Solution to the spearman - tank problem?

spy14 · January 19, 2004, 18:54

Hi,

Due to the power of PC's currently, and especially the power of them by the time Civ4 comes out, why not change the combat system to something more akin to Medieval: Total war?

I'm proposing the option to let the computer resolve combat or take charge of it yourself as the commander on the battlefield. It seems the best way to me to see if a bunch of spearchuckers, holed up in a metropolis or not, can actually take out a unit of tanks. With a realistic battle environment (seen in so many of todays games already) the players of the game can resolve the situation, not some useless random number generator.

This would also open the game up to a whole new audience and give it a new depth, as well as win back some of the people who have given up with Civ3.

Ideas on a postcard guys

Todd Hawks · January 19, 2004, 19:05

May I quote Sid himself (here on his game "Covert Action"):

Quote:

The enduring memory I have from Covert Action is what I call the "Covert Action Rule," which is: It's better to have one good game than two great games. The mistake I think I made in Covert Action is actually having two games in there kind of competing with each other. There was kind of an action game where you break into a building and do all sorts of picking up clues and things like that, and then there was the story which involved a plot where you had to figure out who the mastermind was and the different roles and what cities they were in, and it was a kind of an involved mystery-type plot.

I think, individually, those each could have been good games. Together, they fought with each other. You would have this mystery that you were trying to solve, then you would be facing this action sequence, and you'd do this cool action thing, and you'd get on the building, and you'd say, "What was the mystery I was trying to solve?" Covert Action integrated a story and action poorly, because the action was actually too intense. In Pirates!, you would do a sword fight or a ship battle, and a minute or two later, you were kind of back on your way. In Covert Action, you'd spend ten minutes or so of real time in a mission, and by the time you got out of [the mission], you had no idea of what was going on in the world.

So I call it the Covert Action Rule. Don't try to do too many games in one package. And that's actually done me a lot of good. You can look at the games I've done since Civilization, and there's always opportunities to throw in more stuff. When two units get together in Civilization and have a battle, why don't we drop out to a wargame and spend ten minutes or so in duking out this battle? Well, the Covert Action Rule. Focus on what the game is.

You may have a different opinion but I wholeheartedly agree with him. Civ is about strategy, not tactics. If that tank was vital to you, you did something wrong.

crowatbitemedotcom · January 19, 2004, 21:57

I would think that option would really extend the playing time, especially in the late game. Might be okay to implement in a scenario though.

vmxa1 · January 19, 2004, 23:35

If they do much to the system, it won't be civ. Some say good, but if you had a meal ticket like this you would not be wise to risk it. Too many would likely say this is not civ.

joncha · January 20, 2004, 00:45

I think a better solution for the "spearman problem" is to have unit strengths increase exponentially rather than geometrically.

As it stands, units (especially early on) tend to increase A/D strengths by 1 point at each upgrade. This is fine for ancient units, but the further up the development chain you go, the less important that 1 point becomes.

If, on the other hand, the increase is by powers of ten instead of by ones, the tank-spearman problem, while statistically possible, disappears. One way to balance problems this may cause it to have small increases within eras (as per the old system) and save the big jump for when you move from era to era.

I'm sure this will create some balance/game play problems that will need to be ironed out, but it will definitely solve forever the "spearman problem," thus saving online forums from the weekly thread complaining about it.

It will also force long-time players to rethink old strategies (warrior/horseman rush? fuhget-about-it!). All in all, I think it at least warrants a mod (if one doesn't already exist) to see how it plays out.

jon.

Harovan · January 20, 2004, 04:43

Oh dear. Will this mess never end?

1 - Civ is not a war game. If you want a war game, go get one.

2 - It has never been a problem. It is a game with simplified, determined rules similar, but not identical to realism. It's not a simulation, which should be as close to realism as possible.

3 - Civ is not a war game, goddammit.

