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

[Monoriu]

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


No comment.

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.


YES THERE ARE. Go to the strategy forum, check out the thread on "unreal" for the guy who made an invasion force with 3 units. On this general forum, go check out a huge thread several pages down with a title with something like "technology doesn't make a difference in battle" for the guy who defended a city with cavalry.


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.



You maybe right, and I am not opposing it if it makes the game better. However, I somewhat agree with Firaxis's position that you can achieve the same result by increasing the att. values.

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.


Then the game will be like civ 2, and it will be too easy.

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.


I'd like it to be quite rare, but I agree wiht the suggestion in principle.

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.


One thing I think we need: the OPTION in the editor to add FP back in, that sure won't hurt.

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.


No, actually you are not aiming for the equations, you want combat outcomes to match your expactations (which is fine), changing the att/def values may achieve roughly the same result without changing the equations. You've gotta work with what you have.

[GePap]

Well, folks, all I needed to say on this topic has been said, I won't convince any new minds nor does it seem I will be convinced.

To Monoriu:
We agree on about 90% about the combat anyway...


To WhiteElephants:
I don't think you ever understood my position, but Oh well, bygones be bygones

To those that want FP back:
We are debating a dead horse right now ( i have been posting more than playing this game!). Why not wait until the patch and then raise heck again when the fine folk at Fixaris ignore us (unless they don't, which will be a big surprise for me )

[TCO]

Originally posted by 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?

n.c., If you read the old civ3 threads, youll see that I did argue for changing the balance that civ2 had...back towards something closer to civ1. My rationale being that it's too mechanical the Civ2 way and too easily exploited by the human player.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Monoriu
I dare say that a lot of the people who have experienced that have done something wrong.

How dare they send an ironclad against caravels!

-"the more those people complain, the worse your position look."
Only to those already inclinded to discount it without serious consideration.

-"But the current system forces you to use the even more."
Why is that? (He asks knowing there will be no answer.)

-"Yes I am, we all are."
My standards are not assumed: I would like to "rewrite history," not accept an inferior system imposed because of another poorly designed system.

-"you gotta be a lot more specific."
Hit points reflecting actual abilty to take damage (what a concept!), attack/def values gradually increasing with the gradual morale increases, interchangable abilities, ect. Did you not play the game, or did you just need to stall?

-"By your standards nothing is not broken."
Um, that's you: Firaxis' product is never ever broken.

-"If you like SMAC so much, go play it."
Until you tell me how to edit the rules according to your suggestion, I will.

-"I don't buy them."
Hey, if denial is good enough for you, fine.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


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

If I thought my 'test' had any bearing on anything at all that mattered, believe me, then I would over-estimate it. It evidently had enough importance for you to knock it down. *shrugs* Oh well, seems like there are only a few folks on this board whose 'opinions' mean anything and the rest are dismissed as irrelevent. All I did was play a game, state the findings, offer my opinion, and let folks take it as they would...my bad. Don't worry, I won't 'trouble' you again.

[TCO]

n.c. et al,

give the game a shot with adjusted att/def values. It's pretty easy to adjust them. You can get the same prob of victory as in civ2 for the combat you're interested. Yeah, there will be some variance in amount of damage recieved by the victor unit (compared to Civ2) but this is kind of a nuance.

give it a shot!

[Monoriu]

quote:

Originally posted by Monoriu
I dare say that a lot of the people who have experienced that have done something wrong.

How dare they send an ironclad against caravels!


.....and expect to win 100% of the time. When I suggest bombarding before attacking to help your chances, you know what their response was? "Screw that, I don't want to waste time". Huh. And they keep complaining without working for victory.

-"the more those people complain, the worse your position look."
Only to those already inclinded to discount it without serious consideration.


How can you possibly defend the position "its alright to defend a city with a 6-3-3 against a 4-1-1?"

-"But the current system forces you to use the even more."
Why is that? (He asks knowing there will be no answer.)


Because even if you are vastly technologically superior you can't behave as if combined arms and all that doesn't exist. It will give you an edge, but is not the deciding factor. You gotta work to win, always. There is no easy and fast way to win, and there shouldn't be.

-"Yes I am, we all are."
My standards are not assumed: I would like to "rewrite history," not accept an inferior system imposed because of another poorly designed system.


You assume that its an inferior system. You assume that you can rewrite history. I assume that a good game should force you to be careful with your units, always. We all assume things, and there is nothing wrong with it.

