Fire power is not what we need, we need modern units to have more hit points

[WhiteElephants]

Goldstien -- I'm not going to reply to your petty insults in an attempt to keep this arguement clean. I would appreciate it if you could do like wise.

I'm sorry, White Elephant, but this argument doesn't even qualify as specious. So, because the graphics of Civ1/2/3 aren't cutting edge, we're to believe that they don't represent what they appear to - or what they are named?

They units are a function of the mechanics of the game. They are an abstraction of reality and bent to fit the rules of the game in order to make it challenging, balanced, and fun. The tank unit is no more a tank than the Bank in your capital city is a bank. The capital city is no more a capital city as much as it is a representation of a rule that allows you to lower corruption in the surrounding area. It is a rule you choose to obey or modify in the editor. The choice is yours.

Tanks and pikemen, however, are very real. Those of us with the ability for critical thinking expect something which looks like a tank and is called a tank to naturally smash something which looks like a pikeman and is called a pikeman.

A critical analysis of the combat mechanics would prove otherwise.

However, a cretin would have us believe that those things that look like tanks and pikemen really AREN'T tanks and pikemen, but whatever suits them in the present. Naturally as their old lies come full circle and catch up with them, the pikemen and tanks will come to be something totally different.

They are no more and no less than the values you, in the editor, or Firaxis choose them to be. What they look like is merely a graphical place holder for the assigned values. The circle ends there, no lies, no catching up, nothing more, and nothing less.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by E. Goldstein
Just tell me why it is logical that ancient units can put up a semi-credible defenses against modern ones.

mmm... because it makes the *game* more fun? Isn't that the point? Soren thinks so. So do the rest of the romantics.

If I want to play a military simulation I play 'Steel Panthers' and 'A Bridge too Far'. For a great empire building game you couldn't choose better then Civ3.

On the other hand, if anyone here could show me how they would change the current combat system and still retain the necessary balance that supports the resource system I'm all for it. So far I've seen a lot of recommendation on how to make the combat result more 'realistic' but no-one has shown how the changes will make the gameplay more fun. Do that and I, and a lot of other people, I suspect, will be convinced as to why it is necessary. And no, realism != fun.

Zap

[n.c.]

Nothing is more fun than reading other people say what you are thinking/have posted. This was especially true wrt woody! thanks guys. I'll try to specifically agree later.

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
I'm not going to reply to your petty insults in an attempt to keep this arguement clean.

So his describing your argument specious is a petty insult? How would you describe calling someone thick-skulled?

[GePap]

WhiteElephants:
We can't just set aside bonuses, morale and so forth. They were as much a part of the equation as those two all important numbers of attack and defense. Your example was shard rover v silksteel. OK. Shard has an attack of 14, silksteel defense of 4. With modifiers in cities it was 5. No one has yet complained in any forum about their tanks loosing to musketmen yet the probabilites (16 vs 6 or 8 if in a town) are very similar, so why do we not complain that our tanks loosing to musketmen even though historically this should not happen either? because at a certain time we decide that certain units can be credible defender vs us in game terms. So the musketman has half the defense of a tank, 1/4 the power of the attack, but this still makes them far more powerful than spearmen and we will be careful towards them. Also, musketmen take resources to build which means we can try to counter them also- we can't vs those miserable spearmen.

I also ask anyone to tell us how, combined arms, masterful strategy, nuclear weapons, whatever, if they had been in the same position as those poor A.I. civs in N. Machiavelli's gamee, they would have been able to defeat his attack. Also, to N Machiavelli. You could always just zip and post your saved game (if it exist) and then doubters could experience the experiment for themselves and witness the power. Also, they could, theoretically, recive different results (i doubt this) and then be able to make better counter-arguments. Otherwise the FP/HP debate might be coming to a close!

[n.c.]

Originally posted by zapperio
So far I've seen a lot of recommendation on how to make the combat result more 'realistic' but no-one has shown how the changes will make the gameplay more fun.

Of course, for many of us realism = fun (thus our desire to "rewrite history"). As for an answer on my recommended changes see SMAC (including the workshop), which could have easily been done in Civ III.

Not only would you have liked it, but as noted by WE there would have been very few complaints from our side.

[zapperio]

I'd like to quote vulcanohead from another thread as he says a lot of things I thing relate to this more eloquently than I could

"I was quite sceptical of the anti-civ3 combat system crowd at first, but some more game time and Venger's summary in this thread have convinced me there is a real issue with the Civ3 combat.

The problem is quite simply the side-effect of undersampling a statistical system. Toss a coin three times and your odds of getting 3 heads or tails in a row is 25%. Toss that coin 30 times and the chance they are all heads or all tails is bugger all.

