Thread Tools
Old April 12, 2000, 23:16   #1
OrangeSfwr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Phalanx defeats Tank! What can be done!
Ok, I suppose my title was a little extreme, but hey, I needed an attention getter. I noticed that although Civ 2 was supposed to be more accurate because of Hit Points and fire power, it is only slightly more accurate as far as military units go, than Civ 1. Certain Units do not have an attack number that correctly represents their strength. Musketeers can successfully be defeated by Chariots, as can Riflemen be defeated by Elephants, Knights, and Crusaders. Why should the defense of a Musketeer be 3 when a legion attacks at 4? Even if the hit points and firepower are supposed to obscure this, it doesn't always happen. There should be some way of showing that certain units have a HUGE chance of defeating other units. E.G. make the game so that Armor always defeates legion, Ironclads always defeat Phalanx. I think a more accurate depiction of unit strenght would make the game much more accurate and give an added bonus to those who possess knowledge of higher military sciences. Maybe there should be a constraint on the unit against certain time periods...

Phalanx - x100% against bronze age units (horsemen, phalanx)
x75% against iron age units (legion, chariot)
x50% against R+R (knights, crusaders)
X25% against industrial age (musketeers, ironclad)
x0% against modern units (armor, mech inf.)

Armor - x200% against bronze age units
x175% against iron age units
x150% against R+R units
x125% against industrial age units
x100% against modern units

but put this on defense only that way you don't get confusing with giving the Armor added defense against a crusader while also taking away from the crusader. I don't know if that made sense or not, It's late and I'm incoherent.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
 
Old April 13, 2000, 03:10   #2
Earthling7
Mac
Prince
 
Earthling7's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: of pop
Posts: 735
Phalanxes should be able to defeat musketeers, but only in numbers. One phalanx against one musk, easy. One musk against 5 phalanxes, not so easy... which brings us to stacking. One of the good things in CTP was the battle system. Civ3 should learn and improve on that.

Think about it. One musketeer. 10 riflemen. Open field. Musketeer is lucky and kills the rifleman while the rest watches. When their fellow rifleman is killed, they are so shocked that they all die too... hmmm.

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768
Earthling7 is offline  
Old April 13, 2000, 03:21   #3
MidKnight Lament
King
 
MidKnight Lament's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,235
CTP made some good improvements to battle, but there's still plenty of room for improvement. There were still some rather unlikely battle outcomes that resulted.

I don't think that your unit strength should be linked to which Age you're in. That's sort of a patch on the problem, when it needs to be fixed at the roots. Balance is a key issue.

If you're pretty interested in how battles could work, I suggest you go take a look at the List 2.0. There were some rather invloved models in there that went much further than the old A/D/M. Classic example is not so much Phalanx v Tank, but Phalanx v Bomber. How in hell is a Phalanx even going to touch a bomber? That's why some of the suggestions added both Air and Sea defense and attack values.

Anyway, give it a look if you're interested in the way battles could work. Perhaps steal a few ideas out of there. It looked like plenty of people had put a lot of work into it.

- MKL
MidKnight Lament is offline  
Old April 13, 2000, 16:10   #4
OrangeSfwr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool, I'll check it out

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
 
Old April 13, 2000, 16:34   #5
Seeker
Emperor
 
Seeker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:18
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Yongsan-Gu, Seoul
Posts: 3,647
But there needs to be some 'faint hope' for ancient units, or how would you explain Zulu warriors defeating British riflemen?
Seeker is offline  
Old April 13, 2000, 17:21   #6
Slingshot
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 436
After say, 7 turns, every civ should be able to buy (if not manufacture) their own tanks.

They would be expensive and slightly inferior to the ones owned by civs with the required techs.

But they would be tanks nonetheless.

And I would be less upset about losing to inferior tanks than losing to a bunch of phalanx units.

Besides, the trade of weapons would add a new dimension to the game!
Slingshot is offline  
Old April 13, 2000, 17:22   #7
Sirotnikov
DiplomacyApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization III Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Sirotnikov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,138
I think this all can be solved by increasing the attack defense of modern units much more.

that is:
phalanx: 1 att 2 def
musketeer: 10 att 10 def
armor: 90 att 20 def
but also
mech inf.: 40 att 75 def

see?

as time progresses the def/att values should raise a whole lot. and stacking, if implimented should ... I don't know, sum the values maybe, so 10 phalanx units will have 10 att and 20 def.

but, i'm not sure how i stand in regards to stacking. and I think that battle was one of CTP's great weaknesses. I didn't play it much (for a couple of hours at my friends house) but it seemed to suck. the friend mentioned above also dislikes CTP and it'a battle system.

but that's my opinion, folks.
Sirotnikov is offline  
Old April 13, 2000, 20:53   #8
MidKnight Lament
King
 
MidKnight Lament's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,235
Seeker, you're right. One unit should not always win against another. The problem is deeper than that.

CTPs battle system was a noble attempt. It may not have had everything a military game had, and it may not have been balanced that well, but it was heaps better than the system in Civ2 imho. Just the fact that it included Stacking was a huge leap forward. CTP2 (and Civ3) just has to build on those ideas now. Credit where credit's due.

And Slingshot, I don't agree that civs should be able to build units until they've got the right techs. Even if the units were inferior. I think that goes against some key principles in Civ with regards to technology.

Buying the units is a different story.

- MKL
MidKnight Lament is offline  
Old April 15, 2000, 03:33   #9
SailorUranus
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Missoula, MT, USA
Posts: 32
I have an better idea for use of the various Military eras.

For inferior military era units, they do not gain any battle modifiers on offense or defense except for veteren bonuses.