4 - Even if you are on the realism trip: In WWII and subsequent wars, lots and lots of tanks were lost in tank traps. Now what is the tank vs. spearman "problem" in the game compared with the real existing tank vs. spademan problem? With smart guerilla tactics you very well can take a hit on high tech equipped troops. Your odds will be not very high, though. The odds of a spearman vs. a tank aren't high either.

5 - Did I mention, that Civ is not a war game?

vmxa1 · January 20, 2004, 04:53

Not sure that is not a myth after a 1.29f or earlier anyway. I have not seen such a battle since the first few games I played.

MrWhereItsAt · January 20, 2004, 05:49

If you lose a Tank to a Spearman once in a while it's just the luck of the draw. Think of the numerous ridiculous results from battles throughout history, from the Spanish Armada to Thermopylae, (**)It happens.

If you lose afew Tanks to Spears within a few battles of each other, it may be time to rethink your strategy. THAT is the real answer in Civ, IMO. If you start losing too much, think of a way to make your opponent lose. Whether it involves better positioning, ecnomic bombardment first to weaken your opponent or simply more Artillery, there is a large scope for changing strategies to get the job done. That is why there are defense bonuses for certain terrain, and units like Marines and Paratroopers exist. If there's a specific thorny problem then that's what this forum is for (well, perhaps the strategy forum would be best). If it is just a case of you losing Tanks when you attack Elite Spearmen fortified in Metropolises with Walls or on Mountain Fortresses, DUH.

Nubclear · January 20, 2004, 08:16

When I Played civ3, I would have superior units lose to lesser ones all the time.
This wouldn't be a problem....if the AI didn't decide to solve everything by war. Ralph says it's not a wargame, but if you reject too many diplomatic deals, demand they respect your territory, not give into their ridiculous demands...They force you into war.
A loss every once and a while is OK. But I had to build huge stacks of modern armour to blow through the backwards AI army and even then I suffered massive casualties.
In fact...I remember my first game. I was Russia and had allied with India against some civ. I built up a bunch of some unit...and I pictured a huge army just going up and fighting.
But instead, it looked like only two units were fighting each other. I lost. Repeatedly.
"What? I have a ton of these, I just be winning by a mile."
And each time I "lost", they would gain experience. Admitantly I wasn't doing the wise thing by repteadly engaging, but it still was just frustrating seeing superior numbers of superior technology lose because they can't fight together.
I mean then war in civ becomes "Oh yeah? Well I can build 200 tanks, so

" which just isn't fun at all.
Before I sold Civ3, I gave it a chance by playing and it was quite fun...until an alliance of AI nations declared war on me. I was vastly ahead of them, again, and had superior numbers but I suffered massive losses...I won, yes, but I hated how I simply had to produce these en masse in order to win against inferior units.
IMO, Civ3 need(ed)s to somehow tilt it a little more towards superior units.

And it became more frustrating when people began to post "This never happens! You lie!" to someone who posted that it happens. I mean, I saw it happening on the screen, so trust me its happening!
People did the calulations to "prove" its highly unlikely, etc etc....But it still did not quite stop it from happening.
Eventually I just got fed up with it, and sold it to some sucker. I used the funds to buy Morrowind (which was a great investment BTW).
Now I'm kind of wanting to give it another chance, but there are no vanilla Civ3s in my area (that are cheap. There are 2 at Fred Meier for $50, but when you have Civ3 gold for $40 right next to it......)

Cookie Monster · January 20, 2004, 09:58

One thing we can do right now is attack in number. An occasional spearman victory over a tank is evened out by numbers.

I've noticed that in civ3 if you attack with single units they are less likely to succeed than when attacking as part of a stack of units. Try this and see if it helps you.

steven8r · January 20, 2004, 10:27

I've never had the 'Spearman' problem. I've often prayed for it because I was the one w/ the Spearman.

(yeah, sometimes I suck at this game--actually, If I only sucked, it would be an improvement. Sometimes I aspire to sucktion!!)

Somehow, I doubt that a single Spearman coult take-out multiple Tanks if he were properly bombarded by Artillery.

