Does anyone else like the new combat system?

Pythagoras · November 27, 2001, 19:07

I like the fact that you cant go half-hazardly into a '3rd world' country. You have to take things carefully even if you are a technical super-god. Maybe its not realistic that occasionally the pikeman defeats the tank, but it is fun. Without that occasional 'pikeman beats tank' the AI or us humans for that matter would never be able to try and outwit more advanced civilizations. Civilization is a game before it is a 'historical simulation' and games without balance are not fun.

If there is a problem - why not just re balance the combat system by changing the values of A/D? Adding extra stats seems to only add confusion. Giving advanced units more hitpoints only further confuses what hit points are in civ3. Hit points are related to experience and training ie How much damage a unit can take before its command structure, organization and morale break down.

Adding a firepower stat would also be redundant. Its inclusion only overlaps the attack stat. The idea is that with each succesful round more damage is done to the loser. However, if the attack stat is high enough wont more damage simply be done by the sheer winningness of rounds? Rebalancing attack/defense stats should get the same result as giving some units extra fire power.

Akka · November 27, 2001, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Pythagoras
I like the fact that you cant go half-hazardly into a '3rd world' country. You have to take things carefully even if you are a technical super-god. Maybe its not realistic that occasionally the pikeman defeats the tank, but it is fun. Without that occasional 'pikeman beats tank' the AI or us humans for that matter would never be able to try and outwit more advanced civilizations. Civilization is a game before it is a 'historical simulation' and games without balance are not fun.

If there is a problem - why not just re balance the combat system by changing the values of A/D? Adding extra stats seems to only add confusion. Giving advanced units more hitpoints only further confuses what hit points are in civ3. Hit points are related to experience and training ie How much damage a unit can take before its command structure, organization and morale break down.

Adding a firepower stat would also be redundant. Its inclusion only overlaps the attack stat. The idea is that with each succesful round more damage is done to the loser. However, if the attack stat is high enough wont more damage simply be done by the sheer winningness of rounds? Rebalancing attack/defense stats should get the same result as giving some units extra fire power.

Simply said : no.
If you want a more detailed explanation, have a look to the "firepower is not what you need..." and the "The main reason to change combat " threads, which are extensively talking about this very difference.

Special_Olympic · November 27, 2001, 20:07

I like that you have to be careful, but it pisses me the f@ck off when I lose a cavalry to some unit that shouldn't really be able to touch me.

cassembler · November 27, 2001, 20:13

I've learned that a single unit is NOT an army... I gotta coordinate several units, of several different types, just to be able to mount an offensive... One that will usually only take a couple of cities.

If I don't want to lose a single unit, I'll go back to playing Civ2.

kmj · November 27, 2001, 20:37

I haven't had any troubles with it, and its simplicity is nice. My knights are kicking the the aztecs' spearmen and pikemen around without any trouble, at least no trouble when I remember to not attack across a river.

So, I'll go with 'yes'. If a spearman beats a tank every once every 70 attacks (approximately, according to http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html), I won't complain.

Monoriu · November 27, 2001, 21:27

Yes I like the combat system the way it is. If some people are not happy with it, and want Firaxis to introduce a patch so that they have a CHOICE to use the old FP/HP system, fine, more choice is always better. But I am happy with the current system and I don't want to change it.

Venger · November 27, 2001, 21:33

I like alot of the combat additions - bombardment is great, shared support is great, air missions are great, having separate move/numers of attacks is great. A number of great additions.

Alas, alot also either doesn't work (air missions) or doesn't make sense (can't sink ships with planes) or doesn't pass the smell test (privateer stats, early gunpowder stats) or simply is a step backwards (much lamer HP model).

The NICE thing is that the elements that the second items can be fixed easily, enhancing the first things, and making a really enjoyable game.

I personally am hoping for simply more editor options such as:

Can damage:
Land units
Sea units
Air units

Can destroy:
Land units
Sea Units
Air units

Can bombard:
Units
Improvements
Buildings

Etc. so that we can make a definitive Civ rich with variety and subtlety...look at the options you can give a settler type unit - that's what I'd like for the combat engine, and some other game facets.

