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

[Nuke gay whales]

Originally posted by mmike87

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.

Ummm... explain how to edit the rules so that air units can move more than 8 squares? Maybe you should look at the editing functions before you claim that there is an easy fix. This is the problem, the rules CAN'T be edited to fix the game the way it should be.

I agree that there are certain functions that you can change (like allowing Cruisers to carry missiles) but this is not the main issue... The air superiority function does not work, bombers and jet fighters cannot sink naval units, and spearmen can defeat tanks... exactly how would you "edit" these problems?

[karlmarx9001]

'(at the peak, there was 473 warriors).'

If you can afford build 473 warriors for an invasion, then you're going to win that invasion. That's 4730 production, with an upkeep cost of 473 gold a turn; by comparision, an equal amount of production could get you 47 tanks, at an upkeep cost of 47 gold.

I'd go with the 47 tanks and keep the extra 400-odd gold a turn; here's why. Assuming an 8 city empire producing nothing but warriors at a rate of one per city per turn, you spent 59 * (437/2) = 13,953 gold on upkeep for your warrior army in the process of producing them (I'm ignoring the small amount of support you get for free over that time period; it's 15% of your upkeep for this invasion force even under the best possible circumstances, with 8 size 13 cities under Communism). By comparision, the upkeep you'd spend while producing 47 tanks, *in the same amount of time*, would have been 1410 gold. For the 12,543 gold premium you dished out to have hordes of warriors instead of tanks, you could rush buy, at the full 4x cost, another 31 tanks.
In other words, you could invade, in the same year, with:

0 treasury, 473 warriors, 473 upkeep a turn.
0 treasury, 88 tanks, 88 upkeep a turn.

That's assuming you're forced to rush-buy your tanks in one turn for some reason. If you wait until the midway point on each tank before rush-buying it (there's no reason not to, it's free money), then the result becomes:

0 treasury, 473 warriors, 473 upkeep a turn.
0 treasury, 109 tanks, 109 upkeep a turn.

Which do you think is more likely to win? This doesn't count the smaller support force for an amphibious invasion, either. I can see an army of 473 warriors losing pretty easily; I mean, all the AI has to do is have a few artillery pieces. If you think your chance of winning an individual battle is bad with 473 4 hp warriors (I'm assuming veterans), then imagine it with 473 2 hp warriors (it's not like they're going to put up a fight against artillery bombardment with a 1 defense), and you're going to need to stack them pretty deep; most empires probably don't have 473 squares in them total.

In other words, you would have been more effective if you'd built higher technology units. The numbers match up about the same for cavalry or anything else you want to pick.

Summary: The combat system is just fine, and there's rarely, if ever, a reason to build obselete units. Go back to playing the game.

[mmike87]

I was addressing the subject of this thread, which was "More Hitpoints for Modern Units" primarily.

You're right - you can't edit everything, and air superiority is broekn. I plainly pointed out in my post that I admitted that there were things that needed to be tweaked and fixed, but that many of the items that people are complaining about can be fixed via the editor.

No one implied that a patch was not needed at all - only that people can, toa degree, help themselves if they so desire.

Some people would rather just whine about it.

[Barnacle Bill]

Again, given the overall scale of the game, a unit is a division, not a single example of the thing depicted or even a small group of the thing depicted. Even serious wargames in recent years have taken to using a graphic of a tank to represent a large armored formation, etc... because the old cardboard counter with NATO unit symbols look is scary to the mass audience.

Now, I do not doubt for a minute that primative tribesmen could ambush and destroy an armored column of up to battalion size, particularly a poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly led and ill-motivated one (all of which charactorized the Italian army in that era). However, this is not going to be possible with an armored division and a similarly-sized army of tribesmen.

I do understand that a lot of things in the game are abstracted (yeh, I'd personally love a Civ-type game where the combat system was based on Norm Kroger's Operational Art of War series, but that's me). However, even an abstract system should produce credible results. 10,000 guys with pointy objects taking out a supplied armored division is not credible (and the Civ system is nowhere close to being able to model an out-of-gas&bullets armored division - every unit is assumed "in supply").

I do understand that the current combat system was created on purpose to work with the strategic resource system, as a matter of game balance. However, I believe that game balance can be achieved WITHOUT creating the potential for routine unbelievable combat results. There are a couple of ways that have been proposed, which are not in fact mutually exclusive:

1) In each era, a basic combat unit which requires no strategic resources and is only slightly inferior to the good stuff of its own era (while units of the previous era would be significantly inferior and units 2 eras or more back pretty hopeless)

2) For each unit requiring strategic resources, an identical no-resource version that just costs a whole lot more (3 times? whatever works).

BTW, I think there should be more eras (in combat, not necessarily the tech tree). What I would propose is roughly as follows:

