Combat System Explained

[Weezi]

Originally posted by gamma
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

I would have to disagree with you there. Tank crews are issued automatic rifles and sidearms to defend themselves if there tank was destroyed or if someone was on top of there tank.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Weezi


I would have to disagree with you there. Tank crews are issued automatic rifles and sidearms to defend themselves if there tank was destroyed or if someone was on top of there tank.

True enough, but they are at a severe disadvantage when actually in the tank. All the person on top has to do is point the muzzle of their weapon in any small opening and fire; their bullets will ricochet and eventually hit someone inside. And God help the tank crew if a grenade gets inside. Meanwhile, the tank crew usually cannot even see people on the tank, let alone manage to target and shoot them.

Historically, when tanks "buttoned up" they were virtually blind to what was going on around them. It's not like they had panoramic picture windows in Panzers, after all. Modern technology (IR sensors and remote video) are helping eliminate some of these problems, but it's still the case that if someone manages to climb aboard a tank they can make life extremely unpleasant for those inside unless there's nearby infantry to pick them off.

[vmxa1]

A unit such as say a pikemen beating a tank is not the function of the pikemen getting on top of the tank or using a RPG. It is just a formula. The formula needs tweaking so that this is so rare as to not be seen more than once in 3-5 games. Spearmen 1 2 1 vs tank 16 10 2 in open grassland should be like a Blue Moon, not occuring every game (or similar match ups). Pikemen 1 3 1 beating modern armour 24 16 3 is even worse and I do not care if they are forted in a city or not. Do not bother me with all of the bonuses, if the formula allows this it needs modifing. I say this not because I think a man of any kind should not beat the tank under any conditions, that is not it. I am looking at the values 1 3 1 vs 24 16 3. You should not be able to defend a town/city/metro with a pikemen against modern units. I would like to see a penalty for units of previous eras. Maybe once any one gets to industrial age, all acient era unit are not allowed any defensive bonus against units of the higher era or at least some bonus reduction. You could return to FP insead or AC as factors. Please no recitals about combined arms, we know about it. I am sure the scout would have loved some artillery to be backing him up, but it is not always available.

[MadWombat]

One easy way to get rid of the problem of primitive units beating modern ones is to increase unit hitpoints. =] If you double all of them, the chances of tanks losing to spearmen (for example) decrease HUGELY.

[MadWombat]

The actual values for reg tank vs reg spearman with, say, 100% bonuses are as follows:

Tank chance to win each roll: 16/(16+4 ) = 0.8
Spearman chance to win: 2*2/(16+4) = 0.2

[Cut incorrect numbers... I screwed up originally ]

Probability of Tank Victory w/ 3hp each: 94.2%
Probability of Tank Victory w/ 6hp each: 98.8%

In general, you can calculate the probability of winning like this:
a = attacking unit offence/(defenders defence * (1+total bonus %/100))
x = attacker's hp
y = defender's hp
z = x+y
P = prob of attacker winning

P = sum[i = y -1 to z-2)]{ (iC(y-1)) * a^(y-1) * (1-a)^(i-y+1) * a }

IOW, each term in the summation is the probability of winning (defender's hitpoints -1) of the first i rolls, plus the last roll.

Which, if you are inclined towards programming, can be written in C as [NB: This assumes you have an appropriate function choose(int x, int y)]:

(copied from my program )

double TForm1::calc()
{
float p = 0, q;
if(def->Value == 0) return 1;
if(atk->Value == 0) return 0;
double a = (float)atk->Value/(float)(atk->Value+def->Value*(1+bonus->Value/100.0));

for(int i = dhp->Value-1; i < (dhp->Value + ahp->Value-1); i++){
p = choose(i, dhp->Value-1) * pow(a,dhp->Value-1) * pow(1-a, i - dhp->Value +1) * a;
}

return p;
}

Enjoy!

[vmxa1]

Frankly I do not want a spearman to ever beat a tank. Once in 10,000 seems about right to me.

