CtP2 vs. Civ 3 - a guide

[hexagonian]

Point taken...

You make good points on this regarding the pincer manuvering - since you cannot run your assaults simltaneously, CTP does require that you need to spend time assembling your stacks before attacking. You are right that a player can potentially be penalized if he attacks from two different tiles with smaller stacks, because he is better off merging his forces into a single stack before mounting his attack. You do not send two 6-stacks individually against a 12-stack - you merge them into a 12-stack and then attack. I wouldn't call it a serious flaw though (maybe a flaw, but not a serious flaw) -- all that is lost is a turn or two in order to get them merged and into position.

You still will have the concept of pincer movement (though not necessarily pincer attack) on the strategic level, and the concept of pincer attacks is handled on the tactical level with a bonus, which I maintain, is one of the main historical benefits of using pincer maneuvers, and is something that I still assert, is sadly absent in any form in civ3. Tactical pincers in CTP2 may be highly artificial as you say, but the fact is that in these types of games, combat has already been abstracted to a great degree.

I still maintain that due to civ3's game design, it is almost always better to maintain your civ3 army in uber stacks rather than a series of small stacks, (even if you lose a turn or two to get them that way), so the concept of pincer manuevers doesn't happen all that much in my games of civ3. I generally merge forces before I get to my target as a matter of habit and radiate outward as situations warrant and then retreat back into the safety of the uberstack. Rare is the time that I cannot merge forces. Because of game design, this funnels a player into a particular playstyle too - the same type of funneling effect you say CTP2 does with its own game mechanics.

(As a sidenote, the game, Age of Wonders, does move combat further in the right direction - it has a form of stacked combat, and it allows the forces in adjacent tiles to take part in a single battle, so it is possible to code in a system that would allow for a better representation of pincer manuvers and implimentation of bonuses if pincer manuevers are used - although those bonuses aren't in place in AoW)

In a nutshell, the reason why there are these problems is because the emphasis of each system is different. Again, I'm taking the overall implementation of all the elements as they are presented in both civ3 and CTP, and I think that as a whole, CTP has a better and more engaging setup over civ3.

I look at combat in CTP in this way...there is more emphasis on the composition of your forces and how they work as a cohesive force in CTP than in civ3. Yes, civ3 does place importance on force composition, but it is more important in CTP.

It's a step up - maybe not a big step, but a step, nevertheless.

You made the statement that in civ3, there is no concept of units attacking together as a group. This to me, is taking a totally unrealistic approach to combat. It brings up the old argument that leaders simply send one-dimensional (in civ3, attacker-type, ranged-type, defender-type) units into battle one at a time to line up against another unit. They fight, resolve combat and then the process repeats again.

You have the same process in CTP, but with a huge difference - a difference that actually goes toward realism. Maybe not perfectly, but in an engaging manner.

In CTP, you may have 12 units in a stack, but that stack is considered a single entity. It works as a single unit with a set of sub-units adding various benefits like range, flanking, defense and offense. By themselves, the sub-units are not powerful, but combined, they support one another and are stronger as a whole. And this reflects what happens in battle - a variety of different unit types engaged simultaneously in combat.

So the focus in CTP is in creating single units, and then assembling them into a series of cohesive armies rather than merely spewing out units a la civ3. The power and character of your military is in these entities, not in a infinitely-sized, blob-like mass of single units piled up on a tile. And it is the ability to have 'infinite' units that ends up killing it for me. (I think of the strategic level of thinking involved in a game like 'Risk' and 'Axis and Allies' (which allows infinitely-sized armies on territories) as opposed to the strategic level of thinking involved in the old Avalon Hill hex-grid games, that had tile occupation limitations. The AH games were much deeper in gameplay because of that too...)

Sure, you are still sending that 'army entity' one at a time into combat, but you are facing off against another 'army entity'. It's not unit vs unit, but army vs army with a combined arms flair. And the stakes are higher - in civ3 you can call off an attack if you lose a unit or two. Simply stop attacking...there really isn't a sense of risk, especially if you are the attacker.