A) Pre-gunpowder (neglecting very primative GP weapons which were fairly insignificant in impact). Weapons & armor improve incrementally through-out the period, but most revolutionary changes are in tactics rather than technology. Rowing & ramming is the state of the art at sea (except the "Byzantines" who have Greek Fire).
B) Early gunpowder - mixed infantry formations of guys with matchlocks & guys with pikes, cavalry in heavy armor with wheellocks. Cannon-armed galleys are still viable in coastal waters, but sailing ships dominate.
C) 18th Century/Napoleonic - flintlock smoothbores, cavalry loses the armor and also starts to get less important on the battlefield. Sailing ships reach their peak.
D) Mid-19th Century - percussion rifled muzzleloaders, cavalry mostly for scouting now but occasionally gets a lick in. The primacy of defense starts to make attacking a bloody affair requiring significant numerical superiority in order to acheive decisive results (US Civil War). Seas ruled by steam/sail hybrids that look much like ships of the previous era with smoke-stacks. Late in the period, Ironclads rule coastal waters (should have the same restrictions as galleys - read up on what happened to the USS Monitor).
E) Late-19th Century - breach-loading cartridge firearms, cavalry's in even more trouble, as are attackers in general (unless the other side is still at the previous tech level ala Franco-Prussian War). Ocean-going steel-hulled ships now rule the waves.
F) WWI-era - infantry now have repeating rifles and heavy machineguns are integrated at the company level, cavalry charges are now suicide. Infantry attacks against a fortified enemy are pretty close to it, although lots of artillery helps. Late in the period, clunky slow tanks appear and can break the deadlock (as can specially-trained infantry). Aircraft (on the Civ scale) are useless except for recon & air superiority missions. The age of the Dreadnought, with primative submarines threatening merchant shipping.
G) WWII-era - infantry now have light automatic weapons integrated at the squad level, and man-portable AT weapons. Tanks and aircraft come into their own - attacking armored formations now have an advantage. A nation which has lost air superiority is handicapped, but not crippled (especially on the defense). A more expensive version of infantry ("motorized infantry") would have the same combat stats as the others but same speed as the tank (still only 1 attack per turn, though). "Superdreadnoughts" bring surface combatants to their peak, but get knocked off their perch by carrier aircraft. Submarines are incrementally better but not revolutionary.
H) Atomic-age - Basic infantry now have "assault rifles" and improved man-portable AT weapons (wire-guided). Mechanized infantry Incremental improvement in tanks. Jet aircraft. Air superiority pretty much guarantees victory, except against dug-in infantry or guerrillas. Carriers get bigger, and their escorts pack SAM's. Nuclear submarines rule the waves, and using your own to "sanitize" an area first is the only way those expensive carrier battlegroups can operate safely.
I) Contemporary - high-tech electronics make everything markedly more effective (and expensive) than the previous era. Equipment of the two eras looks much the same, but for all its cost the new stuff delivers far more bang-per-buck to those who can afford it (Gulf War). Precision guided weapons make surrendering control of the air to your opponent suicide. Stealth lets you evade air defenses, but costs way too much to replace all your "regular" aircraft. High-tech non-nuke subs make a comeback, but low transit speed makes them mostly a coastal defense weapon - nukes still rule the deep water.

[karlmarx9001]

'I do understand that the current combat system was created on purpose to work with the strategic resource system, as a matter of game balance. However, I believe that game balance can be achieved WITHOUT creating the potential for routine unbelievable combat results. There are a couple of ways that have been proposed, which are not in fact mutually exclusive:

1) In each era, a basic combat unit which requires no strategic resources and is only slightly inferior to the good stuff of its own era (while units of the previous era would be significantly inferior and units 2 eras or more back pretty hopeless)

2) For each unit requiring strategic resources, an identical no-resource version that just costs a whole lot more (3 times? whatever works). '

2) isn't a bad idea, although it brings up the question of how you build nukes without radioactive material.

There's no way to fix this perceived lack of power on modern units without completely breaking game balance *and* making the results unbelievable at the strategic level. The results everyone appears to want, I think, are the game equivalent of Japan conquering China in WWII, who were technological inferior, with only a single tank division. Sheesh.

What's actually pissing some people off, I think, isn't that warrior wins some absurdly small percentage of the time against a tank; it's that counter-attacking cavalry can kill off their weakened tanks really easily (6 attack vs. 8 defense). That situation isn't implausible if you think of "tanks" as the 1939 German construct, of course; it's not like tanks are supposed to be excellent units for defense, either.

"Hey, they have old units, we should be able to conquer the country with 5 tanks!"

[karlmarx9001]

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

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

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

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

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

This can't be right, is it?'

It's correct, but that's because you're treating the warriors like cruise missiles. That's another thing people have been leaving out of this: if you lose 200 production worth of warriors managing to take down one infantry (100 production), did you really "win?"

The unit living to fight another day, thereby saving you the production cost to replace it, is a variable no one is paying attention to.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by karlmarx9001

2) isn't a bad idea, although it brings up the question of how you build nukes without radioactive material.

There should be severe penalties for using nukes. In real life, nukes were used once under a very isolated set of circumstances. Nobody has used them since. In real life, they serve more to deter the other guy from using them than as an offensive weapon. This should be reflected in the game. It should also take a long time to build up enough of a stockpile to do anything with, as it did in real life. I'd make the Manhatten Project a small wonder, and you could only build nukes at that city. Plus, the amount of fisionable material required is rather small, so the #2 idea would represent obtaining it through covert means because you haven't got a uranium mine under your control.

Originally posted by karlmarx9001

There's no way to fix this perceived lack of power on modern units without completely breaking game balance *and* making the results unbelievable at the strategic level. The results everyone appears to want, I think, are the game equivalent of Japan conquering China in WWII, who were technological inferior, with only a single tank division. Sheesh.

China was not throwing guys with axes at Japan. In actual fact, the technological level of the two was not that far apart in terms of ground warfare. China was just poor. Japanese troops were better trained and more lavashly equipped, but on the equipment side it was more a matter quantity than quality. The Japanese deployed very few tanks (and the ones they did were about on par with Italian tanks). The situation would actually be modelled very well if you had the #1 situation (a cheap no-resource modern infantry), China had lots of cities with many people but no factories (few shields), Japan had fewer cities but factories in them and the resources to build regular infantry. So, China would draft lots of "militia" or whatever (but they wouldn't be guys with axes, they'd be guys with bolt-action rifles). Also, Japan did not defeat China. A strategic stalemate existed for most of the war, once Japan layed into the Western Powers. If the Japanes decide to lay into the stone age tribesmen in the interior of New Guinea - then it is guys with axes and the Japanes should polish them off without breaking a sweat (except for the infernal tropical heat, of course).