[Gen.Dragolen]

Well I'll add my voice to the chorus of people who utterly detest the combat system they have contrived. Too many times I have been destroyed in combat by the AI because the combat system is based on Monte Carlo.

The biggest problem I have is that you cannot lay any plans for defending your cities or conducting offensive operations when you cannot even rely on overwhelming force to win the battle. Too many times I have attacked using vetran swordsmen and lost against regular warriors and have had elite longbowmen fall to the same regular warrior. I question as to why they even bothered to give the units strength numbers when it appears to be a RISK style roll of the dice. I hate RISK for the same reason: there is no strategy involved when the only factor determining the outcome is chance.

I am not being a sore loser here: I have tracked combat through a couple of campaigns and the results are ugly. I have lost most of my "strong" units like Knights and Longbowmen to warriors and archers. And mostly in open ground.

Never a good idea to assault a town without 3-4 catapults to soften them up. Unfortunately, as luck would have it, an assault by knights against those 1 hp regular warriors will result in the loss of all but one of the knights and the catapults. Now that could be acceptible if the AI suffered a similar fate. I have yet to see the AI not get the combat results that best suit it's program. It may loose a couple of ancient warrior units against a fortified rifleman or infantryman, but as soon as a you think they have given up, one last unit will appear and wipe out your defenders, without taking a single hit point.

The worst thing about all of this is that I usually do not too badly in the land grab, and will have the largest or second largest standing army when the AI civ's get together to try and finish me off. Too many times, major cities fall in a single turn despite a 4-6 unit garrsion of the best troops I can make, and fall to spearmen and warriors. The AI saves the better units for his follow up attacks. (Very nice prgramming on the tactics. Wish the combat system was as well done)

Is it just me doing something wrong or is the "House" supposed to have that decided an advantage ?

[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.

[JayKay]

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen
Well I'll add my voice to the chorus of people who utterly detest the combat system they have contrived. Too many times I have been destroyed in combat by the AI because the combat system is based on Monte Carlo.

The biggest problem I have is that you cannot lay any plans for defending your cities or conducting offensive operations when you cannot even rely on overwhelming force to win the battle. Too many times I have attacked using vetran swordsmen and lost against regular warriors and have had elite longbowmen fall to the same regular warrior. I question as to why they even bothered to give the units strength numbers when it appears to be a RISK style roll of the dice. I hate RISK for the same reason: there is no strategy involved when the only factor determining the outcome is chance.

I am not being a sore loser here: I have tracked combat through a couple of campaigns and the results are ugly. I have lost most of my "strong" units like Knights and Longbowmen to warriors and archers. And mostly in open ground.

Never a good idea to assault a town without 3-4 catapults to soften them up. Unfortunately, as luck would have it, an assault by knights against those 1 hp regular warriors will result in the loss of all but one of the knights and the catapults. Now that could be acceptible if the AI suffered a similar fate. I have yet to see the AI not get the combat results that best suit it's program. It may loose a couple of ancient warrior units against a fortified rifleman or infantryman, but as soon as a you think they have given up, one last unit will appear and wipe out your defenders, without taking a single hit point.

The worst thing about all of this is that I usually do not too badly in the land grab, and will have the largest or second largest standing army when the AI civ's get together to try and finish me off. Too many times, major cities fall in a single turn despite a 4-6 unit garrsion of the best troops I can make, and fall to spearmen and warriors. The AI saves the better units for his follow up attacks. (Very nice prgramming on the tactics. Wish the combat system was as well done)

Is it just me doing something wrong or is the "House" supposed to have that decided an advantage ?

No...it's not just you! I feel your pain too, because that happens to me all the time too! It's really annoying when all your defending rifleman lose against warriors and such, and you can't even win against a warrior in open ground attacking with a Knight or Cavalry or such! The combat system is.....well, what combat system? This really seems like the roll of dices!
_________________________________________________



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)

[Gen.Dragolen]

Well, chaulk another game wasted by the CivIII combat casino.