Undersampling is the major reason we see some 'outliers' (caravel impressively taking out ironclad, for example) rather more often than the ADM values would suggest. Venger has quite elegantly put his finger on this, and it was a job well done. However, there remains several issues about the integration of this combat system with the rest of the game that we need to think about before being sure that changing this system is the best thing to do.

Unfortunately, many people in our community have a rather blinkered viewpoint: either the game is perfect and any criticism is defined as 'whining' (a curious term used mostly by people who haven't played all that much or who are unable to see that God did not design this game, people did, and therefore EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING is fair game for modification and improvement), or realists such as Venger who quite justifiably wish to see real-world type common sense reactions and effects within the game.

The problem with the realist point of view is that Civ 3 is absolutely not an attempt to reproduce reality. It says it is, the marketing blurb makes a big deal about it, but there are far too many abstractions to really claim that this is a model of the world and its peoples. What we actually have is a more complex version of Risk.

My personal viewpoint is that, for now, I do not want to change the combat system. I like the fact that sometimes wacky things happen. I like not wiping the floor with everyone with one tank. I think there is a good balance in the game, not realistic, not accurate, but fun.

In time however, particularly if MP happens (which of course is dependent on Firaxis resolving the much greater problem of slow game turns...), I can see that being a technological superstate that is destroyed by 500 Impis could be annoying, to say the least. Perhaps the combat system could be altered for an all human game, but against the AI it's fine as it is, for me, and for now.

V"


Zap

[zapperio]

Originally posted by n.c.
As for an answer on my recommended changes see SMAC (including the workshop), which could have easily been done in Civ III.

Scuse my lazyness, but I must have missed it when it was posted. Where is it at exactly?

Zap

[n.c.]

Originally posted by zapperio
I must have missed it when it was posted. Where is it at exactly?

(really hoping this was not sarcastic) Well, in that very post, after being asked! Seriously, I have made many comments in this vein over the last few weeks. In fact, I have been told to shut up several times.

I loved your post at 17:55, especially the following:

Unfortunately, many people in our community have a rather blinkered viewpoint: either the game is perfect and any criticism is defined as 'whining' (a curious term used mostly by people who haven't played all that much or who are unable to see that God did not design this game, people did, and therefore EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING is fair game for modification and improvement), or realists such as Venger who quite justifiably wish to see real-world type common sense reactions and effects within the game.

[WhiteElephants]

Troll on brother n.c.! Troll on!

No one has yet complained in any forum about their tanks loosing to musketmen yet the probabilites (16 vs 6 or 8 if in a town) are very similar, so why do we not complain that our tanks loosing to musketmen even though historically this should not happen either? because at a certain time we decide that certain units can be credible defender vs us in game terms.

Wait, wait, wait! Now you're telling me that musketmen defending against tanks are OK? Come on, I could go on and on and on about how this would never happen in "real life" as I've heard others say time and time again, yet you realist guys are going to let that one slide? Man oh, man! Burn the heritic at the stake!

Cross your fingers and hold your breath ladies and gentlemen we may very well have a convert on our hands!

Look, if you're willing to accept that musketmen can hold off a tank column that next extra step isn't too far is it? Why not view the whole game in "game terms"? Why stop with just this example?

[GePap]

Convert? NEVER !
Lets return to those wonderfull numbers those that like the combat system are so attached to. In a large city a musketman has a dfense of 8, if behind a river, of 10. Those are the game rules. Well, my tank has an attack of 16. So we have a situation of 16 vs 10. That's not stellar for the tanks. Spearmen would be 6 at most, ever. 16 vs 6 is much better. But the point is this. Let say i set up the same situation twice. Regular tank vs. Regular musketman. Regular tank vs. regular spearman, with defender in a city 12 behind a river. Could I, with anything even approchiang certainty, tell you how these battles will turn out? Can I even make an educated guess? No! As is, the spearmen may win just as well as the musketman. Hell, the musketman may do no damage to my tank while the spearmen might leave unscathed. That is unacceptable.
There are other reasons, of course, to accept the musketman. A player must invest time and effort to reach gunpowder and have saltpeter, besides the fact that they had to advance a whole age further. So, a lot more went into being able to get that musketman (for me or A.I.) than getting spearment (for some, its immidiate) and there should be some sort of reward for all that time and effort besides a unit that while theoretically twice as good, is empirically not. It comes down the the question- whats the point of advancing at all if all i need to win are masses of weak, obselete units? Why ever try peacefull expansion, cultural improvement, all those other wonderfull victory options I was given, if i must spend all my time and effort creating and managing ungodly amounts of units because I simply can't trust a strategic (i have resources, they don't) or technical edge?