-"you gotta be a lot more specific."
Hit points reflecting actual abilty to take damage (what a concept!), attack/def values gradually increasing with the gradual morale increases, interchangable abilities, ect. Did you not play the game, or did you just need to stall?


In Civ 3 a units' hit points is based on the units experience, that is already reflected. You just don't like it the way it is.
Why do I need to stall?

-"By your standards nothing is not broken."
Um, that's you: Firaxis' product is never ever broken.

How can you call a product broken by judging one aspect of the AI only? Imperfect does not equal broken. You don't like it does not equal broken.
I did say many times that air superiority is broken.


-"If you like SMAC so much, go play it."
Until you tell me how to edit the rules according to your suggestion, I will.

Thank you, and I wonder what you are doing in a civ 3 forum when the game is so bad and you are playing another game?

-"I don't buy them."
Hey, if denial is good enough for you, fine.

You don't seem to buy my arguments either. Do you always take what other people say as true?

[E. Goldstein]

I just lost my post for the second time. Because I am so pissed, I will keep this short.

White Elephant:

You're an idiot for thinking that calling your argument specious is a petty insult. My calling you an idiot in the previous sentence IS a petty insult, pointing out a flaw in your argument is not. If the perception that someone you don't know is insulting you on a computer game forum bruises your ego then I hope you aren't planning to succeed in life.

"A critical analysis of the combat mechanics would prove otherwise."

This sentence of yours basically proves my point for me. While logic would dictate one result, a flawed combat system gives another. Of course, proving another's point is a possible result of circular logic and specious arguments.

You have yet to answer the question (though have become quite adept at ducking and dodging it): Why are units named after and made to look like real military hardware if no correleation is intended between the units and real world values?

Monoriu(I almost confused the n and r):

No one ever claimed what you are saying. I hope you enjoy arguing with other voices in your head because that is all you have managed to do. Could you get them to quiet down long enough to answer one simple question: WHY should progress be penalized? It might be fun for some to plan Barbarossa against some backwater nation, but I, personally, prefer to fight against equals. I have no desire to put the same effort towards defeating a foe stuck in 600AD as one with airplanes and armor. Combined arms is all well and good, but it has reached a point where it is nothing more than a buzzword, or some sort of catch-all phrase (along with a heap of armchair quarterbacking) used to counter any sensical argument. I'm all for needing airstrikes, armored thrusts, asymetrical attacks, and long sieges for combating my equals. When I am forced to do the same against stone age opponents, then something is wrong with the combat system.

Addendum:

Monoriu, you're only looking at combat. It should be easy for modern armies to steamroll ancient opposition because the diffuculty is in getting armor, mech.inf, and battleships while your opponent is still mucking around with knights and archers. THAT is where the difficulty should lie, not in the act of conquest.

[TCO]

i can back up Monirou where he has cited examples of people using poor tactics and then being unhappy about the results. The same people also made several false comments about the combat system in Civ2. (I went and got the GL combat experts to show they mistakes.) Some of the claims were laughable in showing a "victim complex" (i.e. things like the computer is cheating against me in the combat on diety level.)

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by E. Goldstein


No one ever claimed what you are saying. I hope you enjoy arguing with other voices in your head because that is all you have managed to do. Could you get them to quiet down long enough to answer one simple question: WHY should progress be penalized? It might be fun for some to plan Barbarossa against some backwater nation, but I, personally, prefer to fight against equals. I have no desire to put the same effort towards defeating a foe stuck in 600AD as one with airplanes and armor. Combined arms is all well and good, but it has reached a point where it is nothing more than a buzzword, or some sort of catch-all phrase (along with a heap of armchair quarterbacking) used to counter any sensical argument. I'm all for needing airstrikes, armored thrusts, asymetrical attacks, and long sieges for combating my equals. When I am forced to do the same against stone age opponents, then something is wrong with the combat system.

Addendum:

Monoriu, you're only looking at combat. It should be easy for modern armies to steamroll ancient opposition because the diffuculty is in getting armor, mech.inf, and battleships while your opponent is still mucking around with knights and archers. THAT is where the difficulty should lie, not in the act of conquest.

First, thank you GP.

Goldstein, go check out the "unreal" thread in the strategy forum. Go check out the "technological superiority doesn't matter in war" thread on this forum started by F18Fett.

To answer your question:

I have never, ever claimed that progress should be penalized. I am saying that there should be benefits in technological progress, BUT the reward shouldn't allow a player to make a small amount of high tech units and roll over a backward opponent without any thinking.