In CTP, once you commit to battle, it's winner take all. You can lose 12 units in one shot. (Yeah, I know CTP2 has the retreat option, but I play as it was originally in CTP1 - no retreats)

And historically, battles were winner take all - especially the further back in time you go. Generals took the field, deployed forces and in the matter of a few hours, saw their entire army either crumble or crush their foes.

As for the tech superiority issue, I brought that up as a reported issue when civ3 came out. I cannot recall the level of the game, as that was almost 3 years ago, and this issue may have been fixed (although since Firaxis has not altered FP, HP in any patches, I somewhat doubt it). I was taking your term 'weight of numbers' to mean numerical superiority and drawing a parallel to the reported incident, which if true, could be considered a problem. I still maintain that there should be Firepower and/or Armor settings in civ3, as well as greater variance in HP...

[Big Dave]

There has been some discussion here as if a pincer movement actually has some effect in either Civ3 or CTP2. In reality it has no effect in either. The purpose of a pincer movement (in addition to the already mentioned effect on the morale of the defender) is to force the enemy to split his firepower in two directions while each half of the pincer is concentrating it's firepower on a single target.

As for the stacking limits, armies throughout most of history have had to forage to stay in the field. I feel that the 12 unit cap simulates this well.

Regarding someone's comment that all you have to do in Civ3 is put a Stack-O-Doom in a city to defend it, I'll disagree there, too. Pillaging is both easy and fun, and I'd be happy to bring a bunch of single units up to starve your city out while my stack that is slightly smaller than your's threatens your city to keep your stack-o-doom inside.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Big Dave
Regarding someone's comment that all you have to do in Civ3 is put a Stack-O-Doom in a city to defend it, I'll disagree there, too. Pillaging is both easy and fun, and I'd be happy to bring a bunch of single units up to starve your city out while my stack that is slightly smaller than your's threatens your city to keep your stack-o-doom inside.

I think we can all safely say that multiplayer is an entirely different animal than SP. My comments were geared toward the AI as it is in SP...

[Protra3211]

What about diplomacy?

I find that in Civ3( have PTW) I find it very hard to get any of the AI factions to trust me. No matter how many gifts I give soon or latter they will start to work together against me. Now with CtP2 I like that you have to build trust and respect first before they will give anything but once you show good faith they stay on good trems with you. For now im testing out changes use the editor in Civ3. Removing shuned goverments and lowering aggresivness by a point.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by hexagonian
And it is the ability to have 'infinite' units that ends up killing it for me.

I do want to clarify this statement because I actually find the first half of civ3 to be as engaging as CTP.

This issue is not a problem in the Ancient and most of the Medieval age in civ3 because total military forces are still small, and your empire is usually in the process of being linked up with roads. You cannot simply maintain a large stack that will meet every one of your needs, so you end up needing to split your forces. In this regard, your force deployment is very similar to what is occuring in CTP - your unit stacks are not that large and are usually spread out to cover your empire during peacetime. If attacked, you have to use valuable time to gather forces to meet the threat. At this stage of the game, civ3's design works pretty well.

But once you have established yourself and start linking with rails, then the only strategy is uberstacking.

[nbarclay]

While I agree that railroads in Civ 3 dramatically reduce the amount of strategy involved, I rarely end up relying on uberstack defenses. When practical, I'd rather damage the invaders with artillery and then finish them off with whatever my best offensive units available are before they can reach my city (or possibly take a notion to pillage).

Nor do I usually pack my entire offensive military into a single large force when I attack. Ideally, I want enough forces that I can pursue multiple targets at once. Yes, with the Conquests expansion pack, I often have mega-stacks of artillery with a few escorts. But my goal is to split my forces in a way that will let me take multiple targets whenever I can do so without more losses than I'm inclined to accept.

