Thread Tools
Old April 30, 2001, 04:11   #1
Der Teddy Bär
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 6
infantry and tanks playing tag wrestling?
quote:

The unit with the best defense will stand up and do the defending until he gets worn down by the battle, then he will stop and the other will stand up and defend. The same thing happens in attack.


I would have expected that when I stack a tank batallion with a few infantry that they would act in a concerted effort in attack and/or defence.

Not have my infantry and tanks playing tag wrestling.

This type of engagement in no way represents a realistic battle.

Of course, correct me if I have taken this out of context but be gentle

------------------
Cheers,

Der Teddy Bär
Der Teddy Bär is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 05:32   #2
Zanzin
Prince
 
Zanzin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 441
Teddy, I understand it the same way you do. It's most disappointing, isn't it?
Zanzin is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 09:06   #3
Ralf
King
 
Ralf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,728
There are RTS military-simulations available for those who wants realism on a tactical level. Civ-3 is suppose to be a lighthearted strategy-game, with its emphasize on civil development and expansion. Besides, im sure there are tweakable rules in which order certain type of units should attack and/or defend.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]
Ralf is offline  
Old April 30, 2001, 11:47   #4
Mark_Everson
 
Mark_Everson's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:57
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 3,442
I'm with Der Teddy Bär and Zanin, Yuck

Ralf, I don't think they want a detailed combat model at the regiment level, just something beyond a modest extension of the tired old Civ2 combat formula. This approach gives small elite forces much more of a chance than they'd have in the real world when heavily outnumbered.

IMO it only needs to have a little change in approach to get a Lot more realistic. Notice I didn't say more detailed, just use the same unit numbers in a slightly different way. That is the critical thing Firaxis is missing with its approach.
Mark_Everson is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 00:30   #5
airdrik
Prince
 
airdrik's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:57
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nampa, ID, USA
Posts: 401
I don't like this system either. A better system would be to say that an army's fp, and hp are the total of all the units present, the movement is the average (rounding down) of all units, and the attack and defence is some function on the defence of the units. An idea I have for the attack/defence would be that you find the defence for each type present and total it. The defence of one type would be the defence of one plus half the defence of the second plus half again for the third, etc (so an army of 2 tanks, 3 mech infs and 1 howitzer would have an attack of 10+5 +6+3+1.5 +12=37.5 and a defence of 5+2.5 +6+3+1.5 +2=20)
airdrik is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 00:40   #6
jdlessl
Warlord
 
jdlessl's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:57
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Jacksonville, USA
Posts: 103
Are they keeping the same old Offense vs Defense system here? Nobody fights with their armor, except maybe to bash someone with a shield because you lost your sword. Please, Firaxis, make the combat not crummy!

--
Jared Lessl
jdlessl is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 10:27   #7
Der Teddy Bär
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 6
quote:

Originally posted by Ralf on 04-30-2001 09:06 AM
There are RTS military-simulations available for those who wants realism on a tactical level. Civ-3 is suppose to be a lighthearted strategy-game, with its emphasize on civil development and expansion. Besides, im sure there are tweakable rules in which order certain type of units should attack and/or defend.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]


War is represented and an integral part of the game. Whether I be an active war munger or a peace loving greeny. Therefore why should it not, in an abstract way, represent an army of mixed composition instead of 1 unit at a time.

I have for defence purposes some soldiers and a with a few anti tank guns. The soldiers get up alone and defend against the tanks, which give them a very big bruising, whilst my anti tank guns wait in the blue corner to be tagged! Just a tad silly?

I would like an accurate representation of having a mixed army. My anti tank should engage 1st (that is fire from a protected position, not actually get into the trenches) and then as the tanks get within range of the soldiers they do as best they can.

All that happens when you have single unit against single unit is a focus on a select few units.

If I have to go to way why should it not be tactical?



------------------
Cheers,

Der Teddy Bär
Der Teddy Bär is offline  
Old May 1, 2001, 11:52   #8
Vrank Prins
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Haarlem, Netherlands
Posts: 173
quote:

Originally posted by Zanzin on 04-30-2001 05:32 AM
Teddy, I understand it the same way you do. It's most disappointing, isn't it?


