Unreal

[BLackraven42]

I am playing a game as the chinese and I just sent an invasion force of 2 tanks and an infantry to wipe out a british city. When I try to attack, first my infantry gets wiped out by a spearman, thn my tank does. Do you really think that A bronze spear could pirce steal??

[vmxa1]

You gotta love it (hehe). Battles are a scam and I wonder if there is not a built in cheat for the AI. It wins battles that make no real sense or even game sense. I just had a roman spearman (regular) attack a city that had three War Chariots and he killed two and retreated? I know reloads will not change the outcome normally, but I reload and send another chariot (all are vets) from a near by city and it beats the spearman (no terrain bonuses)? I would not mind a spearman winning over one War Chariot, but three and they are in the city? I have had elite troops lose to regular troops and on and on.

[Dark Hawk]

Firstly, I find there is nothing wrong with the civ3 combat system. If you don't have enough military, you lose. Simple as that. Technology doesn't make much of a difference unless you have strength in numbers. Since all unit will usually have 3 hitpoints, A longbowman with an attack of 4 can do some heavy damage while attacking a unit.

Secondly, fortifying bonuses for a spearman are a lot! %50 fortify bonus on top of a 2 defense gives them 4. Compared to tanks, thats nothing but terrain and hills play a big part.

Lastly, if you're only sending two tanks and an infantry, I think you deserve to lose. No artillery? Are you god or something? Without artillery, your units are going to die %50 percent of the time because the hit points are all the same! If you use artillery to get that spearman down to 1 hitpoint, you can say game over for the british city. It takes a long time to wear down a fortified unit without bombarding first.

Your only solution? OVERKILL
Send in 6 tanks or even 10
Armies might help but don't count on em.

The bottom line, infantry for defence, cavalry for hit and run, artillery/bombers to weaken and tanks for raw power in attacking.

Combined arms is the only way to go.

[Monoriu]

I am not surprised that you lost.

You did not mention two crucial things, what square was the spearmen on? City? Mountain? Another thing is, were the tanks wounded when they attacked?

My typical invasion force consists of these:

20-30 artillery, 10 infantry (at least), 2-3 cavalry.

This is a minimum requirement.


Typical sequence of attack

Turn 1

Position artillery and 2 infantry within 2 squares of city.
Advance rest of army as a single stack toward enemy city.

Turn 2
Bombard city until population is below 6.

Turn 3
Bombard city with all the artillery possible to weaken enemy army as much as possible. Preferably al garrison should be down to 1 strength.
Launch assult with 6 infantry and cavalry.
After winning, advance 2 full strength infantry into the city square.
Fortify 2 full strength infantry to pretect the wounded units.


Typically I lose 1-2 units per city invasion. Often I lose none.

Your mistakes:

1. Insufficient forces. 3 is no where near enough, against anything. Even if they win and capture the city, they'll be wounded and nobody else can protect them. Another thing is, what if the enemy has more than 3 units in the city garrison? You can't take the city in one turn, and the enemy will likely receive reinforcements in the next turn, while your units will likely be wounded. Try using at least 4 infantry and 4-5 tanks as an invasion force.

2. No artillery. You need to bombard a city to below pop 6 to lower their defensive bonus before attacking. You need to weaken the enemy garrison enough before you attack.



Nothing wrong with the combat system.

[jbird]

And, I don't know if this was the case in your situation, but it happened to me in my first game of Civ3. This warrior, he was to be easily killed by my archer, come on, 2:1 advantage, he's conscript, my guy's veteran. No matter what I did, I couldn't beat the guy.

Then I realized, he's on the other side of a river.

Crossed river, using a spearman to protect my archer.

Killed warrior without a problem.

Never ever *ever* attack accross a river.

[Monoriu]

Agreed, Jbird. I found out this lesson the hard way.

