Technological Superiority Doesn't Matter in War

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Venger


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

okay you build longbowmen, i'll build cavalry. lets have a fight and see who wins (since the game is 'broken' you can be sure that it will be your longbowmen, right?)

[Monoriu]

"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"




I disagree. The Cavalry is an OFFENSIVE unit. Its used in a hit and run mode, picking on weak units then withdraw. Using it in a city defense role is bad tactics and it should be no surprise that it losses. Expect it to win in an unintended function is wrong.

[Surgeon]

Technology aint everything. I like the combat system.

[Be Quicker]

Using cavalry for defending is indeed stupid. It is also stupid in CivII. It was also stupid throughout history. I agree with the people that say that in CivII it is to easy for modern units to win. I also belief those who say that throughout their games they have NOT been frustrated by the design decision made in CivIII for the combat.

[Grim Legacy]

There is also still the old tricks played in Civ2 already:

1) The last defender is still much stronger than the rest.

2) The obsolete units have a distinct bonus over the newer units. I have had several battles with my best knights, which went 'painful' for me... upon a desperate bid with my rusty horsemen (HALF the attack strength of the knights) I won easily. Hmmmm at least. Likewise, your rifleman take the most damage from the 2att from the Archer, not from the 3att Musketman.

[Max Webster]

Tell that to my neighbours, they are running around with swordsman, knights, bowman and I'm kicking their butt with artillery, cavalry, infantry. I get the odd time where one of their units gets lucky in battle but there are times when i get lucky with an older unit as well. Evens out for me.

[Wrong_shui]

I agree with the ppl who say combat isnt broken.

Its well documented that the japanese samurai had an anti-tank sword.

You ppl should read up on your history.

[Evan]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo


Um. Actually the fact that its not guaranteed does sort of bother me. Tanks do not lose to knights. ... 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.

Sheesh. You lack both imagination and a grasp of real-world combat.

The only you thing you can think of is that because the knight doesn't have a gun, a tank should never be lost when attacking.

In the Gulf War, depending on which source you want to believe, some, most or nearly all casualties were the result of friendly fire, accidents or catastrophic mechanical failure.

Heck, tanks are lost in TRAINING EXERCISES using DUMMY AMMO because of accidents and catastrophic mechanical failures in the real world. There aren't even any enemy around.

Its like you think combat takes place by having both participants meet somewhere, get positioned and start fighting after someone says "Go!".

Maybe the tank had a catastrophic mechanical failure causing a shell to explode inside when trying to fire. Maybe when chasing the knight, the misjudged a turn and ended up overturned in the ditch.

The fact that you think victory should be "guaranteed" for the sake of realism is a joke. That wouldn't be realistic - bad things happen in combat and the stronger unit is NEVER "guaranteed' a win.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Wrong_shui
I agree with the ppl who say combat isnt broken.

Its well documented that the japanese samurai had an anti-tank sword.

You ppl should read up on your history.

Oh, you mean you haven't been watching Rurouni Kenshin?

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu
I disagree. The Cavalry is an OFFENSIVE unit.

First of all, cavalry is an offensive unit due to their mobility - that's it. Frankly they should only be a point or so better than riflemen on offense if we assume superior equipment (such as Union cavalry with repeating carbines, shorter range but a lot more firepower than riflemen). Cavalry when attacking units usually will not do it on horseback...

Its used in a hit and run mode, picking on weak units then withdraw. Using it in a city defense role is bad tactics and it should be no surprise that it losses.

I wouldn't expect cavalry to hold out very well in defense against same era attack forces. But against an equal sized unit without gunpowder? I should win so often that losing becomes a talk out loud astoundment. This is the problem - the medieval to industrial age transition is not scaled properly. The change to gunpowder revolutionized freaking warfare, just not in Civ3...there is no reason my legion should defeat a cavalry unit half the time. That...is...broken...