I think the game as it stands now has achieved a good balance. When I upgraded by infantry to mech. infantry and cavalry to tanks, I had a MUCH easier time. However, I still need to bombard, protect wounded units, stay in stacks, use combined arms, garrison key points etc. If you don't bother to do these things, then don't complain when you lose. That, is my point.

[Akka]

I follow this argument since days now, so here is my little contribution to the debate.

The combat system have one goal, only one : contributing to the fun. To do so, it have to not imbalance the game. It means that a modern unit should not be able, like in Civ 2, to crush by itself an entire civilization, even backward. Now, this said, technology is here to reflect the scientific advancement of your civilization, and then it should give you an edge : like it was said, what's the point of making better units if they have to loose ?

So the point is : is technology REALLY giving you an advantage ? Strategy depends of the player, not the unit (I mean, if the player is able to fight as well with warrior than with tanks), so for the demonstration I'll use only plain vanilla fight, just to see the actual real results of technology.

As far as I know, a fight is a succession of shots where the attacker oppose it's Attack Value to the Defense Value of the defender. If I'm wrong, please tell me, as the whole calculus involved after will be based on this presumption

Let's start with the warrior. It has 1A, 1D. Let's it be opposed to an infantery. This one has 6A, 10D. We'll suppose they both are in open ground. If the infantery attacks, the warrior have one luck out of 7 to win a round, and the tank 6 out of 7. Statistically (we're only talking about stats, right ?), it means that every 7 rounds against a warrior, the tank will take one shot.
If both are regulars, infantery will die STATISTICALLY after 21 rounds. Which means 7 warriors.
If the warrior attack, it will hit the infantery on a 1/11 chance value. So, it will STATISTICALLY eats up 33 rounds to kill the infantery, so 11 warriors.
So, basically, the infantery is, in fighting value, 9 times better than a warrior (average between 7 and 11). Some can argue that infantery is made to defend, not attack. It's true, but this is about strategy, not about what technology gives you. Remember, it's a FIGHTING unit, not unit like carrier, transport or aircraft that has special ability. So I'll stick with this 1 infantery = 9 warriors for now.
People could start saying "wow, 1 infantery is as powerful as 9 warriors, that kicks butts !". Well, hold on. An infantery is 90 shields costly to produce, and require rubber. A warrior is 10 shields costly and require nothing.
Yes, it means that's it's exactly the same, statistically talking, to produce 9 warriors or 1 infantery. Well, not exactly the same : warriors don't require ressources. In pure fight stats, the technology here gave you NOTHING. Yes, NOTHING.

Stats like that, considering only two units fighting each other in the middle of a grassland, don't means a lot about the actual game, of course. It was just a mathematical estimation about how technology was giving you an edge based purely on fighting values. Now, go for more practical examples that will make more sense in the game : tank vs fortified warrior, and warrior vs fortified infantery.
1) Warrior vs fortified infantery.
1A vs 10D, bonuses : +100 % due to city, +25 % due to fortification.
Final values : 1A vs 25D. Warrior hits 1/26, infantery 25/26.
To kill the Infantery, you have then to use 26 warriors to kill the infantery.
Prices : 26 warriors are 260 shields and no ressources. 1 infantery is 90 shields and rubber.

2) Tank vs fortified warrior in a town :
16A vs 1D, bonus : +100% due to the city, +25% due to fortification. Final combat settings : 16vs2,5. Tank hit 8/9,25, warrior 1/9,25. It takes then 4 warriors to kill the tank.
Prices : 4 warriors are 40 shields and no ressource. Tank is 100 shields + oil + rubber.

So, let's sum up. If you have a mixed high-tech civ, with tank to attack and infantery to defend, and you are facing a backward civ with stone axes, what kind of advantage do you get ?
1 tank + 1 infantery, used in appropriate ways (ie : tank attack, infantery defend) are killed by 30 warriors.
30 warriors = 300 shields, no ressource.
1 tank + 1 infantery = 290 shield, oil + rubber.

Do I say to add more ?

[Monoriu]

"So, let's sum up. If you have a mixed high-tech civ, with tank to attack and infantery to defend, and you are facing a backward civ with stone axes, what kind of advantage do you get ?
1 tank + 1 infantery, used in appropriate ways (ie : tank attack, infantery defend) are killed by 30 warriors.
30 warriors = 300 shields, no ressource.
1 tank + 1 infantery = 290 shield, oil + rubber.

Do I say to add more ?"


