Combat System Explained

[Marquis de Sodaq]

In the CivII combat testing, it became clear that the random generator is not truly random. This is not surprizing, as a computer never makes a true random number, it often will use something like the internal clock to generate a number. Also, the "random" number is set within the range of the unit's attack or defense strength, say 0 to 3 for a unit with attack=4.

Have you read the CivII combat thread for the math?

[Sinapus]

Uhh... yes

Originally posted by Azrael-42
Actually, the infantry couldn't do a darn thing. You are badly underestimating the machine gun. This isn't red alert buddy, machine guns kill infantry instantly, and in fact mow through entire groups with ease. Its very easy to use machine guns to mow down infantry, whereas even with advanced anti-tank weapons, destroying a tank is difficult. As for the infantry cutting the tanks off, thats nuts. part of the point of armor is that its much, much faster. Its exactly the opposite, the tanks would have no problem cutting the infantry's supply lines. Again, this is a famous German tactic, using panzers to blitzkrieg through enemy weak points, cut off supply lines, and ultimately encircle and destroy the enemy in combination with frontal infantry forces.

There are these neat implements infantry have. They're called shovels.

As pointed out before, infantry have anti-tank weapons and are trained in using them against tanks.

Tanks have quite a few limitations which you are glossing over, or don't realize. Like seeing out of one. There is a reason why most armies tend to bring infantry with their tanks: to keep enemy infantry from doing unpleasant things to them.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Barchan
I've noticed curious results as well when reloading to see if a particularly outrageous combat result was luck or fate. It almost always appears to be fate; no matter what the odds, if I died once I'll die a hundred times. Strangely, if I change the attack sequence, the fated attack simply shifts to the next unit. Here's the scenario: my first attack (legion v. spearman) always failed while the second (legion v. warrior) always succeed. So I reverse the attacks; this time the warrior repeatedly won while the spearman repeatedly died.

I'm not really sure there *is* a good explanation for this combat system. It seems a bit mysterious to me....

At the start of your turn the computer generates a number of random 'seeds' that are used in succession. This is to prevent the reload-til-you-win technique and is a welcome addition to combat and exploring (goody huts anyone). Of course this can be exploited as was pointed out by someone earlier by, in a multiple combat setting, saving the 'good seed' for the tough battle (pike vs tank for instance).

Speaking of the combat system, Soren (AI wiz at Firaxis) has this to say:

gamadictG> Soren, I don't know if this has been addressed before, but do you think low-tech units have too
good of a chance to defeat higher-tech units...??
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> gamad...: concerning the loss of firepower. Firepower added needless complexity to the
game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower
of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1... however
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2.
This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if
you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X

Zap

[jbird]

One poster here said that enveloping a city in Civ3 provides no bonus. I've found the opposite to be true.

I often use my more mobile units to surround a city, securing important terrain features such as mountains and hills, as well as river crossings. When they are reinforced by some leg infantry of some type (from spearmen to infantry), the more mobile units are *highly* useful for destroying the road network connecting the enemy's city to any resources that might be coming to him. Take away every *single* luxury and strategic resource he used to have, and his people get ticked. Not only that, but that city can no longer produce anything that requires a resource. Another bonus is that city has to take civilians off of productive work to become entertainers if the city was reliant on luxuries for stability.

It doesn't work in one turn, but enveloping a city (especially one that you don't particularly plan to take but you have soldiers not needed for your main offensive) can be a highly useful strategy in Civ3. Oh, and even after peace is declared, they have to clean up the mess from your pilaging hordes for 10+ turns, just another bonus.

[gfrazieror]

There is no direct benefit of envelopment in the combat system itself. What you describe is pretty good strategy for placing a city under siege in CivIII. However, unlike in a lot of paper wargames of 20-30 years ago, there is no direct benefit in combat resolution when you surround an enemy city or units. Units don't fight at have strength due to lack of supplies or cut lines of communication, for example. The exception is that fast units don't have the option of retreating when engaged with other fast units...but that doesn't even require being surrounded to be true.

[jbird]

Oh, i'll agree, the envelopment bonus isn't as well represented in Civ3 as some other games, but in my experience, even in dedicated war games, this bonus isn't represented well (and neither is bombardment, I actually think that Civ3's bombardment is a touch better than many wargames i've played).

Thing is, I don't play Civ3 for a *full out* wargame. War is part of it, but it's an abstraction, not highly detailed combat.

Maybe in Civ6, i'll get to order my formations against those of the enemy in full 3d in real time, but until then, i'll play a wargame for my battle lust, and i'll play Civ3 for my empire-building game.

Jbird

[alva]

Fortify

see first post: it says: fortify gives 50% defensive bonus.
ins't this 25%? sorry if wrong

[JayKay]

Originally posted by Valant
Fortify
A fortified unit receives a defensive bonus of 50%, but no offensive bonuses.