Originally posted by karlmarx9001

What's actually pissing some people off, I think, isn't that warrior wins some absurdly small percentage of the time against a tank; it's that counter-attacking cavalry can kill off their weakened tanks really easily (6 attack vs. 8 defense). That situation isn't implausible if you think of "tanks" as the 1939 German construct, of course; it's not like tanks are supposed to be excellent units for defense, either.

"Hey, they have old units, we should be able to conquer the country with 5 tanks!"

Again, it isn't "tanks" - it is an armored division. An early war German Armored division had 1 regiment of tanks, two of armored infantry, plus a bunch of artillery. A Panzergrenadier division reversed the proportion of tanks & infantry. OK, so let's say our Panzer Division has taken 75% casualties in a hard-fought offensive. You still have about a battalion's worth of tanks left and at least a couple companies of infantry, and lots of machineguns all over the place. They are now counterattacked by a division of Jeb Stuart's cavalry straight of the battlefield at Gettysburg - with single-shot muzzleloading carbines & sawed-off shotguns (the Confederate cavalryman's weapon of choice). What do you think happens to Jeb & the boys when they charge into all those MG34's?

5 Panzer Divisions SHOULD be able to defeat either side in the US civil war.

[karlmarx9001]

'Again, it isn't "tanks" - it is an armored division. An early war German Armored division had 1 regiment of tanks, two of armored infantry, plus a bunch of artillery. A Panzergrenadier division reversed the proportion of tanks & infantry. OK, so let's say our Panzer Division has taken 75% casualties in a hard-fought offensive. You still have about a battalion's worth of tanks left and at least a couple companies of infantry, and lots of machineguns all over the place. They are now counterattacked by a division of Jeb Stuart's cavalry straight of the battlefield at Gettysburg - with single-shot muzzleloading carbines & sawed-off shotguns (the Confederate cavalryman's weapon of choice). What do you think happens to Jeb & the boys when they charge into all those MG34's?

5 Panzer Divisions SHOULD be able to defeat either side in the US civil war.'

In a platonic ideal universe, yes, 5 panzer divisions could conquer an 1850s US. However, that's what the *random* bit is for. Maybe the German generals have the clap, or all their supplies rot, or the army comes down with smallpox, or.....you get the picture. Combat in Civ 3 isn't about modeling outcomes at the tactical level.

When a tank loses against a pikeman on a mountain, it's more accurate to think of it as a modern era attacking force being destroyed while attempting to root out savages from incredilby rough terrain. Doesn't sound as unlikely, does it?

As it is, the game is fun and well balanced. I have no idea what everyone is complaining about.

[Barnacle Bill]

No credible situation could result in even the entire Army of the Potomic/Army of Northern Virginia taking out even an exhausted WWII Panzer Division. Properly modelled, the two sides would be three tech levels apart.

Silly results detract from the game. That is what everybody is complaining about.

Another thing - in real life nobody would ever get that much of a tech advantage unless before the war the two sides were not in contact (even through intermediaries), which at the WWII level of technology pretty much means "not on the same planet". This would be simply (and quite realistically) fixed by giving any civ which is behind a tech bonus proportional to the difference between itself and the most advanced civ with which it has contact. This, in conjuction with one or both of the proposed fixes for the resource issue plus a fix of the combat system, would put an end to silly results without otherwise unbalancing the game.

Something about China that I forgot to mention in the previous post (the History Proff wannabe in me can't resist) - they were also divided between the KMT, the Communists & assorted "Warlords" (basically remnants of the defunct Imperial regime's military setting up shop for themselves in some province and thumbing their noses at all claimants to central authority). Chang or Mao, take your pick, if either one had total control of the country they'd have driven the Japanese into the sea. In Civ terms, picture China as divided by a Civ2-style civil war and about half the cities in civil disorder when the Japanese invaded.

One last point - particularly for any lurking Firaxians - everything I write should be taken as constructive criticism. I want Civ3 to be great - wish I'd been a beta tester so I could tell you this stuff way back. I am playing and enjoying the game. I don't want my money back. I don't want Firaxis boycotted unto bankrupcy. I don't want Sid nerve stapled. A lot of the changes already in vs Civ2 are right in line with what I would have suggested (how air units are supposed to work is right out of the suggestion letter that I never quite found time to write). However, I am also assuming that the patched editor will give me significant ability to add units & techs and control the flow of time in the game (#turns, years/turn). Given that, and the ability of the AI to adapt to any mod I do through the official editor, then I'll mod the game to suit my tastes & Civ3 will be my regular pal until Civ4 comes out. Otherwise, it ends up like other games which I enjoyed but dropped for something else once the novelty wore off (Imperialism I & II, for example). So, please give me a Civilization that stands the test of time

[Venger]

Bill - of course, on the money. Combat should enhance the game, not detract. The lack of the HP/FP model hampers these results somewhat, as do some questionable unit designs and outright bugs. But, as you say, a patch should fix thse and give us the game we all want...

Venger
P.S. Surely you have to have SP:WAW...

[woody]

Originally posted by mmike87
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?

The Civ3 detractors don't just want to unbalance the game for themselves. If they wanted to do that, they can just edit the rules and stop whining.

What they want to do is break the game for EVERYONE. Well, just let them try. Firaxis isn't going to break their game just to satisfy a bunch of spoiled children.

Thank God Firaxis fixed the stupid design rules in Civ2.

[Venger]

Originally posted by woody

The Civ3 detractors don't just want to unbalance the game for themselves. If they wanted to do that, they can just edit the rules and stop whining.

I paid money for a game that doesn't work right.

What they want to do is break the game for EVERYONE.

Then you can just edit the rules and stop whining, jerk.

Well, just let them try. Firaxis isn't going to break their game just to satisfy a bunch of spoiled children.

Woody (and that name can't be any more telling) won't be applying any patches, as any such patch will break an already perfect game...

