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

[Grumbold]

An individual tank can engage multiple soldiers simultaneously assuming they are all in range. A unit of 100 tanks can pin down a unit of 1000 soldiers, and ultimately defeat or be defeated by them. But it can't be defeating 5 units of warriors all moving in different directions at once. I think this is where the concept of a 'tile' gets blurred. Its a huge area of space. If it is not being treated as such, you would start to have to consider stacks defending simultaneously against an attacking unit, which leads to wanting to have stacked offensive units, i.e. proper implementation of armies. It is something CtP did very well and I had hoped for in Civ 3 but did not happen.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Big long post

You make a nice argument and have done some reasonable work. But in your practical examples, what about the role of bambardment?

[rid102]

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?

The scenario you're talking about (i.e. overproduction) was also present in Civ2, though.

In the case where you're not overproducing, it's not quite so clear cut (see my previous example).

Thus, the real relative cost of a tank to a warrior is 3:1, on average.

Excuse me? LOL

So, if you can build a Tank in 3 turns (say, taking your example) then you're producing (at a minimum) 34 resources/turn. This means that you can also build (e.g.) one Swordsman per turn, so by your logic the "real" relative cost of a tank to a Swordsman is also 3:1. Yet, the Swordsman costs 3 times as much as a Warrior. However, a Warrior is also 3:1 with a Tank... see the contradiction?

I'd say a Tank was a lot more effective than just 3 times a Warrior. E.g. going back to Civ2, Armour was more like 30 times more effective on attack and 15 times on defense.

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.

OK you don't care about how many resources it takes to build rather, you're more concerned with time to build. So, why don't you just wait until most of your cities can knock out 1 Tank (100+ resources) per turn?

BTW: Sheild production (and hence unit cost) is entirely relevant to how many units you can build per turn.

[woody]

Well, I'm just glad the the folks at Firaxis have enough of a brain and an imagination that they produced a game which is FUN, rather than a boring game that is based solely on reality.

So, to the people who lack the ability to understand that a few pixels is not a real tank, you should probably go play something else. Civ is for players that enjoy a good strategy game. Civ isn't for people who just want to whine and complain about everything.

The fact that they still cry about the rules, when the editor allows them to change the rules to make "tanks" almost invincible to "spears", just shows how pathetic their complaining really is. Grow up, guys, and put your efforts into something more constructive.

[TCO]

Hey! What happened? The level of discussion has gone up at least 2-fold! We've got smart people on both sides discussing the issues and comeing up with new insights.

Lock the door and don't let Venger back in here.

*GP slowly realizes he's going to get tossed out the door, like a mangey cat, also... *

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by rid102


The scenario you're talking about (i.e. overproduction) was also present in Civ2, though.

In the case where you're not overproducing, it's not quite so clear cut (see my previous example).




Excuse me? LOL

So, if you can build a Tank in 3 turns (say, taking your example) then you're producing (at a minimum) 34 resources/turn. This means that you can also build (e.g.) one Swordsman per turn, so by your logic the "real" relative cost of a tank to a Swordsman is also 3:1. Yet, the Swordsman costs 3 times as much as a Warrior. However, a Warrior is also 3:1 with a Tank... see the contradiction?

I'd say a Tank was a lot more effective than just 3 times a Warrior. E.g. going back to Civ2, Armour was more like 30 times more effective on attack and 15 times on defense.



OK you don't care about how many resources it takes to build rather, you're more concerned with time to build. So, why don't you just wait until most of your cities can knock out 1 Tank (100+ resources) per turn?

BTW: Sheild production (and hence unit cost) is entirely relevant to how many units you can build per turn.

Where is the contradiction? Yes, because my cities usually overproduce so much, producing a swordman cost exactly the same as a warrior (1 turn, in both cases).

Overproduction is a huge part of the equation and you cannot ignore that. I am never concerned with the shield cost of a unit. What concerns me, is when I pull down the production menu and have to decide what unit to produce, how many turns will pass until I get what I want. In this example, its:

infantry (3 turns)
tank (3 turns)
swordman (1 turn)
warrior (1 turn)

Which one will you choose? I choose tank or infantry in all cases. Under no circumstances will I consider a warrior or a swordman in the above example (which, BTW, is the most common production manual in my games, the second most common one is tank 2 turns and infantry 2 turns).

Hence, technology IS useful, because the most high tech unit is the most efficient and the most effective one.

[Akka]

What will always amaze me is the capacity of people to only see what they want and when it's convenient for them.
Here two examples :

1)

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

If I remember my last post, what I suggested was giving respectively 2, 3, 4 and 5 hit points,to ancient, middle-age, industrial and modern units. I don't think it's overpowering the modern units, and I don't think it'll be horribly imbalanced. In fact, a modern unit would only have 20 % more hit point than an industrial unit, and not even twice the hit points of a medieval unit. When you think what represent two whole era in technology, it makes sense.

