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

[rid102]

Fundamentally, the Civ2 combat system was not that badly broken. It could have done with a few minor adjustments but really it was solid.

So why change it in Civ3?

People who are whining on about "The aim is not realism it's balance" blah blah is nonsense. The aim is to have a game which is both believable as well as playable.

Most aspects of Civ3 (and all other Civ games) are not realistic but many are believable and plausible.

If you want a game that is balanced then why not just make everything entirely random for everyone? That makes a balanced game as everyone has the same position to play from. Let's take a step back to Civ1 combat. Why not? You could argue that it's just as balanced as any other system.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Monoriu
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.

I'm glad to have you and WhiteElephants on our side. Any others?

[Akka]

Originally posted by 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.
Zap

I'll quote you back.

"How is it so easy to put the blinders on"

Then I'll quote myself back.

"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."

Problem already talked about. If you think that the solution I propose is flawed, then say it and tell why and propose something else. Repeating something I already answered about is just pointless.

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.

A musketman is only 2A4D. Improving its HP will make it a bit more powerful, but I don't think it'll make it a rampager machine, espcially considering that its attack is the same than the defense of a phalanx (and remember that a phalanx doesn't need ressources) and that its defense is the same than the one of a longbowman (which require no ressources either).
And well, it's ACTUALLY part of the game to be screwed if you've no ressources. I would like having the ressources better dispatched, or AI being able to make decent trade to compensate this, rather than having the ancient units overpowered in exchange.
Still, I don't think it's really that much imbalancing to add a HP per era (even if this first HP bonus is adding 50 % to the HP of the units).

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.

Yes, that's the point. I effectively want to give a bonus to more advanced units, because I actually feel and have mathematically proved that they do not have enough "bang for bucks" compared toward older units. So I say "they should be slightly improved" and propose something to slightly improve them.

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.

I don't see the point. As I previously said, there should have at least one unit ressourceless for each era, this will make the ressources still very important, but not game-breaking.
Having the possibility to build modern armor is 1 tech above not having the possibility. Still I find no imbalance in it. I don't get it. This bonus is about the units of a whole era ; it will not magically mutate all your 4 HP units in 5 HP units, it will just make you able to produce/upgrade to 5 HP units. Either way you'll have to produce/pay.

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.

It will not change the fact that a modern unit is only marginally more efficient than an ancient one in fighting stats. It will just allow it one more attack. This is a bonus, but not the sort I look for.

Its still not a rule I want to see unless we get no-resource units at every era.

We bot agree that there should have one unit ressourceless each era. This will allow to both give a bigger edge to modern units, and to make the ressources less game-killer (and NO, I not said that ressources should be not important, in case some people that like to twist words is reading).

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

So if it's nearly impossible to have 2 tech era lead over a civ, where is the problem to make the 2 tech era units weaker relatively to more modern one ?? And I think that having no more pikemen in 1800AD would make sense anyway

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


I'll quote you back.

"How is it so easy to put the blinders on"

Then I'll quote myself back.

"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."

Problem already talked about. If you think that the solution I propose is flawed, then say it and tell why and propose something else. Repeating something I already answered about is just pointless.

What is more pointless is not reading posts before shooting off your top.

Remember this?

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

hmm, could it be I was addressing something else then?

My point is that it is pointless to discuss further changes to the combat system without taking the resource system into consideration, regardless whether you think the system should serve the combat or not as it apparently doesn't.

Zap

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by n.c.

I'm glad to have you and WhiteElephants on our side. Any others?

huh.

First, I am enjoying the game very much. I'll be very happy playing the game if they fix all the bugs and don't make any balance changes. But like I said, I don't mind improvements, I never do.

Secondly, realism does not always equal to fun to me. Not implying that its wrong to hold the position realism = fun, just stating my personal preference.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Secondly, realism does not always equal to fun to me. Not implying that its wrong to hold the position realism = fun, just stating my personal preference.

Stop it! You are making sense! Nobody else on your side of the debate makes sense, so you have to stop making sense too!

And stop acting like an adult! Every other person on your side of the combat debate acts like a petulant child, so you have to as well!

And while we're at it, stop being so polite! Everyone else on your side calls people "whiners", you have to as well!

