What people mean about firepower...

[Venger]

When people want their firepower back...what they really want back is the firepower/HP model from Civ2.

Well wait a minute Venger! The units in Civ3 have hit points! In levels of 3, 4 or 5!

I hate to tell you, but in Civ2, a 1 HP actually was 10 hit points.

So what does this mean for gameplay? Why are the best Civ2 players dismayed at the current combat system? Few units had more than 1 firepower in Civ2, so what's the difference?

The difference is huge.

It's called statistics and probabilities. You see, when they removed firepower from the FP/HP system (it is a system, they are intertwined), they removed the ability of a unit to do more damage in a combat round than another unit (note bombardment can do more than 1 damage). This means that a unit in Civ2 needs fewer "victories" to destroy a unit than a Civ3 unit (had they the same number of HP, but more on that in a minute). Now this effects the late game units moreso than the early units. They've tried to make up for it, with only fair success, with higher unit values, which means even though it takes more victories in Civ3, the chances of winning the round is higher, so the results should come close to evening out.

Now here's the kicker - it's the HP difference that's causing all the outlier statistical results. By leaving so few rounds of combat between units, they've left the door open to all those goofy results we all have come to know and hate - I actually had a jaguar warrior defend successfully against a cavalry attack on an open plain. I've had an ironclad defeated TWICE by a caravel. The problem lies here: in Civ2, a 1HP unit against a 1HP unit needed 10 victories or hits in combat rounds to win (assuming 1 FP on each). In Civ3, he can need only 3 (or only 2, or up to 5).

In a nutshell, a 4 strength attacker against a 1 defender (no defensive mods) in Civ2 NEVER loses. I mean ever. If you saw it happen, you likely were the only one. Now mind you, most attacks come against a defender fortified or in cover, so a legion attacking warriors likely faced an effective strength of 2, not 1, so gameplay wasn't affected, and legions attacking a warrior were still usually (93% based on a 100% fortified/terrain) victorious. Oh sure, it took some damage, but it never got routed. Now in Civ3, you can have riflemen (attack 4, WHY???) defeated by your lowly 5' mexican rabble up to 16% of the time. And god forbid they have any defensive bonus, you could lose almost half the time! Civ3 hint - never try to conquer tribal peoples with musketeers. Oh sure, I realize much of the new world was conquered this way, but don't try it in Civ3 - you'll simply lose.

Let's look at an example both of same strength combat results and of same unit results.

In Civ2, a 4 strength attack unit attacking a 2 strength defender with equal FP resulted in a 93% chance of victory for the 4 strength unit. Good chances, but you could still lose. Now in Civ3, the chances assuming 3 HP is only 79%. Why the difference? Because in order for a 2 strength unit to defeat a 4 strength unit, he must score a hit against him without being hit back - and at that rate it's a low percentage (.33 x .33 = .11). So there is only an 11% chance that will occur each round. And he'll likely have to do it more than once, because the chances of the inverse happening, of being hit without hitting back, is a whopping 44%. If you started multiplying the percentages, you'll quickly see that as the number of rounds increases, the chances of winning enough rounds to be victorious over a stronger unit decreases, because you have to get that 11% "lucky strike" again and again.

Now let's check unit versus unit. In Civ2, musketeers attacking a roman legion won...pretty much always. Now, in Civ3, musketeers attacking legions - usually lose. In Civ2, a legion attacking cavalry - usually loses. In Civ3 - 50/50. In Civ2, an ironclad attacking a caravel - always wins. In Civ3, an ironclad attacking a caravel loses one time in 5 (and twice in a row in my game).

These are the results you get when you cannot differentiate between ages using the FP/HP model (and it really is that intertwined - FP and HP are two sides of the same coin) with more than let's say an average of 4 combat rounds. The more rounds, the more likely it is the superior unit will win. By giving modern units more hit points in Civ2, they made it unlikely you'd see combat results that deviated from historical or reasonble outcomes.

