The combat/AI system...

[shclo]

1. Is Just Fine
2. Needs some minor tweaking
3. Needs some major tweaking
4. Needs a complete overhaul
5. Sucks and is beyond repair

[Kc7mxo]

Bring back firepower. And let planes destroy ships. But make sure fighters on a carrier can intercept the damn things.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu
0, the combat system is excellent. I am particularly impressed by the AI's ability to coordinate massive invasions and counterattacks at the strategic level. Now we actually have to plan for a war, build an army, and carefully coordinate its every move to win. Things like spearmen defeating modern tanks rarely occur and when they do, 80% of the time its due to player carelessness and arrogance.

That's just BS. How can you say nonsense like that? I've already seen numerous examples of how units don't get realistic combat results not only due to poor combat values but also to plain combat wackiness!

You likely shouldn't see a caravel, galleon, or frigate defeat an ironclad because of it's 4 - 2 advantage. (and you shouldn't see anything but a frigate ever beat one unless the unit is already badly damaged). You may think that this combat should resolve in the ironclads favor 4 times out of 6, but that's not right. The change of a 2 strength unit damaging a 4 strength unit is 33% per turn - but the chance of damaging it without being damaged back is only 11%. And that's just one round. To figure out the chances of a 2 strength unit beating a 4 strength one, you simply have to add the chances of all the possible outcomes - it turns out that the 4 to 2 advantage actually equates to a 4 to 1 advantage at green, a 4.8 to 1 advantage at veteran, and nearly 6 to 1 advantage at elite. This assumes both at the same level. And the chances of the caravel winning taking only one hit point or less of damage is about .1%...I've seen this TWICE.

The HP smooths out the curve somewhat, but it doesn't flatten it enough for me...an ironclad should not be losing to a freaking caravel...bring back firepower! That'll help smooth the curve quite a bit...

Venger

[LaRusso]

you finally lost it, venger. replying to wrong threads

[Monoriu]

"That's just BS. How can you say nonsense like that? I've already seen numerous examples of how units don't get realistic combat results not only due to poor combat values but also to plain combat wackiness!

You likely shouldn't see a caravel, galleon, or frigate defeat an ironclad because of it's 4 - 2 advantage. (and you shouldn't see anything but a frigate ever beat one unless the unit is already badly damaged). You may think that this combat should resolve in the ironclads favor 4 times out of 6, but that's not right. The change of a 2 strength unit damaging a 4 strength unit is 33% per turn - but the chance of damaging it without being damaged back is only 11%. And that's just one round. To figure out the chances of a 2 strength unit beating a 4 strength one, you simply have to add the chances of all the possible outcomes - it turns out that the 4 to 2 advantage actually equates to a 4 to 1 advantage at green, a 4.8 to 1 advantage at veteran, and nearly 6 to 1 advantage at elite. This assumes both at the same level. And the chances of the caravel winning taking only one hit point or less of damage is about .1%...I've seen this TWICE.

The HP smooths out the curve somewhat, but it doesn't flatten it enough for me...an ironclad should not be losing to a freaking caravel...bring back firepower! That'll help smooth the curve quite a bit...

Venger"



Naval combat 101

1. Always bombard before you attack.
2. Never melee attack with a wounded unit.
3. Always withdraw wounded units, no exception.
4. Protect wounded ships, never leave them in the open.
5. If facing numerically superior force, bombard only, don't attack until reinforcement comes.

I abide by all of the above rules, and I seldom have a problem with frigates sinking ironclads. Once in a while, yes, but very rare.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Venger


plain combat wackiness!

You likely shouldn't see a caravel, galleon, or frigate defeat an ironclad because of it's 4 - 2 advantage. (and you shouldn't see anything but a frigate ever beat one unless the unit is already badly damaged). You may think that this combat should resolve in the ironclads favor 4 times out of 6, but that's not right. The change of a 2 strength unit damaging a 4 strength unit is 33% per turn - but the chance of damaging it without being damaged back is only 11%. And that's just one round. To figure out the chances of a 2 strength unit beating a 4 strength one, you simply have to add the chances of all the possible outcomes - it turns out that the 4 to 2 advantage actually equates to a 4 to 1 advantage at green, a 4.8 to 1 advantage at veteran, and nearly 6 to 1 advantage at elite. This assumes both at the same level. And the chances of the caravel winning taking only one hit point or less of damage is about .1%...I've seen this TWICE.

Venger

I am afraid to do this, but how would you, venger, explain it? [insert twilight zone music here] It is math after all.

Zap

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu

Naval combat 101

1. Always bombard before you attack.
2. Never melee attack with a wounded unit.
3. Always withdraw wounded units, no exception.
4. Protect wounded ships, never leave them in the open.
5. If facing numerically superior force, bombard only, don't attack until reinforcement comes.

I abide by all of the above rules, and I seldom have a problem with frigates sinking ironclads. Once in a while, yes, but very rare.

I don't mind frigates sinking ironclads - they possessed many cannon and were designed for heavy ship of the line combat. But a CARAVEL sank an Ironclad. I mind that a bit.

P.S. 2,3, and 4 are leftover from Civ2...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by zapperio
I am afraid to do this, but how would you, venger, explain it? [insert twilight zone music here] It is math after all.

I don't really know. Which is why I want there to be a serious examination of the engine to make sure there aren't any bugs...

Frankly, with the change of the HP model and total and inexplicable loss of firepower, expect to see more of these type of strange results. The Civ2 firepower and HP model really pushed unexpected results to the outlying areas...

