****in' game

delana · January 15, 2004, 17:23

is it me or that they didn't work correctly on civ 3?
An infantry can be killed by a spearman!!! Does patches ( or the extensions) correct this stupid thing ?
Or should i use a mod to be able to make war realistic?

Willem · January 15, 2004, 17:30

Quote:

Originally posted by delana
is it me or that they didn't work correctly on civ 3?
An infantry can be killed by a spearman!!! Does patches ( or the extensions) correct this stupid thing ?
Or should i use a mod to be able to make war realistic?

There's an easy thing you can do yourself to correct this. Just give units that appear later in the game more hit points in the editor.

vmxa1 · January 15, 2004, 17:32

Short answer, it is not changed in any patches, but they are tlaking about some adjustments.

The battle would be about 80% for the infantry, with just 125% bounus to the spear. If that spear was in a metro forted and the attacker comes over a river and so on, the attacker will have problems. Infantry are not best used as attackers. Attacking metros with infantry is going to be painful.

Most have long ago come to terms with the combat and just take the occassional bad rng. Storming citie/metros is best done with combined arms and armies. Failing all that use tanks/MA.

gunkulator · January 15, 2004, 17:43

If you find yourself attacking with Infantry, you're probably doing something wrong. If the occassional loss of one Infantry throws off your whole battle plan, then you're definitely doing something wrong.

asleepathewheel · January 15, 2004, 18:33

attacking spears with infantry=go to higher difficulty level

delana · January 16, 2004, 16:49

In civ 2 if you attack a spearman with a musketeer you win, the same in the two call to power... What's the use of finding powdergun if it's to be defeated quite all the time. In this case why a spearman wouldn't resist to nuclear attack... with his spear he can make a hole in the rocket and this deviate it

vmxa1 · January 16, 2004, 17:24

The idea was that they wanted to make the civs with a problem (behind) be able to use their obsolete units. Now I do not agree with this concept, but it is in the game.

As to Civ2 combat, lets let it be dead. It in fact was horrible. You could have one superior unit defeat any number of unit in one battle. You could defend a city with one unit and walls against nearly the whole army of a given civ. I for one was glad to see that and the ZoC go away.

I doubt you will to many claiming it is harder to beat civ2 than civ3.

Believe me in CivIII if a nuke hits the spear, he is gone. If you attack a spear with a musket, you are making a mistake. A unit with defense of 2 with do well against a unit of 2 attack and no retreat.

It is understood that the RNG can be cruel and can be strreaky. In the main using better units and tactic will win the day. Occassional loses are tobe pitied, but shrugged off. Underdogs win from time to time or there would be no wagering.

Capt Dizle · January 16, 2004, 18:02

Another spearman thread.

If only Firaxis would change their stance on providing info to the player. In SMAC you had a simple utility provided that would show battle odds before you attack. What would be the great sin of having that feature?

Firaxis did not provide the information necessary to explain combat in game. I would think that given the many complaints we have seen in the forums about combat, and given the fact that many people probably got frustrated and simply quit playing rather than look for help online, it is likely that Firaxis blew a lot of Civ4 sales. Folks are going to see Civ4 on the shelf and remember the incomprehensible combat from Civ3 and just pass on to another title. I hope Firaxis realizes its mistake and does a better job with Civ4 in this area.

People have a right to expect infantry to beat spearmen everytime. If not, they have a right to expect some prior warning that they are wandering into some counterintuitive dark alley.

Antrine · January 16, 2004, 18:07

Zulu spearman beat infantry. Quit whining...

vmxa1 · January 16, 2004, 18:57

They are in fact looking at addressing the combat to some degree and had a 4 roll type system implemented in a patch. They decide to back off for now.

So your are correct, it probably did hurt sales and caused rancor.
Weither they can and will make any signficant adjustments is yet to be seen.

Johann Moritz · January 16, 2004, 19:05

Where's the challenge in defeating an obsolete army and not having a single casualty? Sometimes too powerful units get over-confident and make mistakes in the battle.
And it doesn't happen as frequently as to complain about it. It may seem a frequent case, but that's because it is such a notorious experience.