Now mind you, even though a unit in Civ2 may win against an older unit, let's choose the musketeers versus the legion, that doesn't mean that the first to gunpowder simply rolled the opposition. First, most attacks come against fortified defenders or a defender with some type of terrain bonus. Musketeers attacking a fortified legion still almost always win - 97%. But they also leave the battle with half the hit points they entered it with! This leaves them likely to lose against a counter attack and makes them vulnerable in future offensive operations. If a musket unit attacked a city with two legions in it, it would win the first combat - but a counterattack by the other legion would destroy the musketeer 74% of the time. If the legion didn't counter attack, the chance of the musket unit winning if it attacked the other legion is down to 50%. And if he won THAT, he'd likely be down to just a couple HP, and easy pickings for any unit on the map.

Now, play that scenario in Civ3. A modern gunpowder unit attacks two legions. He loses.

That's all. There is no more. He will not win. Assuming he defeats the first unit, which is only 17% if they are both veteran and if the legion is fortified (assuming 50% bonus for fortification rounded down, to be conservative, and it could be as bad as 5%), he won't survive a second assault. Although, having seen the bizarre results of the combat generator (which I still think has bugs we don't see), anything is possible...it's like a Doug Hennings Combat Engine! Welcome to the magical world of ILLLUUUUUUSION...

This is what your typical historical/TBS/Civ/AoE/YouNameIt gameplayer sees. Battle results that simply defy logic. The unit values are poor to begin with (musketeers are atrocious), and when combined with a combat system that has so few rounds, you are going to see the man bites dog result far too often to be believable, much less enjoyable.

So what is the solution?

There are several options. We could simply reinstitute the FP/HP model. Now because FP/HP are so intertwined, you can get the same basic results using either method. An 3 unit attacking a 3 defender is a 50/50 outcome (assuming same HP). Give the attacker twice the firepower or HP and jump him to 89%.

You could do something similar to get rid of the midgame combat goofiness by giving a bonus of +1 point to the more modern unit per age difference. Hence, a musketeer attacking a warrior get's a +2 bonus because of the two age difference. Hence, a musket unit attacking your spare guys with clubs no longer loses 21% of the time if they are both 3 HP, rather it's down to only losing 6% of the time (still too damn much). While this does help, it's really a be better addressed and more flexible for future scenarios if we simply make fix the combat values and make a more robust combat round model that creates combat that is enjoyable but doesn't require constant suspension of disbelief...

Venger

[mrbilll]

Many of the things we're grumbling about, such as the corruption system, seem to be fairly simple fixes. I'd think they can be patched without major modifications to the core game. The combat system is an entirely different proposition.

Youre point's valid, Venger, but I don't think it's gonna happen. I wish there were a simple way to install a HP system, so that silly results would be more uncommon. But I think tinkering with the system could throw the whole game off in unpredictable ways. It'd turn into a MAJOR overhaul of big chunks of the game.

On the positive side, attack and defense units must be used in their proper roles, or you're gonna pay. Once the air units actually work, I'm looking forward to true combined arms assaults.

But for the record, I didn't see what was so awful about the Civ 2 combat. Civ to Civ 2 was a definite, solid step up. Civ 3, well, I'm not sure we lost ground, but I AM sure we didn't gain any.

[Venger]

Originally posted by mrbilll
Youre point's valid, Venger, but I don't think it's gonna happen. I wish there were a simple way to install a HP system, so that silly results would be more uncommon. But I think tinkering with the system could throw the whole game off in unpredictable ways. It'd turn into a MAJOR overhaul of big chunks of the game.

That's the question of course. Frankly, it shouldn't be very hard at all. The combat engine simply get's additional rounds. Every added round reduces the chance of something goofy happening. Or, simply give post gunpowder units an FP of 2 when fighting previous era units. That requires very little change as the graphics engine doesn't need to be touched.

I am hopeful. Of course, we could go modify all the combat values, but I'd rather not do that, it's a kludge that works but not all that well...

Venger

[Rusty Nail]

You are right about the outliers occuring more frequently with fewer rounds. One quick and dirty solution in a mod could be to multiply all the hit points by five, so instead of 1 2 3 4 5 we had 5 10 15 20 25. This would skew the win procentage in favor of the attacker and narrow the standard deviation, i.e. fewer outliers. Might be worth simulating on the "civulater".

[Rusty Nail]

Sorry. I did not mean "in favor of the attacker" but in favor of whoever has the best one round win percentage. Could just as easily be the defender.

[Barbotte]

Stop complaining about things you can fix with the editor. You want more hitpoints, add some. You want firepower back, just multiply the attack/defense rating of the units (the ones you think should have 2 firepower) by 2, it`s the same thing.