Venger

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by rid102
Fundamentally, the Civ2 combat system was not that badly broken. It could have done with a few minor adjustments but really it was solid.

So why change it in Civ3?

People who are whining on about "The aim is not realism it's balance" blah blah is nonsense. The aim is to have a game which is both believable as well as playable.

Most aspects of Civ3 (and all other Civ games) are not realistic but many are believable and plausible.

If you want a game that is balanced then why not just make everything entirely random for everyone? That makes a balanced game as everyone has the same position to play from. Let's take a step back to Civ1 combat. Why not? You could argue that it's just as balanced as any other system.

1. I agree that the combat system in civ 2 is very good, otherwise I won't have played the game over and over 5 years after its release.

2. But just because something isn't broken doesn't mean it cannot be improved!

3. I don't think there is any correlation between "balanced" and "random for everyone". This must be the first time I have heard of such a statement. Balanced means good efforts are rewarded, bad efforts penalized. Balanced means I can win in a variety of ways. Balanced means nothing is too powerful, or too weak. It means an army of tanks will not suffer 0 casulties when crushing a stone age opponent, and an army of inf. art. cav. have a chance to defeat tanks and mech. inf if they are employed superbly. Where does "random" come in here?

[zapperio]

Originally posted by Venger


Stop it! You are making sense! Nobody else on your side of the debate makes sense, so you have to stop making sense too!

And stop acting like an adult! Every other person on your side of the combat debate acts like a petulant child, so you have to as well!

And while we're at it, stop being so polite! Everyone else on your side calls people "whiners", you have to as well!

Venger

vulcanohead also makes good sense, but that is just my opinion, sorry. Thank you.

Zap

[eRAZOR]

Originally posted by 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.

The game is fun to a certain extent but the feeling that this game was nowhere near completion when it was (probably forcefully) pushed on the market by Infogrames is omni-present and Firaxis knows it - the lack of forum activity (except for the webmaster) is another indicator for that. This holds especially true for the combat system. And know what's making me sick - really sick? It's guys like you, who by advocating that everything is fine with the game - just because the game was produced by your favourite label/designer - make the "rush, patch later" strategy employed by Infogrames (and any other major publisher EA etc) work out. There will be a time when even you guys realize the truth but then its gonna be too late.

Btw I am a professional software engineer.

[woody]

Originally posted by eRAZOR
The game is fun to a certain extent but the feeling that this game was nowhere near completion when it was (probably forcefully) pushed on the market by Infogrames is omni-present and Firaxis knows it - the lack of forum activity (except for the webmaster) is another indicator for that. This holds especially true for the combat system. And know what's making me sick - really sick? It's guys like you, who by advocating that everything is fine with the game - just because the game was produced by your favourite label/designer - make the "rush, patch later" strategy employed by Infogrames (and any other major publisher EA etc) work out. There will be a time when even you guys realize the truth but then its gonna be too late.

Btw I am a professional software engineer.

I certainly never said the game was perfect. Far from it. It does have some serious issues (such as broken air superiority) that clearly shows it wasn't properly tested.

However, I don't feel that the combat rules are one of the unfinished areas. I like the new combat rules, and I think they are far better than the Civ2 rules. The new rules, while not based in reality, make for a far more fun game. It's a game that remains a challenge, even when you're ahead in tech. It's a game that provides the player with hope, even when he's behind in tech.

Civ2 was stupid. First one to tanks/howitzers kills off the other enemies in about 10 turns. Yawn. (The AI was too stupid to do that, but that's another issue.) Oh, and even the Civ2 rules were far from reality, so I'm not sure why people are saying it was so much better. All it did was unbalance the game.

I much prefer Civ3. I think the combat rules are well thought out, and designed to be FUN. It's a game. I want fun, not realism.

(Oh, and it's pretty lame to go around announcing your career. It's totally irrelevant, unless you happen to work for Firaxis and wish to explain their decision about the new rules.)

[Venger]

Originally posted by woody
Civ2 was stupid. First one to tanks/howitzers kills off the other enemies in about 10 turns. Yawn.

What level did you play? The first one to tanks has an advantage, but a tank will lose to fortified alpine troops in city walls. The damage taken will make that tank unit easy to counter attack. Yes, three armor will defeat three alpine troops, but those armor cost a hell of alot more than your alpine troops. All in all, shield for shield, I can defend successfully against the AI with riflemen against their tanks. Easily.

