Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[CyberGnu]

GP:

1) Thanks! Soon to be Dr. CyberGnu!

2) Actually, it's not that I so much worry over loosing to the warrior... It's that I can use the same strategy to the same effect. Look, you know how much people complained about ICS in civ2, right? Well, I feel the same way about the combat system, cause it is set up so that the Human can exploit the AI way to easy in the early age....

3) Thank you, again

4) I see what you mean... Hmm, the only model I've liked that was still quite simple was the Panzer General model, with fortification bonuses and such. I don't know if that would be too much for the AI... But considering that I played PG on an old 486 33MHz it shouldn't be that demanding...

I also see what you mean about more chance. True, having firepower/hitpoints from civ 2 does smooth out the bell curve... Which means the percentage solution might work instead... Cause I don't have a problem with a tank killing a mech. inf. unit one turn, and then the next die while attacking a tank... Quite the contrary.

It's when the Jedi knights kill my tanks I get mad...

[Venger]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants

Damn it man! It's not real. It's not even what it says it is. It's a clever name with a clever graphic so that you'll buy the game.

It REPRESENTS something. What's the point in calling the technology plastics, it's not real plastic. Why build the Pyramids, which aren't the real Pyramids just a placeholder for a multicity granary, which isn't a granary building just a placeholder for a number of units of food, which isn't really food just a number based on products of land, which isn't land just a placeholder that is worked by citizens, that aren't real citizens just a numeric value for your civilization, which isn't really a civilization just an arbitrary sum of a number of integers in a computer program.

Is that what you get from playing this game?

Call it whatever you want, a dragon, a unicorn, a spaceman from Mars.

You had might as well. Myself, I bought a game called Civilization that was to include units from this planet in some recognizable form.

They just give it a name so that it has some commercial and historical appeal.

There is no historical appeal for a tank unit that loses to swordsmen.

The unit isn't any more a tank than the boot in monopoly is a land owner. When you build a muskeeter think or it as a 4-4-1, or whatever, and not real life unit that is reflective of history. Its a mathematical representation of nothing that is, or ever will be, real.

Listen you patronizing jerkweed, I've already tired of your nonsense halfway through the post. If this is all you have to offer to the thread, unplug your keyboard and save us all the effort.
Nobody has made the mistake that thinking there are little tiny people in our computers. We play a game that purports itself to be historical (for you people who think it's not, look at the fuçking box) but presents us with perplexing illogical occurances that don't need to be there and reduce our pleasure of the game.

Set it up in a scenario and run some tests to let us know your results, otherwise your application of reality to a game futile.

You've clearly got nothing to offer but your overpowering ignorance. Please go enjoy a game of Candyland, if you can get over the fact that it's not candy, just pictures of candy...

Venger

[CyberGnu]

WhiteElefant, I don't think you've understood the appeal this game has to most people... It's not just a numbers game. (In fact, that was one of CTP's main problems... Activision never understood that. CTP played more like an Excel spreadsheet than a game).

I want to build my fledgling civilization from a pathetic tribe to an industrial giant... I want to build the Hanging Gardens and get my little movie-reward when I do. I want to see my panzers crush the French. But I certainly don't want to develop my 3/32/54/81/3-9-2/RM(4:4:1)/6 with improvements just so I can send my 28/16/3 units forward... Man, that would be dull...

[Monoriu]

Venger, sorry but I dislike debating with someone who breaks up a post into various individual small parts and then attack the individual parts.

We judge whether a game design is good based on whether it provides enjoyment or not. What we are really talking about, is the ratio of power between modern units and ancient/middle age units. When you think about it, firepower and hit points can be translated into attack and defence values to produce the same results. It boils down to some people are saying that modern units are not powerful enough vs their older versions.

Do you want to play a game where you can work hard to produce several modern units, march them into AI territory, and expect to slaughter everyone and everything in the process? Or

Do you want to play a game where you can work hard to produce modern units which have a combat advantage, but still have to be carefully coordinated, used in the right circumstances, and used in sufficient quantity, or else they will still lose?