I don't have a problem w/ a defensive unit (doesn't matter which) which defeats an offensive unit. With many and varied Defense multiplyers, there's always the chance that an attack will fail (it seems the chance of failure generally favors me, while the chance of success seems to favor the AI--probably because the AI doesn't get 'emotionally involved' AND can figure combat odds better than I (generally due to laziness).

Anyway, I guess this does happen occationally, but that's just part of Civ. There is some degree of chance in every attack. Otherwise it would just be a formula.

To get rid of the problem permanantly, just get rid of the RNG. Just use Attack Strength vs. Defense Strength + Bonuses. That way you'd know (or could at least calculate) the outcome of every battle. Where's the fun in that???

Steven

Tall Stranger · January 20, 2004, 12:31

As Sir Ralph so clearly stated (repeatedly!), Civ is NOT NOT NOT a wargame. Period.

I, for one, would be very displeased if Firaxis wasted the time, money and effort to graft a tactical military game to Civ. If I wanted such a game, I'd go buy one. I'd much rather they used those resources to, for example, improve the AI.

I've had strings of bad luck. Heck, I once lost a full-strength Ancient Cav army to a spearman. The stream of profanity I hurled at the computer was both graphic and colorful. The reality is that this stuff rarely happens, both in the game and in real life. Deal with it. As others have pointed out, if your game is ruined by a single tank being lost, you're doing something seriously wrong.

spy14 · January 20, 2004, 13:53

Interesting views, couple of points

1)Daft results have often happened through history, as mentioned. Point is you dont get a reason at present; in a proper game environment you'll be able to see all results evolve, and know what went wrong (tank traps or whatever)

2) Civ is NOT a wargame, as mentioned. Thats why I suggested this to be an option to appeal to all audiences.

3) Losing one tank isnt any sort of a problem to most peoples plans, but when you see it lost to an inferior unit you want to know wtf went wrong.

4) This thread is a suggestion and not a complaint

Which is now 4 points so i'll leave it there for the mo

gunkulator · January 20, 2004, 14:30

For those of you wishing for superior units to win just about every time, might I suggest the following:

1) Uninstall Civ3
2) Reinstall Civ2
3) Get a key tech lead (monotheism, leadership, tactics, etc.)
4) Build killer unit
5) Win 100% of the time

vmxa1 · January 20, 2004, 14:59

To say it is not a wargame is not the same as to say there is no combat. Yes there are lots of wars, but it is not intended to be a realistic portrayal.

If one sees that too often a clearly superior unit loses, that can be seen at times. The problem I see is when people complain about units losing that are only marginally better that the one they attacked.

So we do not need a fix for spear vs tank. We maybe could stand a tweak to the streaky RNG, but only if it is not drastic. This may not be easy to accomplish.

SpencerH · January 20, 2004, 15:32

Its not even the streaky RNG that is the problem its the unsophisticated A/D/M numbers. An archer has double the offensive capability of a guy with a club but a MBT has only 14 times the capability.

ratster · January 20, 2004, 16:45

You need to go to the Supply thread where I was told emphatically that it (CIVIII) is a wargame (which it's NOT!).

If it is a wargame, its the only one I know of that can be played start to finish without ever going to war, hmmm.

vmxa1 · January 20, 2004, 18:26

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
Its not even the streaky RNG that is the problem its the unsophisticated A/D/M numbers. An archer has double the offensive capability of a guy with a club but a MBT has only 14 times the capability.

This is where I felt that fire power should have been left in the game. So each age the units could have a modifier of FP.
This would make it harder for older units to win and that is not what they wanted.

So you have the low ratio of attack values, thus allowing some opportunity for obsolete units to win an occasional battle.

I still yell when my 6 attack loses to that 2 defender, but it is not that common.

spy14 · January 20, 2004, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
If one sees that too often a clearly superior unit loses, that can be seen at times. The problem I see is when people complain about units losing that are only marginally better that the one they attacked.

So we do not need a fix for spear vs tank.