Considering the modest modification and modest power boost that I talked before, you are basically telling me "if I was not able to reach the middle-age technological era while my opponent is in the modern era, then I'm screwed and it's not even worth to continue as I won't be able to win". Then I would answer : YES. If you are still in the ancient era when someone is in the modern, THEN you are screwed. And I think that the TOTAL IMBALANCE would be that someone so late in tech was able to still win the game. You consider that somone who has 10 times less units than its opponent should die. I do agree. But then be logical with yourselves, and accept that the same thing happen when someone has 10 times less tech than its opponent.



2)

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.

If I am still able to read latin alphabet and standard english, I wrote before :

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.

Now it's perhaps just me, but I do actually think I talked about FORTIFIED intantry ? Ok, perhaps it was because of the additionnal E that you could not get the link. I stand corrected, my mistake.



Now, to the serious part.
As Monoriu said it, it's true that production of late cities is much higher than backward ones, and that in fact, the RELATIVE cost of tanks is less than 10 times the one of the warrior. But I say it's not sufficient. Ok, let's take a big deep breath, and see the whole thing.

Why all this fight ?
Basiqually, someone eventually came and complained about some unrealistic fight where a man with an axe destroyed a tank (I know, some hundred people with axes destroying a tank section). He thought it was not logical, and said "we have to change this !". I, and all the people with more than two brain cells too, DO agree with him, it's utterly unrealistic and should be changed.
BUT...
Someone else here said "hey, man, ok it's not realistic, but if we give to the modern units too much power, the game will become annoying very fast. It's a question of balance !". And then again, I, and all people with more than two brain cells, DO agree with him, balance is important, and shouldn't be sacrified.

Where is the good balance between realism and playability ?
The good balance is when there is :
1) enough realism to allow you to build a strategy based on common assumption (ie : a tank is stronger than a knight, a phalanx is weaker than musketman, cavalry move faster than infantry, planes fly, ships float, submarines move underwater, etc...). I doubt strongly than even the strongest of the "it's just an icon over stats" would sincerely support an attempt to make carriers available with polytheism and with a weaker defense than a trireme.

2) enough flexibility to allow the player to catch up with a leading opponent (not being overwhelmed and doomed to death just because someone got 1 tech farther than you and this tech allowed him to build the supa-dupa-extra-unit-of-the-game that kills all in one nanosec). I again doubt strongly than even the most fanatic of realism would agree letting a musketman unit being 10A/20B while the more ancient units stay the same.

Some people think that the game already have this state of balance. I don't think it's the case. I think there is not enough power difference between ancient era units and modern era units. I don't want making the more modern units all-powerful, but if lack of military strategy should be paid in losses on the battlefield, lack of tech should be paid the same. I think it's just being fair with a player that succeeded to be in the modern era to allow him to be able to crush an opponent that wasn't even able to reach the middle-age.
What I would like to cease to hear is the always-used motto "if modern units are made more powerful then it's not even worth to play more if you're not in the lead". I would like the people using this sentence able to understand that there is something between "giving later units a bigger edge against low-tech units" and "making later units all-powerfull".

If it's fair for someone to win because he outnumbered vastly its opponent, it's fair for someone to win because he outteched (I know this word doesn't exist, it's just for the sake of the sentence ) vastly his opponent.
Someone one tech era late SHOULD have penalities. Not enough to make the game hopeless, but it was bested by its opponent somehow, so it should show.
Someone two tech eras late is REALLLY late in the game. At this stage, his survival is not really a concern, because is so in late that it would be unfair to other players to let him be able to be anything else than a struggling for its survival civilization.
Someone THREE tech eras late played so bad that he should be crushed, period. Any ancient era unit should be able to only scratch any modern unit, and just while being lucky.

So is what I proposed : experience level improve A/D ratings, era improve hit points (plus, it makes more sense to make a battleship having more hit points than a trireme). As I said earlier, it does not improve dramatically the power of units from one era to another. Only if the gap is too wide the difference will be overwhelming. And if this gap si so large, the backward one SHOULD die anyway.

Last thing : I would like people to read and think before answering, not just contradicting me for the pleasure of doing it. I would like to see constructive propositions and not just flames of answers made while the post wasn't even read in its entirety.

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Last thing : I would like people to read and think before answering, not just contradicting me for the pleasure of doing it. I would like to see constructive propositions and not just flames of answers made while the post wasn't even read in its entirety.

You're preaching to the converted, in my case.

*Bump*

What will always amaze me is the capacity of people to only see what they want and when it's convenient for them.

That certainly has been the prevailing method of some people (Who shall remain nameless) in this argument.

[Ghengis Brom]

I've noticed the same imbalance with acient units as well. Like my veteran Bowman having his ass handed to him by a regular spearman. Same thing when one of my vet Bowman went after a regular Jag Warrior. It seemed like as soon as I had the slightest upperhand the AI decided it was no longer going to take damage from any of my units.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


So is what I proposed : experience level improve A/D ratings, era improve hit points (plus, it makes more sense to make a battleship having more hit points than a trireme). As I said earlier, it does not improve dramatically the power of units from one era to another. Only if the gap is too wide the difference will be overwhelming. And if this gap si so large, the backward one SHOULD die anyway.