I choose the second one, and civ 3 provides that, so I like the game.

In the games that I have played, I seldom face ancient units. If you are constantly worrying about ancient AI units defeating your modern units, shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level? If you are already playing on Diety and your biggest concern is the AI spearmen defeating your tanks, then, congratulations on a job well done.

And think about it, what if the AI is more advanced than you are? Do you want to direct an army of musketmen in Diety level and still have a decent (though small) chance of fighting and winning against the AI hordes of riflemen? Or are you saying that, ok, if the AI beats me in the scientific race, then I may as well restart? I myself would like to try defeating a more advanced army with inferior units, and I don't want that challenge gone.

Now, I am going back to enjoy the game......

[Setsuna]

Venger:

Well played! You have outmaneuvered your opposition at every turn.

Although I have.. absolutely no authority to do so, I declare Venger the winner.

Monoriu: Breaking a post up and addressing each individual point is a time honored Forum/BBS/Newsgroup method. I suggest you get used to it.

Look, the bottom line is, if you fall behind in Science, you deserve to lose as much as if you had fell behind in any other area. Why is it okay to be lax in technology but not other areas, hmm?

[orc4hire]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Damn it man! It's not real. It's not even what it says it is. It's a clever name with a clever graphic so that you'll buy the game. What it really is is a ambiguous mathematical equation that has an attack and defense value, whether it's a tank or not. It's a 6-3-2, or whatever, not a cavalry unit. It's a 10-6-4 not a tank! Call it whatever you want, a dragon, a unicorn, a spaceman from Mars. They just give it a name so that it has some commercial and historical appeal. The unit isn't any more a tank than the boot in monopoly is a land owner. When you build a muskeeter think or it as a 4-4-1, or whatever, and not real life unit that is reflective of history. Its a mathematical representation of nothing that is, or ever will be, real. It's a number pluged into a game in order to make sense. Lord knows the king in chess isn't really representative of a king. The same logic applies here as well. Forget reality. Forget all you know about reality and think of it in terms of the game. If a 6-3-2 attacks and loses 50% of the time to a 1-1-1 then there is probably a problem. Set it up in a scenario and run some tests to let us know your results, otherwise your application of reality to a game futile.

Yeah, at some point in every discussion of a game's flaws/bugs/bad design decisions/whatever the "don't think about it" argument seems to come up.

The problem with that argument is that I don't _want_ to close my eyes and try to think about something else....

If the labels don't make sense in the context of the numbers attached to them, I suppose some people would prefer to avert their eyes from the labels, but a significant number of people would prefer that the labels _do_ make sense in the contxt of the numbers. It isn't really that hard.

And it isn't a matter of wanting to win all the time, as some have said. It more a matter of wanting to get through a game without having to shout, "What?!?!? What kind of happy horsesh!t was _that_?!" Win or lose, I prefer a game model that gives reasonable results over one that doesn't.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Venger, sorry but I dislike debating with someone who breaks up a post into various individual small parts and then attack the individual parts.

We judge whether a game design is good based on whether it provides enjoyment or not. What we are really talking about, is the ratio of power between modern units and ancient/middle age units. When you think about it, firepower and hit points can be translated into attack and defence values to produce the same results. It boils down to some people are saying that modern units are not powerful enough vs their older versions.

Do you want to play a game where you can work hard to produce several modern units, march them into AI territory, and expect to slaughter everyone and everything in the process? Or

Do you want to play a game where you can work hard to produce modern units which have a combat advantage, but still have to be carefully coordinated, used in the right circumstances, and used in sufficient quantity, or else they will still lose?

I choose the second one, and civ 3 provides that, so I like the game.

In the games that I have played, I seldom face ancient units. If you are constantly worrying about ancient AI units defeating your modern units, shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level? If you are already playing on Diety and your biggest concern is the AI spearmen defeating your tanks, then, congratulations on a job well done.