[Elrad]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


I was under the impression that most of the dissatisfaction revolved around the concept that such and such ancient unit defeated my such and such modern unit, which is claimed to be realistically impossible. The counter claim to that is that such and such unit couldn't co-exist in a realistic setting and that said unit is really a weak modern version of such and such, but still looks like said ancient unit.

This is a point I made a good while ago in a similar thread (Not sure if I was the first, but its a good way to think of it none the less)

Its a hitting 2 birds with one stone, you satisfy both the realmist variable without disturbing gameplay. People are complaining that archers beating tanks is unrealisic...isn't it unrealistic for a modern power who DOES have tanks for example to still have those ancient units around? As far as graphical changes to support this "explanation" for how ancient units in modern times are moderatly armed...it wouln't be much of a change at all.

Ancient units and Mideival units are fine the way they are....I mean after the dark ages there realy wasnt that much of a leap in weapons technology was there? In the industrial age just stick a tiny musket to replace the Axe, sword, or bow. In the modern age, stick a tiny rifle or ak47 on them, maybe even a dot to represent somekind of grenade (to explain how they can kill tanks). I refuse to believe that a civilization that has nuclear missiles will still have several legions armed with just swords, cmon...even civilians in the modern age are better armed.

On another note, I don't believe the prospect of ancient units beating modern ones is even all that serious. Have you ever tried to face modern units with ancient ones? I think we just have a tendancy to remember things that seem unlikely. Everyone remembers when their tank lost to two archers, but do they remember when their 5 tanks too out 5 cities armed to the teeth with 10 units each? Granted if your thinking about the realistic outcomes when these units from diffirent ages clash, that it would seem unrealistic. But so is the fact that those units are still around in the first place.

One thing I would like to see however is a reduction that chance plays a part in combat. The problem is that combat consists of very few rolls, a 3 health units vs a 3 health unit has a high degree of variance beacause there is only a max of 5 rounds calculated between them...and the battle in each round is so luck driven.

Multiply health by say 5 (so you get 10,15,20,25) and you will see units react how they are supposed to, superior units only loosing in very very rare cases, or when they are very weak. (A band of modern rifleman long exausted after many consecutive battles with no time to sleep or eat...dying of wounds or disiese wouldn't do too well againsed some civilians with sticks now would they?)

Well anyway, thats my 2 cents about it. My other question would be what are you guys doing playing tanks vs archers anyway? Try Diety on a large map (without taking advantage of the AI's lack of diplomatic talent) and you will see the tables turned, and in my expirience atleast my Archers, Musketmen, and even infantry loose to those enemy tanks every time.

-Elrad

[zapperio]

Originally posted by n.c.
(really hoping this was not sarcastic) Well, in that very post, after being asked! Seriously, I have made many comments in this vein over the last few weeks. In fact, I have been told to shut up several times.

No really, nc, I wasn't being sarcastic. You pointed me towards an answer, you thought would satisfy my request, in another post. And I honestly ask, where is the thread so I may read it? 'SMAC (including the workshop)' doesn't ring any bells but then, I don't spend that much time away from Civ3 and I must have missed it.


ps the quote you liked was from vulcanohead

Zap

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Elrad
One thing I would like to see however is a reduction that chance plays a part in combat. The problem is that combat consists of very few rolls, a 3 health units vs a 3 health unit has a high degree of variance beacause there is only a max of 5 rounds calculated between them...and the battle in each round is so luck driven.

Multiply health by say 5 (so you get 10,15,20,25) and you will see units react how they are supposed to, superior units only loosing in very very rare cases, or when they are very weak. (A band of modern rifleman long exausted after many consecutive battles with no time to sleep or eat...dying of wounds or disiese wouldn't do too well againsed some civilians with sticks now would they?)

No, no, no! Your whole post made far too much sense and for that you're a cretin and thick skulled!

I'd even be willing to bend a little and see what happens if units were given more hit points. I was thinking ten each and have morale be a modifier for the attack rating as it was done in SMAC.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
Convert? NEVER !

After your musketman vs. tank statement I don't think a realist is going to touch you with a ten foot pole. No, no, no! I think you've definetley lost standing in your party, pal. You're a stranger in a strange land now -- no man's land -- neither here nor there -- the balck limbo void between the realists and the romantics. It sounds like a cold and lonely place my friend. I wish you well.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
Troll on brother n.c.! Troll on!

I'll be around if you want to try a real answer.

BTW, the reason I commented on the thick skull thing initially is that you seemed above it. The subsequent "can't we play nice" request was just too ironic.

Elrad- That discussion has taken place on a couple of threads. I think the real flaw is allowing units to exist 200+ years after becomig obsolete.

zap- The best example I can recall was a "SMAC is better" thread. Otherwise that sort of comment is here and there.