You may have missed the chat with Soren on this subject and the numerous posts regarding this but the debate is not concerning technology but resources. You can have the same or greater tech as the next civ but they are able to make the tanks and infantry whereas you are only able to produce last age units due to lack of rubber or oil or both.

It is not fair for that civ to have greater advantage than it does now, in my opinion, just because of random placement of strategic resources.

To quote Soren:

"gamadictG> Soren, I don't know if this has been addressed before, but do you think low-tech units have too
good of a chance to defeat higher-tech units...??
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> gamad...: concerning the loss of firepower. Firepower added needless complexity to the
game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower
of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1... however
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2.
This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if
you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X."

Important difference and an important point. Personally I think the resource system adds a great deal of fun and strategy to the game and I would be sore to see any addition or changes that would undermine that system.

Zap

[Setsuna]

The resource system is an argument for another thread. That said, the resource system should adapt to the combat, not vice-versa.

[Ghengis Brom]

Originally posted by 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?

I agree whole-heartedly with this. Also, it's not only modern units that suffer from this imbalance. I'd still like to know how my veteran Bowman lost to a regular Jag Warrior defending in the field, not in a town.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Setsuna
The resource system is an argument for another thread. That said, the resource system should adapt to the combat, not vice-versa.

How can you discuss the reasoning behind unit balance with view to technology and ignore the resource system, when that system is the reason for the current balance.

And no, combat is just one of many tools that allows you to gain and control resources. Therefore the resource system has a greater strategic significance to the game and the gameplay.
Yes, the combat system should adapt to that!

Zap

[E. Goldstein]

GP:

I read the posts as well. Whether or not the tactics were poor was debatable in some cases, but Monoriu jumped to the conclusion that they were without having all the facts. Personally, I can live with cavalry being offensive units only, but there is no reason why a person can't want them to perform more like their historical counterparts.

Woody:

Shut up and go ask mommy for the money to buy yourself some sense (like you did for Civ3). Reality and fun are not mutually exclusive, unless you're grasping at straws in a losing argument.

Zapperio:

"Important difference and an important point. Personally I think the resource system adds a great deal of fun and strategy to the game and I would be sore to see any addition or changes that would undermine that system."

Changing combat doesn't undermine the resource system, the resource system undermines combat. Resources should provide bargaining tools for diplomacy and goals for war. Logical combat results aren't needed to 'undermine' the resource system - the lack of power of advanced units and the ability of one resource to supply an entire empire, regardless of size, already does that.

I would, of course, prefer to have a resource than not, but I know that mass-producing bleeding edge units which don't need the resource will win the day for me, so it isn't that big of a deal. This shouldn't be the case.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by E. Goldstein
I would, of course, prefer to have a resource than not, but I know that mass-producing bleeding edge units which don't need the resource will win the day for me, so it isn't that big of a deal. This shouldn't be the case.

It isn't. You mass-produce the bleeding edge units and I'll mass-produce the cutting edge ones and we'll see who will win.

And tell me, if you can, how does making technology more important, in terms of unit strength, prevent you from using the same strategy, only this time with tanks against riflemen? You can mass-produce units at any age, you know. At least the technologically superior civ has a decent fighting chance against a horde of bleeding edge units. In fact, in the hands of a human, that civ would win every time.

Zap

[Akka]

Originally posted by zapperio


You may have missed the chat with Soren on this subject and the numerous posts regarding this but the debate is not concerning technology but resources. You can have the same or greater tech as the next civ but they are able to make the tanks and infantry whereas you are only able to produce last age units due to lack of rubber or oil or both.

It is not fair for that civ to have greater advantage than it does now, in my opinion, just because of random placement of strategic resources.

To quote Soren:

"gamadictG> Soren, I don't know if this has been addressed before, but do you think low-tech units have too
good of a chance to defeat higher-tech units...??
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> gamad...: concerning the loss of firepower. Firepower added needless complexity to the
game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower
of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1... however
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2.
This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if
you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X."

Important difference and an important point. Personally I think the resource system adds a great deal of fun and strategy to the game and I would be sore to see any addition or changes that would undermine that system.

Zap

I, too, love the ressource system. It adds a lot of fun, and while at Civ 1&2 I spent often the whole game never starting a war, the ressources do a great job at keeping the pressure, the need to explore, the need to talk with other civ... and the need to plan an invasion

But I don't think that the ressource is an issue here. Rather than penalizing the whole game fight system because someone could be out of ressources, it would be better to simply put in each era a basic unit that require no ressource, just like the phalanx or the riflemen. In fact, the riflemen is a good example, as it is an industrial unit (and then would not suffer too much fighting 5 HP unit with its 4 HP, so no imbalance) and it require nothing to be created. Giving even the possibility to any Civ to produce archers, swordmen and warrior after the apparition of the rifleman is in my opinion completely absurd. And it should be MADE absurd in the mechanic of the game by rendering these units useless against FAR more advanced units (I said FAR, ie at least 2 eras apart).

