Combat System Explained

[TheBaron]

I'm new to the forum, but just wanted to throw my two cents into the discussion.

So far, I like Civ III and I play it quite often. I think the diplomacy is improved and the resources system is innovative... it is of course the combat system that makes the game fall short of my expectations.

I know that historically, a lot of odd battles happened where an army that was outmatched, outgunned and outmanned defeated a far superior opponent against all odds, like the tiny English fleet defeating the enormous Spanish armada. A lot of that was to chance, a lot to tactics.

I don't like having to make up outlandish stories to explain why my 4 veteran swordsman get killed attacking an elite spearman in a level 9 city. Yeah, maybe they got duped into a blind alley and the spearmen hid in buildings and dropped Greek fire on them. That makes great stories for the myths and history books, but not much sense in a game like Civ.

Historically, sometimes tech isn't clincher in battle, this I understand. Yeah, the Zulus did occasionally beat the British, and yes there were probably some German panzer crewmen who were killed by guys with broken beer bottles when their tanks ran out of fuel, ammunition, threw a tread, and they had to bail out forgetting their personal firearms.

Those sorts of things in the real world are rare, even amusing. Must suck to be those guys, huh? But in a game where you must count on the progression of technology and strength of your military to maintain your edge and win, these sorts of things are commonplace and ultimately undermine your chances to win. It is too frustrating to play a game when your troops have the experience and numerical edge, and still get defeated by an inferior foe. Not once, maybe even twice, but on a regular basis.

I still play Civ III and enjoy it. I'm not really sure if it's game of the year calibre though. It has a LOT of potential, could be as much of a classic as the original two civs, but games are meant to be fun and stimulating, and it's hard to have fun if you're consistently being screwed over in wars.

[vmxa1]

I think it will be in the running for game of the year. I have learned to live with the combat, but I did get sick of it with the Persians earlier today. My calv and Immortals vets lost to regular horsemen or archers more often than not. I wonder if it has to due with the traits. I finally said enough and started a new game. It is not always so common and can be lived with normally. I have seen everything thought. Samuari reg beats elite modern armour, Warrior beats modern armour, you name it. We do need FP to cut these down to a rarity. That means once every game or so. I am not talking about warrior beating immortal here, only things like 2 1 2 beating 8 12 1 in a no boinus battle.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
*sigh*

Tough combat is good, but I just had a memorable experience again. This is the kind of loss one cannot anticipate.

Moscow on grassland, no rivers, size 43. Defended by a conscript Infantry, with only 1 health remaining. Not fortified.

I attack this conscript with my army of 3 Elite tanks.

The infantry kills the army dead. Huray.

Heh. You should have none. 1 hp units are a deadly trap for mobile units.

[vmxa1]

I had a call from a friend who has no seen this game, but mentioned he had heard stories about spearmen beating tanks.

[Sava]

There are too many UNKNOWNS in your pseudo equation.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Mokael
but CIV3 combat arrangement sucks, that's a given. CIV2 had a nice set up. So did CTP2. But CIV3 reminds me CIV1, where a phalanx defeating a battleship was normal ...

How does it suck? Results like battleship loses to caravel are incredibly rare, so rare I have never seen stuff like that. With just one age difference unusual results are uncommon and the averages turn out right.

That impi vs swordsmen scenario thing is like a 1 in a million chance or something or even lower, like winning the lottery. BUT, people do win the lottery. And if things like this didn't happen eventually, that would be an indication of a faulty random generator.

I know some people want results like ancient unit fends off modern unit to never happen, but where do you draw the line? If you use your units properly you in all likely-hood will almost never see stuff like that, and just get a chuckle when it happens. It's obviously happened to a few people more than once(enough to make them pissed off) but I contend that that is because they SUCK and are very poor sports about it.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by MadWombat
Probability of Tank Victory w/ 3hp each: 94.2%
Probability of Tank Victory w/ 6hp each: 98.8%
Enjoy!