I really am baffled why they changed such an obviously successful design. Of course combat is just the most glaring example of Civ III ignoring a SMAC improvement.

[GePap]

From a cold, dark place....(or Canada as many know it )

I ask you WhiteElephant to address the gist of my argument. Why should I, or would I, expend the time and effort necessary to gain units above those of ancient times if they are many times not siginificantly better than what was there before? This is not an issue of 'whinning' nor inability to 'change strategy', this is an issue of gameplay. We have been given multiple win scenerios, most peaceful, and yet, according to those that like the system as is, we have to amass huge armies to have a chance to do anything, including vs. those poor saps who because of their own incompetence, got themselves stuck before the industrial age (again, after nationalism is discovered, the A.I. should upgrade ALL it's infantry units!). I then, it seems, according to this line of arguement, spend my resources and build time mostly on units, and not all those toehgr things i may want to build. Heck, what if I want to use espionage but need 25k to do anything, if i need to amass 300 units to survive then how will I have 25k to spend? This system limits players in many wyas which were unnecessary. I guess a great question to ask you and all other defenders of the current system is this: Did you dislike FP? If the Fixaris people had kept those concepts and added what they added, would you feel the combat system broken? In fact, why was FP added to Civ2 in the first place? Heck, on the whole attack, defend bit Civ1 was the same, if just with one HP-but in theory the percentages should work the same, no?

Also, if you like the system, why do you seem to agree with Elrad, whose proposal would make it possible for me and others refusing to 'change strategy' ignore combined arms and carry our old tank blizts?

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stone.

[Monoriu]

"Why should I, or would I, expend the time and effort necessary to gain units above those of ancient times if they are many times not siginificantly better than what was there before? This is not an issue of 'whinning' nor inability to 'change strategy', this is an issue of gameplay. "


You cannot deny with a straight face that 30 modern tanks is better than 30 longbowman, can you?



"We have been given multiple win scenerios, most peaceful, and yet, according to those that like the system as is, we have to amass huge armies to have a chance to do anything, including vs. those poor saps who because of their own incompetence, got themselves stuck before the industrial age (again, after nationalism is discovered, the A.I. should upgrade ALL it's infantry units!)."

I agree with the comment on the AI. You DO NOT need a huge army to do anything. You need sufficient numbers, and tactical sense. However, you cannot and should not be able to make 10 tanks and then declare yourself a winner.


"I then, it seems, according to this line of arguement, spend my resources and build time mostly on units, and not all those toehgr things i may want to build. Heck, what if I want to use espionage but need 25k to do anything, if i need to amass 300 units to survive then how will I have 25k to spend? This system limits players in many wyas which were unnecessary."


It was I who said 300 units. Yes, I did build a 300 unit army, but it was way overkill. What you need is sufficient numbers. Unfortunately, I still see a lot of people who still expect to produce a few tanks units and win the game. There is somewhere in between 300 and 15.

Yes, the current system does limit player choice. Whether this limitation is necessary is up to each player to decide. Let's compare the following hypothetical example:

1. Making 15 tanks and you are guranteed to win over ancient opponents even though your generalship suck (not implying anything here, just an illustration to make a point).

2. You will need to use 10 mech. inf., 10 artillery, and 10 tanks and carefully coordinate their every move in order to win. However, you'll have a much easier time than using 10 infantry, 10 cannon and 10 cavalry.

I myself prefer a game system that forces (2) on me. (1) should be discouraged whereever possible.

"I guess a great question to ask you and all other defenders of the current system is this: Did you dislike FP? "

No, I didn't. I like civ2's system, its faster and easier and less troublesome. I could finish a civ 2 deity game in 2 or 3 days, but it sometimes takes me half an hour just to move one turn in civ 3. Yet, I like civ 3's system even more.

"If the Fixaris people had kept those concepts and added what they added, would you feel the combat system broken? In fact, why was FP added to Civ2 in the first place? Heck, on the whole attack, defend bit Civ1 was the same, if just with one HP-but in theory the percentages should work the same, no? "

All the combat systems in civ games are sound. I just think that civ 3 combat is the best of them all. You cannot compare combat in civ 1 and 3, they differ too much from each other. Civ 1 has things like zoc, killing one unit kills one stack, completely different maintenance system, etc. I see lots of people complaining that civ 3 has "gone back to the days of civ1". I wonder if these people have played civ 1 at all.


"Also, if you like the system, why do you seem to agree with Elrad, whose proposal would make it possible for me and others refusing to 'change strategy' ignore combined arms and carry our old tank blizts? "


Even if they change the whole thing back to civ 2 combat I'll still like it, I just like it less. Say, civ 3 combat gets a 9.5/10, civ 2 is like 8.5/10. Get it?

