How the battles work in Civ III?

Whunder · September 19, 2001, 05:35

Hi !
How the battles work in Civ III?
As CTP? Or as the past Civ?
Thanx a lot.

Whunder.

Stromprophet · September 19, 2001, 21:21

Same way as before. Most will be single on single combat.

As any oldschool civ player knows, CTP & CTP2 royally screwed up the logistics of batteles with their army of 9 crap. You had 2 phalanxes and 2 catapults beating A group a fusion tanks.

However you will be able to group 3 units with a leader. A leader is provided to your civ at random times. Militaristic civs have a greater chance of producing these leaders.

These leader pass qualities on to their troops, who can then pass those qualities to other generations. Also a leader cna help direct the building and rush a wonder to completion.

After you get a war academy wonder you can then have 4 units in an army at a time.

Whunder · September 20, 2001, 01:40

Thanx for the answare Stromp. !

I'm sorry for the battlefield. Would be great if the would improve it !
But, why so few units in an army??? I can't understand.

Stromprophet · September 20, 2001, 13:45

The reason I posted about CTP style armies. With 9 units often unpredictible martice applications came up in combat giving you annoying results. As In I have 6 fusion tanks getting beat by some phalanxes running around with some catapults.

It's best to keep it simple. But they did decide to expand it beyound unit on unit combat.

Oh, you also can only have 1 army per 4 cities. When I say that I mean, you can have as many units as you can support, but only 1 grouped army(of units) per 4 cities.

General Ludd · September 20, 2001, 14:30

besides, it's no fun when you just stomp around the map with a single stack of units.

faded glory · September 20, 2001, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Stromprophet
The reason I posted about CTP style armies. With 9 units often unpredictible martice applications came up in combat giving you annoying results. As In I have 6 fusion tanks getting beat by some phalanxes running around with some catapults.

It's best to keep it simple. But they did decide to expand it beyound unit on unit combat.

Oh, you also can only have 1 army per 4 cities. When I say that I mean, you can have as many units as you can support, but only 1 grouped army(of units) per 4 cities.

You are in the minority. Most think the stack on stack is unrealistic and annoying. If anything, the combat in CTP was alot better. Civ2 was lame. charging a tank into a lone city! Then chargin 9 more behind him. I think its ridiculous.

ancient · September 20, 2001, 17:39

nah i think ctp players are in the minority, that game was crap,,

civ2 combat isnt fun but its reliable..

tanks dont be beat by phalanx...

faded glory · September 20, 2001, 17:48

That doesnt happen in CTP.....1 tank vs 4 phalanx the tank will win. Unlike Civ2......

CTP stack combat is way better than Civ2 Unit vs Unit. You end up wasting so many good units in Civ2.

Inverse Icarus · September 20, 2001, 18:01

i just got CTP from eb at my local mall, a used copy for $5

, and i'm having trouble adjusting to it... i really dont like not having a city screen ala civ2.

faded glory · September 20, 2001, 18:09

Yea that sucks but you can still place workers and things...

but the combat is way better than Civ2

Lung · September 20, 2001, 18:09

You're absolutely right, Faded Glory. CTP rewards armies, and even more so if it is diversified. It certainly added depth to warfare when you have to consider what units you put together to fight as an army. In Civ2, your only decision is which units you want to sacrifice in order to reduce the strength of that lone phalanx on a mountain!

In CTP you can build twice as many pikemen, but the muskies get a free shot before having to risk death. Also, you're torn between having large stacks for defence, or smaller stacks to defend larger areas, and single units for scouting and pillaging. The consequent strategic options are multiplied considerably by this.

Sure, the stacking system had it's flaws, but Civ2 was nothing but flawed! The biggest criticism of CTP warfare was that you couldn't manipulate the individual units in battle. Still, it's fun to just sit back and watch them fight to the death

Sharpe · September 20, 2001, 18:25

While CTP has some good features, and the stacking was a good idea.... but the results of the battles in CTP are frequently ridiculous.

Two examples from a recent game:

1) 6 fusion tanks and a storm marine vs a city without walls guarded by 1 machine gunner, 2 pikemen, and 1 legion. I won, but lost 3 tanks and the marine.

2) 1 machine gunner, 1 pikeman, 1 warrior and an archer against a barbarian warrior unfortified on a hill. I won, but only with a 90% damaged archer left.