Antrine · January 16, 2004, 19:56

Double dido, look what Mao did. He bragged that the allies trained and outfitted modern infantry just so he could have them. I think this comes down to unpredicable and random events which are necessary to good game play. It compensates for a poor AI, which it seems we will, yet be laboring with for a time.

And I am not apologizing for Firaxis or anyone else. Let's hammer them about tweaking the AI and a 'random event trigger' available in the Editor.

steoc4 · January 16, 2004, 21:58

I don't have too big a problem with the current system, if you have infantry and they have spearmen then you'll win the war, you'll just probably pick up a few casualties along the way, which isn't unrealistic. In real life technologically superior armies still suffer casualties when invading enemy territory. The only unrealistic thing is the fact that spearmen are fighting infantry at all, in the real world its just not possible for a country to be so much more advanced than it's neighbours. Perhaps there should be some sort of 'catch-up' system in the game when civs that are too far behind are automatically given free tech, to represent civilians bringing knowledge with them across borders, the media, whatever. It just doesn't make sense to have massive high tech metropolises one side of the border and ancient tribes the other, but thats getting off the point a lot.
I think they should keep the randomness of the battles though, if they were to make changes it would just perhaps to 'spread out' the units more, give spearmen 2, pikemen 4, musketmen 8, infantry 16, mech infantry 32 or something along those lines.
Another thing I think would make sense would be to incrementally improve your units with tech, say musketmen have 8 when you first get gunpowder, 9 when you get physics, 10 when you get metallurgy, by the time you get infantry they'd be up to say 13. So you keep getting small increases but you still get a jump when you go to the next unit. I think this would be realistic because every country in the world today has infantry, but the quality of their equipment can be vastly different, it would be more realistic to see the bigger nation with advanced infantry against a small nation with unadvanced infantry, as opposed to just infantry vs. spearmen which makes no sense. In line with my ideas earlier, once one nation gets advanced infantry anyone who's still on musketmen or whatever could automatically jump to low class infantry as they try to copy what the advanced nation has.
Anyway just some random thoughts of mine, I don't think the battles are too unrealistic its just the fact that such battles exist in the first place is the big problem.

vmxa1 · January 16, 2004, 22:52

It is not always a case of the lack of tech. Often the AI just did not upgrade all its units. IOW it may in fact have infantry, but also has some backward units.

So what you are suggesting is another bonus for the AI. Actually just play at Demi or better and you will not have to worry about fighting spear with infantry. If you are it will more likely be you that has the spear as happened to me at Sid. Well really not a spear, but a pike vs a riflemen.

Kuciwalker · January 17, 2004, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Another spearman thread.

If only Firaxis would change their stance on providing info to the player. In SMAC you had a simple utility provided that would show battle odds before you attack. What would be the great sin of having that feature?

Firaxis did not provide the information necessary to explain combat in game. I would think that given the many complaints we have seen in the forums about combat, and given the fact that many people probably got frustrated and simply quit playing rather than look for help online, it is likely that Firaxis blew a lot of Civ4 sales. Folks are going to see Civ4 on the shelf and remember the incomprehensible combat from Civ3 and just pass on to another title. I hope Firaxis realizes its mistake and does a better job with Civ4 in this area.

People have a right to expect infantry to beat spearmen everytime. If not, they have a right to expect some prior warning that they are wandering into some counterintuitive dark alley.

The combat model is extremely simple and intuitive - anyone should be able to grasp the basic odds. Infantry, attack 6, vs Spears, defense about four when fortified behind walls. Each round the Infantry has a 3/5 chance of taking an hp off of the Spearman. Plus, why are you attacking with Infantry anyways? Oh, and people DON'T have a right to just expect "oh, this unit will win EVERY SINGLE TIME". In case you didn't notice, combat is based on a RANDOM number generator. Or do you support just having Spearmen automatically dieing when attacked by Infantry?

mrmitchell · January 17, 2004, 01:18

If you're GAURANTEED that something will win (or lose), it's not much more than moving around units is it?

notyoueither · January 17, 2004, 02:32

Why not the attacker always wins, no matter the units involved? Then we could have civ chess!