Hold on a minute, you are ignoring a whole bunch of stuff.

1. 30 warrior needs 30 gold to maintain per turn. 1 inf and 1 tank costs 2 gold.

2. Tanks move faster. Hence, it can attack a warrior, then withdraw in the same turn. Warriors can't.

3. Tanks have the ability to retreat in the middle of a battle.

4. Specialization. Most of the time, I use tanks to attack, and inf. for defence. You should use the att. value of tanks and the def. value of inf for your calculations.

5. Its easier to move 2 units than 30. Yes I count that as a tangible advantage.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Venger


Listen newbie priçk, it's not up to us to finish the game for them. People paid $50 for a game that works not a game they have to tweak to make sense.

Die troll die!

Venger

Can you not reply to someone without insulting them? Almost every day when reading through the forums I find you insuylting someone who doesn't agree with you.

Show more maturity and debate issues with logical points and counter-points instead of name-calling.

Now then, I'm sorry you think the game is unfinished, I (and many others) think it's fine. If you don't like how modern units can be damaged by older units then, by all means, go into the editor and change the values that YOU play with. There is no need for Firaxis to change the values for everyone just because a minority has a problem with combat.

One thing you forget is that people are people, whether they are one thousand years apart technologically or not. Unless it's a wide open plain tanks should NOT win 100% of the time, even against spearmen! With the game so abstracted you forget about the people that also support those tanks in the field, the spearmen could easily ambush the fuel supplies for said tanks and without fuel tanks are basically iron & steel lumps to run around on the way to fight other battles.

As has been mentioned, if you want an unrealistic view of tanks & other modern units winning 100% of the time use the editor (that's what it is there for!!), otherwise, leave everyone else to play the game how they like and quit trying to act as if your way is the only way.

BTW, one of the main arguments I remember against combat ala Civ1 was that Phalanx's could sink a battleship, but with the ability to bombard now that should NOT be an issue.

[zapperio]

Thanks nc, I did read that thread (SMAC better than CIV3) but I did not find an answer to my request. Frankly, I don't think the suggestion has been made yet. I, for one, will wait.

zap

[Akka]

[SIZE=1]
4. Specialization. Most of the time, I use tanks to attack, and inf. for defence. You should use the att. value of tanks and the def. value of inf for your calculations.

Monoriu, you would gain a LOT in credibility if you were able to actually READ a post before starting to counter it. As I'm generous today, I'll spare you the huge work of reading a post in it's integrality and then repost the parts you obviously skipped :
"Now, go for more practical examples that will make more sense in the game : tank vs fortified warrior, and warrior vs fortified infantery."
"1) Warrior vs fortified infantery."
"2) Tank vs fortified warrior in a town"
"1 tank + 1 infantery, used in appropriate ways (ie : tank attack, infantery defend) are killed by 30 warriors."

*irony on*
Not too hard to read ? See ? HOW WONDERFULL ! A tank is actually used for ATTACK in my example ! And the infantery to DEFEND ! Truly incredible.
*irony off*

[SIZE=1]

1. 30 warrior needs 30 gold to maintain per turn. 1 inf and 1 tank costs 2 gold.

2. Tanks move faster. Hence, it can attack a warrior, then withdraw in the same turn. Warriors can't.

3. Tanks have the ability to retreat in the middle of a battle.

5. Its easier to move 2 units than 30. Yes I count that as a tangible advantage

1) 1 infantery + 1 tank need 2 gold AND ressources AND technology climbing. Consider all the money you have put in research, city improvements for this research, times and money used to gain access to these ressources, and I'm not really sure that you will really be able to say that they only require "2 golds".

2 and 3) Yes, the tank has an advantage over the warrior. Wow. After 5800 years of technological improvement, I am really surprising about it. No joke, really.

5) It's an advantage only for a human. For the AI and for the simple "balance" stuff about fight, it's nothing.


It's incredible though that you did not say anything about the fact that building only warriors, you can have the same fighting capacity than someone building only tanks and infantery. I mean, be serious, do you really understand what this imply ? Its imply that the research means NOTHING and that the same work you can do with high-end units can be equally done with stone age ones.
I hear constantly the anti-FP side talk about "game balance", "having to produce one high-end unit and steamroll an entire civilization is not fun" and the like. But it seems not disturb you that for the same amount of production, warriors do roughly the same job than tanks and infantery. Do you see the "balance" only when it fits you ?