I really need someone to explain this one to me:

my attacking forces - 12 veteran swordsmen, 3 catapults
defending forces - 2 regular impi, 1 vetran warrior all fortified
- 3 size town, no walls, on dessert terrain

1st turn - all three catapult bombard: all 3 failed.
- attack with swordsman: impi#1 reduced to 1 hp, no damage to swordsman then swordsman losses 4 times in a row and dies and impi gets vetran status.
- attack with swordsman: impi#2 reduced to 1 hp, swordsman dies same as above.
- attack with swordsman: warrior reduced to 1 hp, swordsman dies same as above.
- AI does not attack on its turn

2nd turn - all three catapults bombard: all three failed.
- attack with swordsman: impi#1 reduced to 1 hp, gains elite status, swordsman dies same as above.
- attack with swordsman: impi#2 reduced to 1 hp, gains elite status, swordsman dies as above.
- attack with swordsman: warrior reduced to 1 hp, gains elite status, swordsman dies as above.

3rd turn - all 3 catapults bombard: all 3 failed.
- swordsmen do no attack. Fortify.
- impi#1 attacks. Swordsman dies, impi takes no damage.
- impi#2 attacks. Swordsman dies, impi takes no damage
- warrior attacks. Swordsman dies, warrior takes 1 hp damage

4th turn - add 6 vetran swordsmen to stack, all fortify.
- bombard approaching 3 zulu regular swordsmen. 1 swordsman damaged by 1 hp, 1 bombardment failed.
- zulu swordsman#1 attacks. Vetran swordsman dies, zulu swordsman takes 1 damage from catapult, becomes vetran.
- zulu swordsman#2 attacks. Vetran swordsman dies, zulu swordsman takes no damage, becomes vetran.
- zulu swordsman#3 attacks. Vetran swordsman dies, zulu swordsman takes no damage, gains vetran status.

5th turn - add 3 vetran swordsman to stack, all fortify.
- bombard zulu swordsman, all failed.
- zulus are on desert terrain.
- attack zulu swordsman with swordsman, zulu goes to 1 hp, then does 4 damage and swordsman dies. Zulu gets elite status.
- attack zulu swordsman with swordsman, zulu goes to 1 hp, then does 4 damage and swordsman dies. Zulu gets elite status.
- attack zulu swordsman with swordsman, zulu goes to 1 hp, then does 4 damage and swordsman dies. Zulu gets elite status.
- attack zulu swordsman with swordsman, zulu goes to 1 hp, then does 4 damage and swordsman dies.
- attack zulu swordsman with swordsman, zulu goes to 1 hp, then does 4 damage and swordsman dies.

I stopped attacking at this point as the zulus were bringing down another 2 regular swordsmen to add the the others

This scenario is repeated each and every time combat occurs. I have seen the AI attack one of my towns with only 1 unit, an archer or spearman and capture it after knocking off a swordsman or a couple of spearmen, who were fortified behind walls, and often with the town on a hill.

I am this ->| |<- close to giving the cd away to someone I don't like just to piss them off as much as the combat system is pissing me off. I have not had this much grief trying to play a game ever before because I cannot rely on weight of numbers to succeed in combat. Attacking with stronger units and having a 4 to 1 advantage in units should be enough to win. Yet I have been stopped cold in my tracks by combat results like the one above.

I put this to Soren and the rest of the Firaxis game designers and programmers: WHAT THE F&*K DID YOU DO?

I played SMAC for a year straight and loved the combat system. It was tough but fair and you could at least predict when you were attacked by a scout, the scout would usually die, not become "The Terminator". On the offensive, I could rely on good units and using large numbers of them to wear down a stronghold when needed. But this is an combat system is an insult to the people that put it together and those of us trying to play this game. And thought at first the "corruption" problems were bad in a large empire...