Oh, and even the Civ2 rules were far from reality, so I'm not sure why people are saying it was so much better. All it did was unbalance the game.

Apparently you need some type of combat handicap, I think most successful players of Civ2 know which model was better...

I much prefer Civ3. I think the combat rules are well thought out, and designed to be FUN. It's a game. I want fun, not realism.

Then please play CandyLand or Chutes and Ladders, those possess the level of realism you seem to desire.

(Oh, and it's pretty lame to go around announcing your career. It's totally irrelevant, unless you happen to work for Firaxis and wish to explain their decision about the new rules.)

What do you do for a living? Collect a government check? He mentioned his criticism of the software and gave us the information that he, too, produces software for a living, which is far more important that what you seem to do, which is pepper us with feckless platitudes about "fun" not "real", as if the two are mutually exclusive...

Venger

[GePap]

Due to recent developments in other threads, the original basis for this argument about giving units more HP and even more FP are quickly becoming irrelevant as we speak. Perhaps, in a few days of greater editor exploration, the Civ3 combat will go from Hero to zero. But hey, this is up to 191 posts! Whats the record lenght, for a thread not begun by MarkG? Could this become the sole basis for this line of argument by itself?

Now, let the flaming about not being on argument.....BEGIN!

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
So if it's nearly impossible to have 2 tech era lead over a civ, where is the problem to make the 2 tech era units weaker relatively to more modern one ?? And I think that having no more pikemen in 1800AD would make sense anyway

I wouldn't object too much except you are also making units one era or even 1 tech behind significantly weaker too.

Incidentally, the extra attack was a potentially infinite set of extra attacks since it would repeat provide the unit continued to take no damage.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by eRAZOR


The game is fun to a certain extent but the feeling that this game was nowhere near completion when it was (probably forcefully) pushed on the market by Infogrames is omni-present and Firaxis knows it - the lack of forum activity (except for the webmaster) is another indicator for that. This holds especially true for the combat system. And know what's making me sick - really sick? It's guys like you, who by advocating that everything is fine with the game - just because the game was produced by your favourite label/designer - make the "rush, patch later" strategy employed by Infogrames (and any other major publisher EA etc) work out. There will be a time when even you guys realize the truth but then its gonna be too late.

Btw I am a professional software engineer.

I am saying that the game is very enjoyable in its present state, not because its designed by anybody, but because of the countless hours of sleep I have lost since the games' release.

Combat system. List of new features (compared with civ 2)

1. no more zoc.
2. bombardment.
3. free shots
4. new unit maintanence system
5. new air unit system
6. new city wall rules, city defensive bonus now related to city size.
7. new barbarian rules
8. new river rules
9. can't use roads/railroad in enemy territory
10. new units
11. 4 levels of experience
12. armies and leaders
13. improved AI
14. killing a unit no longer kills a stack
15. new ability to raze cities
16. Barracks no longer disappear because of new tech.
17. mobolization mode.
18. drafting citizens.
..and I am sure there are a few that I missed.

There, that's why I like it, not because anybody designed it. The game has many bugs, and I won't say the combat system is perfect. But I feel the game is well worth the money.

I think its not exactly fair to discount all the new features and improvements in a game because of a few bugs (all games have bugs), or because you don't like the way it is balanced (they did include the editor, and they can't satisfy everybody). As long as they patch it to fix all the bugs, I am very happy.

I must say I don't understand your comment about "its gonna be too late" and the relevance of your profession to this discussion.

[Nuke gay whales]

(Copy of post)

There have been too many complaints about advanced units losing battles to vastly inferior units, which is not conducive to fair play - especially when units like tanks could just run over units like spearmen (I would love to hear the sound effect for that!)

But that is not the issue. We ALL know that a tank being defeated by a spearman makes no sense, so there is no point arguing in circles about it. Why don't we try and come up with a solution instead?

I strongly think that there should be a "non-competition" factor when certain units battle each other. If there is a two age period difference between the units, the inferior unit automatically surrenders and returns to their side of the border - with the option for the superior forces to wipe out the unit instead of allowing them to retreat, with a political penalty imposed by the rest of the world.