Which of course people whine about as making the combat predictable. Well sorry, but attacking a freaking caravel with an ironclad OUGHT TO BE pretty damn predicatable. Combat chance happens between evenly matched forces. Attacking with what ought to be superior units only to get offed isn't unpredicatble, it's SILLY.

Venger

[exeter0]

Thanks to a great Editor we can change most things. But bring in UNIT STACKING !!!!

*** U N I T S T A C K I N G ***

If you need a hint.. look at CTP2. And in CTP2 you didn't even have swarms of workers to micro-manage.

[Monoriu]

Venger: I won't attack a full strength caravel without bombarding it first, even if I plan to melee attack it with a battleship. So I have never experienced caravels sinking any of my modern ships. Caravels sinking ironclads? I think it has never happened to me and I have fought a few naval battles.

Exeter: I am with you on the unit stacking. As much as I love the combat system, moving 40 artillery pieces around individually can be a chore.

Workers....hmm not so sure. I have played both civ and CTP a lot. Both ways have merits. Public works in CTP is faster and simpler, but it lacks a certain "feel" to it. Moving workers around improving things has become an integral part of civ and this is one of the things I miss when I play CTP. Can we have both? I think its kinda hard.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Venger: I won't attack a full strength caravel without bombarding it first, even if I plan to melee attack it with a battleship.

You can bombard, then your attack is spent. The ship waddles away...you should be able to engage a caravel with an Ironclad, period dude.

So I have never experienced caravels sinking any of my modern ships. Caravels sinking ironclads? I think it has never happened to me and I have fought a few naval battles.

I don't think it has happened in the real world...but it's happaned to me TWICE in my first game. It doesn't...make...sense...

Exeter: I am with you on the unit stacking. As much as I love the combat system, moving 40 artillery pieces around individually can be a chore.

Unit stacking creates true combined force armies - thing is this has been around since CTP - why didn't they take advantage of a clearly more advanaced system? My fear is that too much of SMAC underpins Civ3 and they couldn't make it work without too much of a rewrite...

Which means not in a patch either...

Workers....hmm not so sure. I have played both civ and CTP a lot. Both ways have merits. Public works in CTP is faster and simpler, but it lacks a certain "feel" to it. Moving workers around improving things has become an integral part of civ and this is one of the things I miss when I play CTP. Can we have both? I think its kinda hard.

I too prefer workers...

Venger

[exeter0]

I agree.. i prefer workers to public works... but having legions of workers emphasises the need for stacking.

Unit stacking creates true combined force armies - thing is this has been around since CTP - why didn't they take advantage of a clearly more advanaced system? My fear is that too much of SMAC underpins Civ3 and they couldn't make it work without too much of a rewrite...

I agree... we probably we wont get true stacking with combined arms combat until CIV IV (or I won't buy it!)... but they can still implement basic unit grouping.

[Ludwig]

For land combat, I think the present combat system is fine. It is appropriate for the more modern force to suffer a few casualties during the course of crushing a less advanced force. I think having a tank unit die here and there increases the realism, and certainly does not decrease it. You really can't pretend that you can conduct multi-year land campaigns of conquest and occupation while suffering no casualties at all. It may suck to see a pikeman kill a tank, but no other way of modeling the likelihood that you will suffer occasional casualties over the course of a campaign makes sense....And even with the incongruity it makes more sense than 0% casualty rates and perfect generalship for the more modern unit, which is what some people seem to want.

Sea combat is a little different, though. These units come much nearer to representing ACTUAL INDIVIDUAL SHIPS then the land combat system does, and as such it's harder to claim that the occasional combat losses represent net campaign attrition...The more modern naval unit should win almost every time, if not every time. To make the comparison to land combat: if I send 200,000 modern infantry into the mountains to kill guys armed with muskets, at least SOME of my infantry are going to die [and therefore, occasionally I should expect to lose one of my units]. But if I send 5 modern warships after some guys in oversized canoes, NONE of the ships are going to go down [and I can reasonably expect all of my ship units to survive].

Gameplay balance is less of an issue in naval combat as well, since the naval units can't take cities or terrain. Even if the more modern naval force effortlessly swept the seas clean, it would only give them unlimited coastal bombardment opportunities and the ability to land troops wherever they wanted - in other words, it would give them precisely the advantages they SHOULD have, but it wouldn't allow them to simply march over every AI unit and occupy every AI city. You'd still have to fight those battles on the ground.

[Monoriu]

"You can bombard, then your attack is spent. The ship waddles away...you should be able to engage a caravel with an Ironclad, period dude. "



That's why my ships always operate in groups of 3-4.




"I don't think it has happened in the real world...but it's happaned to me TWICE in my first game. It doesn't...make...sense... "


I can understand the feeling. Did I say none of my ironclads was ever sunk by a caravel? Actually one of them was sunk when I attacked a galley But that's only once. Yeah I was furious at the moment as well but I can accept that as bad luck......that's why I bombard everything now.





"Unit stacking creates true combined force armies - thing is this has been around since CTP - why didn't they take advantage of a clearly more advanaced system? My fear is that too much of SMAC underpins Civ3 and they couldn't make it work without too much of a rewrite...

Which means not in a patch either... "



Its pretty big change. I won't expect to get it in a patch.

[lockstep]

You can tweak the attack/bombard and defense values in the editor. You can even give one additional hitpoint to each experience level if you want to 'smooth out' combat results. But Firaxis, please don´t bring back firepoints.