As it is now, longbowmen (the original complaint in question) will defeat cavalry. More often than not. And you have yet to come up with a reason why this makes any sense, except to hem and haw about "it's not real" - no $hit it's not real.

Expect it to win in an unintended function is wrong.

If it's not intended to win in defense, why give it any defensive strength at all? Why not make it defense of 1, so any unit can beat it? After all, it's an offensive unit right, we should expect it to lose when attacked? So let's get right to the point - cavalry should just lose everytime in the game engine regardless of how it's attacked...

Or did it get a defensive value for a reason?

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Surgeon
Technology aint everything.

Tell that to the subjugated peoples of the world...

I like the combat system.

What about it do you like? I like much of the system, I do not like what some improper values combined without a firepower attribute does to middle game play.

Noting what is broken in the system doesn't equate to an all out offensive against the game. Why such fawnish overreaction occurs any time you point out reasonably seen flaws puzzles me...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Evan

Sheesh. You lack both imagination and a grasp of real-world combat.

The only you thing you can think of is that because the knight doesn't have a gun, a tank should never be lost when attacking.

A tank? Or the 12th armored division? Your tank represents more than a single unit on the map... so should the 12th armored division be defeated when attacking the King's knights? Hell no.

Heck, tanks are lost in TRAINING EXERCISES using DUMMY AMMO because of accidents and catastrophic mechanical failures in the real world. There aren't even any enemy around.

Maybe the tank had a catastrophic mechanical failure causing a shell to explode inside when trying to fire. Maybe when chasing the knight, the misjudged a turn and ended up overturned in the ditch.

Nobody argued that the tank unit ought to emerge with no damage whatsoever. We simply state that the odds of some units beating others is not realistic to the point of being absurd.

The fact that you think victory should be "guaranteed" for the sake of realism is a joke. That wouldn't be realistic - bad things happen in combat and the stronger unit is NEVER "guaranteed' a win.

Which argues for the phalanx beating the battleship. Sorry, that is a bankrupt argument and I dismiss it out of hand. Nobody wants a guaranteed outcome, but longbowmen from 1100 AD should not defeat the 10th Cavalry Regiment more than 50% of the time! Dude are you just that blind?

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
There is also still the old tricks played in Civ2 already:

1) The last defender is still much stronger than the rest.

This absolutely did NOT happen in Civ2. You attacked the unit that advantaged the defender best in every round.

2) The obsolete units have a distinct bonus over the newer units. I have had several battles with my best knights, which went 'painful' for me... upon a desperate bid with my rusty horsemen (HALF the attack strength of the knights) I won easily. Hmmmm at least. Likewise, your rifleman take the most damage from the 2att from the Archer, not from the 3att Musketman.

I've seen this wierdness as well - I've seen a veteran cavalry die attacking a fortified swordsman only knocking off one hit point, I sent a veteran legionary in and he knocks off EVERY DAMN HP without a loss.

This reminds me of SP:WAW, when we complained about combat results that didn't make sense until they finally found the wierdness causing the problems...

Venger

[zapperio]

As has been suggested, many times in many threads, the gameplay, as is, would suffer if some units automatically rolled over other units. And, hate to burst your bubble venger, but the gameplay is a bit more important then your obstinate take on real world combat.

It may be due to my limited imagination but i don't see how "tank automatically wins against cavalry" factor could work in Civ 3, as is, and as could resonably be modified. Educate us if you can, please.

Zap

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Venger


I've seen this wierdness as well - I've seen a veteran cavalry die attacking a fortified swordsman only knocking off one hit point, I sent a veteran legionary in and he knocks off EVERY DAMN HP without a loss.

Venger

How is that wierd? Improbable perhaps but not wierd. In countless battles in my five games I've not seen one result that seemed impossible given the understood mathematical model of the combat.

Zap

[Evan]

Originally posted by Venger

Which argues for the phalanx beating the battleship. Sorry, that is a bankrupt argument and I dismiss it out of hand.
Venger

You just don't get it. Battle ships have been lost in battle against vastly inferior enemies because of an accident in their ammo room. Boom, boom, boom. That is the real world. Accept it.