Thank God Firaxis fixed the stupid design rules in Civ2.

Funny, about 80% of the entire game is based on Civ2, which was about 80% based on Civ1. Doofus.

Venger

[n.c.]

karlmarx9001- Such a thoughtful post at 5:55, such a lame one at 16:16.

There's no way to fix this perceived lack of power on modern units without completely breaking game balance *and* making the results unbelievable at the strategic level.

Is Civ III the only game you've played?

-"The results everyone appears to want"
-"What's actually pissing some people off"
These are as yet beyond your grasp. Try understanding 1st, insulting later.

-"I have no idea what everyone is complaining about."
Exactly.

You don't want to look as dumb as woody.

[Nuke gay whales]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by woody

>>they can just edit the rules and stop whining.<<

What? Jezzzz.... Some people!

I will try again... As you are SO smart, PLEASE tell everyone exactly how you would edit the rules to fix the following:

- The air superiority function does not work
- Bombers and jet fighters cannot sink naval units
- Spearmen can defeat tanks (and if you say that you can edit the HP of the tank, then you are also suggesting editing EVERY unit, as the tank will that much stronger than units like Infantry from its own age period)
- Air units have a max range of 8
- Armies cannot unload the units (and therefore cannot be upgraded)
- Cannot stack units together for mass movement (moving 30 units around the map during war is tedious)
- Armies have only one attack (3/4 individual attacks is MUCH more useful)


QUOTE] Originally posted by woody

>>What they want to do is break the game for EVERYONE. Well, just let them try. Firaxis isn't going to break their game just to satisfy a bunch of spoiled children.<<

Break it? you mean fix it... I would like to hear you say that you will NOT be patching the game once one is released...


QUOTE] Originally posted by woody

>>Thank God Firaxis fixed the stupid design rules in Civ2.<<

Ahhhh... Now I begin to understand you reasoning. Not once did a phalanx unit defeat an armour unit in Civ II. Now that your spearmen can stop the enemy tanks and infantry from running your weak civilization over, you are MUCH happier...

[Jolard]

As many of us have said ad-nauseum, there are many of us out here who are EXTREMELY happy with the balanced game we have now. I do not want to see a game where the first person to the highest quality units can invade the world without opposition. Where is the fun in that. Anyway, each to their own, and I understand why these people are so hostile and desperately want the combat tweaked, but I like it the way it is. I just want people to know that some of us are playing this game and loving it!

[Akka]

Originally posted by Jolard
As many of us have said ad-nauseum, there are many of us out here who are EXTREMELY happy with the balanced game we have now. I do not want to see a game where the first person to the highest quality units can invade the world without opposition. Where is the fun in that.

I'm sure you are not THAT simple and you KNOW that there is a difference between "improving modern unit" and "make suddendly the very first modern unit bale to raze the map by itself" ?

Anyway, each to their own, and I understand why these people are so hostile and desperately want the combat tweaked, but I like it the way it is. I just want people to know that some of us are playing this game and loving it!

What I would simply like would be the ability to give units (I mean UNITS, not LEVEL EXPERIENCE like it actually is) HP/FP. Would Fireaxis put this feature in the patch and I would be happy about the combat system.
NOBODY would be unhappy about HP/FP making a come back, because after all, if you put them at 1/1, the game will stay exactly the same. But it would allow people to custom their units (and it would be a godsend in any scenario to be able to make some units more resistant or able to inflict a big deal of damage).

[TCO]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


I'm sure you are not THAT simple and you KNOW that there is a difference between "improving modern unit" and "make suddendly the very first modern unit bale to raze the map by itself" ?



What I would simply like would be the ability to give units (I mean UNITS, not LEVEL EXPERIENCE like it actually is) HP/FP. Would Fireaxis put this feature in the patch and I would be happy about the combat system.
NOBODY would be unhappy about HP/FP making a come back, because after all, if you put them at 1/1, the game will stay exactly the same. But it would allow people to custom their units (and it would be a godsend in any scenario to be able to make some units more resistant or able to inflict a big deal of damage).

You should give it a shot by just changing A/D values. You won't get the exact same pattern of damage but you can come pretty close and you CAN get the exact same percent of kills that you want.

I think you're asking for too much to think that FP is going to be added back in or that HP will be changed from the current non-unit system. That would not be a small fix. It would be a medium-sized design change.

[karlmarx9001]

'Originally posted by Jolard
As many of us have said ad-nauseum, there are many of us out here who are EXTREMELY happy with the balanced game we have now. I do not want to see a game where the first person to the highest quality units can invade the world without opposition. Where is the fun in that?

I'm sure you are not THAT simple and you KNOW that there is a difference between "improving modern unit" and "make suddendly the very first modern unit bale to raze the map by itself" ?'

Have you worked out the obvious implications of weakening old units compared to new ones? Here's a freebie: if tanks do twice as much damage through a firepower construct, then the tech right *before* them loses more effectiveness, on a price to research and build basis, than warriors, or other super-obselete tech.

Another idea: Assign firepower based on era (1 for ancient, 5 for modern). However, this means era 2 will slaughter era 1 more than it should; so, make era 1 and 2 1 firepower, but this means there will be a large jump between eras 2 and 3.....

It goes on and on like this. Also, there's virtually no significant difference between firepower, hit points, and just changing the attack/defense values. FP & HP operate a little differently, but attack/defense can be used as stand-ins for virtually the same effect.

Anyway, as to the list above of problems:

Air superiority will be fixed in the patch.

Air units can't sink naval units: this is a design decision I agree with. If they can, then once air power is researched there will be absolutely no reason to build any naval units but transports.

Air units having a max range of 8: what's wrong with this? Jet and stealth fighters have a range of 12. Airbases might be a nice addition, though.

