Is Combat Screwed up?

[Ghengis Brom]

Is combat screwed up?

[Bad Ax]

Is combat screwed up?

Can my mighty warrior slaughter a cavalry brigade with his great stone axe?

These questions have the same answer.

[Ghengis Brom]

Originally posted by Bad Ax
Is combat screwed up?

Can my mighty warrior slaughter a cavalry brigade with his great stone axe?

These questions have the same answer.

That's funny

[TrainWreck20]

Comments:
Mighty warrior (single) or rampaging hordes represented by a single unit?

Also, don't take the units too literal. If you have a warrior in the later ages, think of it as a militia unit.

[Jurassic Joe]

I agree with trainwreck, don't take the obsolete units literally. The AI never upgrades, but since they can and do beat us in combat, we will just have to look at it in a different light. At least now we lose some battles, unlike civ2 where you could just walk all over the AI at will. How many times in civ2 did you see 20 units massing on your border? never, they would always sneak attack with an obsolete unit and then send wave after wave of 1 or 2 guys your way. From now on lets just refer to the obsolete units as militia like trainwreck suggested. We also need to swallow our pride and accept the fact that sometimes the underdog will prevail.

[Bad Ax]

Originally posted by TrainWreck20
Also, don't take the units too literal. If you have a warrior in the later ages, think of it as a militia unit.

This approach to conceptualizing units that go obsolete when you get iron is something that bulls make. And I'm not talking about "more bulls".

If the unit goes obsolete when you can make a sword, then it, ipso facto, is not some kind of pseudo-modern militia unit. It's a guy with a stone axe. And one on one, there is no way a guy with a stone axe should defeat a guy on a horse, with a gun, in open combat.

[Moraelin]

Well, I have no problem accepting that SOMETIMES crap happens. I also don't have a problem when a whole horde of men with axes defeat one unit of horsemen. I tend to have a problem when it happens way too often, one-on-one. Like attacking Pikemen with modern Infantry, for example.

Either way, while I'll aggree that out of the box the numbers are way screwed up (and I voted as such), that can be changed quite easily with the editor. And you don't even have to do it yourself, just go to the Files forum and have a quick download.

[Venger]

Do we really need a poll on this?

New poll:

Is the sky blue on your planet?

Venger

[Kolyana]

LOL @ Venger.

You know, Ven, I've been reading a few posts topnight and chuckling away to myself ... only to realize that you are the one that has been making most of them.

I also chanced across you over at CTP2 when I had the same question: which mods?

Seems that I'm walking in your footprints recently. Must be a Civ3 thing

Btw, I was going to post a poll entitled "Is Combat screwed up?" with two possible answers:

* Yes
* Ofcourse it is.

[Marko Polo]

Actually, this works both ways and adds more to the game IMHO. So when that humble conscript infranty man has killed my attacking 5hp elite modern armor without a scratch, I might get him with my next last unit that has only one hit points left..

So in the long run, it's more fun that not all battles are so predictable like it was with Civ2. So, if you really want to annihilate a whole nation during a single turn with 100% certainity, just play Civ2 and use those almighty howies, stealth fighers and spies..

[Cypselus]

Think of it as a militia unit? No, the warrior or swordsman in the 20th century is not a militia unit. A militia unit would be a 2 hp rifleman or infantryman, not some guy with fur BVDs and a cudgel. The poorest, most benighted countries in the world, places like Afghanistan and Somalia and Liberia, places that don't have enough money to feed all their people, can still afford AK47s.

So yes, Civ3 combat is hosed, and not just because you get a lot of weird results out of it. Reversion of recently conquered cities is ridiculous, the resulting necessity of razing cities is worse still. Navies and air forces are simply not worth building. Fewer units, and still fewer useful units. In Civ II, you'd just pump howitzers, in Civ 3, you just pump modern armor. Woohoo! AI expansion and strategic resources force you to fight early and often, but for the most part (though I'm fond of the abstracted air combat), the system is a big step backwards even from Civ II's admittedly very primitive implementation.

[Code Monkey]

The one thing I really miss about SMAC was that no one could get upset about "unrealistic" combat since the units weren't based off of real-world concepts.