[Conquesticus]

This is a serious combat flaw in the game. Yeah, the way the hitpoints are figured in the game, it's totally reasonable for a spearman to kill a tank. But, it's just not realistic, and that's supposed to be what makes Sid's games great. If only this could have been more like Antietam! Imagine a force of 10,000 guys with spears defending a city. Then, a division of tanks (what, 7,000 guys, 700 tanks, 500 APCs) rolls into the city. They've got machine guns, tank cannons, all that stuff. The guys with spears will not win! Add another tank division, then an infantry division complete with rifles, guns, mortars, etc. It's never happened in history. The Spaniards showed up in Mexico with about 250 guys on horse with ancient pre-flintlock muskets. They did not have rifles or anti-tank rockets. They still killed how many swordsmen and bowmen (who were damn fierce and cannibalistic), 10,000 at least? When Napolean rolled into Egypt with a few riflemen and cannons, they were charged by 15,000 mamelukes. Within 2 hours, 5,000 of them were dead and Egypt was French. That is how superior technology works and what happens when a tech civilization bumps into one that's in the stone age. The game's still fun as hell, and the combat does make it more challenging, but blackraven's right, it's unreal.

[Pacific_Wing]

Try reading the manual. There is a whole excerpt in there about how the combat system works; it isn't the same as in previous civ games. I think what fraxis had in mind was to change two elements of the game: 1, to make sure that a group of two or three musket men can't take over an entire empire; 2, to make sure that units were used for what they were designed for.

I'm not sure if the new system is successful or buggy; I honestly haven't played enough to know. What I do know is that you aren't going to get anywhere attacking with spearmen; they are a defensive unit. Pay attention to the ADM ratings of certain units. If a unit has a high attack value, but a low defense value, it will be useless if the AI attacks it. When a unit is attacked, the attack value in the ADM rating doesn't even enter the equation. It could have an "A" value of 3000 and it still would be useless when defending if the "D" value is too low.

My proven (since I've tried this and it works) advice is to make sure you use units for what they were designed for. A bowman was not designed to defend, so it will easily get it's but kicked by even a weak attacking unit. Back up your attack units with defensive units. You will find that your armies will last quite a bit longer.

Incidentally, considering the way the math works in the game, there is room for the occasional fluke, where a really weak unit will win against the strong unit. But if the "A" rating of the attacking unit is lower than the "D" rating of the defender, this will generally not happen.

My 2 and a half cents,

Cheers,

-Pacific_Wing

[Phideas]

The game is not supposed to work by "Ok, the first person to develop tanks can just take a couple and run over the entire world". This is done so that there is a challenge to the game. There is still a great advantage to using a tank against older units, but you still can't run around with 2 or 3 and eradicate another civilization. It's MUCH more realistic that way, than to have it where a tank can just kill everything.

If you use bombardment strategy properly, along with proper troop coordination, you will find that the combat system makes a lot of sense. And because things drag out, it also simulates better, what going to war is all about. It's long, it's a pain, and because of the extra precautions always required, it requires more thought and strategy ( hey, this is a strategy game isn't it? ).

-Phid

[Osprey]

Originally posted by Dark Hawk
Firstly, I find there is nothing wrong with the civ3 combat system. If you don't have enough military, you lose. Simple as that. Technology doesn't make much of a difference unless you have strength in numbers. Since all unit will usually have 3 hitpoints, A longbowman with an attack of 4 can do some heavy damage while attacking a unit.

Secondly, fortifying bonuses for a spearman are a lot! %50 fortify bonus on top of a 2 defense gives them 4. Compared to tanks, thats nothing but terrain and hills play a big part.

Lastly, if you're only sending two tanks and an infantry, I think you deserve to lose. No artillery? Are you god or something? Without artillery, your units are going to die %50 percent of the time because the hit points are all the same! If you use artillery to get that spearman down to 1 hitpoint, you can say game over for the british city. It takes a long time to wear down a fortified unit without bombarding first.

Your only solution? OVERKILL
Send in 6 tanks or even 10
Armies might help but don't count on em.

The bottom line, infantry for defence, cavalry for hit and run, artillery/bombers to weaken and tanks for raw power in attacking.

Combined arms is the only way to go.

Actually, the 50% bonus would only make the '2' defense factor a '3'. Besides that, I do agree that a spearman should not be able to take out tanks, especially multiple tanks. I could accept a little bit of damage.

[inca911]

Reality check?