And so do I. I've just found out how to make an sophistaced stack in CTP. It's an art in itself to do so because units can have complementary characteristics which strenghen the whole stack. And that's not what will happen if you still have a situation where in a stack single units fight single units. Bugger !! (I hope that last word is not too undecent)
Vrank Prins is offline  
Old May 5, 2001, 21:54   #9
Der Teddy Bär
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 6
quote:

Originally posted by Vrank Prins on 05-01-2001 11:52 AM
And so do I. I've just found out how to make an sophistaced stack in CTP. It's an art in itself to do so because units can have complementary characteristics which strenghen the whole stack. And that's not what will happen if you still have a situation where in a stack single units fight single units. Bugger !! (I hope that last word is not too undecent)


I would expect, dare say demand that all I should have to do is have a stack. Why should I have to arrange in a special order the units within the stack.



------------------
Cheers,

Der Teddy Bär
Der Teddy Bär is offline  
Old May 5, 2001, 22:09   #10
ancient
Prince
 
ancient's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:57
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Life Goes On
Posts: 519
actually ive heard that if you want their will be a battle system close to whats was in gettysburg but with a broader array of units smaller map and less formation and stuff...
ancient is offline  
Old May 6, 2001, 00:47   #11
Warm Beer
Warlord
 
Warm Beer's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The Evergreen State
Posts: 134
I tend to agree with the general concensus here in the thread. Although I do understand that the Civ in not a war game proper, I would expect a little more than a step up from the old stacking system. It seems this looks like the old system, only automated for efficency. For instance, when you attack a city in civ II, doesn't this alread happen? You attack with one unit and the best defender defends untill it is warn down, then, another rifleman, or whatever, takes the brunt of your attacks.

Yes, I am excited at the idea of a new civ game, but please make it a little more complex.

------------------
"When you have to shoot - shoot, don't talk." -Tuco Benedicto Juan Ramirez
Warm Beer is offline  
Old May 6, 2001, 01:26   #12
Zanzin
Prince
 
Zanzin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 441
I think we'd all agree that one thing CTP got right was the combat engine. If civ3 is similar to civ2, ie one unit vs another until all units are finished, it will feel like a major backwards step in the genre and will be most disappointing.
Zanzin is offline  
Old May 6, 2001, 02:16   #13
Capt Dizle
ACDG3 Gaians
King
 
Local Time: 19:57
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,657
quote:

actually ive heard that if you want their will be a battle system close to whats was in gettysburg but with a broader array of units smaller map and less formation and stuff...


I wonder where this came from. If this were true and the tactical battles were fully fleshed out...then Civ3 would become the mamoth all time grandfather of games. Can you imagine the time it would take to play out all that combat if even slightly similar to a real wargame.

Capt Dizle is offline  
Old May 6, 2001, 02:58   #14
JamesJKirk
Civilization II PBEM
King
 
JamesJKirk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dixon, CA USA
Posts: 1,156
quote:

Originally posted by Zanzin on 05-06-2001 01:26 AM
I think we'd all agree that one thing CTP got right was the combat engine. If civ3 is similar to civ2, ie one unit vs another until all units are finished, it will feel like a major backwards step in the genre and will be most disappointing.


YES! and CTP2 even improved on something (namely, that). Can anyone here recall actually ever ATTACKING with an infantry unit it Civs 1 or 2? It's necessary in CTP to defend the ranged units, as in real life. If CTP's allowed to steal things from Sid, it should go the other way too! And if copyrights are involved, I don't think Activision would turn down a couple token firaxis dollars anyway.

JamesJKirk is offline  
Old May 6, 2001, 15:07   #15
Kc7mxo
King
 
Kc7mxo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:57
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,038
what do you people want? this is why civ 1 and 2 didn't have stacked combat. because it makes the game TOO complex. Either you want him to give you a small combat engine within a game that already takes days to play, or you want him to figure out some way of representing an accurate result of a battle given only information about the unit's stats and numbers. Don't you think that would be ab it hard to model?

And if you don't, you figure out some math formulaes they could use and mail it to them, then everyone will be happy.
Kc7mxo is offline  
Old May 6, 2001, 19:27   #16
To_Serve_Man
Warlord
 
To_Serve_Man's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:57
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Albany, NY, USA
Posts: 128
Combat is not the only thing in this game. If everyone wants a complex combat system, then the people who avoid combat will get the short end of the stick. Firaxis should focus on making parts of the game that are used by everybody and have to be done to play the game correct, like Governments, Diplomacy and Wonders.