In real life bombardment is a GIVEN. Thus you have to count the spearman at 1 hp.

Then the tank's odds of winning are:

Regular tank: 99.2%
Vet tank: 99.84%
Elite: 99.968%

Your shield loss on average with the spearman/tank on average with vet tank: 19.68/.16

I think the system is just fine. If you don't use the 1(or 2 if unlucky) artillery shots to soften the unit up, then don't blame the system if you lose a tank.

Also, consider how often you are using modern units versus ancient units because the other civ actually is in the ancient era. Hmm? Did I hear you say 'never'? This is more of a problem with the ai building such units when they are 'obselete' and not upgrading.

[DFHNY]

cheating at war

First off, talking about the game "pre" patch is silly, the game is 5x harder post patch. Yes, the game gets better as you pick your battles more carefully...which is to say that the AI cheats so badly that I find myself only going to war when I have overwhelming odds. Now I am no tactician, but 10 mounted warriors is a min before waging war against anyone in the ancient era. I ignore individual combat outcomes because if you "care" about them they will drive you insane. I think units get worse over time AND the AI cheats enough to make it interesting for you the human player. Anyone posting who has played this night and day will tell you that as your game picks up momentum (say on Monarch level POST patch), the AI takes notice and starts doing things to limit you. Pop out 3 settlers from out of thin air. Allow warriors to win all battles in open field (I have lost swordsmen to warriors while I was on the attack several times). Basically, you can't count on anything so you double defend, double attack and this makes the game harder for the human and easier for the AI. I just wish the AI were "blind" to who the human player was.
For people who are "intermediate" and playing this game, play as the Iriquois and keep on the offense...any time you stop waging war, the AI will sneek up. Keep a bunch 10-12 MW around at all times and upgrade them to cavalry asap. MW helps even the odds.

DFH

[vmxa1]

They SUCK and are poor sports? Must be nice to know everything. Me I only have an IQ of 142 so I am not a know it all. I also do not suck and the poor sport thing, I may cop a plea. That said I am tired of people saying I must use combined arms. I do at times and other times I see an impi or a warrior or real fearsome archer and think WHY should I let that lone weak unit wreak a mine when I have an elite Calv sitting right next to it and I attack and lose. Worse I may have a tank and lose. If people are never seeing this with or without the patch, I do not understand as I have seen these things scores of times, including battleships (vet and elite) lose to galleys and the like. I have had to fort my BB for fear the carval will sink it. Again, are you saying I should allow a regular galley to unload troops and not send a BB to attack without backup? I agree that in total it is the better units that wins (especially later in the game), but I do not want to see a tank lose to any warrior or the like. I am not talking about fortified, hillside and all possible bonuses, plain old we are on the same flat ground, no rivers, what have you. I am not talking about 212 vs 321 stuff, I mean real mismatches. I understand the way the system works and how a 1hp left unit could win 5 rounds against an elite unit. I am saying that is crap for it to be seen more than once in 10 games and should be corrected with FP or some other means. I have read on other forums of many people junking the game after seeing this stuff. I know of two people that refused to buy after hearing these things. What I want is a sensible, logical working combat system. Not to have to drag slow ass cannons with my modern armour for fear that a spearmen will clobber one of my tanks in open ground. True it will not prevent you from winning.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Not to have to drag slow ass cannons with my modern armour for fear that a spearmen will clobber one of my tanks in open ground.

Uhh, you should be using artillery or radar artillery which have more range. And if you need more than that use bombers.

The fact is, there IS firepower in this game, literally. It exists in the form of bombardment. And if you don't use it, and then have wacky results, it is YOUR fault, not the system's.

And if you still don't want to do that do the math and look at the shield loss ratio of the civ using spearmen and you using your invincible modern armour, and realize that they are being whooped as completely as they should be.