Venger

Skanky Burns · November 27, 2001, 21:48

I like the combat system. It works well, and forces you to have balanced assaults w/ artillery if you want to ensure that you win. Its annoying when a spearman/galley kills one of your high-tech units, but its not very often.

Dis · November 27, 2001, 21:53

hell yeah

anything beats creating a whole bunch of howitzers and wiping the earth with them.

Chronus · November 27, 2001, 22:16

I like it as well. I get the occasional weird combat result, but not often, and certainly nothing to what others have complained about. Maybe I'm just blessed.

Frankly, I do not like the idea of a weak, ancient unit NEVER being able to destroy a modern one. Make the odds a million to one if you must but PLEASE, give the warrior that ever so slim chance to destroy the Mech Infantry. Surprises do happen in reality as history has shown.

I especially like how careful planning with the various units can make a serious difference in a war. I give an example in an earlier thread that I created. Unfortunately, my thread must be an incredibly boring read because it hasn't inspired a single comment from anybody. *SIGH* It's sad being so insignificant in this forum . . .

Sze · November 27, 2001, 22:27

It sounds to me like many of you prefer the new system because it makes the game harder. They could have made the game harder by making the computer players more intelligent. Instead, they broke combat.

Jaybe · November 27, 2001, 22:28

The combat system works as it stands. Of course, I DO have some preferences that are not in the game*, but basically "whiners" are getting surprised by something "wierd" and then try to make a big thing about it without getting on with life (er, I mean "Civ").

Venger's Editor ideas would be nice, though I probably wouldn't end up using them.

*Yah, I want the AI to also make lots of bombardment units in the industrial/modern age. Then we can have artillery duels just like in "real war."

Dis · November 27, 2001, 22:36

You can't make the computer player more intelligent. It is just a computer after all.

TheHobbit · November 27, 2001, 22:45

I love the game and the combat system!

Suprises do happen. If you have seen Star Wars I bet noone expected fuzzy little bears to take down an entire legion of the emporers best troops. Including mechanical nightmares such as at-sts in Return of the Jedi! Yay for the little guys!

Trifna · November 27, 2001, 23:21

My answer: No.

GePap · November 27, 2001, 23:27

My answer is also: No mostly

Like Venger, i think many of the new rules (bombardment, air missions) are great. The lack of the old HP/FP is the killer. Let me say random =/ Fun. If you believe so, then you must love roulette.

Kolyana · November 27, 2001, 23:33

My bombers and jets should be able to sink Triremes.

That's it. Until they can, the combat is adequate at best.

Pythagoras · November 28, 2001, 00:34

Quote:

My bombers and jets should be able to sink Triremes.

Yeah that makes sense. Or better yet bombers should be able to sink naval vessels in general. If both are considered a sort of "artillery" they should have an artillery stand off type thing where the bomber drops bombs etc and the ship fires anti aircraft fire. I mean thats one of the reasons carrier battle groups are so prolific.

Quote:

The lack of the old HP/FP is the killer. Let me say random =/ Fun. If you believe so, then you must love roulette.

There should be a random unknown factor in the combat thats what makes it exciting. The idea is you are operating at a strategic level, you should not have definite knowledge of the tactical success of your commanders. This allows for flaws to enter into grand strategic plans as they do in the real world.

Quote:

They could have made the game harder by making the computer players more intelligent.

With my experience with strategy games, great AI isnt something thats going to happen any time soon. Civ3 seems to be on the cutting edge of the AI field, but in general you should never really expect much from a strategy game development house in terms of great AI. Its a very dificult problem, requires a lot of coding, and is heavy on computing power.

GePap · November 28, 2001, 00:47

Pythagoras:
randomness is fine if my enemy is at a similar (though not equivalent) tech level. If a general were to send men with modern equipment vs. Yanomami tribesmen in the amazon, I think he would expect (and so do I) victory and would not be ammussed one bit (and neither would I) if they somehow lost. Perhaps if in this game I got to 'hang' troop commanders stupid or incompetent enough to actually lose such a battle then i would be OK with it. But I can't, so I'm not.

kmj · November 28, 2001, 01:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sze
It sounds to me like many of you prefer the new system because it makes the game harder. They could have made the game harder by making the computer players more intelligent. Instead, they broke combat.