And think about it, what if the AI is more advanced than you are? Do you want to direct an army of musketmen in Diety level and still have a decent (though small) chance of fighting and winning against the AI hordes of riflemen? Or are you saying that, ok, if the AI beats me in the scientific race, then I may as well restart? I myself would like to try defeating a more advanced army with inferior units, and I don't want that challenge gone.

Now, I am going back to enjoy the game......

Your posts are very well written. I like the way you frame the issues.

Please feel free to stop by the Off Topic Forum. (This link only works for Moniriou.) Don't worry if some threads are silly, as here. There are some good ones too, and your type of posts are very welcome.

[Monoriu]

Thanks for the compliment and the invitation, GP.

[Soapyfrog]

Well, I for one am ok with the way combat works. You have so examine it on the macro scale...

In my last war pitting my tanks and infantry against his cavalry, elephants, musketmen and spearmen my rate of loss sat around 5% or so for the whole campaign... that is, out of my army of 30 or so units, I lost 2.

If you're careful, and withdraw your wounded units to heal, then you will be overwhelmingly successful with only a narrow technological edge.

The fact that obsolete units sometimes beat advanced units (and I have only seen this when a) the advanced unit is heavily damaged already or b) when the obsolete unit is fortified in mountain hex or city) is not troubling to me becuase it is rare enough to ALMOST ignore completely.

Just don't get complacent. Heavily garrison cities at risk, and bring a nice large, well organized force to attack the enemy.

Bah. This is mountains out of molehills.

[Bolleck70]

Originally posted by F18fett

My cavalry were fortified though. That provides a 50% increase. 50% of 3 is 1.5 so my total defense was 4.5, a little larger than the longbowman's attack. However, shouldn't it be taken into account that my men were fighting from within a city, and with more powerful weapons?

Where have you seen this numbers? I havent seen any fortification bonus in the manual at all!
Perhaps a change from civ2-civ3?

[Monoriu]

2 more things to add:

1. I just captured a Persian city in the industrial age. It was garrisoned by 2 infantry, 2 cavalry, and 1 immortal. I attacked with 10+ infantry units, eventually they killed all the Persian units and captured the city. I suffered 1 casualty, and that was at the hands of the immortals. Reason? My laziness and arrogance.

I bombarded the city with 20+ artillery before attacking. Pop. was down to 1, and all Persian units were at 1 strength. Well, all except the immortal. I was lazy to move a few more artillery to bombard the ancient unit, and I lost an infantry unit in an otherwise perfect victory.

Modern units losing to ancient units can usually be prevented, and its often due to our laziness and arrogance.

2. Why are we even debating this? If you don't like the way it works, just increase the attack and defence ratings of modern units by whatever amount as you please in the editor.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by mmike87
Dexter,
"Again, I ask you folks to be aware of defensive bonsuses in battle. And if one who likes to play the "reality" card, let me remind you that rag tag warriors hiding in rugged mountains can destroy entire Tank divisions as the Russians experienced in Afghanistan in the 1980s. So yes, defensive bonsuses are realistic. "

Not a fair comparison. Our freedom fighting friends were armed with heavy machine guns, anti-tank mines, and shoulder-launched anti-tank rockets. Not to mention Stinger missiles.

Actually, they didn't get the Stinger missiles until later. Before that, they were fighting on their own, scavenging equipment from Soviet soldiers who no longer needed it.

Then again, I'm the smartass who presumes that the "spearman" unit that defeated your tanks managed to acquire the appropriate weapons via some arms dealers.

[zapperio]

Um, a quick question to the people that demand "realism" from the combat. Ok, hmm...Why isn't there a cry for realism and historical accuracy in other areas as well?
City building? Research? Resource gathering? Travelling across goemetrically squared terrain? etc. ...gameplay mechanics you say? So those are important then?

Is it so hard, then, to answer the question whether or not it serves the gameplay to have a slight chance against more advanced units? Specially when those units are fuelled by oil that you don't have access to?

Not realistic? Neither is anything else in this game. Someone figured that realism doesn't necessary equal fun. Damn straight, I say, give them a medal.

