Anyone other than me hate Civ3 combat?

oetkenjc · November 3, 2003, 14:25

This was the key to me disliking this game. Every game that I have ever played all the way since Master of Orion1 all the way to now with CTP2... you could group your units. It just makes sense... 10 people are sitting on the same land/space square. You can group them, and tell them to move in sequence with each other.... even attack and defend together.

Why not on Civ 3 ? This is a huge show stopper.... I hate to be the "hack and slasher" guy on a great game.. but realistically, combat will happen all the time...

There is no reason why my warrior and my archer sitting on the same square... when attacked by a barbarian... should my warrior fight until he dies... and then my archer fights until he dies.

CTP2 has it down just right... he's got the Warrior hacking away with the Archer right behind him "thwonk"ing arrows...

Any fixes to this about now or claimed to be fixed in the future? Other than this... I love the graphics and the gameplay... but... grrr...

ctp2'r

Stuie · November 3, 2003, 14:46

Well....... units in the archer upgrade path will have the same "first strike" chance the artillery currently have when defending in a stack, but other than that, you might be better off sticking with a system you like.

vondrack · November 3, 2003, 14:49

Changing the combat system is not a matter of "fixing" something (that is broken). The combat system of Civ3 was designed to be this way - it's still, IMHO, a huge improvement over the combat system of Civ2, where that first unit you defeated actually doomed all the other units flying the same colours in the same tile...).

Think of it this way: one tile is 10x10 miles. That's quite some territory. Sure the units need not be at the very same spot - they may be positioned throughout the countryside. When the enemy warriors attack, they attack the unit of warriors - and later attack the archers.

A warrior and archer contained within an army would be what you are thinking of - a single fighting formation (not that it would be a good idea to create a warrior-archer army

).

I am not all that eager to defend the system - I can imagine that being able to meaningfully combine troops would be great. But I do not see a way to change that earlier than in Civ4...

oetkenjc · November 3, 2003, 15:10

True... it is not "broken"... but to the effect of realism... I truly think it is.

I just honestly wish the "Group Units" option was available so that I might ensure that my archer and warrior is near each other in the 10X10 square.

I honestly dont see how you guys survive with this type of system... you must have mass amounts of units in order to accomplish any objective in fear of them failing.

Hell, even when you change the thought from defending to attacking. Basically what I see it as... if you're attacking and you cant group your units... it's like sending 1 person against an entire castle/city by himself. When he falls over dead... "NEXT!" and the next guy goes up there and hopefully doesnt receive the same fate dished out to the other one.... on and on until finally all are dead.... in no way using any strategy or coordination in any way.... grrr... what gives!?

*disgruntled civ3 owner*

Stuie · November 3, 2003, 15:13

My solution has always been judicious use of artillery. Soften the targets, then attack with the grunts. Seems kind of realistic to me.

I guess it comes down to how you like your combat abstracted.

Sava · November 3, 2003, 15:14

I agree that the combat system isn't what I'd like it to be. The only thing you can do is wait for the next game and hope the people at Firaxis improve things.

Alex · November 3, 2003, 15:30

I'm almost sure you'll be able to group units for combat purposes in Civ4.

But the Civ3 system doesn't bother me at all, I'm used to it since Civ2 and SMAC.

Harovan · November 3, 2003, 15:46

I can't say that I hate the Civ3 combat system, but I also can't say that I like it. It is oversimplified for AI's sake, which is a great fun reducer for multiplayer games. It should have been implemented in 2 ways, one for SP (the way it is) and one for MP without AIs, with true ZoC, stacked combat (and I don't mean armies with that) and limited movement even with RR's.

oetkenjc · November 3, 2003, 16:39

It sounds like I'm being biased or whatever... but I havnt been able to get past 5 minutes of playing because it absolutely $^)(*%#$'s me off so much that I cant do something that is soo feasible.

I know there's no sense in further discussing this since me sitting here on a soapbox isnt going to change things... just it frustrates me so much that a game did so well on the boards and so many people like it... yet something so simple is amazingly wrong.

Thanks for your feedback/thoughts.

Tall Stranger · November 3, 2003, 16:50

While I am certainly not in love with the combat system, I think you need to keep in mind a couple of things:

1. Civ is a turn-based strategy game, NOT a war game. A certain level of abstraction is both necessary and proper.

2. Under the current system, combat does not, as you say, amount to "sending 1 person against an entire castle/city by himself." In actuality, you are sending one individual unit against another individual unit, albeit in a serial fashion. This serial approach has both negatives and positives: on the minus side, it does not allow for the simultaneous attack on/ overwhelming of a given unit; on the plus side, it allows you to control which units you send into the battle at any given time and allows you to stop fighting a battle when things are not looking good. Ideal? No, but a fair trade-off.