The last thing I've ever considered a Civ game is a wargame. All it is is a strategy game with combat rules that are arbitrary yet consistent. My warrior unit is not a warrior, or horde of warriors, or even a gaggle of warriors - it's just a unit with 1a/1d/1m for stats. Cavalry is just a unit with 6a/3d/3m for stats. Combat is not a matter of my unit's modern tank shell versus your carbine rifle, it's just my 16a versus your 8d.

I can see why people who wanted a wargame are disappointed in Civ3, but I can only feel sorry for those who complain endlessly about something that is clearly a non-issue to the designers. In the end, you're no better than the guys who used to argue about Magic cards based on what the picture had versus what the rules said ("But it clearly shows it is flying!")

[Kolyana]

Originally posted by Cypselus
Think of it as a militia unit? No, the warrior or swordsman in the 20th century is not a militia unit. A militia unit would be a 2 hp rifleman or infantryman, not some guy with fur BVDs and a cudgel. The poorest, most benighted countries in the world, places like Afghanistan and Somalia and Liberia, places that don't have enough money to feed all their people, can still afford AK47s.

So yes, Civ3 combat is hosed, and not just because you get a lot of weird results out of it. Reversion of recently conquered cities is ridiculous, the resulting necessity of razing cities is worse still. Navies and air forces are simply not worth building. Fewer units, and still fewer useful units. In Civ II, you'd just pump howitzers, in Civ 3, you just pump modern armor. Woohoo! AI expansion and strategic resources force you to fight early and often, but for the most part (though I'm fond of the abstracted air combat), the system is a big step backwards even from Civ II's admittedly very primitive implementation.

You raise some valid points and I argue with none of them ... except ...

I regularly use bombers in Civ, they're a very useful part of my strat. I have used a medium sized navy, but typically only to transfer troops and protect them ... while airports are being built. After that, they are useless, yes.

Jet fighters have come into my strategy recently to keep the computer bombers at bay - which they almost do since the patch.

So, in short, I think that air units are not 100% useless.

Now, the cruise missile ... that's a different matter. I've never built one. I've captured two and their use was pitiful ... talk about a complete misrepresentation of anything close to a real-life version.

[Skanky Burns]

Most of the problems with the combat system are related to the design decision to allow ancient units a large chance to defeat modern units. I dont agree with that decision, but at least we can change it.

[Cypselus]

I've built lots of bombers, but I've found that with their short range, the frequent necessity of razing enemy cities, and the inability to build airfields, they can't keep pace with the advance of tanks/modern armor.

I can see why people who wanted a wargame are disappointed in Civ3, but I can only feel sorry for those who complain endlessly about something that is clearly a non-issue to the designers. In the end, you're no better than the guys who used to argue about Magic cards based on what the picture had versus what the rules said ("But it clearly shows it is flying!")

I never played Magic. I'm not even sure what it is. I appreciate your sympathy, but I think you miss the point. While it's obvious that the designers don't care, it is by no means obvious to me that they shouldn't. That Civ is not wholly a war game does not change that fact that it is at least partially a war game, particularly in this iteration, where going to war early and often is essential. With that in mind, the combat system needs to be convincing, and I don't think it is. For a game to keep your attention for the hours and hours that a game of Civ 3 can last, it is essential that you be able to suspend disbelief, something that's hard to do when cities swallow 20 military units and spearmen and archers can damage or even destroy tanks. Conceiving of my units as duelling sets of numbers and probabilities, as some have suggested, is even worse. I can get caught up in the idea of leading my cavalry across the plains of Russia, but throwing my "8"s against the Russian "3s" leaves me cold. I don't expect Age of Kings, but I do expect plausibility.

[korn469]

obviously each unit represents a number of tanks, soldiers, planes, ships etc...but it just comes down to the fact that warriors are NOT modern militia...i would take 500 poorly trained millitiamen from any part of the earth today armed with AK-47's and place them on any open plain against 10,000 Roman Legionaries from the peak of the roman empire lead by Julius Ceaser himself, they would win, the firepower of modern automatic weapons is just too great

what is even worse is that people are delluding themselves because firaxis for some unknown reason DID NOT TURN ON THE OBSOLETE SWITCH FOR UNITS

using the editor it is quite easy to make units obsolete, ie units that disappear from the build queue but do not upgrade...so stop lying to yourself and open up the editor and make warriors obsolete

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
The one thing I really miss about SMAC was that no one could get upset about "unrealistic" combat since the units weren't based off of real-world concepts.