Here what's I will say : the technological advance give NOT ENOUGH advantage over ancient units.
I CAN edit my game and change unit statistics, but it's not the point. I can edit the pollution and corruption too, and ultimately I can practically rebuild all the game (thanks to the rules editor BTW, it's probably the best one I've see so far). But I have to say that in default game, the advanced units are not powerful enough.
I understand that it's needed to let a little margin for backward civ about the fight, and I agree that Civ2 was too mechanical about the victory of improved units. But COME ON, stop the delirium, I'm talking about units that are THREE AGES APART ! I agree to give units ONE age apart chances in fight, but any civ that is still in ancient era when another is in modern one should be CRUSHED WITHOUT ANY CHANCE. If a player/AI fùcked its research so bad that he's/it's since at the spearmen level when another is building aircraft, then he/it SHOULD die.

Here is what I propose : veteran, elite and conscript statut should change the A/D values (I think it makes more sense anyway). And then, Ancient unit should have 2 HP, Middle-age units should have 3 HP, Industrial 4 HP and modern 5 HP.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by n.c.
BTW, Pizarro and his ~400 men beat armies with tens of thousands because they had steel and were on horses. Don't believe it? Read Guns, Germs and Steel by Diamond.

That is fine, what is not okay is why this is true and how it gets implemented.

-"shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level?"
Not necessarily, as he may have encountered a seriously backward civ.

He also won because at first at least, the natives didn't fight back, they thought he was some holy diety.

Want to bet how successful Pizarro would have been if:

1) The natives had massed and counter-attacked his invading army as soon as they knew he would have landed.
2) If the natives had been immune to the diseases he, and all foreigners, had brought to the new world.

Heh, I highly doubt that even with guns and at the time "modern" equipment he would have survuved the initial assualt to throw him off the beach. Even modern units like tanks and infantry need bullets and gasoline to make them so efficient at fighting. Take the bullets from a modern infantry man and the gas from a tank and you end up with what?? People running around using sticks, rocks,clubs and anything else they can find to fight with..

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

I hear constantly the anti-FP side talk about "game balance", "having to produce one high-end unit and steamroll an entire civilization is not fun" and the like. But it seems not disturb you that for the same amount of production, warriors do roughly the same job than tanks and infantery. Do you see the "balance" only when it fits you ?

You would be correct if CIV3 was a combat simulation. It is not. Combat is a component of Civ3, and though it is an important one it is not the deciding one, at least not anymore. I've had a full game without so much as a skirmish (not kidding). Does that mean I didn't play the game the way it was meant to be played? Considering the number of victory conditions, i don't think so.

If technology gave you nothing but better combat units you would be right again but better technology means you are able to build an machine that will allow you to have large civilization with huge profits which can crank out 300 tanks in ten turns if necessary while the backward civ will be lucky to get 300 warriors in 100 turns. Advantage through technology? What game are you playing?!?


Zap

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


Monoriu, you would gain a LOT in credibility if you were able to actually READ a post before starting to counter it. As I'm generous today, I'll spare you the huge work of reading a post in it's integrality and then repost the parts you obviously skipped :
"Now, go for more practical examples that will make more sense in the game : tank vs fortified warrior, and warrior vs fortified infantery."
"1) Warrior vs fortified infantery."
"2) Tank vs fortified warrior in a town"
"1 tank + 1 infantery, used in appropriate ways (ie : tank attack, infantery defend) are killed by 30 warriors."

*irony on*
Not too hard to read ? See ? HOW WONDERFULL ! A tank is actually used for ATTACK in my example ! And the infantery to DEFEND ! Truly incredible.
*irony off*



1) 1 infantery + 1 tank need 2 gold AND ressources AND technology climbing. Consider all the money you have put in research, city improvements for this research, times and money used to gain access to these ressources, and I'm not really sure that you will really be able to say that they only require "2 golds".

2 and 3) Yes, the tank has an advantage over the warrior. Wow. After 5800 years of technological improvement, I am really surprising about it. No joke, really.

5) It's an advantage only for a human. For the AI and for the simple "balance" stuff about fight, it's nothing.


It's incredible though that you did not say anything about the fact that building only warriors, you can have the same fighting capacity than someone building only tanks and infantery. I mean, be serious, do you really understand what this imply ? Its imply that the research means NOTHING and that the same work you can do with high-end units can be equally done with stone age ones.
I hear constantly the anti-FP side talk about "game balance", "having to produce one high-end unit and steamroll an entire civilization is not fun" and the like. But it seems not disturb you that for the same amount of production, warriors do roughly the same job than tanks and infantery. Do you see the "balance" only when it fits you ?