Originally posted by Venger

Nobody wants a guaranteed outcome,

Venger

I was responding to Kc7mxo who said (and whose quote was in cluded in the post you are responding to), " Actually the fact that its not guaranteed does sort of bother me."

You are going to hurt their feelings calling them a nobody.

Originally posted by Venger

but longbowmen from 1100 AD should not defeat the 10th Cavalry Regiment more than 50% of the time! Dude are you just that blind?

Venger

And why not? With the right tactics, arrows can be very effective. Especially when talking about calvary. Horses make for very big targets.

Besides, what do you suggest be changed? The defense of the calvary or the offense of the longbowman?

[Venger]

Originally posted by zapperio
As has been suggested, many times in many threads, the gameplay, as is, would suffer if some units automatically rolled over other units.

Units DO roll over other units. Do you play the game?

And, hate to burst your bubble venger, but the gameplay is a bit more important then your obstinate take on real world combat.

More from the flat earth society. Should a battleship get sunk attacking a phalanx?

It may be due to my limited imagination but i don't see how "tank automatically wins against cavalry" factor could work in Civ 3, as is, and as could resonably be modified. Educate us if you can, please.

Did you read the thread or just like a couple posts? Because I'm not sure anyone mentioned tanks attacking cavalry. At least the cavalry has modern arms that give them a chance of defending. A group of guys with bows should not be able to attack and defeat a group of guys with guns. Do you get it? Do you see any nation equipping longbowmen? Do you see anyone advocating the use of the bow as front line equipment? Or did the gun wipe the bow and all the bow users from the face of the earth.

And mind you the longbowman beating the cavalry isn't a fluke occurrence - nobody is arguing the one in 10 games occurence is a bug. As designed the bowmen will win MORE OFTEN THAN NOT. And that doesn't make sense either conceptually, or in gameplay where a player invests production and research and trade and development to create a unit easily destroyed by a unit that doesn't require any of it. Your arguments (and those of others) that it helps the gameplay really means it helps people who don't have guns - sorry, that sort of help is outside common sense, I don't recall any deus ex machina helping the Indians or Africans or any other conquered peoples facing gunpowder. Gunpowder is a watershed event in history - just not in Civ3. And as a game that purports to allow you to rewrite history to create your own destiny, it doesn't work. It's an alternate history where guns don't work.

Venger

[zapperio]

I just fought a war against the germans and took his four cities relatively easily as my swordmen won 3/4 times agains his fortified pikemen. Of course I did use bombardment to soften them to 2hp first. I probably had about 40-50 engagements so that isn't really a conclusive test but given other wars in 5 games we're probably talking about close to a thousand engagements and I've yet to see a head-scratcher.

Not only isn't the system broken but it is far superior to SMAC and Civ2 which suffered horribly for boring endgames due to unit and civ imbalances.

Zap

[Venger]

Originally posted by zapperio

How is that wierd? Improbable perhaps but not wierd.

Ever flip a coin and have it land on it's edge? It's wierd. Why? Because it normally lands it's side. Improbable occurences are rightly called "wierd".

In countless battles in my five games I've not seen one result that seemed impossible given the understood mathematical model of the combat.
Zap

Sigh...again, the chances of weak units winning without losing a hit point is extremely low - the chances of a 3 unit attacker getting a 3 to zip streak against a 3 unit defender (and he was fortified, but I'll ignore it) is 1%. You likely won't see it more than once in a game. But it happens WAY more than that. And, it happens after a 6 strength unit loses 4 to 1, which should happen like under 1% of the time. Add these together...it seems as if the results are somehow pooled - you get screwed with the first unit with some improbably outcome followed by an equally improbable outcome the other way.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by zapperio
I probably had about 40-50 engagements so that isn't really a conclusive test but given other wars in 5 games we're probably talking about close to a thousand engagements and I've yet to see a head-scratcher.

