen. They come up with a device or a trick. It is a straight up computation, nothing more. Leave the romantic ideas out of the equation. Anyway if they agreeed to be a spearmen, I would challenge thier being intelligent. Spearmen would be more liekly to break ranks and flee.

"5. If you experience the theoretical 1%, it means you are not maximizing your tactical advantages. God gave you artillery for a reason. Why not use it? Or why not use fast units which retreat? Your forces are only "technologically superior" when you use the technology and tactics available to you."

Again, that may or may not be true, but is irrelevant for this conversation. One roving spearmen, does not require me to send a wave of combined arms to defend. For the purpose of this debate, lets leave the tactics out.

I will and have said, I could live with the 1% or whatever it turns out be. My whole interest is that it would be less likely to annoy new players to the game. When it first came out I read alot of people on many boards complain about this feature and say they took the game back. It has been improved, but it is smart to not allienate potential customers over something that could be corrected and not impact the game.
If one sends an elite calv to kill a spearmen on the flat lands and it loses, it will annoy you, not ruin the fun, only irk you. It may in fact be fair that time and the 1% came home. It still makes you go what the..... Now I know all of the players that will say, see you should have sent in 3 bombersand two arties and tehn attacked... oh really....... Maybe an MA army of four would be safe, do you think????