Battle System is SCREWED UP

[FrostyBoy]

Played 3 games so far.

Sorry if this has been said before but;


The 1st game I played, A LOT of my stronger men were losing to weak men, I just hmpfed and moved on.

However on my 3rd game, I am playing as English, I have the most powerful units (knights, musketmen,etc) in the game, and yet 1 out of 5 will actually win against their not-so-powerful units (warriors, swordsmen). They are not on mountains, infact, more often than not, I am the one on the mountain and attacking! AND LOSING! EVERY TIME!!

I might aswell invent nothing and just build frickin' warrior's to win wars!!!!!

wtf were they thinking at firaxis? what a load of bull****

I'm sickovit, someone release a patch PLEASE so I can actually play a decent game for once.

It gets so bad, that I just say screw this and stop the game half way, coz I seem to get no where with any of my unit's. It's just completely screwed.


Oh and btw, they kept rambling on about their new battle system, where the heck is it?

bastards

[FrostyBoy]

Oh and thank you Activision for giving the dumbasses at Firaxis out the idea:

"Oh, since defending is always better than attacking, if u attack, the unit will just simply move into that square"

wtf? so if a enemy unit is outside my city, I gotta let him pillage me? or run out and kill him and then just sit outside looking like a dork waiting to get beaten up?

Just couldn't get any dumber.

[dainbramaged13]

my battles have been going fine...

if you want to killl units outside youre city, get fast units, you can always move back inside the city after theyre done.

[cort]

Originally posted by Sn00py
Oh and thank you Activision for giving the dumbasses at Firaxis out the idea:

"Oh, since defending is always better than attacking, if u attack, the unit will just simply move into that square"

wtf? so if a enemy unit is outside my city, I gotta let him pillage me? or run out and kill him and then just sit outside looking like a dork waiting to get beaten up?

Just couldn't get any dumber.

cool down guys.. playing since released, combat can sometimes be weird but not that bad.. if you have stronger units, MOST of the time you win.. point is that; until late industrial units; stats are so close that it not that strange to lose a cavalary against a fortified warriror on top of a mountain (1+1+0.5)/6. and do not forget; this is civ not chess; there is always a chace for those poor bastard spearmen to make a shot on the spot; which makes the game more fun & realistic..

by the way; me too agree with the idea that advancing to a square after beating your foe should be optional...

[FrostyBoy]

I want fixes

while i'm at this, there's also this other thing i've noticed

about 6 times, and a few times this guy I know, has experienced the other civ completing a wonder right before u are about to complete it on the the next turn.

I've only played 3 times and he's only played once, sounds rigged to me...

[FrostyBoy]

cort, I'm sorry for going off,

I am not exaggerating here... I understand all that 'chance' stuff, I am saying that out of 1/5 battles I will actually win, and I am using far more powerful units

it doesnt add up

[Stuie]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
my battles have been going fine...

if you want to killl units outside youre city, get fast units, you can always move back inside the city after theyre done.

Mine too. In my current game, I had a huge war in the Middle Ages and the Modern Age has pretty much been non-stop warfare. I can only think of two times in my entire game that combat results were somewhat ridiculous, and I chalk them up to the fortunes of war.

That said, combat definitely favors the defeneder. Being on a mountain isn't the only thing that increases defense value - units also gain advantage from being behind a river, being on hills, in forest, etc. etc. Also, the attack values of early units (up until you get cavalry) are relatively flat, so the swordsman retains its value well into the industrial era.

I've learned to appreciate the liberal use of artillery (catapults/cannon/etc.) to soften up enemy targets prior to obliterating them. Don't scoff at the artillery!

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Sn00py

I am not exaggerating here... I understand all that 'chance' stuff, I am saying that out of 1/5 battles I will actually win, and I am using far more powerful units

it doesnt add up

But the units aren't "far more powerful" (in Civ3, anyway....). A knight has an attack of "4", and a musketman only a "3". The swordsman's basic defense is a "2", and this can be enhanced by most terrains.

Like I said, soften up the targets with arty, then finish them with the knights/musketmen.

[Wexu]

Well, in real life if you attack other unit, you must go to "square" where they are? How on earth are you going to attack with swordsmen and still stand in the same place?

Sheesh... is using brains really so hard?

And the game would be good if knights always win swordsmen? There are many examples from the real world when much more powerful troops have lost to weaker troops. These "phalanx wins battleships!!" -situations are much more rare than people are saying.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Wexu
Sheesh... is using brains really so hard?