Should an ironclad be sunk by a caravel?

Not only isn't the system broken but it is far superior to SMAC and Civ2 which suffered horribly for boring endgames due to unit and civ imbalances.

Great, we now get a horrible mid game where gunpowder units are woefully underpowered.

Try defending these points -

1 attack privateer
No appreciable difference between gunpowder and non gunpowder units.

We won't even get into issues like failure to sink a ship with a plane, because I'm sure the flat earthers will rationalize that away too...

Venger

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Venger

This absolutely did NOT happen in Civ2. You attacked the unit that advantaged the defender best in every round.

Venger

What nonsense! I'm talking about fortress/city siege of course! After you had taken out the best defenders one by one, the last guy always had some 'extra zing', i.e. it didn't go out as easily as it should judging from its stats.

[zapperio]

I think we may be talking about two different things here. As far as I know the question is whether technology does matter and whether it should have more impact on the combat? Am I close?

Well that is the question I was addressing. And my conclusions, backed by some experimentation, and sharing of data is that, on the whole, technology does matter and that the combat system, because it allows less advanced units to have a chance against stronger units, thereby emphasizing tactics and supporting the resource system, is better than it was in SMAC and Civ2.

Zap

[player3]

Forget that: should a regular ironclad be able to sink a veteran Battleship? Apparantly so, because that's exactly what happened in my last game.

Of course, I did not mention the OTHER 20 naval battles where my destroyers blew their ironclads and caravels out of the water. The UNCERTAINTY factor of warfare applies here; imagine how boring it would be if a technologically superior unit ALWAYS won? Granted it may not be realistic, but at the same time it keeps civs that fall behind in the tech race from being completely doomed. My bet is that these fluke military encounters aren't going to make or break your military campaign anyway, so who cares?

[zapperio]

>>Originally posted by Venger


>>Should an ironclad be sunk by a caravel?
(seldom, game balance)

>>Try defending these points -

>>1 attack privateer
(according to firaxis, game balance, you can try it out yourself by changing the stats and seeing how it affects the balance)

>>No appreciable difference between gunpowder and non >>gunpowder units.
(game balance, though, I must add that it is my experience that there is just as much difference as between iron and non-iron and enough to give one the edge. I guess we differ on "appreciable". I appreciate game balance over uber-units)

>>We won't even get into issues like failure to sink a ship with a >>plane, because I'm sure the flat earthers will rationalize that >>away too...
(lets try shall we: according to firaxis, game balance. I agree with Soren on that one)

Is the combat system balanced?

In my experience yes, and not only balanced but balanced throughout the game. Excellent IMHO.

(pop)
Zap

[Roman]

I still cannot believe Firaxis abandoned the concept of firepower. This is a major step back in the game's combat system.

[volcanohead]

Venger,

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to have two problems with the Civ3 combat system. One is the choice of values for A/D/M for ancient and modern units, and the other is the random number generator throwing up too many results which are favourable to weaker units.

The first is a fair point of debate, and personally I have an open mind. But for the second, I think we really need to be quantitative about this to be able to say anything of significance. My own experience is that the results of combat are consistent with my knowledge of the defensive adjustments, original A/D/M and statistics, but I have a relatively small sample size.

If you want to have an informed debate on this second point, why don't you sit down with the game for a bit, carry out a few thousand battles, write down the results and perform a systematic analysis of the results. Then you can make a useful contribution.

V.

[jbird]

I've read at least 2 references to a Battleship being sunk by a phalanx on this thread. Now, I know that there are no phalanx in Civ3, and in Civ1 this happened often, and in Civ2 less often. However, in Civ3, I see no possible way within the game for a Battleship to lose to not only any infantry unit, but no mobile unit, or artillery unit. (While i'm in the camp in support of the current ground combat model, I *do* think that both airplanes and shore-based artillery should be able to sink ships, and also both should be destroyable from anti-aircraft or counter-battery fire from said ships. One *can* like the ground combat model and not necessarily support the treatment of naval units).