About the ressources, they are often not very wisely distributed : in my actual game, I have 8 (eight) coal on my territory. FIVE of them are placed IN A 5x5 TILES SQUARE ! All the coal of the map was concentrated under the jungle of my empire, giving me de facto a huge advantage and the monopol (monopolist ? spelling ?) on this crucial ressource (remember : no RR without coal).
I know that Fireaxis put the ressources together to be sure that no civ will have all of them, and that the civs will be obliged to trade. It's a good idea, but sadly it's completely fùcked up by the AI, which will NEVER give a fair trade unless completely crushed. It ends that I barely even try to trade with it, considering that for one ressource that I need, it will ask for dozen gold each turn, two ressources and my maps. Even if the ressources I can give to it are ten times more important for it than the one it has is for me.
So while the ressource system is, in my mind, a truly wonderful idea, I don't think that its flaws should taint the fight system, but rather be treated independantly.

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

But I don't think that the ressource is an issue here. Rather than penalizing the whole game fight system because someone could be out of ressources, it would be better to simply put in each era a basic unit that require no ressource, just like the phalanx or the riflemen. In fact, the riflemen is a good example, as it is an industrial unit (and then would not suffer too much fighting 5 HP unit with its 4 HP, so no imbalance) and it require nothing to be created. Giving even the possibility to any Civ to produce archers, swordmen and warrior after the apparition of the rifleman is in my opinion completely absurd. And it should be MADE absurd in the mechanic of the game by rendering these units useless against FAR more advanced units (I said FAR, ie at least 2 eras apart).

I agree. That would be an viable option. And it would resolve a lot of arguments.

Zap

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
So is what I proposed : experience level improve A/D ratings, era improve hit points (plus, it makes more sense to make a battleship having more hit points than a trireme). As I said earlier, it does not improve dramatically the power of units from one era to another. Only if the gap is too wide the difference will be overwhelming. And if this gap si so large, the backward one SHOULD die anyway.

I agree with have morale/experience modify A/D ratings, but as you mention if the space between hit point values is too vast then we have a case of over powered units again. My suggestion is to give each unit 10 hit points, not based on any element of realism of course, but by having each unit with 10 hit points you're bound to get a more accurate statistical out come of combat whereas the current hit point system allows for too much variance that the realists seem to be disagreeing with.

So for a unit with 10 attack against a unit with 1 defense the likely outcome is that the 10 attack wins with little damage, whereas in a system of such low hit point values the defender had a far greater chance of striking say, two lucky hits and winning the battle, which I think is what the realists have issues with.

Rather than modify the units hit point by age you're modifying the A/D rating in a system that makes them count for something beyond the lucky hit here and there.

If this ends up being a system that is too predictable perhaps each unit should be assigned five hit points that way it leaves greater room for some unlikely margin of error.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
What will always amaze me is the capacity of people to only see what they want and when it's convenient for them.
Here two examples :

1) 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


If I remember my last post, what I suggested was giving respectively 2, 3, 4 and 5 hit points,to ancient, middle-age, industrial and modern units. I don't think it's overpowering the modern units, and I don't think it'll be horribly imbalanced. In fact, a modern unit would only have 20 % more hit point than an industrial unit, and not even twice the hit points of a medieval unit. When you think what represent two whole era in technology, it makes sense.

I didn't read the whole 5 page thread, but moving hit points is changing the odds in favour of advanced units in the same way as increasing their stats or number of attacks or adding firepower. You have simply chosen an alternative method

Considering the modest modification and modest power boost that I talked before, you are basically telling me "if I was not able to reach the middle-age technological era while my opponent is in the modern era, then I'm screwed and it's not even worth to continue as I won't be able to win". Then I would answer : YES. If you are still in the ancient era when someone is in the modern, THEN you are screwed. And I think that the TOTAL IMBALANCE would be that someone so late in tech was able to still win the game. You consider that somone who has 10 times less units than its opponent should die. I do agree. But then be logical with yourselves, and accept that the same thing happen when someone has 10 times less tech than its opponent.

NO! You have altered the basic equation between the first person to get a new tech level of military units and someone who is as few as 15 turns behind. You hit upgrade, you launch an assault immediately and your extra hit point has given you an extra 20-30% advantage over and above what the designers intended. Attacking with 1 level more advanced troops is already very easy - I went through 4 empires for the loss of 0 artillery, 1 battleship and 8 tanks because they had infantry tech but could not afford to mass produce them and mainly defended with riflemen and cavalry. How much easier does it need to get?



2) 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.

If I am still able to read latin alphabet and standard english, I wrote before :

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.

Now it's perhaps just me, but I do actually think I talked about FORTIFIED intantry ? Ok, perhaps it was because of the additionnal E that you could not get the link. I stand corrected, my mistake.[/quote]

Pardon me, you seem to have interpreted my post as a personal attack against you regardless of however many other people had been adding their thoughts. It wasn't. Just showing that the quality unit has additional advantages over and above its pure defensivee strength vs the warrior.

Now, to the serious part.
As Monoriu said it, it's true that production of late cities is much higher than backward ones, and that in fact, the RELATIVE cost of tanks is less than 10 times the one of the warrior. But I say it's not sufficient. Ok, let's take a big deep breath, and see the whole thing.