I know that this is not something that can be "patched", but I like the sound of this type of combat system better than the existing one... . I do not enjoy the careful building of a modern army after advancing ahead of my enemies in the science race just to have my tanks lose a fight against pikemen.

Any other suggested solutions out there?

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by Nuke gay whales
(Copy of post)

There have been too many complaints about advanced units losing battles to vastly inferior units, which is not conducive to fair play - especially when units like tanks could just run over units like spearmen (I would love to hear the sound effect for that!)

But that is not the issue. We ALL know that a tank being defeated by a spearman makes no sense, so there is no point arguing in circles about it. Why don't we try and come up with a solution instead?

I strongly think that there should be a "non-competition" factor when certain units battle each other. If there is a two age period difference between the units, the inferior unit automatically surrenders and returns to their side of the border - with the option for the superior forces to wipe out the unit instead of allowing them to retreat, with a political penalty imposed by the rest of the world.

I know that this is not something that can be "patched", but I like the sound of this type of combat system better than the existing one... . I do not enjoy the careful building of a modern army after advancing ahead of my enemies in the science race just to have my tanks lose a fight against pikemen.

Any other suggested solutions out there?

Edit your game. Make your tanks or mech. inf. 3 times or 4 times as powerful. They won't be invincible against ancient units, but it'll be close.

[Nuke gay whales]

Originally posted by Monoriu

Edit your game. Make your tanks or mech. inf. 3 times or 4 times as powerful. They won't be invincible against ancient units, but it'll be close.

Okay... but this would also mean that tanks are that much more powerful than infantry/rifemen etc., which would not be right. You could edit ALL the units in each age period, but this seems to be just asking for trouble. I would prefer to see a change in the coding, but... I don't think that this will happen any time soon, if ever. I have changed a few of the units to what I feel is more realistic:

- all navy more powerful (especially subs) with destroyers given more range
- ability for cruisers to carry and fire missiles
- all artillery units more powerful
- explorer available once map making is discovered
- air units MUCH more powerful (wars are won by air superiority alone) with increased range (max is only 8 )
- Pirates get to use privateers
- Armies can unload so that you can upgrade units (don't know if this works yet)
- etc.

My point is while you CAN edit the game to your own personal preferences, SOME things should be fixed by the game developers due to the need to change the game's code - unless there is another solution that would made more sense without the need to edit the code - but I am still not sure there is a good, simple solution...

Any one else?

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Nuke gay whales
(Copy of post)
...
But that is not the issue. We ALL know that a tank being defeated by a spearman makes no sense, so there is no point arguing in circles about it. Why don't we try and come up with a solution instead?
...
Any other suggested solutions out there?

(partial copy of post)
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. In fact the most low-tech thing capable of rendering tanks and motorized infantry almost completely useless is .... mud.

[Akka]

Originally posted by zapperio


What is more pointless is not reading posts before shooting off your top.

Remember this?



hmm, could it be I was addressing something else then?

My point is that it is pointless to discuss further changes to the combat system without taking the resource system into consideration, regardless whether you think the system should serve the combat or not as it apparently doesn't.

Zap

Ok, seems that I lost a good occasion to shut my big mouth

Incidentally, the extra attack was a potentially infinite set of extra attacks since it would repeat provide the unit continued to take no damage.

I don't feel good about the repetitive attacks. Don't feel it would be efficient to solve the underpower of modern units, and it's too random, while the game is already a little too much into randomness...

I wouldn't object too much except you are also making units one era or even 1 tech behind significantly weaker too.

Units one era back SHOULD be weaker. Not overwhelming weaker, but weaker anyway.
Let's be serious, if you have 1 tech less than your ennemy, you'll catch him in 2-3 turns, 5 at most. If he's able to start producing units, bring them to your borders, destroy your entire army here and invade and conquer your territory in this set of time, it means that you had already screwed it up.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Units one era back SHOULD be weaker. Not overwhelming weaker, but weaker anyway.
Let's be serious, if you have 1 tech less than your enemy, you'll catch him in 2-3 turns, 5 at most. If he's able to start producing units, bring them to your borders, destroy your entire army here and invade and conquer your territory in this set of time, it means that you had already screwed it up.