Armies cannot unload the units (and therefore cannot be upgraded): this is a good thing. If armies could be upgraded, then the first person to ever get one would vaporize everyone else on the map with a tiny invading force. Same thing for multiple attacks from an army; as it is, they're excellent shock troops, but you can't use them alone.

Cannot stack units together for mass movement (moving 30 units around the map during war is tedious): yeah, this should be fixed.

As a final summary: what's the acceptable frequency of attacking archers killing a tank? 1 in 30? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? Do tell.

[GePap]

to karlmarx9001
Armies are not as great as you state, since for example an army of 4 modern armor gets 1 attack, not even 3 like a single modern armor should. As of now, putting units in an army is the perfect way of insuring perpetual backwardsness. That little army thing is a unit and I should be able, if I only have 1, to choose which 3-4 units go into it. This is an issue of giving gamers more choices, making more strategies available, which personally I think is a better way to go.

Airplanes (or all bombardment) should have a chance of killing units, period. On huge maps, an airrange of 8 is ridiculous (with the danger of cities randomly defecting, it becomes a real danger to forward base your bombers in a serious war-which invalidates their use. I agree that we need air bases back.

[Sze]

Originally posted by Monoriu
-snip-
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.
-snip-

1. This seems to be a common response to the opinion that combat is broken in Civ3. However, it's a flawed response. There is a concept in psychology called a schema: a pattern of relationships among memories. Everyone playing Civ3 has a mental concept of TANK that goes beyond a specific example of a tank. TANK is associated with power, fortitude, appearances, war movie scenes, computer games, icons, historic significance, personal experience, etc... Everyone's TANK is slightly different because it is made up of thousands of different memories, but there's enough similar that we can all agree on what is or is not a tank.

Or maybe we can't. I play this game and the tank unit stetches my concept of TANK. No where in my memories do tanks lose so consistently to weaker forces. I wouldn't have a problem with losing tanks if it weren't so illogical and improbable. The frustration running throughout this thread is an echo of this lack of correlation between what a tank should be and what the makers of Civ3 are telling me it is.

The counter-arguments run like this: this is a game, not a combat simulation; realism does not equal fun; etc..

Then why call it a tank, make it look like a tank, and write it up in the 'pedia as a tank if it's not supposed to represent a tank? If it IS supposed to represent a tank, then how come I can't recognize it by its behavior? This goes for most units of the units too, not just tanks. It's harder to make a game based in reality than to make a fantasy game like SMAC. In SMAC they could just make up numbers and no one would object. In Civ3, they have to make the units behave the way we all know they should behave.

There are a ton of good suggestions for fixing this in this thread (restoring HP/FP, increasing HP for modern units, making some non-resource units for each era). Some or all of them should be implemented.

2. I think people are having a hard time adjusting to an illogical system. You are asking them to unlearn everything they know about military units and relearn these Civ3 units. Some people like to get lost in the simulation and not compare numbers all the time. The numbers are there for our reference and to make the game workable, not to analyze every single action (well for most players). I shouldn't have to do the math to figure out if my battleship can take on an ironclad, it should just kick its ass.

3. This editor argument sucks. I don't have the time to fix a game to my liking. Once MP is enabled how is everyone who alters the rules supposed to agree on a single set of modifications? Do you expect me to put in hundreds of hours of beta testing to see if my modifications improved the gameplay?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sze

3. This editor argument sucks. I don't have the time to fix a game to my liking. Once MP is enabled how is everyone who alters the rules supposed to agree on a single set of modifications? Do you expect me to put in hundreds of hours of beta testing to see if my modifications improved the gameplay?

Sze...your argument against editors comes down to: "I want the game balanced the way I like it. Make the other guys use the editor to chang it. Not me."

[Joe R. Golowka]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
What I would simply like would be the ability to give units (I mean UNITS, not LEVEL EXPERIENCE like it actually is) HP/FP.

You can do this now. Make a list of all the units. Write down what firepower you think each of them should have. Then go into the editor and multiply the attack value by the firepower you assigned it. Then do the same thing for the defense value. Repeat for all the units. This is the equivalent to adding firepower to all the units. There is virtually no different between a unit with an attack of 20 and a FP of 1 and a unit with an attack of 10 an a FP of 2. Once your'e done post a copy of your mod in the creation section so we can all share in your creation.

[Nuke gay whales]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by karlmarx9001
'Originally posted by Jolard

>>I do not want to see a game where the first person to the highest quality units can invade the world without opposition. Where is the fun in that?<<

This did not happen in Civ II, where the balance seemed right. As it is, the problem only starts in the modern era in Civ III, were technology takes a relatively large leap forward so that you have armored vehicles battling against foot soldiers and horses. Anyway, if your civ is so far behind that you are still running around on horses while fighting wars against mechanized vehicles, then you SHOULD be invaded and wiped out... We're not talking about tanks vs. riflemen, but tanks vs. spearmen/pikemen.


>>Another idea: Assign firepower based on era (1 for ancient, 5 for modern). However, this means era 2 will slaughter era 1 more than it should; so, make era 1 and 2 1 firepower, but this means there will be a large jump between eras 2 and 3.....<<

Sounds reasonable. Isn't this the same concept as firepower? If so - you are advocating the return of such a system. There WAS a large jump in technology - from horses and single action rifles in WW I, to jet fighters, tanks and missiles (although rather crude) in WW II. This was in a time span of less than 30 years!


>>Air units can't sink naval units: this is a design decision I agree with. If they can, then once air power is researched there will be absolutely no reason to build any naval units but transports.<<

??? In ALL modern sea battles, your navy would be resting on the bottom of the ocean if you thought that fighters/bombers couldn't sink your ships! This is what air superiority is all about. If you had air units covering your navy, then you would not have the problem of air units sinking all your ships. This is what carriers are for. This is why I think that air units should be able to have two moves before returning to base so that they could be over your naval ships providing support against air attack. This is what I did in Civ II, and it worked quite well. Fighters could also cover ground units, with the opposition having to fight the air units before being able to engage the ground units. AIR SUPERIORITY is crucial in any modern war (just ask Iraq and the Taliban), and I am disappointed that Civ III has left it out of the game.