Also, I hear a lot on this thread about "my Cavalry died when a Longbowman attacked it". Also, "my Battleship lost when I attakcked an Ironclad". I hear very little about "my invasion force of 20 Cavalry, 30 Musketmen, and 10 Cannon lost to a force of 40 Knights, 30 Spearmen, and 3 Catapults on the plains that lay before Moscow."

My point being, small numbers of combatants on either side lead to greater dissapointment when a technologically advanced unit loses one fight to an inferior unit.

In Civ3, a tech advantage in combat is different than in Civ1 or Civ2. In Civ3, a tech advantage gives you an *edge* in combat, unit for unit. However, it does not *determine* combat. I actually have had great success in using "force preservation" techniques with "battlefield isolation" concepts, and have had some moderate success in all ages of warfare, with and without a tech advantage.

==============================

Oh, and with Battleships vs. Ironclads and Destroyers, I actually am enjoying this conflict right now in my current game. While the numbers on a Battleship are superior to an Ironclad or Destroyer, i'm finding that the biggest advantage is the *range*. Not only do they fire two squares away, allowing you to cripple an enemy Ironclad with 0 risk of return fire (pretty slick advantage there, and relatively "realistic"), but you also have an extra movement point (two if you have Magellan's) to exploit to your advantage. However, one Battleship vs 8 or 9 Ironclads, you're in trouble. You can't just rely on better tech and one or two units in Civ3, you have to back up that tech edge with good force mixes and good tactics to capitalize on your advantage.

Jbird

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Venger

We won't even get into issues like failure to sink a ship with a plane, because I'm sure the flat earthers will rationalize that away too...

Venger

...especially since on this thread and others I haven't seen too many people who are naughty enough to disagree with you do that.

Oh dear, I must be one of those flat earthers.

[Roman]

One of the main reasons many people disliked Ctp is the over-randomness of combat results due to lack of firepower. Now Firaxis removed it and we are getting the same results as in Ctp.

[Cyclotron]

Let's analyze this:

A cavalry unit with muzzle-load rifles (civil war era) is defeated by a unit of longbowmen.

Why, Here's why:

Longbows are actually more accurate than these 19th-century firearms, especially when you consider that fighting from horseback made the fire ever more innacurate. Firearms used during the civil war actually had a very short effective range, and I would not be surprised if longbowmen inflicted serious damage on riflemen in favorable circumstances. Cavalry should do even worse, given that they are large targets and must close to melee before fighting. Cavalry really isn't a missile unit; swords and even pikes dominated even into WW1. A cavalry charge against a block of longbowmen would result in heavy casualties to the cavalry, perhaps even loss.

In addition, people seem to forget that the longbow is an incredibly powerful weapon. British Longbows were documented as being able to pierce the armor on a knight's leg, go through his leg, go through the armor on the other side of his leg, through the saddle, and into the horse from 100 yards. Since cavalry do not wear armor, a single shot is very likely to kill the rider or disable the horse.

I hear a lot of arguments relating to this idea of "gunpowder supremacy," the idea that units with gunpowder are somehow inherently superior to those without.

This is completely false.

Gunpowder is simply another way to propel a penetrating projectile; so is using a bow or a sling. Gunpowder is an improved way of throwing things, but it is not some magical wand that causes the enemy to perish in droves as some people are suggesting.

For anyone who cares, bows were used in world war 2 by United States special forces operating in Southeast Asia, and continue to be used in some 3rd-world militias.

From all this compelling evidence, I would be surprised and dismayed if cavalry were able to hold ground against attacking longbowmen more than 30-40% of the time, and I strongly support the Civ3 combat system and the attack-defense rates of 3 and 4 for the cavalry's defense and archer's offense, respectively.