[vmxa1]

Cannon was a generic term for any form of bombardment. I only use arty and bombers. The point is one is not going to have arty or such at all times and should not be required to have in order to protect a vastly superior unit such a tank from a spearmen, no matter how you slice it. Again, I am not talking about attacking a city or a stack, merely a single unit such as a warrior or a horsemen that is trying to grab a worker or wreak an improvement. One should not be force to sent combined arms to deal with that, when you have a tank regardless anything anyone says. I do not mind a tank losing to a pikemen defending a city, but standing on one of my plains tiles and not fortified? You can not justify it. The shields is not relevant to the discuss on a single combat, that is an issue of another sort. I have played some 25 or so games at four levels up to diety and see these battles frequently. They do not turn the game around, but they are far to prevelant. It has turned off many players and is even getting air time on TV, so it does hurt sales. The thing is, there is no need to have it occur as a routine matter. It needs to be excedingly rare. On the order of once per 10 games. You see the flip side of that type of battle so infrequently as to not be remebered by yours truly. When was the last time you have a spearmen beat anything in the open field? Not that you should have spearmen fighting in the open field.

[Arrian]

Ok, I've played a lot more civ III since my last post in this thread, so here are my observations now (and yeah, I have the patch now - only took an hour to download).

Basically, I can live with it, but I get annoyed at times. Since I rely almost exclusively on mobile troops, I rarely actually have units killed when something wacky happens... they just run away. The worst combat result I've seen: Vet Tank killed by regular musketman (fortified in size 2 city, no walls). Now, as I said, I've played a LOT of Civ III, and this is the worst result. Still, it sucked, and I did yell some choice things at my poor, innocent computer.

I do not believe the AI cheats in combat. I've gotten some wacky combat results that have gone my way, too. Example: I am attacking the Romans, with Cavalry. They are conscripting riflemen like crazy. I hit a town with some Cav, which were beat up and forced to retreat. I also had 2 old swordsmen that had been hanging around since ancient times (regulars, upgraded from my original warriors) and 1 vet rifleman. I decided, on a whim, to attack with the rifleman. He got wasted, no loss to the enemy (who had 1 1hp rifleman and 1 2hp rifleman fortified in the town). Then I attacked with my swordsmen. They both won, and the town was mine.

So yeah, the combat system is a little crazy. Yeah, I would prefer a more Civ II style combat system. But no, I don't think the combat craziness is one-way against the human.

-Arrian

[Kc7mxo]

When I was playing the game on Regent (supposed to be no cheats either way) I had a small island under my contorl, well developed. And this ironclad was going around bombarding my roads. So I bought a battleship in a nearby city, and next turn sailed out to annilate this fool. My VETERAN battleship (city had a port/harbor whatever) lost to this stupid ironclad (also a veteran) without inflicting a SINGLE point of damage. i stared in obsolute horror at this as the thrice cursed descendent of inbred rats sailed off with its new elite status.

and then unistalled the game.

I don't mind losing. . . too much. But I hate losing without reason.

[ah_zeep]

Terrain effects

Not sure if anyone else notices, but I have seem to have much better luck when attacking from higher terrain. So I tend to move my units onto hills, or better yet mountains, before
assaulting a city.

Is it possible terrain bonuses are given to units where they are, i.e. the "from" square of the attacker, and the current square of the defender? Just curious.

[DFHNY]

zeep reply

i have noticed the terrain factor too, but why doesn't the height of the terrain get mentioned in the docs if it is truly a "factor" in combat.

Also, sometimes I notice that different units with identical attack ratings fair differently during the game. i.e. different units each with attack of 4 one rocks and the other gets slaughtered, not in one battle but on and on, almost as if the algorythm were: the most advanced units you can build will do the best even if it has the same attack strength---or, perhaps, some units just have a civ3 advantage over other types of defenders...hard to tell. Please don't email several times saying it is all random, I am talking about winning easily with Longbowman when another unit of equal attack strength just lost several consecutive battles.

Hard to tell what the real combat algorythms are.