The fortified unit bonus is 25%, not 50%!
_________________________________________________



Portugal
Nation of: Magellan's (from Magellan's Expedition);
Vasco da Gama (Discoverer of the Maritime path to India);
and Pedro Álvares Cabral (Discoverer of Brazil in 1500)

[Matos]

Re: Re: Re: Combat System Explained

Originally posted by FeathersMcGraw


I've noted this behavior with galleys and caravels -- I'm not sure if it also extends to "offensive" naval units such as frigates, ironclads, etc. (I would suspect that it would, so you might want to evacuate those battleships if your port city's about to be taken!).

Capturing a city with workers housed inside results in the capture of those workers, as well.

I seem to recall reading that artillery units can be captured only if your civilization has the technology which enables its construction (e.g. mathematics for catapults, etc.), but I don't recall if I've ever captured one along with a city I've conquered militarily.

I have played only 2 games of Civ 3 since I bought it, but I have played them to all possible game-endings thanks to the Auto-save. I have noticed during my conquest victories that:

1. A fortifed unit may take more than one 'free shot' per turn, and that they only have to be fortifyed, not in a fortess.

2. When capturing an enemy city not only are all the naval units in port destroyed, regardless of whether they are transports, carriers, or ironclads; but all the air units including helicopters are destroyed without the option to capture them.

3. On the games that I have played, I havn't ever captured an enemy artillery unit that is more advanced than my tech, but I have noticed that the Industrial Age civs didn't capture my Radar Arty, they destroyed them.

Now for a rant about changes I'd like to see.

First, if a carrier goes down within flight range of a friendly city, there should be a chance, maybe 33.33% that some of the planes get out, instead of sinking with the ship.

Second, I really miss the concept of collateral damage. If my Crusiers trash an Ironclad, I would like to see some damage to the Transport that was hiding in the same square. I know that the 'squares' are actually huge areas, but as someone pointed out, if two Division sized army's fight, there is not much that is un-affected.

Third, I dislike the fact that my Elite Modern Armor is being killed attacking un-fortifyed pikemen on mountaintops. Bring back either firepower, or a penalty for units that come from differant ages.

Fourth, why can my Bombers, Fighters and Helicopters be based out of any city, when my Paratroopers can only air-lift to cities with an Airport improvement? There should be some uniformity to this situation.

Jeez I'm long-winded today. Comments welcome.

[seer_98]

abstaction of size of unit

It seems everyone is assuming that an ancient unit represents the same amount of individuals as a modern unit. Maybe a phalanx is 20,000 defenders and a tank is 150 men in 50 tanks.

[gamma]

One thing I'm noticing here is people claiming that, say, pikemen should never beat tanks, and others saying they can in certain circumstances.

It sounds to me like each side is using different rules. The distinction is in tactics. Classic pikemen fight in tightly compacted squares, presenting a wall of sharp points in any of four directions. Classic WW-era tanks trundle slowly forward in a line or phalanx, often accompanied by foot soldiers. (Honestly, I can't see WW-era tanks being effective without infantry support, unless the battle is all tanks.)

Naturally, pikemen tactics work really well against nearly anything medieval, and fail horribly against armor tactics. However, if those same pikemen were to scatter and hide, the tanks suddenly have a lot of trouble; people can go in a lot of places tanks can't. And there's very little a tank crew can do against a single person sitting on top of the escape hatch with a knife or club. In other words, pikemen CAN kill tanks, but only by using different tactics.

I suppose Civ combat could be improved by souping up the combat to include things like tactics and other details. But then it would start to be Art of War or Command & Conquer rather than Civ. Actually, if it were to add more detail to combat AND tech AND culture AND resources, that might be cool, but it might also be too complicated and/or drawn-out to be fun.

[HardRock!!]

The number of the people who understood the calculation: UNKNOWN

[Xenowan]

Elite Unit Bonuses.

I was under the impression from the manual that Elite units would also have a bonus in combat besides the number of hit-points. Even so using the save and reload technique or postponing combat for varying number of turns to get new seed numbers (if it was the first combat in the war), has demonstrated to me that regular and veteran units fair far better in combat than Elite units. However, for computer vs. computer combat Elite status is a huge advantage. It can get rather embarising when an Elite Battleship losses to a regular galley (no not even a galleon). I can see more obsolute units winning sometimes, but combat should average out according to the relative attack and defense numbers, hp's, and defense bonuses. I always have to send far more units into combat. I once had an army of 8 Elite horsemen (attack:2, Defense:1, hp:5), 7 veteran horsemen(attack:2, Defense:1, hp:4), 5 elite archers(attack:2, Defense:1, hp:5), and 4 elite swordsmen(attack:3, Defense:2, hp:5) defeated and almost annihilated by 5 regular chariots(attack:1, Defense:1, hp:3) in just a few turns (2 horsemen and one swordsman barely got out with their lives with one bar left each). Fire-power was a bit overated in civ 2, but my main complaint about combat is the additional number of oportunities for primitive units to do damage. Yes Pikemen could defeat tanks in some situations, but Pikemen could never stay in combat against tanks for as long as say infantry, but if they are both veteran then they are guaranteed at least 4 opportunities to do damage.