That's more or less what I've been saying all the time. If were on some far away planet, or elves vs dwarves, none of us would have had a problem with it. If it were a new "Phantasy General" with dwarven steam cannons that-a-way and wyvern riders that-a-way, sure. Guess those steam cannons just aren't that powerful, or those wyverns aren't that great at ground attack. Fair enough. Noone saw a wyvern or a steam cannon, and history books tend to miss any examples about their use in combat.

On the other hand, if it claims to be Earth history, then we only have to look at WW2 to get the idea that Cavalry vs Infantry gets mowed down by the machineguns. Even though a horse does have more speed and is harder to kill than a human, it's a huge target and a machinegun makes mincemeat out of it. There's a reason why everyone disbanded their cavalry divisions or upgraded them to armour divisions in WW2, and Polish cavalry charges against even the weakest German armor were used by the German propaganda as obvious proof that the Polish army is obsolete and stupid. (Incidentally, other than the German and Italian propaganda, noone actually reported those charges against armor, so the Polish people may not have been THAT stupid.)

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by korn469
Firaxis for some unknown reason DID NOT TURN ON THE OBSOLETE SWITCH FOR UNITS

That part is the most disturbing. Why would they just forget?? It couldnt be because they planned on having everyone still building swordsmen and longbowmen to counter tanks... even when they can also build tanks...
I just dont understand that decision.

[Bad Ax]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


That part is the most disturbing. Why would they just forget?? It couldnt be because they planned on having everyone still building swordsmen and longbowmen to counter tanks... even when they can also build tanks...
I just dont understand that decision.

The failure to implement proper obsolesence, just like the failure to establish strong temporal differentials, is the result of the resources system. Since resources are too rare for any one game to ensure that every player will have the oil to build tanks, or the rubber to build infantry, units must not go obsolete (so people will have *something* to build) and obsolete units must be competitive with modern ones (else the building of obsolete units is worthless). The combat system is a cascade from the fumbled resource implementation.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Cypselus

For a game to keep your attention for the hours and hours that a game of Civ 3 can last, it is essential that you be able to suspend disbelief, something that's hard to do when cities swallow 20 military units and spearmen and archers can damage or even destroy tanks. Conceiving of my units as duelling sets of numbers and probabilities, as some have suggested, is even worse. I can get caught up in the idea of leading my cavalry across the plains of Russia, but throwing my "8"s against the Russian "3s" leaves me cold. I don't expect Age of Kings, but I do expect plausibility.

I'm a gamer, end of story. I don't care that a game models the real world so long as it's fun and internally consistent. The combat system of Civ3 meets those criteria. Units always get better through the ages and a higher attack versus a lower defense usually wins.

The suspension of disbelief comes (and largely ends) when I say I'm playing a historically flavoured game that happens to have 6000 year old leaders, Abraham Lincoln and Chairman Mao in 4000 B.C., and the French and Egyptians in heated competition to both build the Great Pyramids. I simply have no grasp on the mindset that accepts all the other 1,001 and completely unrealistic abstractions in the game and then goes up in arms because cavalry on offense can kill tanks about 1/3 of the time. Civ3 is no more realistic of a game than Risk, it's just a more complex and more satisfying game than Risk.

Originally posted by Moraelin

On the other hand, if it claims to be Earth history, then we only have to look at WW2 to get the idea that Cavalry vs Infantry gets mowed down by the machineguns.

The game claims:

Rewrite History with the Greatest Game of All Time. Witness an epic adventure unfold before you as you wield the ultimate power and reinvent the history of Civilization.

It doesn't say "recreate" history, it says "rewrite" and "reinvent" and the game certainly lets you do that.

[Plumbean]

I love the game but I think combat stats are off.I had a warrior not a veteran beat 10 barbarians and become an elite.I served in the USMC and even they wont attack a army on a assult with out 3 to 1 odds

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
The suspension of disbelief comes (and largely ends) when I say I'm playing a historically flavoured game that happens to have 6000 year old leaders, Abraham Lincoln and Chairman Mao in 4000 B.C., and the French and Egyptians in heated competition to both build the Great Pyramids. I simply have no grasp on the mindset that accepts all the other 1,001 and completely unrealistic abstractions in the game and then goes up in arms because cavalry on offense can kill tanks about 1/3 of the time. Civ3 is no more realistic of a game than Risk, it's just a more complex and more satisfying game than Risk.