Civ 1 was bad enough with its phalanx defeated armor problems, but CTP is even worse!

faded glory · September 20, 2001, 18:30

Me thinks you are incorrect about the Fusion tanks. Its illogical if not impossible. The city would have to be on a mountain to lose that much.

9 tanks vs 9 machine gunners inside entrenched city. tanks will win with about 5 losses

Blake · September 20, 2001, 19:18

Double post ruthlessly eliminated.

Blake · September 20, 2001, 19:19

Personally I liked stacked units, the main reason being it's much quicker to move units around (It takes 1/6th the mouse clicks, and redrawing time to move 1 stack of 6 compared to 6 stacks of 1). Have mercy on those of us with limited time and slow computers.

The main complaint with CTP combat seems to be the poorly thought out combat stats, rather than the combat model itself.

Besides, in the example of pikemen beating tanks, well prehaps they looked at there pikes, considered what they were up against, thought f*ck this, and wandered down to the army surplus store to buy some bazookas. (and remember, they are the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren of the original pikemen, so the pikes would have all broken and been replaced by modern weapons, anyway)

The CTP2 combat works out fairly well, especially if your using a decent mod, which scales unit stats in some sensible way. While it is a little odd for a city with a wall and nothing but a dozen siege catapults beating off a well balanced attack force - I guess they are fortified on the walls, and the walls presumably have some garrisons to slow down the invading infantry.
In CTP2 MedMod, an army in a well defended city (walls, castle) would have about even odds of beating off an attack one age more advanced. And all the old defenses obsolete (so city walls are no longer a factor by the time musketeers are around). Out of the box CTP2 may be a load of crap, but with proper balancing and a bit of thoughtfull design it works superbly.
The most usfull addition to the CTP2 combat model would be the concept of range - so armies had to advance under the fire of longer range weapons for a number of rounds before they could attack. (so, for example riflemen may get one round to fire at musketeers with no return fire, and swordmen would never even get close to tanks, indeed it would be foolish to use the CTP model, when some really cool stuff could be done with range, combat speed, dynamic flanking, battle orders etc etc...)

Personally I think the PIA factor of moving hoardes of units more than justifies stacks, and the improved realism is all good too.

Lawrence of Arabia · September 20, 2001, 19:21

Quote:

Oh, you also can only have 1 army per 4 cities.

This is a bad idea. It creates an atmosphere of ICS. IT should be 1 army for every 4 cities of size 8

Stromprophet · September 20, 2001, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory

You are in the minority. Most think the stack on stack is unrealistic and annoying. If anything, the combat in CTP was alot better. Civ2 was lame. charging a tank into a lone city! Then chargin 9 more behind him. I think its ridiculous.

Hehe. CTP was made by amatuers in a garage.

Armies are grouped in reality. But still, if you want it so real go buy a real-time game or something.

That wasn't the worst part of CTP. It was the gameplay itself. They could not have possibly messed the game up more and limited replay ability.

faded glory · September 20, 2001, 19:58

I have an excellent idea

Civ3 should have Age points. The older the unit- the less effective it is. So a warrior would only have a sliver of health left after being around 500 or some odd years

Thats brilliant! What a way to real life enforce attrition!

Stromprophet · September 20, 2001, 19:59

Quote:

Originally posted by faded glory
That doesnt happen in CTP.....1 tank vs 4 phalanx the tank will win. Unlike Civ2......

CTP stack combat is way better than Civ2 Unit vs Unit. You end up wasting so many good units in Civ2.

You lie. Others will back me up. As I already saw posts confirming it.

It doesn't matter how good the combat is. The game SUCKS. It will never change that Activision ripped off a noble idea and made it into crap. They haven't achieved more than marginal success with both games, and the only reason they did is because they suckered long time civ fans.

Sava · September 20, 2001, 20:00

CTP battles are SOOOOO Much better!!!

What kind of mushrooms did you eat when you saw phalanx beating Fusion Tanks? I just took opened up CTP and set up a 9 phalanx vs 1 tank and the tank won. It just took a long time.

Single unit combat is so weak!!!

Stromprophet · September 20, 2001, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Lung
but Civ2 was nothing but flawed!

Hmmmmmmmm. I'm sure it was.

In gameplay Civ 2 is vastly better than CTP and CTP2. Those games are crap. I played them both extensively and they stink. They're horrible.