Its called an upgrade button and railroads. Quite enough for them to reach, assault, capture and expand beyond every single one of your border cities. If you no longer need to rely on 1mp artillery to back you up, tank waves can achieve a two city depth overrun in 5 turns. Just have every city with pre-invested production points ready to switch over on the turn you make the discovery. While the AI may be too dumb to do it, in MP this WILL happen.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Grumbold


Its called an upgrade button and railroads. Quite enough for them to reach, assault, capture and expand beyond every single one of your border cities. If you no longer need to rely on 1mp artillery to back you up, tank waves can achieve a two city depth overrun in 5 turns. Just have every city with pre-invested production points ready to switch over on the turn you make the discovery. While the AI may be too dumb to do it, in MP this WILL happen.

Sorry, I don't buy it. Give me an example where having 1 HP more and being 1 tech ahead will give you an overwhelming advantage compared to having only 1 tech more.

You look like caring more about contradicting than to think five minutes about if really the change would have such a big impact.

[Grumbold]

double post

[Grumbold]

triple post

[Grumbold]

By the same token I could accuse you of being so convinced it needs changing that you are ignoring the full ramifications but that would just make us both look equally petty.

Units already get dramatically stronger in later eras, with the AF leaping from 4 to 6 then 16 and 24. That gives you very good odds against anything except extreme defenses, where you always have the option to bomb them to bits first.

If you go back a page or so I have already shown that +1 HP has an immediate impact in excess of 25%, which is enough on its own to give an unsupported tank rush a good run for its money considering most towns will not have more than 1-2 modern defenders. The current rules encourage you to do it properly, with artillery attacks followed by elite force assaults to crack hard defensive positions like cities and still take a rare casualty when doing so.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Grumbold


(partial copy of post)
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. In fact the most low-tech thing capable of rendering tanks and motorized infantry almost completely useless is .... mud.

FACT: The Italian 'tanks' used during the Ethiopian war were turretless, armed only with a pair of machine guns in the front hull; no main gun, no ability to fire at anything but what was directly in front of them. It was possibly the worst tank ever used in action.

FACT: A troop of 13 CV.33s was caught in a narrow strip of road, where they couldn't turn around to use their guns, and some Ethiopians rushed them, poured gasoline over them, and set them on fire. Presumably low tech gasoline. 'Tech' is another word for 'octane' right?

FACT: The Ethiopians still lost the war.

FACT: Tanks sometimes get stuck in mud; they don't disolve in it.

A special thanks to orc4hire, who couldn't be here to post this today, so I will be posting it here for him...

Venger

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Venger


FACT: The Italian 'tanks' used during the Ethiopian war were turretless, armed only with a pair of machine guns in the front hull; no main gun, no ability to fire at anything but what was directly in front of them. It was possibly the worst tank ever used in action.

FACT: A troop of 13 CV.33s was caught in a narrow strip of road, where they couldn't turn around to use their guns, and some Ethiopians rushed them, poured gasoline over them, and set them on fire. Presumably low tech gasoline. 'Tech' is another word for 'octane' right?

FACT: The Ethiopians still lost the war.

FACT: Tanks sometimes get stuck in mud; they don't disolve in it.

A special thanks to orc4hire, who couldn't be here to post this today, so I will be posting it here for him...

Venger

Ahh, finally someone does some research, although that was not the incident I was referring to where the rams were used. So now we accept tanks can be destroyed by "tribal" infantry, but only bad non-american ones. Well, thats a start. Perhaps orc4hire can enlighten you about the (then) state of the art german tank columns that got totally bogged down in Russian mud and destroyed by horse riding sabre and carbine cossacks, or the others that froze up in the winter so their crews froze too because the cavalry would ride down any who tried to escape. Then we can move on to even more recent examples. A tank is just a lump of metal. Used badly or in the wrong environment (pretty much anything except open plains on a clear day) can easily be destroyed by an enemy that employs brains instead of a suicide charge.

[Nuke gay whales]

Originally posted by Grumbold

(partial copy of post)
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. In fact the most low-tech thing capable of rendering tanks and motorized infantry almost completely useless is .... mud.

Now THAT is funny. I bet a few people lost their command over that one - but it was only an Italian armored column after all...