>>Air units having a max range of 8: what's wrong with this?<<

A city in the game covers five squares from sided to side. Last time I checked, a jet fighter could cover this type of ground in about 2 minutes... how long does each turn represent? I know that the "length of a turn" issue and "city size" and "realism vs. fun" is a touchy subject, but an 8 square range for a modern jet? It should be DOUBLE that at least.


>>Armies cannot unload the units (and therefore cannot be upgraded): this is a good thing. If armies could be upgraded, then the first person to ever get one would vaporize everyone else on the map with a tiny invading force. Same thing for multiple attacks from an army; as it is, they're excellent shock troops, but you can't use them alone.<<

The problem is that one attack per army is just not worth it. I am not sure what the solution is, but only having one attack per army, AND not being able to upgrade the units means that they are pretty useless (saving them for completing wonders is MUCH more useful). This is really disappointing, as I love the idea of putting units together to form an army.


>>Cannot stack units together for mass movement (moving 30 units around the map during war is tedious): yeah, this should be fixed.<<

If they changed this then I think it would solve the army issue for me, as it would "feel" like I have built an army. Even having to earn/build a leader in order to stack units together would be better (I just like the look of the guy with the flag marching around!).


>>As a final summary: what's the acceptable frequency of attacking archers killing a tank? 1 in 30? 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? Do tell.<<

Zero, nadda, zip, zilch! (I don't care about ONE case of so called "Italian Armored Division" being whopped by savages, it just doesn't make any sense... They would/should just surrender (cleaning body parts from your tank tred could get tedious!).

ps. I am ALSO having a lot of fun playing Civ III, but that has nothing to do with the ability to improve upon a game... If everyone liked the way a game was, with no room for improvment, then we would all be still playing pong...

[woody]

Originally posted by Nuke gay whales
I will try again... As you are SO smart, PLEASE tell everyone exactly how you would edit the rules to fix the following:

- The air superiority function does not work

This is a serious bug. Firaxis should be raked over the coals for releasing the game with this broken. They should have patched this 2 weeks ago!

- Bombers and jet fighters cannot sink naval units

This was a balance issue. In Civ2, you never really needed a navy. In Civ3, you're forced to build a navy if you want to protect your coast. I think this is good. If they change the rules to allow bombers to sink ships, then I hope they make it a very low probability.

- Spearmen can defeat tanks (and if you say that you can edit the HP of the tank, then you are also suggesting editing EVERY unit, as the tank will that much stronger than units like Infantry from its own age period)

Yes, edit every unit. You could have done so in half the time you've spent whining about it. The chance that a defending, fortified spearman can beat a modern tank is 1%. WHY DOES 1% BOTHER YOU SO MUCH?!?

- Air units have a max range of 8

For bombing or for air superiority? This isn't a big deal, anyway, since cities are placed much closer together than this. But yeah, it should be increased if it is really limited to only 8.

- Armies cannot unload the units (and therefore cannot be upgraded)

So? This is a design decision. It forces you to be conservative about designing your armies. Wait until war-time before adding units to an army.

- Cannot stack units together for mass movement (moving 30 units around the map during war is tedious)

Annoying, and should be fixed.

- Armies have only one attack (3/4 individual attacks is MUCH more useful)

Balance issue, I presume. An army functions as a single unit, not as 3 or 4 units.

Break it? you mean fix it... I would like to hear you say that you will NOT be patching the game once one is released...

Of course I'll patch it. I also know that Firaxis won't be breaking the current combat rules the way you want.

Ahhhh... Now I begin to understand you reasoning. Not once did a phalanx unit defeat an armour unit in Civ II. Now that your spearmen can stop the enemy tanks and infantry from running your weak civilization over, you are MUCH happier...

I can live with a 1% chance of a spearman defeating armor. Obviously, you can't, so either edit the rules or play a different game.

P.S. It's obvious the whiners here have never done the math. Check out http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

[Akka]

It goes on and on like this. Also, there's virtually no significant difference between firepower, hit points, and just changing the attack/defense values. FP & HP operate a little differently, but attack/defense can be used as stand-ins for virtually the same effect

You can do this now. Make a list of all the units. Write down what firepower you think each of them should have. Then go into the editor and multiply the attack value by the firepower you assigned it. Then do the same thing for the defense value. Repeat for all the units. This is the equivalent to adding firepower to all the units. There is virtually no different between a unit with an attack of 20 and a FP of 1 and a unit with an attack of 10 an a FP of 2. Once your'e done post a copy of your mod in the creation section so we can all share in your creation.

Ok, dude, here I can only say one thing : go back to your math class and study a little more about probability, and then you would perhaps stop saying insanity.
There is LARGE differences.
And darn, it would improve the creativity power for modders. Just giving example : a missile, a minefield, a wizard able to launch fireballs, all these units would benefit to have BIG firepower, and few hit points, allowing them to deal considerable damages while not being good at fight.
10 % chances to do 5 damages is NO WAY the same than 50 % chances to do 1 damages. I hope this math rule will one day enter in the skull of people mislead by Soren's talk about firepower.

You should give it a shot by just changing A/D values. You won't get the exact same pattern of damage but you can come pretty close and you CAN get the exact same percent of kills that you want.