[Kuciwalker]

Stop complaining about how if you attack, you move into the square. THIS IS CALLED REALISM . Of course you have to move your unit out of the city to attack the enemy. Haven't you heard of something known as a seige ? IMO, this change is a good thing. You can trap a city with high defensive modifiers. You box in a city with cheap units, and if the cities defenders try and drive them off, you move in with your attack force and capture the city. Meanwile, the enemy units are unfortified on what is likely a tile with a low defensive modifier. If the enemy decides to turtle, you starve him out.

[mbarloewen]

In my experience (A weekend of non stop addicive play) I think the combat system is great. I think a VERY important factor that doesn't get mentioned much when people are whineing about the system is whether or not your units are regular/veteran/elite. I find my regular units are always struggleing in battles I think they should win while veteran units do well. I always lead off my large offensives with my Elite units as they tend to get the upper hand.

Mike

[Mister Hand]

I agree with mbarloewen. I've found that that playing a Militaristic civiliazation really pays off when it comes to combat. An Elite unit will have a nice advantage over a regular one that's only a step or two more advanced. There are a lot of factors involved in every combat and if you think that just having the more advanced unit is enough to guarantee victory most of the time, you will find yourself on the losing end of the war.

[Valant]

In Civ3 there are many changes to the combat system compared to Civ2. For instance...

1) Removal of firepower value of units
During turns of battle, the losing side of the turn only losses 1 hp.
2) Removal of HP of unit depending on the units technology
Now units have 2-5 max HP depending on their skill level conscript, standard, vetran, elite. Furthermore the units skill level does not change their attack/defense power.
3) Removal of ALL attack bonus percentages
Zero, zip, zilch
4) Addition of MORE defensive bonus percentages

The people at Firaxis did the following to balance these changes:
1) Increased the attack power or more modern unts to compensate for them becoming weaker by removing firepower and extended HP

The problem with this approach is that Firaxis removed more power than they put back in....making more powerful/modern units less significantly powerful in Civ3.


Extra info:
Do you know how many possible bonuses that defenders can get?
1) Terrain the defending unit is on (even if the unit is in a city...the terrain under the city is used in the calculations) resulting in a defensive bonus of 10-100% always being applied
2) Is the defending unit fortified, 0% if no 25% if yes
3) Is the defending unit in a fortress, 0% if no 50% if yes
4) Is the attacking unit crossing a river to attack the defending unit, if no 0% if yes 25%
5) City defense
Pop under 7, no city walls, civ has great wall = 0%
Pop under 7, no city walls, civ does not have great wall = 0%
Pop under 7, city wall, civ has great wall = 100%
Pop under 7, city wall, civ does not have great wall = 50%
Pop 7-12, reguardless of city walls or great wall = 50%
Pop 12+, reguardless of city walls or great wall = 100%

So best case scenario your attacking an unfortified unit thats out in the open on grassland/plains/desert, the defending unit will get a +10% defensive bonus applied to its defensive power. So for example that spearman who has a base defensive power of 2, now becomes 2.2

In the worst case scenario your attacking a fortified unit stationed in a city that has a population of under 7, but has the great wall wonder and city walls. The city was also built on top of a mountain and the attacking unit has to cross a river to attack the city. The defending unit will get a +250% bonus to its defense power rating. So for example that spearman who has a base defensive power of 2, now becomes 7.

[Wexu]

Originally posted by Valant In the worst case scenario your attacking a fortified unit stationed in a city that has a population of under 7, but has the great wall wonder and city walls. The city was also built on top of a mountain and the attacking unit has to cross a river to attack the city. The defending unit will get a +250% bonus to its defense power rating. So for example that spearman who has a base defensive power of 2, now becomes 7.

Well, who'd need anything more than spearman defending THAT fortress in real life too?

Only key to that lock is a nuke.

[Jahi]

i was really annoyed when an Egyptian knight took out my veteran infantry in a city size 12. this happed twice with the result of loosing my city to a few sword wielding units.

fortunes of war or not, you give me a bolt-action springfield 1911 or mauser in an urban setting and i'm gonna show you some dead knights.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

So far, the units seem perfectly balanced to me.

(with the exception of those irritating invulnerable bombers).

However, if you are losing unrealistically, maybe you have the level set to higher than Prince? Just like in previous Civ's, the computer gets better combat odds at levels above Prince.

[Wexu]

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet

(with the exception of those irritating invulnerable bombers).

They're fixing the bomber problem right now.

[Executor]

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
However, if you are losing unrealistically, maybe you have the level set to higher than Prince? Just like in previous Civ's, the computer gets better combat odds at levels above Prince.