They didn't do it to make the game harder, they did it so that civs that fall behind don't become hopeless... the player, too. A bad starting position can make player fall far behind in the early stages.

Venger · November 28, 2001, 01:11

Well that may work out fine for the player sucking hind tít, but it does it at the expense of those who hard work to gain an advantage. I'm not sure why the challenge of dealing with a handicap is somehow a laudable game design choice when juxtaposed with the challenge of a bad start or of poor gameplay choices...

Venger

yin26 · November 28, 2001, 01:18

When I think about a game like Europa Universalis and compare it to Civ, one major difference comes to mind: The concept of territory vs. number of cities.

Since EU is like the game Risk in that you control territories and not cities, the computer can relatively 'easily' calculate the value of attacking here or there to gain control of this or that part of the map.

But consider Civ: The computer is essentially looking at cities as opposed to chunks of land called territories. This means that in order to win, the computer must rely on sheer number of units to try to overwhelm / stop you in this city by city dance.

And since we are basically relying on units to chew piece by piece into another civ, Firaxis has chosen to make the game harder on the attacker by giving the defender some key bonuses. This is a kind of de facto bonus to the computer since it really has to do nothing more than to wait for your eventual attack. Of course, this helps the human player on defense as well, but it's clearly another way to allow the computer a better chance at dealing with the 'units' issue.

In other words, unlike a game of EU in which actual politics (and religion and government) is deciding most of the 'which territories are owned by whom?' question -- while combat is a more abstract but economically challenging issue [combat in EU costs lots and lots of money, runs up your inflation and generally sees lots and lots of your troops dying to attrition anyway] -- Civ 3 is, at its roots, a game of massing units to overtake massed cities.

It was boring enough in Civ2. It's made even moreso now in Civ3.

So this is not primarily (for me and many others) a matter of one pikeman beating a tank but of the entire way that on one hand the game is designed to be handled with units and yet those same units are forced into results that meet some overall game design purpose but ignore the turn by turn reality that fun has been sacrificed as a result.

In the end, I think this is finally highlighting the fundamental limits of the Civ system itself. As I have long had a sneaking suspicion, unless Firaxis is prepared to really innovate, Civ3 is actuallly destined to become the dinosaur project they thought they had cancelled.

Oh, forgot to mention: This issue of handling the 'madman taking over the world' is done brilliantly in EU with something called a BadBoy rating, which basically makes it impossible for you to takes large tracts of land without extensive planning and great deal of patience and skill. In Civ3, once you go on a roll, it's mainly just tedium and articifially enforced frustration.

yin26 · November 28, 2001, 01:32

If Civ3 is to be about war, let us see more satifying ways of waging it.

If Civ3 is to be about diplomacy, let us see more satisfying means of conducting it.

If Civ3 is to be about city management, let us have more meaningful challenges in handling it.

As it stands, Civ3 is a broad brush meant to color a broad audience. In other words, it's a general wash.

War4ever · November 28, 2001, 01:41

well put Yin....and unfortunatley a patch won't fix this....

i just want to know why they didn't bother with stacked combat and why we went back to a civ1 battle approach

instead of battleship loses to phalanx its tank loses to hopolite

were talking 10yrs later here people......

Evil_Eric_4 · November 28, 2001, 01:55

Combat's OK at best.

It isnt a whole lot different than Civ2 And I was really hoping for the stacked combat.
I mean all through history Armies did battle with each other.
Even Alexander the Great didnt send in one Phalanx at a time.They were used in conjunction with bowmen-spearmen-swordsmen and horsemen.

One of the main reasons I tend to avoid wars is the micro-management involved.First wake all units-then move all units to front one at a time -then attack with said units one at a time.
Its all very tedious

Badtz Maru · November 28, 2001, 02:07

Those who don't think a modern military force can lose to primitive tribesmen need to look at the history of Russia's war with Afghanistan.

Yes, a modern army would be able to wipe out the Yanomani, and a modern army in Civ3 can wipe out a barbarian encampment - but what people are complaining about is when they attack a primitive empire. They aren't a bunch of stone-age savages, they have cities, contact with other civilizations, and though they may not have the ability to manufacture tanks or even modern firearms, you can bet they have access to them.