Why all this fight ?
Basiqually, someone eventually came and complained about some unrealistic fight where a man with an axe destroyed a tank (I know, some hundred people with axes destroying a tank section). He thought it was not logical, and said "we have to change this !". I, and all the people with more than two brain cells too, DO agree with him, it's utterly unrealistic and should be changed.

FACT: An italian armored column WAS destroyed by tribal infantry armed with brains, knives, brushwood, torches and makeshift rams made from railroad sleepers and treetrunks. But dont let historical events disturb your prejudice that the US 1st Armored is invulnerable to anything more low-tech than Anti Tank rockets.

BUT...
Someone else here said "hey, man, ok it's not realistic, but if we give to the modern units too much power, the game will become annoying very fast. It's a question of balance !". And then again, I, and all people with more than two brain cells, DO agree with him, balance is important, and shouldn't be sacrified.

Where is the good balance between realism and playability ?
The good balance is when there is :
1) enough realism to allow you to build a strategy based on common assumption (ie : a tank is stronger than a knight, a phalanx is weaker than musketman, cavalry move faster than infantry, planes fly, ships float, submarines move underwater, etc...). I doubt strongly than even the strongest of the "it's just an icon over stats" would sincerely support an attempt to make carriers available with polytheism and with a weaker defense than a trireme.

2) enough flexibility to allow the player to catch up with a leading opponent (not being overwhelmed and doomed to death just because someone got 1 tech farther than you and this tech allowed him to build the supa-dupa-extra-unit-of-the-game that kills all in one nanosec). I again doubt strongly than even the most fanatic of realism would agree letting a musketman unit being 10A/20B while the more ancient units stay the same.

Some people think that the game already have this state of balance. I don't think it's the case. I think there is not enough power difference between ancient era units and modern era units. I don't want making the more modern units all-powerful, but if lack of military strategy should be paid in losses on the battlefield, lack of tech should be paid the same. I think it's just being fair with a player that succeeded to be in the modern era to allow him to be able to crush an opponent that wasn't even able to reach the middle-age.
What I would like to cease to hear is the always-used motto "if modern units are made more powerful then it's not even worth to play more if you're not in the lead". I would like the people using this sentence able to understand that there is something between "giving later units a bigger edge against low-tech units" and "making later units all-powerfull".

If it's fair for someone to win because he outnumbered vastly its opponent, it's fair for someone to win because he outteched (I know this word doesn't exist, it's just for the sake of the sentence ) vastly his opponent.
Someone one tech era late SHOULD have penalities. Not enough to make the game hopeless, but it was bested by its opponent somehow, so it should show.
Someone two tech eras late is REALLLY late in the game. At this stage, his survival is not really a concern, because is so in late that it would be unfair to other players to let him be able to be anything else than a struggling for its survival civilization.
Someone THREE tech eras late played so bad that he should be crushed, period. Any ancient era unit should be able to only scratch any modern unit, and just while being lucky.

So is what I proposed : experience level improve A/D ratings, era improve hit points (plus, it makes more sense to make a battleship having more hit points than a trireme). As I said earlier, it does not improve dramatically the power of units from one era to another. Only if the gap is too wide the difference will be overwhelming. And if this gap si so large, the backward one SHOULD die anyway.

Last thing : I would like people to read and think before answering, not just contradicting me for the pleasure of doing it. I would like to see constructive propositions and not just flames of answers made while the post wasn't even read in its entirety.

I thought that is exactly what we had been doing, and if the E quip inflamed things, it was not intended to do so. I stand firmly in the camp that the current system has just enough luck involved to make sure that I am never 100% certain an attack will succeed. If I do it properly, it does 95% of the time, which is enough to worry the heck out of me if someone else has the tech jump on my empire. In mediaeval times they used to say that the mere presence of a good castle would require a minimum 10-1 odds for the attacker to succeed even with equal tech. Harlech castle survived an 8 year siege with just 40 defenders it was so well built. Civ 3 doesn't even come close to making it that difficult for the attacker. I'm going to bow out now, because there is nothing more I can productively say. Those who want to give extra advantages will not be swayed. I just hope Firaxis will not be either.

[n.c.]

Ozymandous- As for your post at 8:23 see prior pages on this thread. The book I referenced somewhere, Guns, Germs and Steel, answers your questions/comments re: Pizzaro. In sum, he simply kicked butt ewven before the germs kicked in.

eRAZOR- You are correct, except it can be fun.

Grumbold & LaRusso-

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.

So you guys didn't enjoy Civ III or SMAC? Did you discover that upon needing to defend Firaxis' decisions?

rid102- "This can't be right, is it?"
If you mean is that how the game works, then yes. If you are asking if that is at all logical, then the answer is no.

Monoriu- Should I wait for you to respond?

woody- Interesting approach: let the many posts slamming your comments get a few pages away before coming back.

Akka le Vil- Thank you for your excellent post. Just don't expet people to agree that "makes more sense to make a battleship having more hit points than a trireme."

Part of the solution would be to let civs eventually get the techs of their niehbors.