I don't want to have ridiculously high A/D values when a more elegant and subtle way could be possible. If I create a mod with a special-hardened battleship which has the same fighting ability than regular one but a much stronger hull, I want it to have more HP, not more A/D.
Same if I do a WW2 or WW1 scenario (when the editor will be done), I could make flamethrower with less Attack rating (hard to aim, short range etc...) but high FP (it does not often hit, but when it hits it burn massive quantities of soldiers).
The A/D should represent the fighting ability (experience, training, precision, etc...) while the HP is basically the armor/endurance and the FP the ability to deal damage.
A ninja unit would have a great A/D but low HP/FP, a terrorist unit would have a low A/D and HP but a high FP.
Feel what is the difference ?

I think you're asking for too much to think that FP is going to be added back in or that HP will be changed from the current non-unit system. That would not be a small fix. It would be a medium-sized design change.

Adding FP is easy : in fact, the "rate of fire" of artillery unit is already a FP setting.
HP are already in the game. The only change would be to switch their link from "experience statut" to "unit features". I don't think it would be a hard one.

Another idea: Assign firepower based on era (1 for ancient, 5 for modern). However, this means era 2 will slaughter era 1 more than it should; so, make era 1 and 2 1 firepower, but this means there will be a large jump between eras 2 and 3....

Ever tried to wonder that you could put something else than "1, 2, 3" ?
Let's try "12" for ancient units, "15" for medieval units, "18" for industrial units and "23" for modern units. Where is the "large jump" now ? There is only a 20/25 % jump from each era to the other. Which is not really that big.

Personnally, rather than "era" jumps, I would prefer "technical warfare" jumps, where HP/FP jumps when a new step in weapon appear.
Then : pre-iron units with 10 in HP/FP, iron units with 12 HP/FP, gunpowder units with 12 HP/16 FP, rifle units with 12HP/20 FP, assault weapon units with 15 HP/25 FP, armored units with 25 HP/25 MP, etc...
(numbers here are EXAMPLES, don't start to yell about "how imbalancing" and so on, it's just to explain my idea).

[Grumbold]

After 7 pages of discourse we are still no closer to finding a compromise solution than we were when we started. Leaving aside the real bug with air superiority, which Firaxis clearly will fix as soon as possible, it seems rebalancing the units is always going to be contentious.

In my most recent game (playing MarkG's Babylonian competition map) I eliminated the Egyptians, occupying rather than razing all 18 of their cities, for the loss of 5 Cavalry and one tank. I also lost 2 infantry and 2 artillery, but that was due to a spontaneous reconversion of 1 city. I had a technological edge of less than one age, with their cavalry and infantry appearing in numbers when they had 10 cities left. My first few tanks appeared in time to capture the last 5 towns and one died assaulting a dug in infantryman with 2hp left. Almost 200 Egyptian combat units were eliminated in the course of the campaign.

After a period of rebuilding and absorbing the Egyptian cities, I am now in a war with the 3 remaining players. It took 4 turns to completely destroy the 22 city Zulu nation with modern armor and bombers vs infantry, artillery, fighters and assorted dross. One Modern Armor left exposed on 1hp was counterattacked and destroyed. Meanwhile the Greeks managed to capture one border town of mine guarded by 1 mech inf. It took them 15 units, mostly cavalry, to achieve. I retook the town the next turn and destroyed a further 28 dross that had been moving up.

There were a few odd results when the occasional unit defended well and forced my tanks or cavalry to bounce, but the final result was two destroyed nations vs 6 lost units. I just don't understand the need to make combat better favour the later units when the benefits are already so clear. Firaxis' time would be better spent modifying the AI to want to disband its old units to help construct modern ones. We don't have any editing tools to be able to influence that.

[Barnacle Bill]

OK, I'm on the side of "combat is broken", but I'm OK if they don't make any change to the stock game as long as I can fix my own in the editor. To do that, I need some tools the current editor lacks - at least the easy ability to add units & advances and control the flow of time in the game (total # turns and years/turn).

I think FP/HP would help - it is at least another knob to tweek. However, it may be unnecessary. Playing about with the editor, I find that it will take numbers up to 1000 for attack & defense factors. In Civ2, 98 was the max (only 2 digits allowed, and attack factor = 99 made it a one-use nuke). So, we basically have 10 times the "address space" in Civ3 than in Civ2, and that may be mathematically equivalent to what was acheivable in Civ2 with FP/HP. I'm playing with that concept now - I divided the units in the game into 4 combat eras - ancient/medieval, gunpowder, steam age & modern. I multiplied the attack/defense factors of gunpowder era units by 2, steam age by 3 and modern by 4. I was initially going to split "modern" into "world wars" & "modern", but that would result in either Paratroopers & Marines being obsolete in the modern era or unavailable for WWII, so I compromised. If the patched editor makes adding units easy, and suitable unit graphics are available, there will be even more combat eras: ancient/medieval, matcklock/wheellock, flintlock, percussion muzzleloading, cartridge breachloaders, WWI, WWII, post-war (50's-70's) & electronics era (80's - today). Each of this represented (historically) a step increase in military firepower.

I agree that artillery & air units should not be able to finish off ground units - a ground unit is roughly a division - bombardment can disrupt a division severely but not eliminate it. Ships are another matter - put holes in 'em and they sink. Look at history, once aircraft became capable of carrying the weapon load to sink ships (basically WWII), surface ship gun platforms were in big trouble and carriers became the capital ship. You need carriers to get your planes in range and support your invasion until you can capture a city, and to provide air cover for your transports. Properly modelled, carriers & transports would be very vulnerable to subs so you would need destroyers to stack with them & provide protection (nothing but a "modern", i.e. nuclear, sub should be able to see & attack another sub, but subs can & should get killed when they attack & lose). So, you need more than just transports (plus, there should be a LOT of game before aircraft get invented). Also, long range heavy bombers designed for level bombing (prior to "smart weapons" & air-launched cruise missiles) should be terrible ship-killers - in real life they were pretty worthless in thaty role. The biggest coding change I'd like to see is seperate attack/defense factors depending on the type of opposition unit (ground, air, surface naval or sub) so I could model all the relationships correctly without so many compromises (how do you make modern subs able to easily kill battleships, destroyers good defenders against subs, but destroyers bad defenders against battleships with only one set of attack/defense factors).