Anyway, you could always argue the exception to the rule, but that does not get us anywhere. If it was only on rare occasions that this happened in the game then I am sure that we would not be discussing this problem. Just as if it was common for tribal infantry to defeat armored columns, then I am sure the army would re-think the whole concept of armored divisions. Obviously, armored divisions were extremely successful, and that is why they have made up the backbone of modern armies for the last 50 years or so (I believe that the Air Force rules the battlefield today).

I agree that mud was a problem for the early tanks - as was hills, streams, snow, etc. - which was why many the early tanks were quickly re-tooled as technology advanced. The fact remains that the potential of the tank was understood, and they learnt the hard lessons taught by failure fairly quickly. The tanks represented in the game are NOT these very early tanks like at the end of WW I, but are later tanks like those used in WW II.

[MKSheppard]

Originally posted by uXs


No you don't. The only thing you want is a horribly unbalanced game where the first guy who gets guns wins.

uXs

Man, are you stupid.

"Thank God we have the Maxim and they do not!"
-attributed to British Colonial Officers - Late 19th Century....

The early rifle units (like musketmen) could be defeated
by primitive units, but when you get riflemen, and then later,
infantry, well........the natives w/out guns are going to
get screwed royally.....

[orc4hire]

Originally posted by Grumbold


Ahh, finally someone does some research, although that was not the incident I was referring to where the rams were used. So now we accept tanks can be destroyed by "tribal" infantry, but only bad non-american ones. Well, thats a start. Perhaps orc4hire can enlighten you about the (then) state of the art german tank columns that got totally bogged down in Russian mud and destroyed by horse riding sabre and carbine cossacks, or the others that froze up in the winter so their crews froze too because the cavalry would ride down any who tried to escape. Then we can move on to even more recent examples. A tank is just a lump of metal. Used badly or in the wrong environment (pretty much anything except open plains on a clear day) can easily be destroyed by an enemy that employs brains instead of a suicide charge.

Grumbold, I'm afraid you're missing the point. Yes, relatively primitive field-expedients can occasionally destroy a tank or two(usually involving gasoline, though when you're talking about a 'tank' that only weighs in at 5400 pounds and is notably lacking in armor or armament you may be able to do the job with a pipe wrench). But unless the Armor units in Civ represent Bolos, based on the amount of resources involved in creating the unit we've got to be talking at least a regiment. That is, a minimum of 100-200 tanks. Find me an incident where, at any time or place in the 85 years tanks have been in use, an entire, full strength, regiment was wiped out by an opponent using nothing that wouldn't have been available in, say, 1300AD.

The incident with the Ethiopians catching an Italian 'tank' (in quotes because they weren't really tanks, having no turret, and being armed only with a single machine gun; tankettes, really, and barely that) company by surprise and wiping it out is the equivalent of an attacking armor unit losing a hit point or two while wiping out the defending phalanx. I don't believe that anyone has argued that advanced units should never be _damaged_ by more primitive units, just that in Civ 3, in a 1 on 1 fight, the primitive unit now tends to win more often than seems reasonable. 1 legion should never defeat a full strength rifleman unit, for example... 5 or 6 legions, however, may very well do so.

[mmike87]

I too am sometimes frustrated by combat in Civ3. However, although I agree that some things need or could use some tweaking, let me point out one thing.

Civ3 is a game. Ity plays like a board game, and that's OK. No where do I recall Civ3 claiming to be a simulation of warfare. This is sort of like complaining in Monopoly that there is no way Park Place would really sell for $350. It's not really relevant.

Perhaps if Civ3 did not use the names of real military items things would be better. I know darn well the F-15 with external FAST tanks has a combat radius of well over 1000 or more miles. This is not modeled in the game. The AEGIS cruiser DOES carry cruise missiles in real life, but not in the game. I can go on.

You have two options. 1) Play it as it is 2) Edit the rules. That's the one thing I always LOVED about Civ is that the rules were editable. You can really play the game any darn way you want to, within limits. Want to make the tank invincible, do it. Why does it have to be an official mod? So people will not think you're a wuss or something? Who cares.

I editied my rules and reduced curruption and war discontent a little bit. I thought they were a tad high. I don't care what people think, I enjoy the game more now and I am happy with the rules as I have edited them.

Edit the rules until you are happy and then play the game. Civ3 is INSPIRED by history - it is NOT an episode of the History Channel.