3. Changing the system in the way you propose would amount to a massive rewrite of the code and would require equally large changes to the AI. The AI does a lousy job of stacking units and tends to attacks in a haphazard way. Rarely do you see AI SODs. As a result, the human player would have an even greater advantage in combat than it currently does.

In my view, there are lots of other things that I'd rather see improved before tackling the combat system.

oetkenjc · November 3, 2003, 17:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
While I am certainly not in love with the combat system, I think you need to keep in mind a couple of things:

1. Civ is a turn-based strategy game, NOT a war game. A certain level of abstraction is both necessary and proper.

2. Under the current system, combat does not, as you say, amount to "sending 1 person against an entire castle/city by himself." In actuality, you are sending one individual unit against another individual unit, albeit in a serial fashion. This serial approach has both negatives and positives: on the minus side, it does not allow for the simultaneous attack on/ overwhelming of a given unit; on the plus side, it allows you to control which units you send into the battle at any given time and allows you to stop fighting a battle when things are not looking good. Ideal? No, but a fair trade-off.

3. Changing the system in the way you propose would amount to a massive rewrite of the code and would require equally large changes to the AI. The AI does a lousy job of stacking units and tends to attacks in a haphazard way. Rarely do you see AI SODs. As a result, the human player would have an even greater advantage in combat than it currently does.

In my view, there are lots of other things that I'd rather see improved before tackling the combat system.

Well.. ok... but..

1.) The title and the word Civilization gives you a sense that you're going to feel the rigors and the joys that took place all along the lines of progression from the time that we walked the earth tugging women around by their hair up til the time we're going to be enslaved by them because of the little weaknesses us men have.... but that's another story.

One of those rigors is War. Watch the daily news and you can clearly see that many times the will of people is to be violent... and not to mention sometimes greedy. Throw all of this together with also the occassional miscommunication because we're not perfect and you'll have a long history of aggressive conflicts between people.... religion... culture... whichever. It happens and it has happened a lot... and it more than likely always will.

With that said... to say that Civilization isnt a War game... then you are right in a sense... no this game isnt called Panzer General ... or 1942... or whatever your preference... but to say it is absent of war (not saying you did) is completely false, and even tho it has so much more depth than just conflict, it's a issue that should receive A LOT of attention because:
1) It's one of the ways you can win the game
2) I've never heard of anyone playing this game for more than 30 minutes without them having to attack or at least defend themselves from other nations/barbies.

2) That is true, but you're not able to select the unit. And I hate to use the term, but why shouldnt I be able to use the 5 Warriors I just trained to gangbang and ensure victory over (or to minimalize damage) a unit or city. Their efforts 'should' work together for a common goal... whenever a battle/war takes place... it's not this army of one crap. It's several different units operating with certain assignments... for the victory.

And.. well, there's no reason why an army attacking a city or unit cant have the retreat function (like on CTP2.. hate to refer to it all the time)... where as you're in combat for another round while you're tucking tail and running the other way with great haste...

3) You're prolly right... and this prolly wont change for a great while... or until Civ 4... if there will ever be one... I'm just kinda venting and also seeking what others do to get past this... because I'm more than sure it's gotta piss off several others as well..

Computer AI for stacking ? Erm.. well, CTP2 does a pretty good job... they are pretty smart when it comes to throwing catapults with a couple smaller ranged units and then with grunts in the front.... they do a rather good job and I've fallen victim to their AI quite a bit... I see no reason why Civ couldnt do just as well.... arnt they the same people anyway ?

True... we're all going to find different flaws in this game... and each one will hold different weight as far as how much they need to be modified... small ones I can ignore... but... if it's something as big as Combat... something that your'e going to do from start to finish without a doubt... a better and more realistic system needs to be conceived.

Thanks.. and sorry for the novel.
Leo

spy14 · November 3, 2003, 17:53

I've never had to big an issue with the Civ3 combat sytem... but I would still say that I definately prefer the CTP2 system, because it gives you the option and therefore far more realism.

vondrack · November 3, 2003, 18:33

Quote:

Originally posted by oetkenjc
2) I've never heard of anyone playing this game for more than 30 minutes without them having to attack or at least defend themselves from other nations/barbies.

Heh, 30 minutes... I played one game (~16 hours playing time) as the Germans where I fought NOT A SINGLE BATTLE against another civ in the entire game! Won by diplo victory eventually... I still have the final save somewhere...

There - you have it. You can't use this argument any more, since you have just heard of somebody that did not fight for ~16 hours...