IMHO, the system is ok. Have you noticed people mostly complain when they loose, never when they win.

// Now, play that scenario in Civ3. A modern gunpowder unit
// attacks two legions. He loses.

Upgrade the attack of the musketeer and the rifleman. It will unbalance the game, but it will make you happy...

[GePap]

Persons who ask for Firepower are not complaining, just pointing out that the civ3 combat system leaves far too much for chance. Yes, this combat system in general is better than civ2, it calls for better strategy and true combined arms. One no longer just gets a few armor versus very backward civs and steamrolls them. That said, using mech infantry vs. spearmen should not be done with trepidation, it should be a shure thing as it is in real life. Assuming that both units are abstracted to be of equal strength, then never could the spearman win. In all those situations sited for how tech backward can beat modern two things are present, mistakes by the advaced guy in strategy or choosing terrain and numerical superiority by the techbackward side. 100 impis vs 100 British riflemen was never a contest, 100 British riflemen vs 4000 impis yes. I would add that on top of this, it makes no sense to believe that Modern units and anciet units should even be though of as equal numerical strenght. Modern states can field armies in the millions if they need to, not backard states- which needed lots of manpower for production ( if all the farmers are gone for too long, people starve) and thus can't field as many troops. The roman empire had at one point 60 million people but at its height the Roman Army had under 500,000. Iraq has under 30 million but in the Iraq-Iran war fielded an army of over 1,000,000 and Iraq is in no way the greatest and richest power of it's time. An added reason why, as abstract as the combat system is, spearmen should not be beating ANY modern unit at all.

[Barbotte]

// An added reason why, as abstract as the combat system is,
// spearmen should not be beating ANY modern unit at all.

If i have the mods right:

A spearman (def 2) fortified (.25) in a city (.50) on grass (.1)
total def = 3.7

versus

A mech. inf. (att 12)

chances the spearman win a round = 30.8%
chances the spearman win the fight (if both veteran) = 0.009 %

good enough for me

[Venger]

Originally posted by Barbotte
A spearman (def 2) fortified (.25) in a city (.50) on grass (.1)
total def = 3.7

versus

A mech. inf. (att 12)

chances the spearman win a round = 30.8%
chances the spearman win the fight (if both veteran) = 0.009 %

good enough for me

I hope you don't do anything with numbers that involves the safety of others.

An attack 12 strength 4 HP unit attacking a 3.7 strength 4 HP unit wins 94% of the time. So that's 6%, not 1%. Is six times of what's good enough for you still good enough?

If the units are both regular it goes up to losing one time in 10. Is ten times of what's good enough for you still good enought for you? If its a regular attacking an elite it goes all the way up one time in 5! Is twenty times what's good enough for you still good enough for you? If it's a spearman with a 100% modifier for terrain/defense it goes up to 1 chance in 4. Is 25 times what's good enough for you still good enough for you?

That is broken game design, PERIOD.

Venger

[Barbotte]

I agree i was way off. I did my stats a long time ago.

But what i`m saying is that if you`re not satisfied, you can change it. Myself, i changed the stats of the marines and the subs because i thought they were too low.

[Barbotte]

and 5.87% is good enough for me

[Venger]

Originally posted by Barbotte
I agree i was way off. I did my stats a long time ago.

That's okay. We all make mistakes. Well, not me, but most people!

But what i`m saying is that if you`re not satisfied, you can change it. Myself, i changed the stats of the marines and the subs because i thought they were too low.

I tweaked my Civ2 for game balance. But only in a few places, because the core engine mechanics were sound. In this Civ3, you'll need MASSIVE unit changes to get it where we (I) want it. Change one, and it bumps up against a neighbor, change it, bump two more...you kinda have to tweak them all.

Simply giving modern units an HP/FP bump fixes an AWFUL lot.

Some units need obvious adjustments (privateers, musketeers). But overall, I think increasing the HP/FP or even bumping the number of combat victories needed to knock of an HP from one to two would go a ways to making combat a little more reasonable...

Venger

[Easy Rhino]

Was "one hit point" in Civ2 REALLY TEN hit points?

If so, that's a pretty dramatic difference.

I think we should go back to Civ1's combat system.