OK. Don't think of this in terms of "Spearman vs. Tanks", think of it in terms of ADM value ABC unit vs ADM value XYZ unit. The names are meaningless in terms of combat so don't expect them to reflect reality in this game. Combat was altered to prevent the obsoletion of units like happened in Civ2. How many Pikeman do you think existed around 1700 AD? Once you get over the nomenclature and start thinking mathematically then combat is much more pleasant and much more reasonable than the Civ2 model. No, a spearman cannot defeat a tank in modern day warfare but in Civ3, there is a probability that a unit with 2 defense can kill a unit with an attack value of 5.

[Special_K]

Re: Reality check?

Originally posted by inca911
OK. Don't think of this in terms of "Spearman vs. Tanks", think of it in terms of ADM value ABC unit vs ADM value XYZ unit. The names are meaningless in terms of combat so don't expect them to reflect reality in this game. Combat was altered to prevent the obsoletion of units like happened in Civ2. How many Pikeman do you think existed around 1700 AD? Once you get over the nomenclature and start thinking mathematically then combat is much more pleasant and much more reasonable than the Civ2 model. No, a spearman cannot defeat a tank in modern day warfare but in Civ3, there is a probability that a unit with 2 defense can kill a unit with an attack value of 5.

First, I accept that a unit with an attack value of 2 should be able to sometimes kill a unit w/ an attack value of five, but this should not happen to 3 or 4 units in a row. Secondly, we are talking about tanks and spearmen here. If a unit with 5 attack can regularly be beaten by a unit w/ 2 defense, then a tank should have enough attack so that is never ever beaten by a spearmen.

[Jason]

I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but I doubt the story. It could just be a copycat complaint.

For one thing, if he has 2 tanks and an Infantry, he'd never attack with the infantry first. It has HALF the attack value of the tanks and greater defence. If you have the good sense to guard your tanks with Infantry you should keep them nice and healthy to prevent losing tanks to cavalry or something.

Second, you'd have to be (fairly) unlucky to lose 2 tanks to one spearmen. Defence value of 3 or 4 depending on city size, attack value of 6, then 12.


Assuming his attackers were full strength regulars (only a fool would attack with less) he had to have at least 9 flukey or semi-flukey results. Discounting the rounds when the spearmen took damage, each of the following had to happen.

Figures assume a 100% defence bonus and no more. If the city was on a hill and there was a river barrier, then it's a bit more credible I suppose.

4 against 6, 4 wins.
4 against 6, 4 wins.
4 against 6, 4 wins.
4 against 12, 4 wins
4 against 12, 4 wins
4 against 12, 4 wins
4 against 12, 4 wins
4 against 12, 4 wins
4 against 12, 4 wins.

I just don't see this happening in Civ3. I've seen flukes, but never one quite this massive. Yesterday I lost a 3 hp infantry against a knight, **** happens, but I don't see anything which doesn't make sense in light of the attack and defence values.

I guess I'm just used to this sort of thing from Civ1, maybe? I'd be just as satisfied if they brought back firepower, but I'm ok with the way combat is handled right now. Wars are just risky, that's all. I tend to bombard garrisons to 1 hp before attacking and even then I expect the odd casualty with high attack values.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Jason

I guess I'm just used to this sort of thing from Civ1, maybe? I'd be just as satisfied if they brought back firepower, but I'm ok with the way combat is handled right now. Wars are just risky, that's all. I tend to bombard garrisons to 1 hp before attacking and even then I expect the odd casualty with high attack values.

There is a very fine reason for the combat system and that is that it supports an excellent resource system.

From Soren:

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

[kmj]

I agree with those that think the combat system is fine. The problem is with the perception. If CivIII auto-updated the names and images of the units with each new age, then most these people who were complaining would probably stop. Technically, the mujaheedin, for example, were probably just warriors, but given good terrain they were able to hold off the far more advanced Russians (forgive any inaccuracy, please; I'm no history major).

I mean, do you really think the people in 1750 ad that are defending against your tanks are the same guys that were enlisted when you build that spearman? No. Obviously not; and in the same way, new tactics and equipment are used... modern weapons get purchased via illicit channels, perhaps, etc. They don't have the technology or skill to fully equip their army as, say riflemen or infantry, but they have found some ways to fight against an enemy's more modern capabilities. I think, with the addition of bombardments, and with the exception of some bugs, the combat system as designed is just fine. But that's just my opinion.