Tall Stranger · November 3, 2003, 19:22

Quote:

Originally posted by oetkenjc

Well.. ok... but..

1.) The title and the word Civilization gives you a sense that you're going to feel the rigors and the joys that took place all along the lines of progression from the time that we walked the earth tugging women around by their hair up til the time we're going to be enslaved by them because of the little weaknesses us men have.... but that's another story.

Oh, I see you're married, too?!

Quote:

it's a issue that should receive A LOT of attention because:
1) It's one of the ways you can win the game
2) I've never heard of anyone playing this game for more than 30 minutes without them having to attack or at least defend themselves from other nations/barbies.

Don't misunderstand me. I am pretty much a full-time warmonger. In my view, it's the most fun way to play. However, there is a balance that has to be struck between delving into the details and keeping the game at the "strategic" level. For example, the economic tools outlined are pretty rough as well. You can't set different tax/ lux rates for different cities. You are somehow able to change production from a temple to a swordsman without missing a beat, etc. If Firaxis were to go into much greater detail in the combat system, it would probably be under pressure to do likewise in econ, culture, tech, etc. The result: an insanely complicated game that takes 200 hours to play. End result: no one buys the game, Firaxis collapses, causing rioting in the streets, and bringing on the Apocalypse. (OK, slight exaggeration)

Quote:

2) That is true, but you're not able to select the unit. And I hate to use the term, but why shouldnt I be able to use the 5 Warriors I just trained to gangbang and ensure victory over (or to minimalize damage) a unit or city. Their efforts 'should' work together for a common goal... whenever a battle/war takes place... it's not this army of one crap. It's several different units operating with certain assignments... for the victory.

Actually, if you think about it, the offense-defense balance is about right. Historically, as a rule of thumb, attacking forces look for a 3:1 superiority to feel confident in taking position against an equally skilled adversary. When I am looking to take a town defended, say, by 2 spears, I'll usually plan to bring 6-7 archers to attack (sometimes more depending on how important the battle is). That works out roughly right.

Quote:

3) You're prolly right... and this prolly wont change for a great while... or until Civ 4... if there will ever be one... I'm just kinda venting and also seeking what others do to get past this... because I'm more than sure it's gotta piss off several others as well..

Feel free to vent. Doesn't bother me a bit, but I also don't think it'll change much. As you said, the earliest such a change would be made is Civ 4, so you'll probably be waiting a couple of years.

In the meantime, there are ways to, as you say, "get past this." First of all, stop focusing on what you feel are the "unrealistic" elements of the combat system. Understand the workings of the combat system and use the rules to guide your strategy. It sounds like you don't like losing units. I know how harsh this sounds (and I'm not trying to be mean or insulting) but get over it. Instead, BUILD MORE UNITS. To avoid getting bogged down in a war you can't win, set clear goals for yourself ("I'll take these three cities only, then sue for peace.")
Finally, feel free to post a save if you're having trouble. There's a lot of great players here who are more than willing to help.

I hope you find these comments helpful.

oetkenjc · November 3, 2003, 20:05

Certainly... glad this stayed civil as well... great responses...

I might start up another game and see how it goes... I just got sooo pissed whenever I had a Warrior and Archer sitting at a key spot where a bunch of Barbarians would keep coming from... and I got the little message "Barbarians rampage to the North" (Or something like that) ... and then 5 of them on horseback come streaming down... commenced to wiping out my warrior by his lonesome... then once he was done... commenced to whipping up on the archer.... then sliding carelessly into my city.

But yeah... I'll take everything I've discovered from you guys and see how it goes....

Thanks!

Stuie · November 4, 2003, 09:01

Well at least with Conquests the archer will get a free shot at the first attacker before they slaughter your warrior.

dearmad · November 4, 2003, 12:18

Well, I've always enjoyed the simplicity of the Civ combat system- allows me to focus more on strategy and doesn't ruin the balance of the game, IMO. I would not like the groups and the CTP/MOO method of combat in CIV. I like MOO II, however.

oetkenjc · November 4, 2003, 12:24

Dont we play this game for realism ? I know I'm

a dead horse but... why shouldnt my archer and warrior be able to group together and make a coordinated attack ?

That's all I'm saying... hundreds of years ago, an archer and a knight were able to work together to achieve a common goal.... today an m1a1 and a small infantry unit are able to work together, using each others strengths and weaknesses to obtain victory over an opponent...

Why shouldnt there be the same ability to group units in such a way in Civ ? (hopefully Civ4 or I'm going to take drastic measures...)

Stuie · November 4, 2003, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by oetkenjc
Dont we play this game for realism ?