Its easy enough to see a rifleman victory over tank (although not MA), but Spear over tank still baffles me. Roadside bombs and such will take a few tanks out yes, but the entire spear unit will be fragged from half a mile away by the remainder.

I think I gave this thread the wrong title, I was looking at a way for the series to progress and a new combat system sounds to me like a good idea for that. At the same time I figured that playing battles out would finally resolve this sort of argument, assuming units are given realistic capabilities in comparison to one another. Games such as Total War give the same campaign elements as Civ, but with said option to fight the battles if you should wish, and it could be argued that the Civ series would be falling behind the competition unless major changes are made.

Kuciwalker · January 20, 2004, 20:20

Look at the Spearmen as "militias" that aren't necessarily equipped with spears and fighting in close formation, if you need to.

Personally, I've NEVER lost a Tank to a Spearman.

SpencerH · January 20, 2004, 20:45

I've never lost a tank to a spearman either, but losing two elite cav to a regular musketman in the open without it losing a hitpoint is too much for me.

If there is no need to upgrade your weaponry then there isnt as much point to the tech race is there?

When civ3 first came out, one player (I dont remember who) claimed to have won by only building warriors and galleys after starting with a 1 city island.

Zero · January 20, 2004, 21:02

Spearman Problem does occur. But it isnt significant. Saying spearmen has 0% chance winning agst tank is ludicrous. And it seems as spearmen does win out roughly the correct percentage that they should be winning.

Often when people complain, they dont realize alot of things. Is the tank attacking across the river? Is it a regular VS a vet/elite? Is the spear stationed in mountain/hill/fortress/metro city? Remember that if spearmen can get roughly +300% defense bonus (which is possible), then its as good as a riflemen stationed in the middle of nowhere.

Sometimes, you just luck out, but sometimes you dont. A few streak of impossible odds might seem annoying, but when you look at the whole picture, it really isnt all that odd.

And I completely disagree with Tass. You dont just build lots of unit in this game. Maybe thats why he is losing superior quality and quantity units to much inferior army. Otherwise, there wont be much to talk about in Civ3 Strategy forum.

Mr. President · January 20, 2004, 21:11

If for some unknown reason historical accuracy is important to you (while playing on Pangaea), you should recall that tanks were sometimes destroyed in World War II by partisans armed with a glass bottle full of gasoline.

dworkin · January 20, 2004, 22:13

What in Ifni's name is the Spearman problem?

If the spearman unit defeats your tank, crush the blighter with your other tanks! Or does your industrial era unit mysteriously not come with an industrial era infrastructure?
And in the industrial era one has access to support units like the bomber and artillary. Use them.
As for a simulated combat arena, will your sim put in such diverse factors as these:

Whether the commander is an incompetant or a genius.

The morale of the troops. Are they elite forces or penal conscripts. Are they fighting for home and hearth or are they oppotunistic adventurers.

Has either side has caught a nasty disease.

An 'act of god' wiping out 90% of one side in an earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood etc.

The opinion on the home front. After 10 well reported casualties are the folks back home screaming 'bring our boys back'.

Does a unit commander of one side defect to the other?

Are your weapons/munitions top grade or sabotaged duds? Or have they merely been badly made by slave labor in concentration camps?

Does one side even have a general? Was the general killed eating beans confidantly saying "they coudn't hit an elephant at this dist...".

Has one side recieved superior weapons/training from a sympathetic third party?

Does your supply center suddenly get destroyed by supposedly loyal citizens revolting?

All these and more have been features of human warfare since we came up with the idea. I don't think any wargame on a PC could cover all these (and the ones I've forgotten) currently.

David Murray · January 21, 2004, 09:11

>>Does a unit commander of one side defect to the other?<<

As I'm sure any rational man would do when his Armoured Division is faced by a great culture using spearmen to defend its cities.

ErikM · January 21, 2004, 10:49

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
We maybe could stand a tweak to the streaky RNG, but only if it is not drastic. This may not be easy to accomplish.

I don't think that the RNG is streaky. It is just it has too much variance.