Here what's I will say : the technological advance give NOT ENOUGH advantage over ancient units.
I CAN edit my game and change unit statistics, but it's not the point. I can edit the pollution and corruption too, and ultimately I can practically rebuild all the game (thanks to the rules editor BTW, it's probably the best one I've see so far). But I have to say that in default game, the advanced units are not powerful enough.
I understand that it's needed to let a little margin for backward civ about the fight, and I agree that Civ2 was too mechanical about the victory of improved units. But COME ON, stop the delirium, I'm talking about units that are THREE AGES APART ! I agree to give units ONE age apart chances in fight, but any civ that is still in ancient era when another is in modern one should be CRUSHED WITHOUT ANY CHANCE. If a player/AI fùcked its research so bad that he's/it's since at the spearmen level when another is building aircraft, then he/it SHOULD die.

Here is what I propose : veteran, elite and conscript statut should change the A/D values (I think it makes more sense anyway). And then, Ancient unit should have 2 HP, Middle-age units should have 3 HP, Industrial 4 HP and modern 5 HP.

I wasn't very clear in my last post, for that I apologize. I did read through your entire post before responding, and this is the part of your original post that I was refering to when I made the "specialization comment":


"So, basically, the infantery is, in fighting value, 9 times better than a warrior (average between 7 and 11). Some can argue that infantery is made to defend, not attack. It's true, but this is about strategy, not about what technology gives you. Remember, it's a FIGHTING unit, not unit like carrier, transport or aircraft that has special ability. So I'll stick with this 1 infantery = 9 warriors for now. "

I just wanted to point out that if you are going to use the att. value for tank and def. value for inf, its better to be consistent in your whole analysis.


Another thing that you did not include in your analysis, is the time it takes to build units.

Let's say, a typical industrial age city. It takes 3 turns (somtimes 2) to build an infantry, and the same goes for the tank. Ok, 6 turns to build the 2 units. How many turns does it take to build 30 warriors? 30 turns. In the same period of time, I can make 5 inf. and 5 tanks.

edited to change an important word

[eRAZOR]

Originally posted by Venger


We don't want them all powerful, and quantity has a quality all it's own. Look at the musketeer versus 2 legions example - in Civ2, the musketeer always won the first battle, but lost half it's hit points, and was 75% likely to be killed by the 2nd legions counter attack. Even without a counter attack, the musketeer was only 50/50. I think you may be forgetting the damage aspect when thinking of this debate. When a modern unit wins, it suffers damage, and that damage means that it WILL die if it continues combat, either attacking or defending.



First, they should be chewed up, second, yes the quantity matters! Every old unit you add has 10 hit points to burn. Again, look at the example.



?????

Venger

Buddy. Argueing with these zealots is a waste of time. I went through the exact same bullshit with several other games only to realize that theres a good amount of people that accept every broken piece of crap (in this case the dumbed down combat system to appeal the mainstream audience and newbies).

Let the flames coming - I don't give a damn

[zapperio]

Originally posted by eRAZOR
I don't give a damn

Neither do I

Zap

[Grumbold]

The only meaningful way of analysing effectiveness has to take into account the production rates of cities, as Monoriu points out. A city that would take 30 turns to produce a tank might be statistically better off churning out 15 warriors instead, assuming you ignored the cost of keeping those warriors hanging around - but that cash could be used to upgrade them anyway.

In practical terms, when a civ discovers infantry (please not infantEry) it normally has cities capable of building them in 2-3 turns. It is normally intending them to be used defensively too, so the defence factor of 10 is more likely to be 15+ when combat modifiers are accounted for, resulting in a much higher success rate defending against the hypothetical warrior wave attack. Its ability to survive and rise to veteran and elite is an additional advantage that low cost high expendability units are unlikely to achieve, even giving the possibility of a leader.

I have sworn repeatedly at the computer over the last week as my best laid plans have been blunted by a series of unlucky combat results. There is no doubt it can be infuriating in individual outcomes but over the course of a full campaign, knocking out 4 civs almost single handedly, the loss of 8 tanks seems pretty small beer. If the modern units were given any greater advantages there would simply be no point in playing on should you fall behind on the tech race or not have the cash to upgrade your troops when you discover a new one.