The replay ability of those games was non existent. I would go for weeks without touching them. Horrid, depressing, and crappy scenarios that weren't even designed right made the experience that much worse.

Stromprophet · September 20, 2001, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
CTP battles are SOOOOO Much better!!!

What kind of mushrooms did you eat when you saw phalanx beating Fusion Tanks? I just took opened up CTP and set up a 9 phalanx vs 1 tank and the tank won. It just took a long time.

Single unit combat is so weak!!!

Sharpe sounds like he has the incedents recorded. So I would believe him, and I've seen similar results before.

Sava · September 20, 2001, 20:30

sorry it was CTP 2.... I'm sure CTP had bugs that were fixed...

Civ serious is still better... if only Civ had CTP like battles...

Blake · September 20, 2001, 21:49

Quote:

[SIZE=1]
Civ serious is still better... if only Civ had CTP like battles...

I wouldn't mind the national manager either.

Stromprophet · September 20, 2001, 22:49

That's in. You have continental governer, empire governers, and city governers.

Also the governer does learn, you can tell him what never to produce, and they also can suggest things in cities based on the patterns you exibit thru your rule.

Blake · September 21, 2001, 00:14

I really dont care for "smart" govoners, because they aren't. A national manager requires no AI, it's simply a way to manage build queues for all or part of your empire.

That said hopefully there is going to be smart advisers,
like tradeguy reccomends

"build more marketplaces!"
So I tell him do it now!

And then he goes away, figures out which cities would benefit most from a marketplace

, and inserts marketplaces in the queues

.

What I dont want is Artificial Idiots doing things which I didn't give them explicit permission to do.

If the govoners must be smart, then I would like a very bloody execution scene for the govoner which builds a coastal fortress for a duckpond base.

Unfortunately this would probably put all govoners off building coastal fortresses

, see what I mean by they cant be smart?

But anyway, I'm fairly hopefull something will be worked out which wont result in any untimely deaths.

Steve Clark · September 21, 2001, 14:26

Governors (or any other auto-AI crap) are for gamers who are too [fill in the blank] to play the game.

faded glory · September 21, 2001, 14:48

Civ2 was dumb in every way. Sometimes I just felt like I was moving units around cause they needed to be moved.

CTP doesnt gimme that feeling..... I honestly wish Firaxis would have made combat stacking

------------------------

Quote:

Civ2 was nothing but Flawed!

Amen brother Lungster, Testify !!

jsw363 · September 21, 2001, 15:47

Dan commented in another thread that movement points will have an impact on combat. Increased movement points will allow a unit to withdraw from combat before it is destroyed (if it's losing). Similar to SMAC.

Blake · September 21, 2001, 16:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Governors (or any other auto-AI crap) are for gamers who are too [fill in the blank] to play the game.

Unfortunately I must agree. Then again cause and effect can be a bit blurred, is the player using govoners because he is crap, or is his playing crap because he is using crappy govoners?

SMAC had some of the worst AI helpers I've ever seen, they weren't actually intrinsically bad. If it was possible to program them I would have used them. The key example being automated formers, in SMAC you can use a strategy where forest is the only terraforming used, so effectively your formers become "forest planters" (and also leveling rocky tiles so forests can be planted).

There was automated former settings, so you could prevent them doing things you didn't want them to. Unfortunately the only forest option was "Don't plant forest" and there was no "Don't build mines" or "Don't cultivate farms". So there was no way a former could be configured to only plant forest. (hence a week or two of my life has been spent moving formers and hitting Ctrl-F for forest.... yes, I played way too much SMAC)

One of the major failings of govoners is they lacked global scope, they strictly worked on the basis "Now what can I do to improve this base" rather than "what can I do to improve the empire", the first govoner sees a base producing 2 commerce and thinks "ah-hah! I'll build a marketplace to improve commerce", however a global govoner realizes it's much better to build a marketplace in the base producing 20 commerce (the first increases empire-wide income by 1, the later 10), and perhaps a military unit in the smaller base. Isolated govoners are at best haphazard with there build orders, in order for Civ3's to work they will need to be able to collaborate and maximize global growth.

Usually govoners are considered "only for newbies", because they make newbie decisions

, their "thinking" isn't on the same level as a veteran player, however this need not be the case, and I have faith in Firaxis. Ofcourse all I really want is fully configurable automations which make no allusion to intelligence.