[GePap]

30 tanks better than 30 longbowmen?, yes, but 30 longbowmen overcoming two or three fortified mech infantry? NO.

I never say, build ten tanks, your the winner (my smallest total (defense, offense) army yet in industrial age consisted of 87 inf, 30+ tanks, about 30 arty, 14 bombers) all of which got upgraded after requsite tech- and yes, I was whipping the enemy with this force over and over. I think people need to realize, if I have not said it before, that I am in the FP/HP side not due to experience ( I have lost some strange battles, never wars) but out of principle, and making the best game possible. Is the combat system, with the new rules for planes and arty better than that of civ2, calling for better strategy? YES. With all the work they have done out there in previous games like SMAC or civ2, was this the best combat system we could have expected or hoped them to make? NO!!!!!
With all the new rules FP would not really unbalance the game (enemy tank giving you problems, hit him with arty, or bombers, get him weak and counterattack-without ever loosing that arty or bomber) as much as some say- it would get rid of unnecessary, and in terms of gameplay, unwanted results. Should a tank always beat a spearmen? I would have to say YES. Always beat a musketman? Well, probably but not always. Always beat a rifleman? NO. I don't know about you folk, but I have yet to get such a technical lead over the A.I. that they can't make riflemen by the time I have tanks. Heck, the A.I. should be punished for being stupid enought to keep ancient spearmen guarding cities when it can make guns (or is that the designers at Fixaris?)
If they had kept FP (remember, they dropped this and their argument over why is not particularly credible) and given bombardemnt units a chance of killing units every once in a while, improving with tech (how can b-2 with guided bombs not sink a transport?) then this wouldd be, by far, no doubt, the best combat system in any of these games, period. BUt they didn't, and THAT's the problem

[n.c.]

Some of you seem to think there are only two choices: a) no balance or b) unrealistic combat. Was that your experience in Civ II or SMAC? Did you comment on it?

Are you the imagination-challenged ones: can the game have both? If there is a reason Pizarro's 400 men should have lost to the 60,000+ strong Incan armies, can't we put it into the combat system?

[GePap]

n.c.
Pizzarro was damn lucky. In game terms, he would be one lonely musketman vs. dozens of spearmen, warriors, and archers. In any system, both the one we have now, and the one that is proposed, it would be very hard for Pizzarro to win at all.

I thought Civ2 comabt was a bit simplistic (planes had no effect vs battleships, how the hell could I lose my arty even if it did no damage?, killing all the units in a Stack? COME ON!, and whats with all my loses to fuel shortages?), and all of these things were fixed by Civ3.
I thought combat in SMAC was great though arty overpowered, and still lost planes to fuel issues (its the future, darn it!). Again, Civ3 fixed this.
But why could they not keep the best aspects of both of these systems as well as making improvements? WHY?

[n.c.]

Originally posted by GePap
Pizzarro was damn lucky.

Perhaps, but he was lucky enough to take down an empire. The worst unbalanced scenarios dreamed up by Firaxis defenders are nothing compared to what he did (even before the germs).

[N. Machiavelli]

For those who care, the screenshots are going to have to be post-poned until I am able to have access to my home computers. Currently, I am one my lap-top on a plane head for Moscow on business, and the files wouldn't be available for at least a week, if at all. For this I regret.

As for the experiment itself, and Mr. Elephant's questions.... Is the AI pathetic? No. Predictable? Yes. Behave like a human? Certainly not. No human player would have allowed me to be isolated on that map for so long. That's one factor for the 'success', but the purpose of the experiment was not for the testing of the AI...it was to prove whether or not numbers was the deciding factor regardless of age/tech. As I said, the 5 remaining AI's were late industrial/early modern and the majority of defending units were riflemen and infantry. Units sent to counter-attack were cavalry and regular tanks. I kept none of the cities I conquered, razing them all; reinforcements coming in a steady stream from my island. I was constantly on the offensive, stopping only to allow some units to heal, although I simply had enough units such that when 5 were injured, 10 more took their place in the offensive. Every unit that attacked my warriors were triumphant, save a few, but that didn't matter. When the AI sent 4 cavalry against my stack of 20-30 warriors, they could only kill 4 before I could counter and slowly kill them all. Out of that original stack, half would survive to move on and be reinforced.

The whole point was to prove whether tech made any real difference in combat victory and if the current combat system allowed such an unbelievable strategy as the one I employed to be viable. I think that my ability simply swarm over much more advanced troops proved that point rather well. As for my only being able to practice it against a AI, well, you figure out a way to play Civ3 multiplayer and let me know. My views on FP have been stated, and doing so again is pointless.