All that boil down to "hey, it's already got some unrealistic parts, why not make it totally unrealistic?" Indeed. Why not make the leaders wear clown caps and do cartwheels during negotiations, while we're at it? I mean, it surely wouldn't make it any less unrealistic than it already is. Why not just have our knights swim across the sea, instead of needing boats? Why not make the deserts give more food than plains? Why not let me build my cities on water, while we're at it? It's just another tile, with some numbers, so why not? Why not make irigations give more shields, and mines give more food?

I mean, surely, everyone can just learn the raw numbers for all those things, and have a jolly good maths game.

And the point is that just because I can swallow the idea of an immortal leader (mostly because it doesn't really interfere with gameplay), doesn't mean everything has got to be one giant screw up. And that goes not only for combat, but for everything that's screwed up with this game. Including the tanks that are built of Latex, and the horses that can't be just bred, and the tech tree that allows aircraft carriers before aircraft, and so on.

Some things we're willing to accept, because they _could_ have happened. E.g., the Chinese or the Gauls COULD have built pyramids. In Real History, not only the Egyptians built pyramids, but so did the Aztec and the Maya civilizations. So why couldn't the Chinese?

Some things we're willing to accept because of obvious gameplay reasons, and because the real thing would be no fun. E.g., even if the Americans didn't exist in 4000 BC, it wouldn't be much fun if you'd have to wait until the declaration of independence before you get your first settler. E.g., a mortal leader would make it impossible to have this kind of game at all, so, sure, we'll accept an Abraham Lincoln that lives for 6050 years.

But then there are issues where realism got sacrificed for... what? They're not more fun this way, they couldn't have happened according to Earth physics, they don't result in better gameplay, they're just screwed up. Why?

[Oligarf]

Combat is screwed up! Bombing not killing units? Look at Afghanistan and know that it is definitely possible to kill military units with bombing. And a warrior killing a Tank, as happened to a friend of mine. That should be absolutely impossible. I can't think of a way such things are possible. I think Firaxis made a mistake by removing HP and FP.

btw I still like the game though

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Moraelin

Some things we're willing to accept because of obvious gameplay reasons, and because the real thing would be no fun. E.g., even if the Americans didn't exist in 4000 BC, it wouldn't be much fun if you'd have to wait until the declaration of independence before you get your first settler. E.g., a mortal leader would make it impossible to have this kind of game at all, so, sure, we'll accept an Abraham Lincoln that lives for 6050 years.

But then there are issues where realism got sacrificed for... what? They're not more fun this way, they couldn't have happened according to Earth physics, they don't result in better gameplay, they're just screwed up. Why?

No. _You_ don't have fun with the combat system, a lot of people don't have fun with the combat system. That does not mean it's screwed up and it certainly does not mean gameplay suffers because of it. Your gameplay suffers because you came to Civ3 with a bunch of preconceptions of how it MUST play for you to have fun.

I have no problem understanding that, realistic or not, the existing combat system is worlds better than the one so many people think they want. I routinely reach tanks before the AI - should a "You win" message just come up at that point? I usually reach swordsman before the AI, how 'bout the "You win" message at that point? Better units win most of the time; tanks are better than cavalry, cavalry is better than spearmen, spearmen are better than warriors - it simply doesn't need to be more realistic than that because gameplay suffers if you insist on making it so.

The game mechanics are there because they balance out a quasi-simulation that would swing overwhelmingly towards those civs that happen upon certain key technologies first. It is a sacrifice of realism for better game_play_, because that's what you're supposed to be doing, playing a game.

You wanted a wargame, you got Civ3, my condolences.

[Moraelin]

You know... I've had it up to here with the silly claim that "Civ 3 is not a War Game." Yeah, right. Care to tell that to the AI, too?

If over half my time in the game is spent in pointless wars, then I do believe that war IS an important part of the game. And as such, it darn better be modelled properly.

If "Civ 3 is not a War Game", then Microprose's own F-19 and Gunship weren't flight sims. I mean, hey, you spent half your time in briefings, debriefings, arming your plane or chopper, etc. Surely it was actually a complex game about life and the social interactions in a military aircraft camp.