Don't have a big problem with aircraft operational ranges, either. Maybe that should go up with technology, but remember that German ME-109's based on the Channel coast of France only had 10 minutes of combat time over London during the Battle of Britain. Operational range is more than just how far a plane can fly out & back - fuel vs weaponbs load is a trade-off and you have to allow for some time actually performing the mission when you get there.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
I don't want to have ridiculously high A/D values when a more elegant and subtle way could be possible. If I create a mod with a special-hardened battleship which has the same fighting ability than regular one but a much stronger hull, I want it to have more HP, not more A/D.
Same if I do a WW2 or WW1 scenario (when the editor will be done), I could make flamethrower with less Attack rating (hard to aim, short range etc...) but high FP (it does not often hit, but when it hits it burn massive quantities of soldiers).
The A/D should represent the fighting ability (experience, training, precision, etc...) while the HP is basically the armor/endurance and the FP the ability to deal damage.
A ninja unit would have a great A/D but low HP/FP, a terrorist unit would have a low A/D and HP but a high FP.
Feel what is the difference ?

Give it a shot. In the time that you spend analysing every facet of this issue, you could change the numbers. And it's not as bad as yout think. for instance if you want the tank vs spearman 1% chance reduced to .5%, you don't have to double the attack. It's less than double. It's non-linear.

Try it out. I know times that I've just stopped analysing something and tryed a workaround and solved my heartache.

[Akka]

Originally posted by GP


Give it a shot. In the time that you spend analysing every facet of this issue, you could change the numbers. And it's not as bad as yout think. for instance if you want the tank vs spearman 1% chance reduced to .5%, you don't have to double the attack. It's less than double. It's non-linear.

Try it out. I know times that I've just stopped analysing something and tryed a workaround and solved my heartache.

Ok, man, I am thankful that you try to help me, but you get me wrong : I can tweak Civ 3 to give the units the stats I want and make them able to hit more or less often during fight. That's not the point. I stated lenghtly about how HP/FP are useful for modding, for creating, and said that it has a DIFFERENT effect than changing the A/D rating.
There is a whole bunch of things in statistics, not only the end result. HP/FP allow to play on these subtle difference rather than just using a rough way of changing A/D and get an average result.
I require HP/FP back in the game for allowing more modding, more tweaking, more customisation. Because the customisation I can do right now does not satisfy me.

[Nuke gay whales]

Originally posted by woody

If they change the rules to allow bombers to sink ships, then I hope they make it a very low probability.

[/url]

How about modern jet fighters carrying missiles? (I agree that bombers should not be used). I still think that you should have to plan for air support for your navy, and without it your ships should be sunk.

Originally posted by woody

Yes, edit every unit. You could have done so in half the time you've spent whining about it. The chance that a defending, fortified spearman can beat a modern tank is 1%. WHY DOES 1% BOTHER YOU SO MUCH?!?

[/url]

Edit every unit? I am glad that you have reached the same conclusion as myself... Now you know why I am trying to get Firaxis to do this instead of me, since it was their decision to exclude firepower (which made editing much more user friendly and functional).

What are the odds for pikemen DEFENDING in a metropolis? How about musketmen? (using single action flint rifles that couldn't even scratch a tank). In ANY decent realistic war game (realism = fun and besides, why have it unrealistic?), if you did not have anti-tank units or equally armored vehicles defending against tanks, you will lose, even with units from the SAME era - I wonder why? The point is that it DOES happen on a regular enough basis that it is unbalanced - period - so instead of trying to rationalize the situation (whatever the percentages are) this is just wrong - and could be fixed in a patch that brings back fire power - simple for Firaxis to do, while impossible for anyone else...

Originally posted by woody

For bombing or for air superiority? This isn't a big deal, anyway, since cities are placed much closer together than this. But yeah, it should be increased if it is really limited to only 8.

[/url]

Air superiority is HALF the max range, so only 4 squares... Way too small.

Originally posted by woody

So? This is a design decision. It forces you to be conservative about designing your armies. Wait until war-time before adding units to an army.

[/url]

Fair enough - I still think the leaders are MUCH more useful for building wonders - which is a shame - I really liked the idea of armies...

Originally posted by woody

Balance issue, I presume. An army functions as a single unit, not as 3 or 4 units.

[/url]

Then it should attack with more FIREPOWER, not HP. With 3 elite archers attacking 2 Veteran spearmen in a fortified city, you lose all but 1 HP of each archer against the FIRST defending unit (I tried this last night by saving, attacking, reloading and repeating 10 times with the same result EACH time). Then you have to retreat back to one of your cities to heal. By the time you return, this happens all over again. On the other hand, I took the same city in one turn with 3 separate archer units... sure, I lost one of those units, and the others were in the red, but I took the city - why use armies? Now, if these units attacked together in an army with more firepower, then…

Originally posted by woody

I can live with a 1% chance of a spearman defeating armor. Obviously, you can't, so either edit the rules or play a different game.

[/url]

I will say it AGAIN - "I am ALSO having a lot of fun playing Civ III, but that has nothing to do with the ability to improve upon a game... If everyone liked the way a game was, with no room for improvement, then we would all be still playing pong..." Are you saying that you PREFER the way it is without firepower?

Originally posted by woody

P.S. It's obvious the whiners here have never done the math. Check out http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civ...<br /> <br />

I don't give a flying duck about the math... COMMON SENSE tells me that a group of men with pointed sticks could NEVER, EVER successfully defend against a group of tanks - period. If you like to get your calculator out every time you feel the need to rationalize the results - fine, but I can simply observe this occurring, and KNOW that it is wrong.