As for 'convincing' you WhiteElephants, don't over-estimate your importance. This was not done for yours, nor anyone else's, benefit apart from my own. I posted the results for others to use in their points. And as for what 'we' can conclude about a battle vs an AI...whether or not it's the AI is moot: numbers are numbers are numbers, odds are odds are odds.

[Monoriu]

My position:

1. The current combat system is not broken. I haven't experienced any of the "spearmen killing tanks thing" because a) I haven't got such a tech lead and b) my tanks always defeat the AI's spearmen (maybe because I always bombard them to 1 health before attacking?)

2. You have no right to complain if you do stupid things like trying to defend a city with cavalry against longbowmen or make an invasion force with 3 units in the modern age.

3. The current combat system is better than all other previous civ combat system, because it forces you to use combined arms, attack in sufficient numbers, and use good tactical sense. Any changes to the combat system should retain those qualities.

4. Making 10, 15, 20 tanks, blindly rush them forward should NOT be a valid tactic even if against a stone age opponent.

5. Can the current combat system be improved? YES, YES, YES. Heck I am playing the game too, OF COURSE I want an even better game. If you can come up with good suggestions, why not? Have I made myself clear?

6. Bombarding occasionally kills, yes I think that's a good idea. Aircraft always killing ships? That's a bad idea, why then do you want ships?

7. The AI SHOULD upgrade all its obsolete units.

8. If you don't like the way it is, edit the rules.

9. FP/HP. Explain to me why increasing the att./def. values of modern units will not yield the same result.

10. Do I mind adding/subtracting some att./def. points here or there to improve the combat system? NO. If you have a specific suggestion to improve the gaem, by all means post it. "let's increase the attack value of tanks by 2 because......" is fine, "THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS BROKEN BECAUSE MY 1 HEALTH TANK WAS KILLED BY LONGBOWMEN" is NOT acceptable.

11. Realism vs fun. Both are good, but fun comes first. I refuse to judge a game feature based on realism alone. Graphics and names are fine, but don't tell me this or that unit should have 10, 20 values in attack because so and so did this in history. If you really want realism, edit the rules in your games, I respect your choice.

[GePap]

Originally posted by n.c.
Perhaps, but he was lucky enough to take down an empire. The worst unbalanced scenarios dreamed up by Firaxis defenders are nothing compared to what he did (even before the germs).

Pizarro hapened to come accross a civ in civil war, and while he was able to take out one of the contenders through force and surprise (something not yet modeled in civ) he captured the other through guile (also not modeled in civ). Let me add that unlike Cortez, Pizarro did not conquert the Inca in a few Years. It took decades of fighting for the Spaniards to destroy all pockets of Inca resistence and they were able to do this (and Cortez able to do what he did) because large numbers of native leaders hated thier local overlords enough to side with the Spaniards (the majority of the troops use to destroy the Inca and aztec were-inca and aztec). Perhaps unfortunitely (or fotunitelly if you were playing the Inca), something as complex as the conquest of the americas and all the politics,deceit, hate, plague,and so forth that went into making these things possible have yet to be modeled, by either any game, or any academic for that matter.

[n.c.]

1. The current combat system is not broken. I haven't experienced any of the "spearmen killing tanks thing"

In your opinion. Many people have.

2. You have no right to complain if you do stupid things

Of course people can complain. Why do you care? Heck, the complaint you allude to has given you an excellent out-of-context rejoinder.

3. The current combat system is better . . . because it forces you to use combined arms, attack in sufficient numbers, and use good tactical sense.

Explain how these were not present in SMAC. I sure as heck used them.

4. Making 10, 15, 20 tanks, blindly rush them forward should NOT be a valid tactic even if against a stone age opponent.

Why not? Because you wouldn't enjoy it? Are you not simply assuming a set of standards?

5. If you can come up with good suggestions, why not? Have I made myself clear?

Make it like SMAC (with a few tweaks), which we have said many times. Apparently we are not being clear.

7. The AI SHOULD upgrade all its obsolete units

and yet it doesn't always do so. Whatever you do, please don't describe that as "broken."

8. If you don't like the way it is, edit the rules.

Great. Tell me how to make it like SMAC.

9. FP/HP. Explain to me why increasing the att./def. values of modern units will not yield the same result.

See the many posts above on this subject.

10. "THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS BROKEN BECAUSE MY 1 HEALTH TANK WAS KILLED BY LONGBOWMEN" is NOT acceptable.

Who said this? Seriously!

11. Realism vs fun. Both are good, but fun comes first.

Realism is fun. (Hey, if your standards/preferences can be stated as undisputed truths then so can mine.) If you want balance why avoid the possibility that it can be achieved without unrealistic results? Or worst-case, why can't we have a realistic game that you edit to make more fun. that would be easier that what you are asking us to to (since your suggestions are essentially impossible).