Zap

[CyberGnu]

Zapperio, mainly because it is jarring in a way that the other things aren't. We are fine with abstracting research to a function of how much funding you throw at it. Geometrically squared terrain is a representation of the real thing...

But a regiment of knights killing a tank force? There is no way we can justify that... It goes against all our knowledge of history and sense of logic. and for me, that kills the mood of the game.

[Mister Hand]

I see a lot of arguments in the forum that combat is "broken." Frankly, I just don't see it myself. Have I had situations where a weaker unit beat a stronger unit? Sure...but these are the exceptions, not the norm. Most of the examples out there of "broken" combat are:

1) Leaving out crutial details. "OUTRAGE! A spearman just beat my tank!" (poster neglects to tell us that said tank was a regular unit with 1 hp left, spearman was a fully-healed elite unit fortified in a metropolis behind a river, and that the tank managed to reduce the spearman to 1 hp before finally perishing. The more details the better...this includes any tweaks you might have made to the ruleset and whatnot.

2) Exaggerating completely. "A conscript warrior just took out my stack of 20 elite mech infantry!"

What would be helpful is if those who truly think combat is broken start posting savegames instead of anecdotes. Thanks to the saved random seed, the rest of us can load those games outselves and see what's really going on.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

But a regiment of knights killing a tank force? There is no way we can justify that... It goes against all our knowledge of history and sense of logic. and for me, that kills the mood of the game.

Civ3 doesn't make any claim to represent accurate history. It is however a game that abides by rules of game mechanics that are designed to make the game experience *fun*. Not accurate, historically or otherwise, not even logical, but fun.

On the other hand, if they could marry the concept of 'real world combat' and this nifty new resource system and make it work then I think what would be important, as regards the fun-factor, is not whether it depicts 'realistic' combat but that it works. In other words, and this probably makes me a non-grognard, I think whether a game is fun is more important than whether it is realistic.

And in Civ3, as is, if a tank could roll over a knight *every time*, *guaranteed*, it would, kinda, kill the fun factor for the rest of us.

Zap

[dexters]

Originally posted by zapperio


Civ3 doesn't make any claim to represent accurate history. It is however a game that abides by rules of game mechanics that are designed to make the game experience *fun*. Not accurate, historically or otherwise, not even logical, but fun.

Zap

Thank god. Zap, you and a few others on this thread are the only ones that see the big picture.

There is such a tendency to play the "reality" card. Accusing the combat system of this and that because it isn't realistic. what the people really want is to steamroll over their opponents ala Civ 2. God, I remember those boring wars. In Civ 3, war is an EVENT. In Civ 2, it was a joke, especially if you're ahead in technology.

Even if it isn't realistic (and that's arguable) Civ 3's war model is far more fun, and fun is what matters.

[Steve Clark]

zap: Those that are not playing the game anymore (read: CyberGnu) don't want to have fun, they just want to get them to fix things that may or may not be broken so others can have more things to complain about.

Again, read the stuff in Civ3-Stories or those at civfanatics. How can you deny the fact that perhaps alot of civers are having fun playing Civ3 (just like alot of us had fun playing Civ2 despite its problems)? I look forward to a patch or two (as long as they don't fix things that are not broken) and of course, to the scenarios. But in the meantime, I'm going to have some challenging fun and not sweat the small details.

[WhiteElephants]

Listen you patronizing jerkweed, I've already tired of your nonsense halfway through the post. If this is all you have to offer to the thread, unplug your keyboard and save us all the effort.

Well, I offered you my bit of sanity among your long winded bellows for realism in a game that is clearly unrealistic. Ceratainly we could argue that soldiers wearing boots gave them a tactical edge in combat and should be represented in the numbers for the sake of realism, but wouldn't that be going too far?

Monoriu, summed it up far more eloquently than I so I'll refer you back to those posts.