[vmxa1]

I have been a loud whinner about the combat, but in all fairness, by and large the results are normally that the numbers works and stronger units win. The freak results are very disturbing at times. I tend to run into a few each game and get mad and then go on. My early games had a lot more of them, but I pick the battles a bit better now and see less of it. Pikemen are not to be messed with if they are forted in a city, by any thing less than knights. I watched my pikes kill 8 barb horsemen in a row and took no damage. Great Wall gives double to walls and double to units against barbs can you say massacre?

[Arrian]

Gen.Dragolen,

That's amazing. I've had Civ III since the day it was released, and I've played far, far more than I should, working my way up from chieftain to monarch, playing different civs, etc. I have seen some wacky combat results. I've even screamed at the monitor in disbelief. But nothing, and I mean NOTHING, I've seen compares to your swordsmen v. Impi debacle described above.

I also have never, ever lost a modern unit to a warrior or spearman. I guess I'm lucky (or your luck is horrible). Wow.

My worst battle outcome that I can easily recall:

Battleship (veteran) attacks caravel (regular). Battleship sinks caravel... but loses 3 hp.

Now, I have lost a bunch swordsmen to Impi, but it was a special case (city on hill w/walls).

I was talking to a friend who has the patch (I haven't got it yet, as my modem sucks) and he got the feeling that the patch may have given some combat bonuses to the AI - he was describing losing cities with fortified veteran spearmen and swordsmen to regular warriors and such.

Personally, I think random chance in combat is generally good... but there is a limit to my suspension of disbelief. I have a hard time believing a caravel could damage a battleship. One problem that goes hand-in-hand with all of this is that the AI fails to upgrade its units. Maybe the AI, since all it sees are the a/d/m, realizes that its old, obselete units can still be fairly effective. Or maybe it's just dumb. I admit it, I miss firepower. At the same time, I think mounted units and tanks should have combat disadvantages when attacking cities (over and above the modifiers already in the game).

-Arrian

[Gen.Dragolen]

Arrian,

But that is the point: the combat system is setup to give the defender a slightly better than 50% chance of doing damage when you attack an AI unit assuming the attacking unit has 2 for attack strength and the defender a strength of 1, and after last night's debaucle, it looks like the AI has a similar advantage in attack as well. And this is at Chieftan level.

I had tried to play at the more difficult levels but was frustrated by a total lack of resources in any of the starting positions I got. Kinda hard to get that next settler out when it takes 32 turns to get a poplution increase of 1... and having the AI setup right next to my capital in the best location there was before the city could finish the first settler.

At the rate this is going, I'm going to reinstall the game tonight and re-run the patch and see what happens. I have no luck when it comes to gambling for money, but I kill when it's for points on a crib board...

To that end, there is a spread sheet I found that Kobayashi setup for Civ2 and with a little reworking should be able to show how combat should work for CivIII.

And this is not to say that I haven't had success in combat before: I have used the Egyptians and Japanese to good effect and gotten either cultural victories or world domination. This is mostly why this is so vexxing. Like most software: when in doubt, reinstall.

[Arrian]

About the starting stop on higher levels - yeah, you do seem to get tougher spots, but I just restart until there is a good one (I generally define this as river and a cow or two). You will get one, trust me.

The combat results you're describing are very different than what I've noticed. I really, really don't think the AI has any combat advantages (pre-patch anyway, I can't speak for post-patch yet). I've never attacked an AI tank with a warrior, so I don't know if I might win one of those. All I know is that, although something wierd does happen here and there, generally newer, better units will waste the older ones. Like I said, I'm ok with occasional wierd results, but I do think there is a bit too much of "Ironclad sinks Battleship" in Civ III.

-Arrian

[Mokael]

That Impi vs Swords scenario is unbelivable ... Nothing like that ever happened to me. The most weirdest thing was losing an Army of swordsmen to a Longbow dude. And there was a veteran riflemen that defeated 4 of my cavs attacks in a row without any damage to himself. But that's about it.

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 ...

[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]

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]

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]

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.