When you advance to a new age you get better abilities to bombard the defenders down to 1hp before charging. That is the advantage you have to press to the maximum and the reason why frontal assaults have to be risky if you don't use them.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I have sworn repeatedly at the computer over the last week as my best laid plans have been blunted by a series of unlucky combat results. There is no doubt it can be infuriating in individual outcomes but over the course of a full campaign, knocking out 4 civs almost single handedly, the loss of 8 tanks seems pretty small beer. If the modern units were given any greater advantages there would simply be no point in playing on should you fall behind on the tech race or not have the cash to upgrade your troops when you discover a new one.

spot on
i had some really infuriating results (i attack immortal with 3 swordsmen and they all die while the bastard is elite now, standing unfortified in some nice grassland) but overall combat is VERY fair and your well prepared attack has a reasonable chance of success. what some are arguing here is an civ2-like avalanche of tanks that sweeps other civs away.
combat is fine as is now.

grumbold, did you finally get the game? how do you like it?

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by LaRusso
grumbold, did you finally get the game? how do you like it?

Yup. I'll bump my 'thoughts' thread and expand on it some more. 4 pages of spam *cough* serious discussion seems to have obscured it

[rid102]

Let's say, a typical industrial age city. It takes 3 turns (somtimes 2) to build an infantry, and the same goes for the tank. Ok, 6 turns to build the 2 units. How many turns does it take to build 30 warriors? 30 turns. In the same period of time, I can make 5 inf. and 5 tanks.

Firstly, the relative costs of units are already factored in. E.g. why does it cost 10 shields to build Warriors yet 80 (or whatever) to build Infantry when both are essentially a body of men? Because the shield costs are relatively balanced, that's why. Trying to argue that the Infantry get more training etc. is nonsense as (e.g.) Hoplites and Legions were also just as well trained and drilled as modern units. The cost of a unit is not (or rather, should not be) based solely on its tactical value, but on both its value and relative cost w.r.t the era it appears in. In your example:

Tank (A16 D8 Cost 100) = 0.16A per resource, 0.08D per resource

Warrior (A1 D1 Cost 10) = 0.1A per resource, 0.1D per resource

Hence, Warriors are actually more effective per resource cost then Tanks in defense. At least on paper. And Tanks are only 1.6 times more effective in attack relative to their cost. Resource costs are balanced.

And this isn't even taken into consideration the cost in breaching the scientific gap between these two units, which is tremendous.

Secondly, for better or for worse, everything (including units over and above your free allocation) now runs off gold (rather than sheild) support. This means that the faster you can create units, the faster you also create a burden on your economy to support those units. This means that the "bang-for-buck" (i.e. effectiveness per gold) of a Tank is a lot higher than a Warrior, i.e. technology is really just making more advanced units more cost effective (economic) and but not really very much more tactically effective.

Thirdly, there is very limited obsolesence amoungst units. This causes a "stretch" in resource efficiency and cost effectiveness of units (see above example). Whereas in Civ2 you could normally at most have units from two "ages" (e.g. ancient and renaissance) now you can have units spread across several eras (e.g. Battleships fighting alongside Longbowmen, as in the game I played yesterday).

Overall the issue is not one of "Warriors are better than Tanks" or whatever, but the fact that relatively, more modern units simply do not provide sufficient tactical prowess verses their cost.

[rid102]

A city that would take 30 turns to produce a tank might be statistically better off churning out 15 warriors instead, assuming you ignored the cost of keeping those warriors hanging around - but that cash could be used to upgrade them anyway.

One factor which seems to have been neglected is the fact that units can only attack once per turn (AFAIK). This makes a "rushing" strategy like this viable.

Say you have a city producing 10 shields/turn. You can build 1 Tank in 10 turns or 10 Warriors, one per turn.

In the case where the Warriors attack the Tank, you have (potentially) 10 attacks/turn. Even though the chance of the Warrior winning is only 1/8, the number of attacks should outweight that and the Warriors stand a decent chance of beating the Tank in a turn or two (by sheer weight of numbers).

If the Tank attacks the Warriors then it needs 10 turns to clear them all (or at best 5 turns if you allow 1 attack per movement point).

This can't be right, is it?

[Grumbold]

Lets ignore a modern armor because that does get more attacks. Why shouldn't it be right? A unit can only be capturing/killing one thing at a time, and the enemy aren't all going to stand shoulder to shoulder to be gunned down en masse. A "horde" attack that sweeps past the defence to pillage the countryside beyond or capture workers is perfectly good strategy, and one the AI likes to use. The key at all times is to be asking yourself if you have 1. numerically enough defenders and 2. strong enough defenders. If you have one tank defending your border, you are going to get hurt unless it is stationed on a 1 tile wide land bridge. It is also why a technologically inferior enemy will get belligerent and demanding if it has a bigger army than you even if it only has horsemen against your mech inf. Every game you have to strike the right balance. That's one of the reasons its called a strategy game

[rid102]

Lets ignore a modern armor because that does get more attacks. Why shouldn't it be right?