Don't get me wrong, i'm sure 99.9% of the Civ player community uses combat, but if you, 'KISS', then you can focus on the parts of the game that need a lot of micromanagement and re-vamping. Also you need to make keep it from becomign to complex, other wise turns will take hours apon hours while you engage in combat. People will dread it eventually and avoid combat all together!

I believe that the combat system could use a little switch-a-ru, but making it that complex, with special formulated combat stacks, and that rumor about Gettyburgish will increase game play difficulty. we're trying to reduce it. The reason we reduce it is because we want everyone to play, not just wargame masterminds who can remember war&peace size rule books.

Now, instead of ignorantly ranting, i'll give my opinion as to what could be a possable solution.

Each military unit is grouped. An example is, Ancient/Ground, Modern/Ranged, Industrial/Ground, etc in different time periods and what they do (like ground infantry, ground ranged, air, etc). Each group would have a counter. So a Ranged unit would be efective against Ground. Thus creating a need to make "Stacks". However actual combat would be handled much like in Civ2, unit vs unit. However the attacker attacks with a type of combat unit and if s/he has a certian unit that is efective against the defenders, they go first. But if the defender has an effective unit against the attacker, it goes back and forth, so the defender counter attacks... and it goes back and forth in a mini-stacked unit battle, but its still one vs one.
To_Serve_Man is offline  
Old May 6, 2001, 20:00   #17
faded glory
Civilization II Multiplayer
King
 
faded glory's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Fascist party of apolyton.
Posts: 1,405
I dont like stacking like in CTP. The AI doesnt understand it, and I end up (on diety) simply crushing lonely tanks with stacks of 9 legions and pikemen. Hopefully sid stuck to the Civ2 combat
faded glory is offline  
Old May 6, 2001, 23:06   #18
JamesJKirk
Civilization II PBEM
King
 
JamesJKirk's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dixon, CA USA
Posts: 1,156
quote:

Originally posted by Saddam on 05-06-2001 08:00 PM
I dont like stacking like in CTP. The AI doesnt understand it, and I end up (on diety) simply crushing lonely tanks with stacks of 9 legions and pikemen. Hopefully sid stuck to the Civ2 combat


Right, because a helicopter flying up and slaughtering let's say 20 alpine troops and tanks is completely realistic, since you know, only one of them could fight back at a time

JamesJKirk is offline  
Old May 6, 2001, 23:37   #19
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
quote:

I don't like this system either. A better system would be to say that an army's fp, and hp are the total of all the units present, the movement is the average (rounding down) of all units, and the attack and defence is some function on the defence of the units. An idea I have for the attack/defence would be that you find the defence for each type present and total it. The defence of one type would be the defence of one plus half the defence of the second plus half again for the third, etc (so an army of 2 tanks, 3 mech infs and 1 howitzer would have an attack of 10+5 +6+3+1.5 +12=37.5 and a defence of 5+2.5 +6+3+1.5 +2=20)


Way to go, airdrik!

I would love to have something similar to your idea.
An army should be dealt as an army not by regiment to regiment or battalian to battalian.
Youngsun is offline  
Old May 7, 2001, 01:11   #20
Lung
King
 
Lung's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: of my princess Anastasia!
Posts: 2,102
***Combat as seen by Lung!***

This issue just begs to be addressed once-and-for-all, so here's my two cents worth (and believe me, two cents is rather generous )

Years ago, i tried to introduce Civ2 to a friend, so i showed him the game, including combat. His response was "Is that it?". Okay, so he's a shoot-em-up kinda guy, but the point stuck. What's the point in having warfare if you have little control over it? This begs the question - do we need it? Well, the answer is a resounding yes, because to not have warfare is to deny it's place in history. Warfare has undoubtedly changed the course of history, so it must be in Civ3. If all else failed, warfare was a last, and often most effective, resort.

