Unit changes to fix combat - and keep everyone happy

CyberGnu · November 25, 2001, 16:57

OK, so we have two main camps regarding the combat system, right?

One that thinks the combats system is great cause it maintains game balance, and another one that hate is because of its lack of realism.

A simple fix would be essentially cosmetic.

It bugs the hell out of me if my panzer division is killed by pikemen. But would I be equally pissed if my panzer division got killed by 'homeguard militia'? I don't think so, even if the 'homeguard militia' have the same stats as pikemen.

So, as you might have gussed by now, the solution is to automatically upgrade ALL units as soon as the first civilization enters a new era. (and with upgrade I mean just the name and icon, not stats).

I think it should be delayed one era as well, which means that when the fist civilization enters the industrial era, all ancient units get upgraded to their middle age unit. When the first civilization enters the modern era, all middle age units are upgraded to their industrial units.

So, for example, warrior could be upgraded to 'peasant horde' to 'rabble'
Horsemen -> Light Horse -> Scout
Pikemen -> City Guard -> Homeguard Militia

Knights -> Rough Riders
Musketman -> Conscripts

And so on. I'm sure people have better ideas for what the units should be upgraded to...

I think that this not only takes care of the 'phalanx vs. battleship' issue while maintaining gameplay, it would also simulate the diffusion of ideas... Sure, the taliban can't manufacture their own stingers, but they sure can get a hold of some through irregular channels, right?

Comments?

jadlakha · November 25, 2001, 17:00

I like the idea, would make me alot happier. Although my tanks should still run over those pathetic homegaurd militias easily still.

GePap · November 25, 2001, 17:08

Would such a solution not take up more system resources and memory (all those new graphics and sounds) than just changing the programing that rules combat? It is a solution yes, but not the most economical by far. Besides, would we be able still to make these new 'upgraded' units? (after riflemen, could I make more 'homeguard militia'?) and would the resource system still make sense? (why, if these guys have guns, do I need iron to make my 'homeguard militias' and not saltpeter, or simply no resources, as i can do with riflemen?).

CyberGnu · November 25, 2001, 17:14

Hmm, don't think it would require more system resources... The old graphics would be gone and replaced with new ones. Everything else would still be the same.

I think the strategic resources should be kept the same... As it is intended to simulate how even 'primitive' people can acquire more modern arms. Think native americans... Their riders were essentially horsemen who bought rifles for cash. I really don't think they need to have salpeter for that, right?

And the building would work just as it does right now. when you figure out how to make your own rifles, you won't need any rough riders any more, you build cavalry instead, right?

n.c. · November 25, 2001, 17:15

I've got a radical idea: reflect a unit's actual ability to take damage in the combat system. Crazy, I know. Not something we have ever seen before in a Civ-type game.

This is probably far too absurd a notion for Civ III, but the cosmetic icon/name change could work.

Dienstag · November 25, 2001, 17:42

The game seems to update the apppearance of aquaducts and other city improvements, so doing the same with units (as well as their names) seems pretty doable. I personally don't know what effect any of this has on system resources...but if those aquaduct images are what cause the game to slow down at the end ....

Personally, I'd rather have like 3 or 4 times as many unit slots, and ugrade accordingly. This adds more flexibility to scenerios (assuming they become possible) that don't span distinct ages (although CyberGnu's idea could also be useful for scenarious).

...and then of course yes the whole combat sysem could be reworked to make everything perfect.

Kc7mxo · November 25, 2001, 17:45

Great. Now instead of rationalizing that the pikemen defeated the tank by sticking their pointy stick in the visor, they look different. That's supposed to fix the problem?

firepower is all that they'd need to fix the problem. why they dropped the combat system from civ 2 I cannot fathom.

narmox · November 25, 2001, 18:16

as I explained in another thread (and I can't even remember which), firepower is not necessarily the answer. Look at CTP, the put all HP and firepower constant for all units except a few exceptions, yet their combat system works great (even one-on-one combat)...

CyberGnu · November 25, 2001, 18:36

Kc7mxo, but it's not a pikeman sticking his stick where it hurts anymore... Now it is a guard unit, armed with a few panzerfausts, that kill your tank.

The point is that the people who want to keep the current system claim that it keeps the game balanced. If we wanted complete realism, as soon as you invent tanks you should be able to roll over the world without losing a single unit, right? Wouldn't exactly make the game worth playing, and it wouldn't be realistic in the global sense, either.

Or, put it this way: Afganistan is technologically in the stone age... Why haven't the U.S. won yet? It's not because the Afghan pikemen are so skilled with their pikes.. It's because even the afghan 'savages' can acquire modern weaponry.

See what I mean?

kmj · November 25, 2001, 20:53

I agree that this would be a decent solution. The problem is with the perception of the units as ancient units. A possible "reality" argument for this: can any "civ" that still is using warriors and spearmen really be considered a civ? I hope what I'm saying isn't too politically correct, but gamewise wouldn't those groups be considered barbarians? (whether hostile or peaceful). In reality it seems there are very few of these groups left, and those are in places where rational civilizations wouldn't attempt to build a city. Of course, resource squatting could be seen as a good excuse for irrationality in the game.

I have no trouble assuming even supposedly isolated civs could somehow gain technology to remain somewhat competitive against other civs. Of course, if the "million warriors" trick works unilaterally, then I guess I would be in support of some sort of modifications to make modern units more powerful.

CyberGnu · November 26, 2001, 03:54

kmj, I can't confirm this personally, but someone on the board claimed soren in turn said that every unit had a fixed chance of winning regardless of odds...

Which would explain how I lost my three-elite-modern-armor-army to a pikeman without him even losing a hitpoint...

If this exists, the million warrior tactic might work. I think the odds are lower than the discrepancy in production value, however, so I still think you get an edge by building modern units

Badtz Maru · November 26, 2001, 04:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
firepower is all that they'd need to fix the problem. why they dropped the combat system from civ 2 I cannot fathom.

Unless I am mistaken, tanks and spearmen both had a firepower of 1 in Civ2. Only a handful of units in Civ2 had a firepower greater than 1, mostly artillery and sea units.

The main problem is people aren't capable of seeing the units as the abstract representations that they truly are. A poorly equipped militia might not be able to take on tanks head-on, but they could disrupt their supply train, build traps, and kill tank drivers when they got out to sleep at night. When a tank unit is defeated by a pikeman, it's not a single tank being killed by a single guy with a pointy stick, it's an armor battalion being neutralized over the course of a year or longer by thousands of poorly-equipped but far-from-stupid men on foot.