What I'm seeing is that you are visually dismayed that a tank unit would lose to a knight and that it really has little to do with the mechanics of the game. I think that what would satisfy you most would be a graphical change of units as one civilization progresses into the next era. For example, would satisfy your sense of reality if that spearman was holding a rifle, or musket, as the eras changed even though his stats did not?

[Kc7mxo]

And in Civ3, as is, if a tank could roll over a knight *every time*, *guaranteed*, it would, kinda, kill the fun factor for the rest of us.

Um. Actually the fact that its not guaranteed does sort of bother me. Tanks do not lose to knights. There should still be a possibility of it happening, and in fact, it did happen in civ2. But it was so rare that it was not a problem. In civ 3 its so common, its become frustrating.

And I'm sick to death of people rationalizing bad combat design. He is a knight. he's wearing armor. and he has a sword and shield. THATS WHAT HE IS. HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY GUNS. if you like it the way it its, that fine. but don't just say to people who have real gripes that we should just imagine that the unit is NOT WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE.

[Monoriu]

"In civ 3 its so common, its become frustrating. "


Sorry, it seldom happens to me, and I have played 2 full games, one on Monarch and one on Regent. Once in a while, yes. But its no where near "common".

One more time:

If you bombard a spearman to 1 health sitting on a grassland tile then attack with a full strength veteran modern tank unit and you still lose more than 5% of the time, then come back and complain. I'll be with you and I'll throw the game away until they fix it.

If you attack a veteran full strength musketman sitting in a large city with a 2 health tank unit without bothering to bombard the city, and lose, I'd say its working fine.

If you garrison a city with a 1 health tank unit and expect it to hold against 3 veteran full strength swordmen units and it doesn't, I'd say its working fine.

If you leave your wounded 2 health infantry unit out in open grassland, and then 3 full strength longbowmen came and destroyed your infantry, I'd say its working fine.

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Monoriu
"In civ 3 its so common, its become frustrating. "


Sorry, it seldom happens to me, and I have played 2 full games, one on Monarch and one on Regent. Once in a while, yes. But its no where near "common".

One more time:

If you bombard a spearman to 1 health sitting on a grassland tile then attack with a full strength veteran modern tank unit and you still lose more than 5% of the time, then come back and complain. I'll be with you and I'll throw the game away until they fix it.

If you attack a veteran full strength musketman sitting in a large city with a 2 health tank unit without bothering to bombard the city, and lose, I'd say its working fine.

If you garrison a city with a 1 health tank unit and expect it to hold against 3 veteran full strength swordmen units and it doesn't, I'd say its working fine.

If you leave your wounded 2 health infantry unit out in open grassland, and then 3 full strength longbowmen came and destroyed your infantry, I'd say its working fine.

You're exaggerating the situations in which people lose. Give them a little credit.

And I dare say that you are wrong for all of your examples. If both civilizations were scientific equals (And both had the accompanying units), you would be absolutely correct. Making any of those mistakes under such circumstances would be a tactical blunder.

But the exorbitant difference in equipment would mean the fatigued units should still be more than a match for their lesser foes. As such you would have significant breathing room to pull off such a stunt.

Look, if an AI civ is that far behind, they deserve to lose, and lose fast. Either by your hand or another advanced civ. That's a reflection on actual civilization. The weak, inept nations are absorbed by the powerful.

If the AI/Player has little land and few cities, is it not done for?
If the AI/Player has no unique offerings and artistic contributions and consequently culture, is it going to avoid absorption?
If the AI/Player has no charismatic sense and infuriates its neighbors, how is it going to avoid getting hit by the metaphorical blackjack of oblivion?
If the AI/Player neglects its infrastructure and economy, is it really going to be able to compete with the other civilizations?

Why then should it be able to ignore science and still have equal footing?

[Monoriu]

"You're exaggerating the situations in which people lose. Give them a little credit. "



Good. A request: those who are saying that their modern units are consistently losing to ancient units, can you describe the situations that you have lost with more detail, like terrain, health, quantity, exact type of unit, who is attacking etc? Up to this point, I still haven't seen people with concrete examples like:


"I bombarded a musketman sitting on a grassland to 1 health, charged with 2 full strength veteran tank units and both of them were destroyed/forced to retreat".