Originally posted by Setsuna
the resource system should adapt to the combat, not vice-versa.

Hell yes!

[Akka]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


I agree with have morale/experience modify A/D ratings, but as you mention if the space between hit point values is too vast then we have a case of over powered units again.

Well, that's the idea : IF the space between hit point value is TOO VAST, then we have one unit able to merely crush another. To become too vast, it has to have two or three eras advance, which is huge, and in my opinion, any civ that is so late in tech SHOULD die. The imbalance would be only if one/three techs were giving this kind of overhwelming power, which is not the case (a era is at least 10, 15 techs).

My suggestion is to give each unit 10 hit points, not based on any element of realism of course, but by having each unit with 10 hit points you're bound to get a more accurate statistical out come of combat whereas the current hit point system allows for too much variance that the realists seem to be disagreeing with.

Adding hit points would make the fights more predictable according to the statistics (ie, if one unit againt another has 75 % chance of winning the round, then the more the hit points, the more she has chances to win the fight). What I do not like is that modern units are not powerful enough, not only the fact that they happen to be destroyed by a strike of luck from a warrior. I want to give them a little more edge against very old units.
Though, adding more hitpoints is a manageable way to do it.

So for a unit with 10 attack against a unit with 1 defense the likely outcome is that the 10 attack wins with little damage, whereas in a system of such low hit point values the defender had a far greater chance of striking say, two lucky hits and winning the battle, which I think is what the realists have issues with.

Rather than modify the units hit point by age you're modifying the A/D rating in a system that makes them count for something beyond the lucky hit here and there.

If this ends up being a system that is too predictable perhaps each unit should be assigned five hit points that way it leaves greater room for some unlikely margin of error.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Adding hit points would make the fights more predictable according to the statistics (ie, if one unit againt another has 75 % chance of winning the round, then the more the hit points, the more she has chances to win the fight). What I do not like is that modern units are not powerful enough, not only the fact that they happen to be destroyed by a strike of luck from a warrior. I want to give them a little more edge against very old units.
Though, adding more hitpoints is a manageable way to do it.

I think the reason you belive modern units aren't powerful enough is because combat operates on such a low number of hit points "luck" becomes more of a deciding factor. I think the "edge" you refer to should be seen in the greater A/D values and movement. This "edge" would be more defined if each unit had more hit points, which would allows for realism, as the combat would be carried out over more rounds, yet maintain so semblence of balance.

For instance, would you be satisfied if it took 10 1/1 units to kill one 1/10 unit (I'm not sure what's comprable in game terms)? I think that this would be that case if 10 hit points were added to each unit. Of couse sometimes it would take more and sometimes less, but just as a rough estimate is that a number you could be comfortable with?

[Akka]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


I think the reason you belive modern units aren't powerful enough is because combat operates on such a low number of hit points "luck" becomes more of a deciding factor. I think the "edge" you refer to should be seen in the greater A/D values and movement. This "edge" would be more defined if each unit had more hit points, which would allows for realism, as the combat would be carried out over more rounds, yet maintain so semblence of balance.

For instance, would you be satisfied if it took 10 1/1 units to kill one 1/10 unit (I'm not sure what's comprable in game terms)? I think that this would be that case if 10 hit points were added to each unit. Of couse sometimes it would take more and sometimes less, but just as a rough estimate is that a number you could be comfortable with?

The combat operate on a low number of hit points, that's for sure. It's exact too that the lesser the hit points, the more there is the possibilities of odd results (that's exactly the reason why Venger wanted the FP/HP system back). While all of this is true, what I really want is that newer units should be more "bang for bucks" than older one. As I stated before, from a point of view purely statistical a warrior is nearly as profitable as a combination tank/infantry, because while ten times weaker, it's ten times cheaper. Sure, in practice, the added abilities of modern units make them better - but only slightly. I would like than units with a very big difference of age would make the older completely or at least mostly useless. I do agree that I could simply multiply the hit point by 5 or 10 (20 HP for a conscript, 30 for a Regular, etc...), increase A/D regularly (+25/50 % to A/D for middel-age units, +50/75 % to A/D for Industrial age units and +75/100% to A/D for modern age unit), and that it would do the right job.
But first, I prefer to have a elite status being represented by combat bonuses and not more hitpoints, while better armor/plating add to hit points.
And second, well, I can modify my Civ3 myself, but if I talk here on the forum, it's because I think that something in the combat system is not good. I agree that the first step is to give idea so people can adjust themselves the settings of their game, but the second step is to ask nicely to Fireaxis and to let them hear why people think that there is something to change in the game, and what are the suggestions.

[n.c.]

WE- I realize you are not talking to me (lest you have to deal with the ironic comments), but I have to observe: aren't you going to great lengths to make the current system work?

You may be on to somewthing with the universal HP increase, not a solution of course but an improvement. Wouldn't it be easier to just openly admit the basic game flaw?

Was it you that told a guy a realist wouldn't like his comments re tanks vs. musketmen? Do you not see that these lastest comments are big step from Firaxis fundie to enlightened critic?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by n.c.
WE- I realize you are not talking to me (lest you have to deal with the ironic comments), but I have to observe: aren't you going to great lengths to make the current system work?