[Ekmek]

Originally posted by Big Dave
There has been some discussion here as if a pincer movement actually has some effect in either Civ3 or CTP2. In reality it has no effect in either. The purpose of a pincer movement (in addition to the already mentioned effect on the morale of the defender) is to force the enemy to split his firepower in two directions while each half of the pincer is concentrating it's firepower on a single target.

I've rarely seen a pincer movement as a doctrinal term but and envelopement is like you describe. And whats frustrating in both is that simple tactical/operational concepts are hard to replicate. For example in an a single envelopement one force "holds" or pins down units while a flanking unit attacks the side where the enemy has least amount of fire power or defenses. A double envelopement, or pincer as you called it, not only splits firepower, but also can lead to an encirclement where the enemy is basically undersiege.
These and many other options would be great to add and also is what makes small armies win over larger one by maneuver and/or supporting firepower. Unfrtunately in both gives more units tends to be the winner...

[Big Dave]

Originally posted by hexagonian
I think we can all safely say that multiplayer is an entirely different animal than SP. My comments were geared toward the AI as it is in SP...

DoH! Of course it is. Sorry for making you state the obvious.

[Maquiladora]

Just to pick up a couple of points.

Specialists such as Laborers or Mercants also have prerequisites - Factories and Banks respectively, while Scientists need Universities.

You don't need any specific buildings in cities to use specialists in CtP2, just the advance.

In CtP2, technology doesn’t define whether you can go to war or not. It’s numbers and tactics that do. Technology helps a lot, but you can’t win a war purely on technological edge if you’re outnumbered by one to ten.

...

In CtP2, conquest is harder because of stacked combat, the need to place tile improvements strategically, using the unconventional units, etc.

I would say in comparison to civ3 combat, the opposite is true. In CtP2 if you reach an important military advance, say Cavalry Tactics, before a close enemy it gives you a huge advantage because of the speed and all round ability of some units, in this case Cavalry, your enemy will have say Fascists, which have slightly better stats, but they only have 2 movement to Cavalry 4. You can move all over their civ twice as fast, using their roads and you know they wont have every city defended heavily, if any, even if you dont take and hold any cities, youve done significant damage selling buildings, disbanding small cities and pillaging.

Movement in CtP2 combat is incredibly important, because you can only defend each city with 12 units maximum and its far too costly to defend every city with 12 units all the time (not to mention keep those units up to date), it becomes more important to keep a mobile defence, and obviously thats where the fastest units win in both offence and defence. With technology comes not only more powerful units, but faster units.

This would be fine if defensive/slow units were balanced much stronger than fast units, but it happens that in CtP2 the strongest units are fast, all-rounders and flankers.

[Solver]

You don't need any specific buildings in cities to use specialists in CtP2, just the advance.

Righto, that was CtP1 then that required a building too .

Conquest is harder in CtP2, I believe, because of the whole reinforcement thing and PW. You need to get reinforcements, as if you win a battle with your 12 stack, and lose 9 units, the remaining 3 stack isn't much useful. In a Civ3 system, 3 units have as much ability to take cities as 12 units. PW is limited, so you also don't have roads in each tile as in Civ3, so you got to think about how to get them where you need to.

The tech thing is even more so true in Civ3. In CtP2, if you get Cavalry Tactics first, yes, you have an advantage. You'll still need to think about how to properly use it, as the enemy can steal beat you without Cavalry, but with better planning. In Civ3, though, you get Military Tradition and then it's a no-brainer. You start pumping out only cavalry, exclusively. Since they attack cities one by one and have superior stats (and there are no complex factors to consider), you can just blitz through enemy land. Almost every time I played Civ3, I won the game exactly then, by just producing dozens of cavalry at my maximal capacity and blitzing.

[Maquiladora]

Conquest is harder in CtP2, I believe, because of the whole reinforcement thing and PW. You need to get reinforcements, as if you win a battle with your 12 stack, and lose 9 units, the remaining 3 stack isn't much useful. In a Civ3 system, 3 units have as much ability to take cities as 12 units. PW is limited, so you also don't have roads in each tile as in Civ3, so you got to think about how to get them where you need to.