Honestly, no. I play The Operational Art of War if I want realism.

MrBaggins · November 4, 2003, 13:03

Not including combined arms is dumb. The Civ3 system is merely OK. By no stretch of the imagination could you argue that its better not to model cooperative attacks.

Saying that you like simplicity is one thing, but if you wish to abstract the military, then why even bother moving units about a map. Saying this simplicity is ok seems to be blatant homerism.

oetkenjc · November 4, 2003, 13:06

I couldnt have said it better

Solomwi · November 4, 2003, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by oetkenjc
Dont we play this game for realism ?

Speaking just for myself, life is lived for realism and games are played for leisure, fun and sometimes escape from realism.

oetkenjc · November 4, 2003, 21:17

But to combine both... THAT's what makes it interesting to me... so when I play I can actually pretend like I was Caesar and maybe wonder the effects I could have had on a time like that with my leadership style.... sure it's never going to be the same... he didnt sit in a little room in his stepdad's house in front of a p4 going at it all night.... but to an extent... it is/was similar... and that's what keeps me coming back to CTP2...

*shrug*

WarpStorm · November 4, 2003, 22:13

Quote:

Originally posted by oetkenjc
Dont we play this game for realism ?

I don't! When I want realism, I fire up one of the many wargames I have. To implement those type of features into Civ would turn it into yet another wargame.

oetkenjc · November 4, 2003, 23:35

*sigh*

dearmad · November 5, 2003, 00:35

bongo · November 5, 2003, 05:05

Thinking back on combat in civ2 and ctp2 I remember one point which is very different in civ3: Losses.

Once you reached a certain level of superiority in civ2, you never had any losses. Then you could bleed the AI white, causing him losses that were 10-100 times larger than your own. And later overwhelm him. The same were true in ctp2, as long as you were able to overwhelm your enemy in each battle you would win the war taking almost no casualties. I'm not the strongest advocate for realism in civ but large wars without losses are not very realistic.

My own (biased) opinion is that combat in civ3 is better. It's more realistic than civ2 and ctp2(not that important) and also more fun(very important). The AI doesn't collapse when you finally reach superiority.

Oh, if 5 barb horsemen attack one warrior and an archer, you're screwed. You would still be screwed if a stack of 5 barb horsemen attacked your own stack with one warrior+archer

MrBaggins · November 5, 2003, 08:56

Quote:

Originally posted by bongo
Thinking back on combat in civ2 and ctp2 I remember one point which is very different in civ3: Losses.

Once you reached a certain level of superiority in civ2, you never had any losses. Then you could bleed the AI white, causing him losses that were 10-100 times larger than your own. And later overwhelm him. The same were true in ctp2, as long as you were able to overwhelm your enemy in each battle you would win the war taking almost no casualties. I'm not the strongest advocate for realism in civ but large wars without losses are not very realistic.

Wrong. Incorrect.

In Civ2 "superiority" was tech oriented. It still had the spearman-tank problem.

In CTP2 (it current state being either the Cradle, or SAP2 Mods) there is no spearman-tank problem. There ARE losses, however.

Example (taken from the CTP2 Demo game) : Consider you are going to storm a city which has 6 melee and 6 ranged troops (not uncommon at all, the AI builds well constructed stacks, given the resources.) The AI defenders have a defensive bonus of 50% from the city walls. If you send a 12 stack of relatively equal units in (we did) then they'll die. The defenders take casualties, however. In this case 4 casualties, but 8 casualties would be possible. Another stack was necessary to take the city, but that took casualties too.

Against a badly constructed force... I.E. all troops of one type... melee or ranged, an equally sized contemporary well constructed force will defeat them, and take fewer losses, but still take losses.

The ONLY situation where you don't take losses, and are using contemporary tech, is where you have a large stack, and you are picking off straglers.... one two or three units. Basically, you can do enough damage to overcome the defenders before they do enough to hurt your guys... but you'll probably even then have an injured unit or three... even if its mild.

Technical superiority, PLUS equal or better numbers equals an assured win, in CtP2. Probably with few or none causualties. If the tech is very close, then you'll take more casualties. A smaller, technically advanced force can STILL die to a larger, slightly less advanced force. The Tank/Spearman problem has been utterly solved.

Civ3 is laughable in comparison. A conveyor belt system to resolve battles. As if generals have a gentlemans agreement to each send one unit forward to fight at a time.

Its not simplicity. Its stupidity.

Harovan · November 5, 2003, 09:44

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Wrong. Incorrect.

In Civ2 "superiority" was tech oriented. It still had the spearman-tank problem.

In CTP2 (it current state being either the Cradle, or SAP2 Mods) there is no spearman-tank problem. There ARE losses, however.