[GePap]

Originally posted by Monoriu
My position:

1. The current combat system is not broken. I haven't experienced any of the "spearmen killing tanks thing" because a) I haven't got such a tech lead and b) my tanks always defeat the AI's spearmen (maybe because I always bombard them to 1 health before attacking?)

Again, as i said, my poosition is not based on experience (i have had the same experiences as you) but principle

2. You have no right to complain if you do stupid things like trying to defend a city with cavalry against longbowmen or make an invasion force with 3 units in the modern age.

No one, as far as i know, ever said they did either of these things. These are your persuptions.

3. The current combat system is better than all other previous civ combat system, because it forces you to use combined arms, attack in sufficient numbers, and use good tactical sense. Any changes to the combat system should retain those qualities.

Adding FP would not make combined arms less usefull, especially against opponents also in the industrial age or modern age.

4. Making 10, 15, 20 tanks, blindly rush them forward should NOT be a valid tactic even if against a stone age opponent.

Why not? It cost me 1000 to 2000 shields to make those tanks, certainly more than the entire production output of some stone age civ. It is not pretty, not fair, but it would work nonetheless against such technologically backwards foes.

5. Can the current combat system be improved? YES, YES, YES. Heck I am playing the game too, OF COURSE I want an even better game. If you can come up with good suggestions, why not? Have I made myself clear?

6. Bombarding occasionally kills, yes I think that's a good idea. Aircraft always killing ships? That's a bad idea, why then do you want ships?

Never said all the time. If you ask me, it should be 1/10 for cannon, ironclads and frigates, 1/5 for bombers, arty, fighters, battleships, and destoryers (this is of course if the attack would destroy all the remaining hit points), 1/4 for jets , and 1/3 for units with precision attack.
7. The AI SHOULD upgrade all its obsolete units.

YES, YES, YES

8. If you don't like the way it is, edit the rules.

I'm lazy, andd it's more fun to post

9. FP/HP. Explain to me why increasing the att./def. values of modern units will not yield the same result.

This has been done in other posts by persons more in tune than me with statistics. My laymens argument is this. Take two units. the attacker will have att2, defender 1. Give def FP 2. In three turn attacker should hit twice, defender once. But both took same damage. Now change def to 2 but FP 1. Now its 50/50. Lets say the attacker hit twice again, thought it is as likely that def did also. The amount of damage is not the same at all- one unit suffered 2 HP, the other 1 HP. So, 2 def was not the same as 1 def with 2FP. Why such an analysis should change so drastically with much higer numbers I can not fathom (again, others have done far better math than I, so look towards them.

10. Do I mind adding/subtracting some att./def. points here or there to improve the combat system? NO. If you have a specific suggestion to improve the gaem, by all means post it. "let's increase the attack value of tanks by 2 because......" is fine, "THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS BROKEN BECAUSE MY 1 HEALTH TANK WAS KILLED BY LONGBOWMEN" is NOT acceptable.

11. Realism vs fun. Both are good, but fun comes first. I refuse to judge a game feature based on realism alone. Graphics and names are fine, but don't tell me this or that unit should have 10, 20 values in attack because so and so did this in history. If you really want realism, edit the rules in your games, I respect your choice.

I am not asking to change the specific att/def values. I am asking for the equations ruling the eventual outcome to be changed. This can't be done witht the editor.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by GePap
I ask you WhiteElephant to address the gist of my argument.

OK.

Why should I, or would I, expend the time and effort necessary to gain units above those of ancient times if they are many times not siginificantly better than what was there before?

Because you know that the more modern units are more capable of offense and defense.

This is not an issue of 'whinning' nor inability to 'change strategy', this is an issue of gameplay. We have been given multiple win scenerios, most peaceful, and yet, according to those that like the system as is, we have to amass huge armies to have a chance to do anything, including vs. those poor saps who because of their own incompetence, got themselves stuck before the industrial age (again, after nationalism is discovered, the A.I. should upgrade ALL it's infantry units!).

I never claimed you were a whinner and you don't have to build a massive army unless you intend to conquer someone's terrirtory and I'm fine with the AI upgrading all it's units.

I then, it seems, according to this line of arguement, spend my resources and build time mostly on units, and not all those toehgr things i may want to build. Heck, what if I want to use espionage but need 25k to do anything, if i need to amass 300 units to survive then how will I have 25k to spend? This system limits players in many wyas which were unnecessary.

No one suggested you needed 300 units to survive, but instead suggested you build many (not neccessarily 300) units to conquer another civ.