It would probably get rid of a lot of the complaining if they did away with the names for the units - that way you wouldn't have a tank being beaten by a hoplite, you would have a 16.8.2 unit being beaten by a 1.3.1 unit. That would remove a lot of the flavor from the game, though. I'd like it better if the names of the primitive units changed with the ages - as an example a Spearman unit would be a Spearman in Medieval times, but when it got to Industrial it could be called a Primitive Militia or something like that.

Raleigh · November 28, 2001, 04:44

I hate the fact that Firaxis, IMHO, took a step backward by making it easier for low tech units to defeat much higher tech units. I do not find it occasional or even rare that my battleship takes 1 or EVEN 2 HPs of damage from an iron clad, or even a frigate. Ridiculous. They are appealing to newbies who don't want to take the time to learn the game and the combat.

However, that being said, the addition of AC's bombardment is a great improvement, although I wish planes could sink ships, and ships could shoot down planes.

The new HP/veteran status is fine by me. I love the fact that I can watch the boxing match with each unit!

Combat animations rule!

Wyrmo · November 28, 2001, 07:42

The combat-system is slightly better than Civ2, but not even close to the CTP-stacking system.
The stacking system was great, since you had frontline units (phalanxes, legions, machinegunners) , ranged units (archers, artillery) , flanking units (knights, cavalry) as well as various combinations of all three (musketeers, tanks, aircraft, ships)
If you had a good mix of units, you would win far easier than if you had only one kind of unit in the whole army.

Also, for what ppl say about 3rd country civs not beeing a chalange...

Would Afghanistan have held out against russia without the US selling arms to them? Would Yankies have beaten the Vietnameese if the russians hadn't supported them?

The key here is a new diplomatic choice: Sell unit
Wouldn't it be great to be able to trade away your surpluss units to a less advanced civ instead of dispanding them? Or just to assist an ally?

The game needs more realistic combat and more flexible diplomacy and trade to weight things up.
And what about licencing tech?

Say, for 25 gold per turn for 10 turns, I will let a civ build Modern Armor, without them having access to the tech required.
Also more realistic

Kolyana · November 28, 2001, 08:03

Quote:

If Civ3 is to be about war, let us see more satifying ways of waging it.

If Civ3 is to be about diplomacy, let us see more satisfying means of conducting it.

If Civ3 is to be about city management, let us have more meaningful challenges in handling it.

As it stands, Civ3 is a broad brush meant to color a broad audience. In other words, it's a general wash.

Well put. It just about sums it up nicely. Don't get me wrong, I *LIKE* CivIII and I'm not knocking it. *BUT* I wasn't a CivII owner, therefor I have a higher tolerance for this. In gernal, there's nothing new here ... I guess I had hoped that they would be more revolutionary, rather than beating down on a tried and tested system that's showing some signs of age.

I was shocked to see that the game still ended in 2050 ... so I guess I couldn't expect anything more from combat.

BTW, selling units is a good idea. And, being currently in a war with someone *many* turns away ...

1. Assisting strategic partners with military units, without being directly involved. "Here, take this unit for twenty turns."

2. Hiring out your services. "Hey, while your twenty workers are marching through my land, do you think you could make a railroad on your way?"

3. Giving away/selling units: "You guys are valuable allies, I want to help you in your current war ... take these artillery units and bombers"

4. Strategic locations: Listen, I'd like to use one of your cities for my bombing runs ... Can I park my planes there?

5. Being able to move THROUGH civs you have a right of passage with.

6. Building a neigbors infrastructure: Listen, I need to get over there real quick, can I build a railroad through your land? You can have it after the war.

Grumbold · November 28, 2001, 09:39

I like combat the way it currently stands and it is certainly considerably better than the old Civ 2 system just because certain exploits and invincible strategies have gone.

That said, I fully support Yin's comments comparing it to EU. The "badboy" system sure had its vocal detractors on release though. Some people just want to be able to take over the entire world, no questions asked, and are going to cuss and moan about any mechanism that stands in their way.