Yeah I agree for conquest aiming to occupy and keep cities logistics is more important in CtP2 no doubt, because of the difficulty of city defence you need a constant stream of backup.

But the kind of conquest I was referring to, and the kind of conquest thats most effective in CtP2 IMO, is pillaging and disbanding.

Because of the city limit its not very disirable to take and keep cities for yourself, because you're ideally at the city limit for your government before you attack someone (at peak resources), that means each city you take causes you more unhappiness.

This kind of hit and run conquest doesnt require any reinforcements either, because your goal is not to take and capture, its to take and destroy in one big attack.

The tech thing is even more so true in Civ3. In CtP2, if you get Cavalry Tactics first, yes, you have an advantage. You'll still need to think about how to properly use it, as the enemy can steal beat you without Cavalry, but with better planning. In Civ3, though, you get Military Tradition and then it's a no-brainer. You start pumping out only cavalry, exclusively. Since they attack cities one by one and have superior stats (and there are no complex factors to consider), you can just blitz through enemy land. Almost every time I played Civ3, I won the game exactly then, by just producing dozens of cavalry at my maximal capacity and blitzing.

This may be true for both games then, I didn't play civ3 that far.

In the example of Cavalry vs Fascists, I would still take Cavalry for defence or offence than Fascists because of their speed, as you mentioned in your example of Cavalry in civ3, speed always wins when units are similarly balanced.

But thats just one example in CtP2.

A better example is researching Tank Warfare first. In this case Tanks are 2 moves faster than Cavalry (4 more than Fascist, M.Gunner, Artillery) which means you have more options and require less important decisions about movement, they also have more armour than any previous unit.

Theres also examples with Knights or Stealth Fighters or Fusion Tanks.

Not that I want to defend civ3 in any way, but I think CtP2 has the same faults in this case.

[Solver]

Because of the city limit its not very disirable to take and keep cities for yourself, because you're ideally at the city limit for your government before you attack someone (at peak resources), that means each city you take causes you more unhappiness.

Good point. I find the city limit to be absolutely the worst feauture of CtP2, and I always play with it increased. That's mainly because the default limits from vanilla/mods are awful when playing on bigger maps, and my preference lies with big maps and some 12 civilizations. I have the limits set so that they allow for good expansion, and will not be a problem every time.

This kind of hit and run conquest doesnt require any reinforcements either, because your goal is not to take and capture, its to take and destroy in one big attack.

Still requires reinforcements or correct planning. Every time you attack, you lose some units in your stack. So your one 12-stack won't take and destroy all that you want. You need to either resupply that stack correctly or to send enough units initially.

In the example of Cavalry vs Fascists, I would still take Cavalry for defence or offence than Fascists because of their speed, as you mentioned in your example of Cavalry in civ3, speed always wins when units are similarly balanced.

Civ3 Cavalry aren't unbalanced because of speed alone, it's because of the unit stats and the way combat works. You get Cavalry, attack of 6. Other civs will defend with either Musketmen, defense of 4, or Pikemen, defense of 3. Cavalry will also retreat instead of dying much of the time. Due to their superior stats, you can take almost any city, except for big cities in hills, easily. Another imbalance is that roads give no movement bonus in enemy territory. So if you take an enemy city, a number of tiles around becomes your territory, and the enemy can't move units in there quickly.

A better example is researching Tank Warfare first. In this case Tanks are 2 moves faster than Cavalry (4 more than Fascist, M.Gunner, Artillery) which means you have more options and require less important decisions about movement, they also have more armour than any previous unit.

Yeah, the Tanks are frigging damn powerful in CtP2. Historically, the early tanks weren't that superor to cavalry, while CtP2 Tanks are in fact more like modern Tanks. The power of Tanks in CtP2 comes from the fact they're great all-around, which means that you need to pay less attention to stack composition. Stacks of 12-Tanks work fine, whereas stacks of 12-Cavalry are suboptimal.