I guess a great question to ask you and all other defenders of the current system is this: Did you dislike FP? If the Fixaris people had kept those concepts and added what they added, would you feel the combat system broken? In fact, why was FP added to Civ2 in the first place? Heck, on the whole attack, defend bit Civ1 was the same, if just with one HP-but in theory the percentages should work the same, no?

I don't really feel there is a need for fire power when you can increase/decrease attack/defense and get nearly the identical results. Because there is no fire power there's no need for vast amounts of hit points.

Also, if you like the system, why do you seem to agree with Elrad, whose proposal would make it possible for me and others refusing to 'change strategy' ignore combined arms and carry our old tank blizts?

I hardly think giving every unit ten hit points is going to allow you to ignore combined arms, it would simply even out the averages. There would be less "luck" involved in combat where weak units rely on a couple of lucky hits to finish off their opponent. I didn't say I would definetely support that changes as I would have to consider the side effects more indepth. I feel that the way morale worked by modifying offense/defense worked fine.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stone.

Cute.

Let me get this straight. The gist of your arguement is that you feel it's a waste of time to move up the tech tree and build more expensive units that, in your opinion, aren't worth the effort based on your perception of realism, yet you're fine with a musketmen holding off a tank column. Fine. That can be a strategy all it's own.

I've grown rather weary of the arguement (or maybe I'm just tired today), but I think the editor allows you to tweak the attack and defense which is what you're going to have to settle for, for now.

(Note: From a realists point of view just how much more likely is a musketmen going to be able to hold off a tank column as opposed to a spearmen? What, 1% more likely? 3%? 5%?)

[GePap]

The last post did not come out as I had planned (hey, I'm only a chieftain ) but I think it is not hard to note that my comments are within the 'quoted' area. Again, sorry.

[Monoriu]

quote:

1. The current combat system is not broken. I haven't experienced any of the "spearmen killing tanks thing"

In your opinion. Many people have.


Not my opinion, my experience. I dare say that a lot of the people who have experienced that have done something wrong.

quote:

2. You have no right to complain if you do stupid things

Of course people can complain. Why do you care? Heck, the complaint you allude to has given you an excellent out-of-context rejoinder.

Those people can complain, but they have no ground to complain. Yes, you are right, the more those people complain, the worse your position look.

quote:

3. The current combat system is better . . . because it forces you to use combined arms, attack in sufficient numbers, and use good tactical sense.

Explain how these were not present in SMAC. I sure as heck used them.

But the current system forces you to use the even more. I like it, you don't, too bad.


quote:

4. Making 10, 15, 20 tanks, blindly rush them forward should NOT be a valid tactic even if against a stone age opponent.

Why not? Because you wouldn't enjoy it? Are you not simply assuming a set of standards?


Yes I am, we all are. I prefer the current way, Firaxis agrees with me, and we are both happy.

quote:

5. If you can come up with good suggestions, why not? Have I made myself clear?

Make it like SMAC (with a few tweaks), which we have said many times. Apparently we are not being clear.


No, you are not clear enough, SMAC and civ 3 are very different games, you gotta be a lot more specific.

quote:

7. The AI SHOULD upgrade all its obsolete units

and yet it doesn't always do so. Whatever you do, please don't describe that as "broken."


By your standards nothing is not broken.

quote:

8. If you don't like the way it is, edit the rules.

Great. Tell me how to make it like SMAC.


If you like SMAC so much, go play it.


quote:

9. FP/HP. Explain to me why increasing the att./def. values of modern units will not yield the same result.

See the many posts above on this subject.


I don't buy them.

quote:

10. "THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS BROKEN BECAUSE MY 1 HEALTH TANK WAS KILLED BY LONGBOWMEN" is NOT acceptable.

Who said this? Seriously!

I was making a hypothetical example to make a point, and you knew it. Nobody have said "let's increase the att. value of tanks by 2 because......" either.

quote:

11. Realism vs fun. Both are good, but fun comes first.

Realism is fun. (Hey, if your standards/preferences can be stated as undisputed truths then so can mine.) If you want balance why avoid the possibility that it can be achieved without unrealistic results? Or worst-case, why can't we have a realistic game that you edit to make more fun. that would be easier that what you are asking us to to (since your suggestions are essentially impossible).


Firaxis has decided that fun is more important than realism, that's what this game is about. If you don't like it, don't play it. I am enjoying it and I am happy

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
As for 'convincing' you WhiteElephants, don't over-estimate your importance. This was not done for yours, nor anyone else's, benefit apart from my own. I posted the results for others to use in their points. And as for what 'we' can conclude about a battle vs an AI...whether or not it's the AI is moot: numbers are numbers are numbers, odds are odds are odds.

Here's a deal. When you stop over-estimating the importance of your test I'll stop over-estimating my importance. Deal?