Having established it's inclusion, thence how can it be implemented within the obvious contraints placed upon warfare by other, equally vital, aspects of civilisation and history? CTP made some forward steps in this direction, but has some obvious flaws. I thought it would be nice to be able to exert some control in the battle scenes, but i realised that it would be impossible in multiplayer. But what about against the AI? It's not an issue then, so why not? It would be simply a matter of detaching the AI from your battle group so you can play it yourself. I wondered how that could be played, but the answer is obvious. CivI, II, and III are turn-based strategy games, so to make the battle scenes turn-based is the obvious and only logical solution. This would also avoid the "game within a game" problem which Sid so despises. Also, as it is simply a matter of detaching the AI from your moves, it would require virtually no extra programming. In multiplayer games, this feature would simply be unavailable.

I've always seen Civ2 (i never played Civ1) as a kind of giant chess game. Chess, of course, is the greatest strategy game ever, so it's in good company The one advantage over Chess was that you could influence what pieces played, and how many. For Civ3 and it's combat model to emulate this can only be regarded as good And those partypoopers who dislike it can turn it off if they so choose . Of course, CTP combat was flawed because there is no randomness, so you could simply do your sums beforehand, and you would already know the outcome. Civ2 had that part right, so a combination of the two would be ideal.

Obviously the great leaders idea is a great concept, but my model would only complement it. Having played a great many games of CTP multiplayer as play-by-e-mail, i can honestly say that stacking units requires balance if you want your armies to be most effective, and on occasions even allows for some creative warfare. Believe me, even with CTP combat's constraints, i've seen some impressive strategy executed by some of the great exponents of the game (hail, Mobius! Hail!!). It has opened up the game to players whose strength lies in places other than in ICSing. A good general in CTP multiplayer can beat an otherwise unbeatable empire builder. Warfare must be a viable way of winning Civ3, but certainly not the only way. Please no one try and tell me that limiting creativity in Civ3 is a good thing! If you don't want it, then good for you! Just leave the rest of us to be the best meglomaniacs that we can be!!
[This message has been edited by Lung (edited May 07, 2001).]
Lung is offline  
Old May 7, 2001, 07:37   #21
Zanzin
Prince
 
Zanzin's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 441
quote:

Originally posted by JamesJKirk on 05-06-2001 02:58 AM
If CTP's allowed to steal things from Sid, it should go the other way too!



Here here!!


quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo on 05-06-2001 03:07 PM
you want him to figure out some way of representing an accurate result of a battle given only information about the unit's stats and numbers. Don't you think that would be ab it hard to model?



Too hard to model?? The monkey's at activision could get it right, why couldn't Firaxis and co? And, if anything, the CTP model was almost overly simplistic.


quote:

Originally posted by To_Serve_Man on 05-06-2001 07:27 PM
Combat is not the only thing in this game. If everyone wants a complex combat system, then the people who avoid combat will get the short end of the stick. Firaxis should focus on making parts of the game that are used by everybody and have to be done to play the game correct, like Governments, Diplomacy and Wonders.



As I've said in a similar post on an older thread, ALL aspects of the game should be done correctly, including combat. Having a civilization involves many aspects. War is one of these. Why should it get put the backburner behind diplomacy and wonders? Don't get me wrong, I don't think war should take precedence...all of these aspects should be on the front burner together!!


quote:

Originally posted by Saddam on 05-06-2001 08:00 PM
I dont like stacking like in CTP. The AI doesnt understand it, and I end up (on diety) simply crushing lonely tanks with stacks of 9 legions and pikemen. Hopefully sid stuck to the Civ2 combat


It's not the combat models fault that the CTP AI sucked!! The combat model itseld wasn't too bad, and worked well in a civ type game, in my opinion.


quote:

Originally posted by JamesJKirk on 05-06-2001 11:06 PM
Right, because a helicopter flying up and slaughtering let's say 20 alpine troops and tanks is completely realistic, since you know, only one of them could fight back at a time



lol, excellent point. One of the things that annoyed me the most about civ2 is that a huge force can be destroyed by a small one when on an un-fortified tile. Could you really see an army of nine units sitting around and thinking - "well, if one of us gets beaten, forget it, we're not even going to bother fighting. We'll sit here and let the numerically inferior army kill us." - Hardly realistic, is it?


Lung, all good points. I won't copy and paste them cause it's pretty long!! But you make a good case for why there should be stacked combat. It's good to see the majority of people have their heads screwed on around here!

Zanzin is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:57.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team