MrWhereItsAt · January 17, 2004, 08:14

Then you'd never build anything but fast moving units. And put them into armies.

Maybe an option for the next Civ-based boardgame? Civ chess?

And sky is right - it is rather easy to calculate the odds for yourself - but they are just that. Odds.

I just saw The Last Samurai, and I guess you could say this single Elite group of Samurai defeated a unit or two of Conscript riflemen on the attack, and then defeated a couple of units of Regular Riflemen on the defensive, after Cannon bombardment.

/me looks at what he wrote

Oh My God. It's happening! I'm gettting too much Civ!

Solver · January 17, 2004, 11:01

Sometimes, on very rare occasions, the random number generator go nuts. Then, you attack a Spearman with two cavalries in a row, and both cavalries die. But that's vrey, very rare.

If you really have infantry when the enemy has spearmen, you'll clearly win the war anyway. Don't expect to win a war without casualties. And Cavalry are better attackers than Infantry anyway.

Look at the American army in Iraq. It's much more advanced technologically, but keeps taking casualties from the resistance. Look at the Zulu spearmen who could beat English riflemen.

Use your imagination. If an infantry dies against a spearman, you can suppose that the commanding officer of that unit got drunk, and they all tried to shoot with the wrong end of their rifles.

Capt Dizle · January 17, 2004, 13:29

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

The combat model is extremely simple and intuitive - anyone should be able to grasp the basic odds. Infantry, attack 6, vs Spears, defense about four when fortified behind walls. Each round the Infantry has a 3/5 chance of taking an hp off of the Spearman. Plus, why are you attacking with Infantry anyways? Oh, and people DON'T have a right to just expect "oh, this unit will win EVERY SINGLE TIME". In case you didn't notice, combat is based on a RANDOM number generator. Or do you support just having Spearmen automatically dieing when attacked by Infantry?

You are wrong on most points. It is a simple combat system but it is not intuitive. Information in the game is not sufficient to explain or else why would people complain? Why would they start threads about combat?

If in Civ the Infantry's odds of victory are 71% but people perceptions are that in real life their odds would be more like 97% then the game is deceptive to the player and that is an indisputable fact. To fix that the developer only needed to nuture the players by providing information. They did not do that. That is all I am saying.

Capt Dizle · January 17, 2004, 13:31

Let me be once again clear. I do not have a problem with the combat system. I have a problem with the lack of documentation. An odds calc would fix things right up.

Antrine · January 17, 2004, 16:52

Agreed, Firaxis ADD – ‘Odds Calc with a smiley face explanation and player experience disclosure’. However, I additionally favor another idea I previously presented albeit a little tong and cheek. To wit, add a cycling pop-up window elaborating some bizarre but historically likely ‘excuse’ why you precious unit got its butt kicked.

BulMaster · January 17, 2004, 20:14

Hmm I have the ai sending around 100 infantries at me and i can't stop them

they are like a herd of sheep moving over a grass land as we all saw in droopy

mrmitchell · January 18, 2004, 01:12

Quote:

Let me be once again clear. I do not have a problem with the combat system. I have a problem with the lack of documentation. An odds calc would fix things right up.

IIRC, the original game manual clearly explained how to get odds.

Mad Bomber · January 18, 2004, 19:54

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell

IIRC, the original game manual clearly explained how to get odds.

I believe that they would like the documentation in game. Lets face it the game isn't clear on quite a few topics (linking resources is but one example) and while the civilopedia does contain useful information, it could be vastly improved and combat odds are just one area that are in need of information in the civilopedia.

What they truly need though is a way of figuring out odds at the time of attack (something akin to the Panzer General system would be most useful IMO) where you put the curser over the enemy and it gives you odds of defeating the enemy with the selected unit.

Dain · January 18, 2004, 21:51

I do not think that the combat system is as clear cut as some believe it to be.

In simple fights with one versus one it is relatively simple, but I've played Civ for too long to believe it is that simple. I may be wrong, but I have adjusted my game-style to reflect what I believe are hidden mechanics and my success rate has increased dramatically since adopting them.