Combat system probably works as follows. Chahces for winning a single round of combat are A/(A+D)*100%, where A is the attacker's A value and D is the defender's D value. For a tank versus fortified spear in a city that would be 16/(16+4)=80% (I could be wrong about the way defensive boni are applied). So the game draws a random number in a range 1...100. Values 1-80 are a win for a tank, values 81-100 are a win for a spear.

The problem with this model is that extreme outcomes are just as likely as average ones (getting a RN of 1 is just as likely as drawing 100 and just as likely as drawing 50). Thus, there is too much variance around the mean.

It's like a statement "the average winter temperature in a country X is zero degrees Celsius" could potentially mean different things:
(i) on any given winter day the temperature is just as likely to be -30 as it is to be +30 as it is to be at zero.
(ii) on any given winter day the temperature is likely to be around zero, quite likely in the range -5...+5, with extreme temperature values possible, but very unlikely.

Our experience tells us that (ii) is more likely but Civ III really uses (i). It is just a property of uniform distribution that extreme outcomes are just as likely as "average" ones (like in normal distribution).

The easiest way to reduce the variance in combat is to increase the number of rounds (ie hitpoints for all units) so that the law of averages would come into play. With just three hitpoints losing against the spear is quite possible. With 30 hitpoints for both attacker/defender losing againdt the spear would be very unlikely.

Technically 30 hitpoints is probably too much. 6-10 hitpoints for combat units instead of 3-5 will go a long way towards reducing the variance in combat.

Illyrien · January 21, 2004, 12:40

Quote:

"Losing one tank isnt any sort of a problem to most peoples plans, but when you see it lost to an inferior unit you want to know wtf went wrong."

Have you ever seem Blackhawk Down?

I cant imagine in any way, an ancient style spearman unit fighting against tanks.... I look at it in this way. A spearman unit, in modern time is a really badly equiped, badly trained unit... but this unit may still somehow have gotten its hands on modern anti-tank weapons.

Just look at the world today... how many nations around the globe have the technology to produce modern weapons? Then have a look at how many nations use modern weapons! Just because you dont have the tech doesnt mean you havent gotten the weapons. And that is why, to me, a spearman killing a tank makes sence (as long as it dont happen everytime)

WackenOpenAir · January 21, 2004, 12:43

civ not a war game?

then why are far most of the things you can build military units?

then why can you win the game by defeating your enemies?

in civ2, defeating your enemies was the normal way to win the game, in civ3 they added more ways. Those are additions. Civ still is a war game.

its called a strategy game. Strategy as in strategy of war.

Most of all however, civilisation is a game that represents human history. Unfortunately, war is a HUGE part of human history (and present and future)

Dunno what people are even trying to say or achieve with the statement that siv is not a wargame, but it is the biggest bullshit i have yet found on these forums.

WackenOpenAir · January 21, 2004, 12:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Illyrien

Have you ever seem Blackhawk Down?

I cant imagine in any way, an ancient style spearman unit fighting against tanks.... I look at it in this way. A spearman unit, in modern time is a really badly equiped, badly trained unit... but this unit may still somehow have gotten its hands on modern anti-tank weapons.

Just look at the world today... how many nations around the globe have the technology to produce modern weapons? Then have a look at how many nations use modern weapons! Just because you dont have the tech doesnt mean you havent gotten the weapons. And that is why, to me, a spearman killing a tank makes sence (as long as it dont happen everytime)

you can simply compare it with iraq where a bunch of desert rats have taken several US helicopers out of the air already.

David Murray · January 21, 2004, 12:51

I still remember from Civ2 what happened when you attacked ground units with air units. It was just like normal combat, mostly, where you could get the ridiculous situation of a rifleman destroying a fighter. Wow, long range WWII rifles eh.

Civ3 is a massive improvement in almost every way over Civ2, which tends to make up for any slight shortcomings in combat situations. That said by far the thing in Civ3 that makes me shout out loud and swear the most is bad combat results. Of course I'm always very pleased when the AI gets the short end of the stick - as I'm sure we all are