ER

[Setsuna]

Excellent post, Venger. You should direct this to Soren Johnson, who seems to think the CivIII way is better.

"Firepower added needless complexity to the game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1..."

Bah!

[Barbotte]

"Firepower added needless complexity to the game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1..."

I must agree with Soren on this one. I think firepower/hitpoints was a bad design because it wasnt reflected in the units. Why did musketers have 2 hitpoints and 1 firepower? Why did tanks have the same firepower than warriors? And another side effect was that howitzer almost had the defense of a tank (def 2 * firpower 2 vs def 5 * firepower 1)

A better solution would have been to change the att/def of the units (ex: 6/6 for the musketeers). Simple and elegant.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Barbotte
"Firepower added needless complexity to the game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1..."

I must agree with Soren on this one. I think firepower/hitpoints was a bad design because it wasnt reflected in the units. Why did musketers have 2 hitpoints and 1 firepower?

Hit points and firepower are two sides of the same coin. The each have nearly the same result on combat percentages.

Why did tanks have the same firepower than warriors? And another side effect was that howitzer almost had the defense of a tank (def 2 * firpower 2 vs def 5 * firepower 1)

Combat results indicated it was pretty fair. Also, terrain modifiers for defense meant that difference was much bigger than you think. A fortified tank presented a defense of 7.5 versus 3. 1 was too low for it. One could argue for a higher defense for armor, maybe to 6, and a reduction of howitzer HP to 2, but the unit, as it played out, actually worked pretty decently. Artillery was easy to kill once you found it, even with mechanized infantry.

I actually like the way artillery is handled in Civ3, except for the inability to destroy units (come on...).

A better solution would have been to change the att/def of the units (ex: 6/6 for the musketeers). Simple and elegant.

That will work but now you've made the musketeer the same strength of cavalry. Better change that. Then you'll have to change infantry. And armor. And mechanized infantry...

You see where this is going...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Setsuna
Excellent post, Venger. You should direct this to Soren Johnson, who seems to think the CivIII way is better.

"Firepower added needless complexity to the game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1..."

What an asinine statement! No wonder Civ3 combat is so screwed up.

If there is no difference, then a unit with firepower 10 and attack of one is the same as a unit with an attack of 1 and a firepower of 10.

What would happen if a 1/10FP unit fought a 10/1FP unit?

You'd end up with two scenarios:

A totally dead 10/1 unit and damaged 1/10 unit.
A toally dead 1/10 unit and an undamaged 10/1 unit.

That's stupid. The 10/1 unit either is destroyed or get's no damage. That's why extreme firepower was never used, and only the Cruise Missile had a firepower of 3. Ever wonder why it seemed a cruise missile attack on a battleship usualy gave a battleship a ton of damage or no damage? That's why - a high firepower low HP unit.

Bah!

Bah indeed, did anyone on that team actually PLAY Civ2, much less any other historical strategy game?

Venger

[Easy Rhino]

I wasn't a big fan of having the firepower concept because I DID find it overly complicated and under-utilized (except for cruise missiles, I guess).

It sounds like the main gripe is about "excessive variability" of combat results. I think that could be fixed by just inreasing hit points by a factor of 10 or so across the board.

So, solution = more HP, not HP + FP

However, to a certain extent, I like the variability (despite saying WTF? and scratching my head at certain repeated results). In a recent multi-party war, there was this one elite Aztec Cavalry running around that simply could not be brought down by the AI foces attacking it. It was fighting off attacks by other cavalry units while it only had one hp!

So, in conclusion, **** happen.


ER

[Venger]

Originally posted by Easy Rhino
It sounds like the main gripe is about "excessive variability" of combat results. I think that could be fixed by just inreasing hit points by a factor of 10 or so across the board.

So, solution = more HP, not HP + FP

This indeed does this - anything to remove the outliers...

Venger

[Rusty Nail]

I believe Soren's above comment on the equivalence of doubling the firepower and doubling the hit points is incorrect. A firepower of two means that a hit does twice the damage, so a defender who originally had two HP has the equivalent of one hit point if the attacker doubles his firepower.
Example: A=6, D=4; prob. round win to A is=0.6. Suppose both have 2 HP and firepower of 1.

Case 1:Prob. A wins = =.36 (in 2 rounds) +0.288 (in 3 rounds) =0.648

Case 2: Double A's firepower to 2. This is equivalent to reducing D's hit points to 1.