Well there are two cases:

1 - Units are "same era" units, in which case I agree with you. They should have equal attacks.

2 - Units are not "same era" units (e.g. Tanks vs Warriors) in which case if you have a very string economy, it makes more sense to produce Warriors simply because it will take the enemy so many turns to wade through them all. This effect is espectially crippling for Sea units (e.g. Destroyer/Battleship) which can only bombard Land units once per turn and very ineffectively at that. Surrounding all your coastal squares with Warriors is an effective (if not particularly cheap) tactic which makes you pretty near invunerable to Sea-based invasion, for literally the smallest resource and science outlay possible. The only viable tactic is to use several Marines to establish a beachead. Which is fine if you have Amphibious Warfare, but if you haven't...

The key at all times is to be asking yourself if you have 1. numerically enough defenders and 2. strong enough defenders.

Well, I consider units to not be individual entities but rather playing peices. So, in this case a "Tank" is actually a Tank Division and "Warriors" are actually a band of a few thousand tribesmen.

So, to answer points 1 and 2. I do think that an armoured division should be able to hold off tens of thousands of primitively armed tribesmen (machine guns, run them over, rout them etc.). I take it, you think that the Tank is too weak in this case?

If you have one tank defending your border, you are going to get hurt unless it is stationed on a 1 tile wide land bridge.

I'm not really considering the strategic point of whether or not I'm defending my border or whatever. I'm talking about the tactical ramifications of a Tank engaged with 10 units of Warriors.

Every game you have to strike the right balance.

I agree. I just don't see why tactics and stratagies which have worked for me in the past with Civ1/Civ2 or have worked historically cease to be valid in Civ3.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by rid102


One factor which seems to have been neglected is the fact that units can only attack once per turn (AFAIK). This makes a "rushing" strategy like this viable.

Say you have a city producing 10 shields/turn. You can build 1 Tank in 10 turns or 10 Warriors, one per turn.

In the case where the Warriors attack the Tank, you have (potentially) 10 attacks/turn. Even though the chance of the Warrior winning is only 1/8, the number of attacks should outweight that and the Warriors stand a decent chance of beating the Tank in a turn or two (by sheer weight of numbers).

If the Tank attacks the Warriors then it needs 10 turns to clear them all (or at best 5 turns if you allow 1 attack per movement point).

This can't be right, is it?

You are correct, it can't be right, here's why:

By the time you get tanks, most of your cities can turn out a tank in 2 or 3 turns. Do you want 5 tanks or do you want 15 warriors?

Thus, the real relative cost of a tank to a warrior is 3:1, on average. And a tank surely fights more than 3 times better than a warrior.

The shield cost of a unit is irrelevant to me. What's relevant, is how many tanks I can get within a given time frame.

[zapperio]

poignant point from last week's TIME:

"Sunday, Nov. 11, 2001
In the dead of night, horses poured from the hills. They came charging down from the craggy ridges in groups of 10, their riders dressed in flowing shalwar kameez and armed with AK-47s and grenade launchers. In the Kishindi Valley below, 35 miles south of the prized northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, the few Taliban tanks in the area not destroyed by American bombs took aim at the Northern Alliance cavalry galloping toward them. But the 600 horsemen had been ordered to charge directly into the line of fire. "If you ride fast enough, you can get to them," an Alliance spokesman later explained. "You ride straight at them. The tank will only have time to get off one or two rounds before you get there." The rebels were told to leap on top of the tanks, pull the Taliban gunners out through the open hatches and kill them. The first land battle in the century's first war began with a showdown from a distant age: fearless men on horseback against modern artillery. America's money was on the ponies. "

Zap

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Monoriu




You are correct, it can't be right, here's why:

By the time you get tanks, most of your cities can turn out a tank in 2 or 3 turns. Do you want 5 tanks or do you want 15 warriors?

Thus, the real relative cost of a tank to a warrior is 3:1, on average. And a tank surely fights more than 3 times better than a warrior.

The shield cost of a unit is irrelevant to me. What's relevant, is how many tanks I can get within a given time frame.

And with airports and rail you can stack them high in no time.

Zap