The reason why I put up those examples, is because the starter of this thread complained because he fortified a city with 1-2 cavalry units and expected them to hold against an assult (sorry for being so blunt).

[Venger]

Originally posted by zapperio


Civ3 doesn't make any claim to represent accurate history.

Really? You may want to check the game box, because that word is plastered all over it...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


Well, I offered you my bit of sanity among your long winded bellows for realism in a game that is clearly unrealistic.

You offered some obsequious rationalizing that ignores bad unit conceptualization and gameplay testing.

Ceratainly we could argue that soldiers wearing boots gave them a tactical edge in combat and should be represented in the numbers for the sake of realism, but wouldn't that be going too far?

I don't know, you have to have a rubber resource to build marines. Is that for their boots? Or condoms?

What I'm seeing is that you are visually dismayed that a tank unit would lose to a knight and that it really has little to do with the mechanics of the game.

So what DOES it have to do with then?

I think that what would satisfy you most would be a graphical change of units as one civilization progresses into the next era. For example, would satisfy your sense of reality if that spearman was holding a rifle, or musket, as the eras changed even though his stats did not?

No, that's what unit upgrading is for.

You still don't get it - a unit representative of 100AD technology shouldn't fend off an attack by musketeers. You cannot justify in any way, shape, or form, the combat results you get from this. Note that much of the problem lies in the early infantry units - tanks frankly are fine by me (at least what I read of them - 10 defense) The problems lie in combat results that seem a little shaky and in unit values that make no sense (musketmen, privateer)...

Bring back firepower!

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu

2. Why are we even debating this? If you don't like the way it works, just increase the attack and defence ratings of modern units by whatever amount as you please in the editor.

If I wanted to have to make the game myself I'd have asked to join the Firaxis team and get paid, as opposed to paying to be their gameplay tester.

Venger

[Venger]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Monoriu

The reason why I put up those examples, is because the starter of this thread complained because he fortified a city with 1-2 cavalry units and expected them to hold against an assult (sorry for being so blunt).

An assualt from a LONGBOWMEN. That's broken gameplay buddy. Add firepower to the mix and it never happens (only happens one time in seven actually - don't fix it and it happens nearly half the time) and if it's in a city with a 100% bonus, it happens only about 7% of the time.

Venger

[LaRusso]

okay return it since it is 'broken'

i played 4 games and the odd results vere VERY rare, both for and against. and boy was it fun when my hoplite managed to hold off some tough cavalry assault. and yes, it was fun when their rifleman cracked my tank. i would not like it otherwise.

cybergny: PG was great but turning civ3 combat into PG would be a death sentence and would really 'break' the game.

all combat needs is elimination of air superiority bug and precision bombing and B key hold bugs

[Monoriu]

quote:

Originally posted by Monoriu

[quote]The reason why I put up those examples, is because the starter of this thread complained because he fortified a city with 1-2 cavalry units and expected them to hold against an assult (sorry for being so blunt).



An assualt from a LONGBOWMEN. That's broken gameplay buddy. Add firepower to the mix and it never happens (only happens one time in seven actually - don't fix it and it happens nearly half the time) and if it's in a city with a 100% bonus, it happens only about 7% of the time.

Venger



Cavalry is 6-3-3. Not 100% sure on the longbowmen but out of my head its 4-1-1 or 3-1-1. 3 vs 3 the cav. don't have a lot of advantage. If the cav. always win in this situation then its broken gameplay.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu
quote:

Cavalry is 6-3-3. Not 100% sure on the longbowmen but out of my head its 4-1-1 or 3-1-1. 3 vs 3 the cav. don't have a lot of advantage. If the cav. always win in this situation then its broken gameplay.

If a unit that requires two strategic resources and hundreds of years of research loses mano a mano to archers it's not properly configured.

Firepower. I'll say it over and over. It is the fix.

Venger