Prob A wins: 0.6 (1 round) + 0.24 (two rounds) =0.84

Case 3: Double A's hit points relative to Case 1, i.e. to 4HP (Soren's claim).

Prob A wins: 0.36 (in 2 rounds) + 0.288 (in 3 rounds) + 0.173 (in 4 rounds) + 0.092 (in 5 rounds) = 0.913.

Doubling hit points would seem to be a much stronger change than doubling firepower. Conclusion: The civ2 model is far more flexible, and is not replicable in civ3.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Rusty Nail
I believe Soren's above comment on the equivalence of doubling the firepower and doubling the hit points is incorrect. A firepower of two means that a hit does twice the damage, so a defender who originally had two HP has the equivalent of one hit point if the attacker doubles his firepower.
Example: A=6, D=4; prob. round win to A is=0.6. Suppose both have 2 HP and firepower of 1.

Case 1:Prob. A wins = =.36 (in 2 rounds) +0.288 (in 3 rounds) =0.648

Case 2: Double A's firepower to 2. This is equivalent to reducing D's hit points to 1.

Prob A wins: 0.6 (1 round) + 0.24 (two rounds) =0.84

Case 3: Double A's hit points relative to Case 1, i.e. to 4HP (Soren's claim).

Prob A wins: 0.36 (in 2 rounds) + 0.288 (in 3 rounds) + 0.173 (in 4 rounds) + 0.092 (in 5 rounds) = 0.913.

Doubling hit points would seem to be a much stronger change than doubling firepower. Conclusion: The civ2 model is far more flexible, and is not replicable in civ3.

This is of course correct. It's a close correlation, but it is indeed different, and it can be seen best at it's limits. What the hit points does is increase the sample size and push the standard deviation in, and the confidence interval out (my college stats are starting to come back to me, aiyee!!!). Your conclusion is right on the money - the Civ2 system, at least of its combat resolution core, is far more flexible. That said, alot of Civ3 (bomabardment, etc.) is better than Civ2s...

Venger

[jemwhiskars]

I'd like to thank all in this subject I won't be buying Civ III now until all the above is fixed. I expected Civ III to be like Civ II, but with crucially improved bits (diplomacy, borders, improved the tiresome trading). But from what has been said here, they have improved what they said they would, and broken some bits

[Simpleton]

It's too bad they tinkered with the system in Civ2. It was very well thought out and worked great. I wonder why Firaxis did that?
Question: When a comprehensive unit editor comes out wouldn't it be possible to just give the advanced units more hitpoints? If a tank has 5 now just give it 8 and leave the warrior at 1. This, in theory, could rectify the problem somewhat.

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Simpleton
It's too bad they tinkered with the system in Civ2. It was very well thought out and worked great. I wonder why Firaxis did that?

Well, Soren did follow that previously quoted statement with..

"having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2. This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X"

But likewise, this too makes no sense. Let's fix one problem by making another one!

[Gaius Marius]

Originally posted by jemwhiskars
I'd like to thank all in this subject I won't be buying Civ III now until all the above is fixed. I expected Civ III to be like Civ II, but with crucially improved bits (diplomacy, borders, improved the tiresome trading). But from what has been said here, they have improved what they said they would, and broken some bits

Suit yourself, but that's a pretty tough burden to put on a game you haven't played. I think you'd enjoy it, if maybe not as much as if the combat system fit your exact expectations. An earlier poster made the good point that, despite the problems (which are, by the way, very well described and thought through in this thread), the strategic level of the combat system does have vast improvements over civ2. In general, the units are more balanced, the CSUs are generally effective without unbalancing the game, combined arms is necessary, and various tactics are viable, as opposed to civ2, where certain key units were the only offensive and defensive options, and you just built as many of those as you could.

Anyway...

This is of course correct. It's a close correlation, but it is indeed different, and it can be seen best at it's limits. What the hit points does is increase the sample size and push the standard deviation in, and the confidence interval out (my college stats are starting to come back to me, aiyee!!!). Your conclusion is right on the money - the Civ2 system, at least of its combat resolution core, is far more flexible. That said, alot of Civ3 (bomabardment, etc.) is better than Civ2s...