And Command and Conquer wasn't a war game, either. Surely it was a city building sim, like Sim City. I mean, just look at all the buildings you could build in your base, arranging the streets neatly so your people can move about. But wait! It also had harvesters and costs for everything! It means it also was a deep and complex economic simulation, on top of the city building. Is that a complex and peaceful game, or what?

Cut the crap.

[mazeone]

Combat is actually so lame that I've pretty much stopped playing the game. I regularly attack cities with 6-1 or better numbers in my favor (so 1 hopelite defending, 6 of mine attacking) and lose. If it had only happened once or twice, that's fine but as a test I just started 5 games in a row, immediately started building my forces and attacked the closest city I could find, only ONCE was I able to take the city. It's a shame, I spent more time playing Civ1 and Civ2 than probably every other computer game i've ever played combined...

[Asharak]

First, to be clear and unpopular (or at least in the minority), I voted 'No'.

I haven't noticed the extreme misbalance in stats that everyone else seems to be finding (and yes, I've played more than one game). I've noticed misbalance, certainly, but not to the point that it ruins my enjoyment of the game. For me, at least, IT DOESN'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN. My tanks don't frequently lose to spearmen; my infantry don't frequently lose to hoplites. And if an archer chews up my knight, I realize that I was in a forest, where even a few well placed archers can decimate the now slow and unwieldly horses. When it DOES happen, its not hard to rationalize (fortifications, etc.), if I'm in a bad mood, or just accept that it's a game and move on, if I'm in a good mood.

In short, I'm a voice of dissention for the contention that Civ3's combat is horribly broken, because, at least on my computer, it isn't.

- Ash

[cavebear]

Spare me the storyline and rationalizations. The whole point is that seriously superior units should not lose to seriously inferior ones - ever!

I don't want to hear about tornados, muddy fields, or stealthy attacks in the night. Save that for fanfic writing!

[Moraelin]

Actually

1) Fighting in woods makes jack squat difference, so it's just people trying to find excuses for the broken numbers in game. Yes, IRL woods and crossing rivers would make a LOT of difference. In the game, it's... what? Plains are 10% defense bonus, woods are 25% defense bonus. On grassland those hoplites had 3.30 defense, in woods they had a whole 3.75 defense. What? A whole 13.6% improvement? THAT is what made your battles go fundamentally different in the two situations? I doubt it. (Incidentally, Jungle is 25%, too.)

2) According to the handy Combat Calculator, between regulars, on grassland or plains: Hoplites will defend against modern Infantry (and kill the whole Infantry unit) almost 25% of the time. Yes, 1 time out of 4. THAT often. In forest or jungle it rises only to 30%. Against Riflemen, the same Hoplites will defend (and kill the riflemen) over 41% of the time. It's almost 50-50. In a forest or jungle, it only rises to 47%.

And that's without the defenders being fortified or anything. My infantry attacks some hoplites on the move... and gets its rear handed to it.

If that doesn't look like something's weird, dunno what does...

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Moraelin
You know... I've had it up to here with the silly claim that "Civ 3 is not a War Game." Yeah, right. Care to tell that to the AI, too?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Combat, and even simulated wars, do not a war game make. Wargames take into account supply lines, unit morale, leader morale, weather, freshness of troops, armour type, ammo type, real air support, real artillery support, real combined arms, flanking tactics if the scale is small enough, morale effects from the enemy cutting off retreat routes, and so on.

And Command and Conquer wasn't a war game, either. Surely it was a city building sim, like Sim City. I mean, just look at all the buildings you could build in your base, arranging the streets neatly so your people can move about. But wait! It also had harvesters and costs for everything! It means it also was a deep and complex economic simulation, on top of the city building. Is that a complex and peaceful game, or what?

Cut the crap.

Try taking your own advice. C&C is not a wargame either any more than Civ3. Both are nothing more, and nothing less, than _strategy_ games which use a combat model for that strategy gaming. People who don't like their modeling are more than welcome to change stats in the editor so they'll get the results they want (i.e. "I win when I say I'll win").

People who want realistic combat ought to go play Shogun or TOAW. TOAW is a real wargame and Shogun might as well be and both are fantastic in their implementation. Civ3 barely has the beginnings of a wargame in its design.