Example (taken from the CTP2 Demo game) : Consider you are going to storm a city which has 6 melee and 6 ranged troops (not uncommon at all, the AI builds well constructed stacks, given the resources.) The AI defenders have a defensive bonus of 50% from the city walls. If you send a 12 stack of relatively equal units in (we did) then they'll die. The defenders take casualties, however. In this case 4 casualties, but 8 casualties would be possible. Another stack was necessary to take the city, but that took casualties too.

What's the point behind your rant? Translated to Civ3 terms, that means: A walled city is defended by 12 units. A stack of 12 units attack as 1st wave. They die, the defenders take casualties however, may be even the same 4 as in your example, with the rest being more or less beaten up. It takes another 12 units to take the city. I fail to see a big difference in the outcome of the battle. Besides, Civ3 has melee and ranged (bombard) units too, which have the first shot if they're there, and are attacked last (if no melee unit is left). The only type of units it lacks are flanking.

Quote:

Against a badly constructed force... I.E. all troops of one type... melee or ranged, an equally sized contemporary well constructed force will defeat them, and take fewer losses, but still take losses.

The ONLY situation where you don't take losses, and are using contemporary tech, is where you have a large stack, and you are picking off straglers.... one two or three units. Basically, you can do enough damage to overcome the defenders before they do enough to hurt your guys... but you'll probably even then have an injured unit or three... even if its mild.

Having different unit types pays off in Civ3 too. On the side of the attacker this are bombard units to soften up defense, foot attackers to inflict damage, ("mounted") attackers to kill retreating units, and defenders to protect the stack against counterattacks. On the side of the defender bombard units have a free shot against attackers, so it's always a good idea to have some. Defender units do the dirty work of the defense. Foot attackers do the counterattack against the stack. Mounted attackers hunt down retreating units. It's almost the same as in CivCtP/CtP2, well mixed units always pay off. Of course it needs some knowledge in the game one criticizes to see this. CtP (1 or 2) has the advantage of less micromanaging. You send your stack attacking and the rest is in Gods (or the RNG's) hand. The only thing you can do is to break the battle at some point. Civ3 has more MM, that's true, but it has the tremendous advantage, that you can change your attack strategy during attack even during the same turn. Meet unexpected fierce defense? Bombard some more before attacking again. Still not enough? Bring in some fast attackers from other theaters. You can't? Decide to retreat with the remainder of your forces. You can determine when to use units with different combat experiences (regulars, veterans, elites) to increase your efficiency or the chance to get a leader (assuming you have a clue what that is). Etc, etc... You micromanage, but you can control the battle much better than in CtP, where you can just "start" and "stop" the combat.

Quote:

Technical superiority, PLUS equal or better numbers equals an assured win, in CtP2. Probably with few or none causualties. If the tech is very close, then you'll take more casualties. A smaller, technically advanced force can STILL die to a larger, slightly less advanced force. The Tank/Spearman problem has been utterly solved.

That never has been a problem for anyone able to see the abstract meaning of the Spearman as an ancient 1 attack, 2 defense and the Tank as a modern 16 attack, 8 defense unit. 16 vs 2 gives the attacker the lions share of chances, but not 100%. If you are a realism fan: There have been enough tanks killed by people with molotov cocktails. Or a spade, since you can dig a trap with it. Does this make the spade a deadly weapon? Besides, I'm playing Civ3 for almost 2 years now and had only once a tank losing against a pointy stick man. But that was not a spearman (ancient 1.2.1) but a pikeman (medieval 1.3.1) and the tank didn't die, but retreated (again, assuming you know what that is, since your game doesn't have this feature).

Quote:

Civ3 is laughable in comparison. A conveyor belt system to resolve battles. As if generals have a gentlemans agreement to each send one unit forward to fight at a time.

Its not simplicity. Its stupidity.

Yea, sure, maybe... Whatever you say...

bongo · November 5, 2003, 10:10

Quote:

In Civ2 "superiority" was tech oriented. It still had the spearman-tank problem

If you routinely attack veteran spearmen fortified inside mountain fortresses with tanks you ARE going to loose some eventually. Both in civ2 and civ3. Besides, the 'bleed wite' strategy was quite easy to accomplish even with tech-parity. The same strategy is still valid in civ3 but the combination of an improved combat model, unit upgrades and smarter AI makes it much harder to accomplish.

I gave up on CTP too long ago to argue about details BUT i remember the 'retreat' button(CTP, CTP2 or both?). Send multiple strong stacks against an equal defender, result: One dead enemy stack and 2-4 wounded but intact stacks of your own.