Venger

Well said. I don't really see how Soren came up with those numbers - embarrassing flub that didn't require all that much thought to figure out. It SOUNDS fishy (his original statement in the chat, that is), and it doesn't seem like he, or anyone else at Firaxis, for that matter, took a look at it. He wrote a great AI, but, like the rest of this game, greatness is marred by little gaffes that are magnified by the quality of the rest of the game. It's like finding a crayon drawing in the Lourve - it's just that much more disappointing because you know the game is about 7/8 perfect.

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by Setsuna


Well, Soren did follow that previously quoted statement with..

"having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2. This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X"

But likewise, this too makes no sense. Let's fix one problem by making another one!

Yes, they seem to have gotten themselves caught now. In order for the resource system to work you need to cripple the combat system. I myself would probably prefer to have the combat system work well at the expense of getting crushed once in a while because I can't get oil or iron. It makes those resources that much more valuable. Besides, you could probably use the editor to increase resource availability in your games so getting important ones is not as difficult.

[uXs]

So, you all dislike the extreme results ? Why not do away with this weird "chance" thingie then, and just impose fixed results ? Because no matter what you do, if you keep chance in, at some point some horribly weak unit will destroy some horribly powerful one.

So, why not do away with chance alltogether ? Yes, that will make it fun... NOT.

uXs

[Venger]

Originally posted by uXs
So, you all dislike the extreme results ? Why not do away with this weird "chance" thingie then, and just impose fixed results ?

Because I want an element of chance. But chance as in "reasonable, it could happen", not chance as in "lotto".

Because no matter what you do, if you keep chance in, at some point some horribly weak unit will destroy some horribly powerful one.

This has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Why do you want to argue it?

So, why not do away with chance alltogether ?

Made up argument. How about chances that make sense and keep the game balanced and realistic? You guys are big on gameplay balance where any unit can beat any unit, rather than gameplay balance that rewards players who manage resources and their civ well to get advance.

Venger

[Terser]

I believe--despite my own consternation--that there are many people who honestly do enjoy the current combat system. Good for them.

What I will never understand, however, is why Firaxis did not give CivIII players a choice(like that in CivII) between the simplified combat system(a la CivI or the current one in CivIII) and one incorporating FP/HP. For that matter, why didn't the designers attempt to create a new, groundbreaking battle system that might revolutionize the combat portion of TBS games? We have new innovations in diplomacy(extensive trade, mutual defense pacts), resources(strategic, luxury) and multiple paths to victory coupled with what is essentially a combat system from the early 1990's. It's bizarre to say the least.

Over my many hours of play I've pondered the reasoning behind this. The only thing I've come up with: was there some kind of legal restriction that prevented Firaxis from using something like the CivII combat system? This seems doubtful, as CivIII has the name, the wonders, the city improvements, and a host of other concepts in common with part 2. Still, it's the only halfway plausible explanation I could come up with.

Finally, my prediction: the future xpack with multiplayer will have a different combat system. When the average player repeatedly loses battleships and Aegis Cruisers to Ironclads when playing the computer they are, at least, annoyed if not angered. Once multiplay starts these incidents will become positively infuriating, because they will come at the hands of a living breathing person who should not receive any kind of compensation for having fallen behind in the tech race. There is also the issue of rushing to bring up(a familiar concept to players of AoE). Basically, you launch an early attack with swarms of ancient units--kind of like the AI in CivIII usually does now. This might or might not be considered a "legitimate" tactic in the early portion of multiplayer CivIII. However, imagine it being done in mid to late game, with a player simply amassing hordes of antiquated units which, because of the combat system, are able to vanquish a modern army only slightly smaller in size. It won't be pretty--and it won't happen quietly.

Change will come. It may just take a while... and they may expect us to pay for it...

[Easy Rhino]

While I implied this in an earlier post, I wanna go on record that I like the fundamental structure of Civ3's combat system.

My gripes tend to relate to the things that tack onto the system, like planes (which I haven't gotten yet), bombardment (which I'm unsure of), and zones of control (which don't seem to work as advertised).

But there's nothing wrong with an A/D/HP system.

One think I like about it is that it's possible (or, more possible) for a swarm of weaker attackers to bring down a tough defender. As my poor lone infantry found out when he was attacked by a dozen swordsmen in one turn.

ER