You may be on to somewthing with the universal HP increase, not a solution of course but an improvement. Wouldn't it be easier to just openly admit the basic game flaw?

Was it you that told a guy a realist wouldn't like his comments re tanks vs. musketmen? Do you not see that these lastest comments are big step from Firaxis fundie to enlightened critic?

I've actually been very critical of more than a few things concerning Firaxis (No MP, no tech tree, bugs in Civ3, bugs in SMAC, etc.) This is the only issue where I've actually sided with the Firaxians.

The problem I've found is that the arguements for changing the system were pretty poor and based solely on "real life". And in my opinion the current system does work, just not to everyone's liking. What I'm not keen on is the low amount of hit points and how experience/morale is the modifier. I'd be more inclined to make the changes I've suggested as my guess is that it wouldn't modify the current system much, but enough to appease the teaming masses. I think combat need not be based on reality and that a good amount of randomness should be present along with a good amount of certainty.

As you well know in a game spanning the from the dawn of civilization to the present it is difficult to have hundreds, if not thousands, of different units that represent the incrimental increases in combat effectiveness that have occured through out history.

For example, compare a 1940's German tank to a 1945 German tank and the 1945 German tank is far and away better. Compare a 1945 German tank to a 1950's American tank and you've got the same set of circumstances. I assume the same could be true for the first musket made in comparison to the last musket. For a good real life example consider the modern tanks the United States uses and the modern tanks Iraq used in the Gulf War, the same abstraction, but completely different in reality. Not only that you'd need thousands of different units to represent the different roles the units played -- dive bombers, level bomber, fighters, anti-infantry flame tanks, anti-tank tanks, regular infantry, engineers, etc.

A game like this isn't meant to simulate reality and because of that the emphasis on the game shouldn't be reality, but game play. The question that needs to be asked in every situation is whether or not it satisfies game play? Does culture satisfy game play or is it something that gets in the way of playing the game? Does combat satisfy gameplay or does it get in the way of playing the game? In my opinion it seems combat is satisfactory and that any move towards realism is going to detract from that.

There are games out there with combat mechanics far more complex and realistic that lend themselves to the kind of realism several people are rallying for. When I play Civ3 that's not the kind of game I want to play. That's why it's called Civ3 and not Gettysburgh or The Battle of The Bulge.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
in my opinion the current system does work, just not to everyone's liking. What I'm not keen on is the low amount of hit points and how experience/morale is the modifier.

Um, I'm not keen on that aspect of the system either. So I guess the same things are not to our liking.

-"I think combat need not be based on reality"
Why not?

it is difficult to have hundreds, if not thousands, of different units that represent the incrimental increases in combat effectiveness that have occured through out history.

Difficult, perhaps, for the first game that pulled it off: SMAC. Remember the 32,000 unit types? Granted most were worse than useless, but all Firaxis had to do was adapt that system.

-"the 1945 German tank is far and away better."
Same chassis (essentially), different gun. Or maybe better armor, you get the point.

-"Not only that you'd need thousands of different units"
Even a few dozen extra would add a great deal of realism, and fun! (See how those two go together? )

-"any move towards realism is going to detract from that."
What is an example of such a move? Not just the omnipotent tanks that some posters seem to think we want, but specifically? Perhaps altering the low amount of hit points and how experience/morale is the modifier?

[Monoriu]

Let me put it this way:

Right now I am having a blast with civ3, especially with the combat system. It appears that I am not alone, either. The game is no where near broken. Bug fixes, yes, but not overhaul.

That doesn't mean that I am opposed to any changes. I am a player too and my enjoyment is at stake, so if anybody has a good suggestion that will improve that game, I am all for it. I CAN live with a FP/HP system if it makes the game better. I CAN live with hit points based on technological age, etc. In fact any IMPROVEMENTS to the game is more than welcome.

However, there needs to be a good justification for making the changes.

1. Realism is not a good justification. I would argue the opposite if this is Steel Panther, Waterloo, or Europa Universalis, but this is civ 3. Realism is good, but fun is more important. You can say realism = fun (and there is nothing wrong with that), but it appears that Firaxis has decided otherwise. That's why they have the editor there to satisfy some of these folks.
2. Advocating changing the system because you lost is not a good justification. As many people have said, the system rewards good tactics and I have to agree with them.
3. Don't advocate anything you can change in the editor. It exists for a reason, and nothing prevents you from using it. The editor won't allow you to change everything, but at the same time its DOES allow you to change a lot others, including the combat values of all the units. IMHO that can have a significantly change the combat system.

Akka le Vil, I respect you because you have actually taken some time to do some statistical analysis on the matter. However, I must disagree with your method mainly because you did not take into account overproduction, which is a very important factor. In the post industrial times, a warrior costs a lot more than 10 shields due to overproduction while overproduction affects modern units a lot less. I think you should have compared the average time it takes to produce a unit in a typical industrial age city, instead of the raw shield cost and you'll arrive at a different conclusion.