For example, I believe there is a hidden morale/fatigue factor which is a basic mechanic throughout the whole game and not modifiable in the editor. Again, I may be wrong but have had too much success with it.

I believe the more a unit is in combat in a given turn the more it fatigues and eventually anything will roll over it. We have all seen it with military civilisations. You are fighting a horde and you from regular, to veteran to elite and then some conscript rolls over you without you scratching it. Mathematically the odds of that happening with any type of consistancy is non-existant.

Also, units that move and fight in the same turn have suffered heavier casualties than units which are attacking from fresh. I will never attack a city on the march, because I have seen my tanks being defeated by spearmen when on the move.

I will also use alot of chaff units (if I have any, like conscripts) on a fresh unit. If it doesn't die its a bonus, if it does then it softens up the target for one of my better units even if it has not scratched it.

Bombardment is another issue. I used to never take catapults early in the game because even in large numbers they rarely damaged anything. Units that are being combarded seem to defend less effectively. I've tested it thousands of times and its now pary of my early strategy to utilise catapults because I suffer far fewer casualties when taking enemy cities.

The size of a unit stack seems to also have a morale/fatigue factor. You can run your own tests. I have had a massive stack of warriors take over a city defended by a couple of fortified musketmen behind walls. Mathematically they should all crash and burn. Units in large stacks in general seem to perform better than normal, it is why it can be extemely difficult to take over with a large number of crappy defenders.

Again, I might be wrong but there is too much consistancy and evidence to suggest that there are other contributing factors which have an influence. If there are not then there is something very seriously wrong with the mathematical odds of winning battles, because the 'miracle' victory occurs far too frequently.

I think it is also a safety mechanism because you can have a civilisation that is unlucky enough to be severely limited in the type of military units you can build. If all the fights were too clinical in terms of attack vs defense then in most cases you would struggle to ever recover from a poor starting position.

I can still defeat civilisations who are in the second age with archers and spearmen. That should not be 'mathematically' possible.

Jaybe · January 18, 2004, 22:27

Dain, while I believe your "beliefs" are not technically incorporated into the game (I think it is due to your "perceptual experience" of the RNG), I definitely do not dispute those beliefs. Such philosophies enhance one's immersion into the game experience.

UnityScoutChopper · January 19, 2004, 11:30

That said, heading up the attack with the weakest units ("I will also use alot of chaff units (if I have any, like conscripts) on a fresh unit.") may not be a wise move, since that gives the defender a chance to make morale gains.

USC

shmily_dana · January 19, 2004, 18:53

Maybe Mel Gibson was leading the spearman against the evil British infantry in his homeland...

Seriously, I don't imagine a Civ battle to be a one day event. Your unit(s) are attempting to occupy enemy territory for at least a year (or up to 50 years...) i.e. They are having to break formation, make camp, eat dig latrines, etc for the whole turn. Guys have to get out of their tanks. Lots can happen to a single unit in that time period.

It makes sense that a unit can regain full strength in home territory. They can recruit new people...

Dain · January 19, 2004, 20:59

Quote:

Originally posted by UnityScoutChopper
That said, heading up the attack with the weakest units ("I will also use alot of chaff units (if I have any, like conscripts) on a fresh unit.") may not be a wise move, since that gives the defender a chance to make morale gains.

USC

It normally does not matter to me (late in the game), on the harder levels I usually play a military civilisation (because the computer gets a retarded head start) and head for communism and end up mass producing tons of conscript units when I go to war. I also look to have close to 3x the number of cities that I would normally have in a production oriented civilisation.

Even if I turn some enemy units into elite they are brought down by numbers and artillery alone. The computer is as stupid in Sid mode as it is in Warlord. Its predictability makes it uncompetitive no matter how much of a head start it gets.

I usually have plenty of bombardment support so my conscripts vs whatever they have is usually an even fight and at the end of a conflict I typically turn at least a third of those conscript units into elites.

That is a high coversion for me because I lose very few elite units and they do grow on trees. :P