In reality I can deal with this... if I faired as well in reverse situations. However what really bites me is when a city you just captured folds after 3 turns even if you bought a temple, a cathedral and kept everyone happy and all the units in there (an army of 4 tanks, 3 other tanks, 6 calvary units, 2 mech infs) are lost forever. I think they should just be expelled from the city. I know they wanted to focus on other things, but they made combat ridiculous. I've already got a huge text file going... course I still keep playing... oh well addiciton before pleasure.

[vmxa1]

I do not have a problem with tech beating non tech and old civs getting clobbered, they should. I do have a problem with a galley sinking an elite battleship, samuari killing elite modern armour and the like. It is true artillery is a smart way to go, but still if you see a spearmen approach your worker and you have a riflemen, you should not have to worry about losing. You should be able to and must be able to protect you stuff. I have seen all of the most laughable battles and they are common. Warrior (reg) attacks city and beat fortified Impi with walls? The brits did it four times to me? I don't get it, if I attack with a warrior I never win that fight. I have seen pikemen take no hits against armour and win, yes they were in the city, but come on, not even a hit point? We need FP or maybe a penalty for units that are from the previous age. I do not want to see archers win any fights against any modern units at any time. If you still have bows, you should go exstinct. If they are using massive numbers, that is another story. Say 10 archers against one mobile infantry, but not one on one. Even the numbers in most of these battle would seem to dictate they would lose, but they do not. Plus I am tired of hearing about imbuing these units with something they do not inherintly have. I mean stop talking about a spearmen learning guerilla tatics and having rpgs now because they are in the modern age. That does not exist in the game, they are spearmen period. I do not need to hear about not sending one unit to fight one unit. Do you think a commander would hold back his elite calv unit for fear of losing to the jag warrior that is destroying things or pasing through to be added to a larger force? That makes no sense to me. Yes I would not send it to attack the town unless I bombed it first, but open field combat?

[notyoueither]

Re: Combat System Explained

Originally posted by Valant

Terrain Bonuses:
When combat occurs over a river, the defender receives a 25% bonus.

Bombarbment/bombing
(Have only tried bombardment a little so its hazy here)
The attack value of the boming unit affects its successful rate, but how exactly is UNKNOWN. Also what factors determine the probability that determines if its a city improvement, unit, city wall, population hit is UNKNOWN. Also I assume all successful bombarbments on a military units only results in 1hp lost. I recently found that bombardment units have a value called rate of fire. From feedback, rate of fire is the number of "projectiles" the unit can fire per attack turn. For example a unit with a RoF of 2 does 1 attack on a city, the city is affected by 2 hits (if both did hit).

Army
Units in an army can only move as fast as the slowest unit in the army. When an army attacks or defends the first unit continues to fight/defend until the unit is down to 1hp. After which the unit gets replace with the next unit. This continues until the army gets to its last unit where that one is destroyed when its hp reaches zero, but the other 1hp units remain undestroyed (albeit heavily damaged).

Nuclear Attacks
Has a 50% chance to destroy each unit caught in its blast area (reguardless if its a friend or foe unit) and reduces a city's population by 50%. Size of the blast area is UNKNOWN.

Well its late and I am tired so going to end it here without proofing.....please add what you can.

1. River bonus: I am positive I have seen situations where moving diagonally across a river did not effect movement (prior to bridges). If so, in these cases there might not be a combat bonus. I can try to dig up a saved file if anyone is interested (but I don't check these forums often).

2. Bombardment: I have seen many cases of Artillery and Bombers doing multiple hits to units (more frequently to units with lower defensive values).

3. Army: I don't think any units die until the last hit point of the entire Army. I could be wrong here because I have not had an Army severely beaten up often, but the once I did I think I went to 1 HP left (I could be wrong and had 3 or 4 left).

4. Nuclear Attacks: Have a blast radius of 1 square. They pollute everything they touch (9 squares) as well as destroying every terrain improvement. They can also degrade terrain like Global Warming (Plains or GL to desert).

5. Air Superiority: Not high-lighted in the quoted post, BUT... I have seen Air Superiority work (for the AI). During an Industrial/Modern era war with the Greeks I lost about 10 Bombers to Jet Fighters (the bomber would start its run only to be intercepted midway through and explode as the Jet flew across its path). Our Bombers shot down 2 Aircraft (1 Fighter and 1 Jet Fighter). There were turns in which we were intercepted more than once bombing the same target with multiple bombers (he had multiple Interceptors). My experience leads me to guess that there is a 10 to 20 percent chance of an interception occuring if a fighter is in position and has the right orders. Our own Jet Fighters retained a high level of polish on their fuselages as they remained on the ground inert to the enemy Jets and the enemy never bombed close to them (or much at all). I didn't try bombing with them first, but I should have.

I added the bit about Air Superiority because I have seen other comments about it not working at all, but apparently it does. The question I would have is how escorts would work. Do Fighters ever fight each other if neither is bombing? And, do you have to renew the AirSup orders every turn? Anybody?