I think Dan or Soren said that the AI does NOT get a combat bonus at higher difficulty levels. And if I remember correctly, the AI didn't get any combat bonuses in Civ2 either. I played a lot of Deity games in Civ2, and I definitely didn't notice any.

[Cougz]

Are nukes now a greater strategic element in a war situation? In most of my civ2 games I used them more as deterant, unless I was twice as big as all the other civs combined AND had SDI everywhere...

Do we know if using nukes will turn every civ against you (wouldn't be pretty in a 16 civ game) or do your allies go with it... what happens?

Has anyone used a nuke yet in civ3?

[Pyrodrew]

Firaxis removed more power than they put back in....making more powerful/modern units less significantly powerful in Civ3.

Exactly. The battle system really NEEDS to be fixed. The defenders have too big of an advantage.

Has anyone used a nuke yet in civ3?

Someone said they dropped one on a group of knights... ground zero... and not 1 knight even died. It still gets all the other civs mad at you tho. I haven't heard anyone say it's any good. Hopefully they will fix this in the patch.

[LaRusso]

i like the combat system. good choice of terrain and good battle preparation really keep odd results low. i WANT some odd results because otherwise my cossacks would just steamroll to berlin (they took hamburg and bremen, though)
combat system is great

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Exactly. The battle system really NEEDS to be fixed. The defenders have too big of an advantage.

That just means you have to choose your battles carefully, and you must learn how to concentrate your forces. Gone are the days when you could spread out a line of chariots and keep advancing.

This is a good thing.

Though the system could use some fine tuning by reintroducing Firepower. It makes sense that an armour unit does more damage than a warrior unit

[LaRusso]

warriors = mujahedeens. keep them able to inflict SOME damage

[Pyrodrew]

I think some misinterpreted what I wrote...

Though the system could use some fine tuning by reintroducing Firepower.

That's all I'm asking for... something to slightly balance things. The pendulum swung from favoring the attacker FAR TOO MUCH to favoring the defender FAR TOO MUCH. See Valant's post above.

[Regault]

I have to agree with the sn00pster. I'll be attacking a small town on plains with a swarm of my best attackers of the time and not do any damage to the single spearman guarding it.
It actually gets worse, since the spearman will automatically heal at the end of the turn due to the barracks. He will likely go up levels.

And yet, the computer is perfectly able to steamroller the musketman defending a city of mine with archers.

Both my brothers have had the same experience in their games.

A combat bonus to the AI might not have been intentional, but it's there as a bug nonetheless.

And they really need to tweak the artillery. Having to deploy stacks of six to do one hp of damage to the defender is ridiculous.

This game really needs a way to combine forces without needing armies.

[Zanzin]

Combat.....is definately different from civ2 and ctp1/2.

I think the thing here is that everyone is confusing "weird" for "different".

Once we all get used to the changes, what happens in combat will be seen as the norm.

Although the whole ancient vs modern unit thing is a problem

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Regault

And yet, the computer is perfectly able to steamroller the musketman defending a city of mine with archers.

Hehe. I've quickly learned to see the problem with these situations in Civ3. The crucial question you'll have to ask yourself is: "What was I thinking putting a sole defender in my city?"

In addition to having barracks and three of the best veteran defensive units in the majority of my cities, my continent is also guarded by a selection of fast or strong units as a free standing offensive army. I need it to bring justice to infidels who build their camps on my borders.

[Garth Vader]

One easy fix which would go a long way to helping this would be to make it possible to move units out of armies. Plus make it easier to get armies.

[Yohan]

Ok, combat is definitely tougher probably because, as mentioned earlier, unit stats are so similar in the earlier ages, and defenders get so many potential bonuses which makes attacking a big risk. War should be entered into carefully with a definite plan of attack. None of this "oh I think I'll attack here, or maybe here" stuff. You have to apply overwhelming force and be decisive and selective about your targets. I like it.

On the other hand, there has GOT to be something that Firaxis can do about the warrior vs. tank syndrome. This has been a problem since the original Civ and is still rampant in Civ3. I've had battleships attacking ironclads and losing. WTF?!?! Maybe if I saw it once, ever, that would be reasonable. Flukes do happen after all. But 3 times??? Yes, I've seen this happen 3 times.

I don't understand what the big deal was with firepower and why it was removed. I think it did a reasonably good job of fixing the warrior vs. tank problem, although it didn't eliminate it. Flukes should still be allowed to happen, though not as often as they do now. I would say put firepower back in, but that's such a huge change in the combat system that there's no way Firaxis would even consider making such a major alteration to the game dynamics. Oh well. Maybe pumping up the attack/defense ratings of the modern units would help?