However, I don't have a particular strong view on your suggestion to change the combat system so that modern units have slightly more power. As long as its not overdone, I have no idea if the game will be better or worse.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Let me put it this way:

Right now I am having a blast with civ3, especially with the combat system. It appears that I am not alone, either. The game is no where near broken. Bug fixes, yes, but not overhaul.

That doesn't mean that I am opposed to any changes. I am a player too and my enjoyment is at stake, so if anybody has a good suggestion that will improve that game, I am all for it. I CAN live with a FP/HP system if it makes the game better. I CAN live with hit points based on technological age, etc. In fact any IMPROVEMENTS to the game is more than welcome.

However, there needs to be a good justification for making the changes.

1. Realism is not a good justification. I would argue the opposite if this is Steel Panther, Waterloo, or Europa Universalis, but this is civ 3. Realism is good, but fun is more important. You can say realism = fun (and there is nothing wrong with that), but it appears that Firaxis has decided otherwise. That's why they have the editor there to satisfy some of these folks.

I can understand that you don't want the game balance to be screwed just because added realism. But if more realism could be gained without affecting the game balance, would you be opposed to it ?
I'm all for realistic settings, the thing is just to always keep an eye on game balance as you increase the realism.

2. Advocating changing the system because you lost is not a good justification. As many people have said, the system rewards good tactics and I have to agree with them.

Agree, but where people were angry was not because they had to use tactic to win, but because they had to use tactic to win against hugely obsolete units. I admit that the need for tactics should not be present when you have three or two whole eras of tech advance (remember, I talk about 25-30 tech advance, not just a few ones).

3. Don't advocate anything you can change in the editor. It exists for a reason, and nothing prevents you from using it. The editor won't allow you to change everything, but at the same time its DOES allow you to change a lot others, including the combat values of all the units. IMHO that can have a significantly change the combat system.

It's true that the editor allow you to personnalize the game. But if someone make a good point about how something can/should be improved, then I think it's good for the whole ensemble of the gaming community

Akka le Vil, I respect you because you have actually taken some time to do some statistical analysis on the matter. However, I must disagree with your method mainly because you did not take into account overproduction, which is a very important factor. In the post industrial times, a warrior costs a lot more than 10 shields due to overproduction while overproduction affects modern units a lot less. I think you should have compared the average time it takes to produce a unit in a typical industrial age city, instead of the raw shield cost and you'll arrive at a different conclusion.

I admit that overproduction is a key point, and that it changes drastically the relative value of build power.
But when I took the warrior vs tank/infantry example, it was about a purely statistical view. Let's say I was uneasy to see that mathematically (if not practically) a warrior is about as efficient as a tank.
Well I could argue and say that rather making one big city (20+ in pop)which product 30 shields, you could make 2-3 smaller cities (6 in pop) which product 10 shields and then you would not have overproduction, but it would be an argument rather than a debate on the very essence of the problem, which is in my opinion that someone who have developped his tech should have an overwhelming advantage about someone who is VERY VERY late in the tech (again, I make emphasis on the VERY BIG difference about the tech, I don't want 3-4 tech to be decisive, I want ovewhelming power only if someone is AT LEAST 15-20 tech in advance).

[/QUOTE]
However, I don't have a particular strong view on your suggestion to change the combat system so that modern units have slightly more power. As long as its not overdone, I have no idea if the game will be better or worse. [/QUOTE]

Well you get the point : "if it's not overdone". In my opinion, more realism that don't imbalance is a good thing. And in fact, I think that actually the imbalance is that old units are relatively too powerful toward modern, so I think it would be CORRECTING an imbalance to give an extra power to modern.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
I admit that the need for tactics should not be present when you have three or two whole eras of tech advance (remember, I talk about 25-30 tech advance, not just a few ones).

By adding a hit point to a unit because it is a more modern version you give it (assuming veteran) an additional 25% bonus over and above what Firaxis intended against every unit that has not been given the same, plus the benefit of the hit point will help smooth out unexpected results, further improving its performance where the odds are in its favour. That advantage will be in effect against anyone who is even as little as 1 tech behind, or even has more tech than you but inadequate resources to build the modern troop.

If you want to hand out an advantage that is more geared toward really imbalanced fights, how about a rule that allows a unit to attack again if it receives no damage? That would allow modern troops a good chance to mop up large numbers of warriors in open terrain but still give the musketman fortified in his mountain stronghold a good survival chance unless you pound him with artillery first. Its still not a rule I want to see unless we get no-resource units at every era. My suspicion is that if we get those added you would not see those pikemen in 1800 AD anyway because gaining a genuine 2 era tech lead is almost impossible in Civ 3. If you can get one, its time to play on a higher difficulty level

[zapperio]

How is it so easy to put the blinders on and forget that the only reason the less tchnologically advanced units are given a greater chance is so that the new strategic resource system works as intended. In early game, if you have no access to saltpeter and iron and horses you can only make warriors and bowmen. Do you really want to decrease your chances against musket wielding AI? Or do you think it is fair that you have a fighting chance to gain access to some of those resources? It is not about technology it is about resources.

Zap