But my point stands that any military operation in CtP2 requires far more planning and is more complex than in Civ3.

[Maquiladora]

Good point. I find the city limit to be absolutely the worst feauture of CtP2, and I always play with it increased. That's mainly because the default limits from vanilla/mods are awful when playing on bigger maps, and my preference lies with big maps and some 12 civilizations. I have the limits set so that they allow for good expansion, and will not be a problem every time.

Yeah city limit should definitely be made scalable to map size at least. But generally they don't really make sense realistically and they don't prevent ICS, the only positive I can think of is that they reduce micromanagement once you reach the city limit you don't have to concern yourself with that anymore, but thats a lame positive.

Still requires reinforcements or correct planning. Every time you attack, you lose some units in your stack. So your one 12-stack won't take and destroy all that you want. You need to either resupply that stack correctly or to send enough units initially.

My opinion on this comes totally from multiplayer experience so it's bound to be foreign to someone mostly used to single player, no offence. In a MP game most humans defend each city with the cheapest units (to keep support costs down - very important long term) only needed for martial law but always have a few stacks of modern quick units for mobile defence. If you can surprise them and get inside their borders all you have left to do is kill 1 or 2 weak units in each city and once they counter with the mobile stacks so you move in more (in the same attack not as reinforcements), all the while starving and disbanding the cities you easily took while they scramble in defence.

In SP it's different. The AI plays for the short term, it defends every city heavily and with modern units (taking huge support costs), so the best way to bring down the AI with minimal losses on your side is a seige of each city and pillaging (if you don't intend to keep it), this kind of tactic defintely requires some reinforcements against a strong AI in say Cradle mod.

So it's two opinions looking from different sides I suppose, although I'm forced to say that MP is a melting pot that eventually brings out the most effective strategy in any game.

Yeah, the Tanks are frigging damn powerful in CtP2. Historically, the early tanks weren't that superor to cavalry, while CtP2 Tanks are in fact more like modern Tanks. The power of Tanks in CtP2 comes from the fact they're great all-around, which means that you need to pay less attention to stack composition. Stacks of 12-Tanks work fine, whereas stacks of 12-Cavalry are suboptimal.

I think 12 Cavalry is just a lethal in its own age mainly because of flanking. It's not just that the Tank and Cavalry can deal in attack, defence and ranged, but each time a front line unit dies another comes from the back and the front row keeps flanking, which is the most lethal part. It's so easily fixed though by either lowering Cavalry/Tanks ranged/defence ability or taking away flanking(which i wouldn't like though), although Tanks should remain powerful, just not in the sense thats the only unit you need in the modern age. Cavalry should definitely be made more of a luxury unit though, it would make it so much more interesting fighting a kind of slow trench war with Fascists/M.Gunners and Artillery.

But my point stands that any military operation in CtP2 requires far more planning and is more complex than in Civ3.

It still stands because of having to form stacks (one of the reasons CtP2 AI is much harder to get right) and public works planning as you said. But not for the reasons you mention - that a slight technological lead doesn't win you the game in CtP2 because it really does, or that one unit doesn't rule the roost in CtP2 because some definitely do.

[Solver]

[..]
So it's two opinions looking from different sides I suppose, although I'm forced to say that MP is a melting pot that eventually brings out the most effective strategy in any game.

Right you are, I guess. I am used to SP by far, and am speaking exactly from that perspective, believing that SP is the most popular aspect of the game.

As for balance of units, we basically can say that this problem we are talking about is related to how it's impossible to defend cities with small stacks against large stacks. Which can possibly be fixed by changing defensive combat.

[Maquiladora]

It's not just about MP tactics and SP tactics here though. The AI needs improving we all know that, would you say an improvement would be to make the AI more like a human in MP? Or do you prefer the AI to play in a more standard way and increase bonuses (for example) to compensate?