My Eras:

Non-Combat: Spies, Caravans, etc.
Hand-to-Hand: Phalanxes, Legions, Knights, etc.
Firearms: Musketeers, Cavalry, Dragoons, etc.
Modern Warfare: Riflemen, Armor, etc.
SailorUranus is offline  
Old April 15, 2000, 05:19   #10
Youngsun
Prince
 
Local Time: 00:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Darwin,NT,Australia
Posts: 562
I'm in the middle of mid-term exams now so I will be quick.

Just add AT/AA/AV stats.

4 basic attacks
1.AP:Anti-personnel
2.AT:Anti-tank
3.AA:Anti-air
4.AV:Anti-vessel

4 basic unit body/hull/structure(whatever)

1.Men
2.Armoured/mechanised
3.Airplanes
4.Ships

Phalanx :men AP3 AT0 AA0 AV0 Def3
Riflemem:men AP15 AT3 AA2 AV0 Def8
Armour :armoured AP10 AT15 AA2 AV1 Def10
Gunship :Air AP12 AT20 AA5 AV3 Def4

Phalanx has no chance to kill armour and gunship at all but slight chance to kill riflemen if lucky

Riflemen can kill phalanx easy but kill armour and gunship with extreme difficulty.

Armour can run down phalanx easy and can take slight casualties when it attacks riflemen and have almost no chance to kill gunship.

Gunship has overall superiority over any ground units except mobile SAM units.

Mobile SAM:armoured AP2 AT1 AA10 AV0 Def4
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited April 15, 2000).]
Youngsun is offline  
Old April 15, 2000, 20:20   #11
Sirotnikov
DiplomacyApolytoners Hall of FameCivilization III Democracy Game
Emperor
 
Sirotnikov's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 7,138
Good post youngsun. I've read about a similar idea in some civ site. I agree.
Sirotnikov is offline  
Old April 20, 2000, 16:11   #12
tniem
King
 
Local Time: 19:18
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Hope College
Posts: 2,232
I was going to basically what Crustacian said. While it is unlikely for a phalanx unit to destroy a tank it is a real possibility. The tank fires at the rushing phalanxes. When the tank hits most of the army dies, but some get through. At this point the tank can be jammed and the phalanxes can set fire or whatever else to the tank. Again not likely but a possibility. With hit points the phalanx might win but be all but destroyed. If points are balanced it would secure that it would still be a slight chance but keep it possible.
tniem is offline  
Old April 21, 2000, 00:52   #13
Crustacian
Prince
 
Crustacian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:18
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: of Idaho PST
Posts: 794
quote:

Originally posted by Earthling7 on 04-13-2000 03:10 AM
Phalanxes should be able to defeat musketeers, but only in numbers. One phalanx against one musk, easy. One musk against 5 phalanxes, not so easy... which brings us to stacking. One of the good things in CTP was the battle system. Civ3 should learn and improve on that.

Think about it. One musketeer. 10 riflemen. Open field. Musketeer is lucky and kills the rifleman while the rest watches. When their fellow rifleman is killed, they are so shocked that they all die too... hmmm.




The stacking idea is a good one, as well as range. But in CTP I lost a frigate in a stack that did not shore bombard an inferiorly defended city to ranged archers. True I should have bombarded instead of attcked..but still

Also one of my first civ1 games the Aztech's came over to my Chinese city with bombers, armor...etc. A phalanx took out a bomber!!!
Well maybe it doesn't matter how many phalanxes you have if they could be jointly grouped in a stack against aircraft, so maybe a goose got caught in the props or a bomb accidentaly went off in the bombay.

Why was I only defended with phalanxes you ask? Its cuz I was still at that time under the impression that resources were more important than growth and trade, instead of understanding that resources (and trade) ARE the result of growth.



------------------
The journey itself is the thing~Odysseus
Crustacian is offline  
Old April 21, 2000, 00:58   #14
Crustacian
Prince
 
Crustacian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:18
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: of Idaho PST
Posts: 794
So it is hard to say stuff like "ironclads should ALWAYS defeat phalanxes" like i read above. What if a bunch of them swam out and sabotaged it? Nothing is invincible. Maybe an ellement of chance failure is worked into the factors already which allow for this.

Some war planes have crashed accidentally without any direct help from the enemy.

Of course what are the chances a bunch of phalanxes swim out and sabotage a battleship bombarding 2 miles off shore...so who knows.

Crustacian is offline  
Old April 27, 2000, 22:39   #15
OrangeSfwr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Wow, we're certainly using our imaginations aren't we?

Another point to be made is that certain units can't really be harmed by others. E.G. A bomber attacks a stack of musketeers. How are a group of musketeers going 2 even hope to harm a bomber? It's just not possible. Now I know some of you wish to theorize that the musketeer could fire at the plane and possibly hit its fuel tank and fatally wound the bomber, but I don't think like that. The bomber should not recieve any damage. The musketeers should be partially or completely destroyed. Just an idea...

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
 
Old April 27, 2000, 23:35   #16
MidKnight Lament
King
 
MidKnight Lament's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,235
I'll be disappointed and a little surprised if this isn't rectified somehow. CTP copped a lot of flack over not fixing this. They tried to justify why they did it, but it didn't sit well with a lot of people.

- MKL
[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited April 27, 2000).]
MidKnight Lament is offline  
Old April 28, 2000, 04:07   #17
dStryker
King
 
Local Time: 00:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Saginaw, Michigan
Posts: 1,393
Ha ha ha, my 10 foot-long spear can destroy a machine that's using technology 3000 years ahead of me!

quote:

Of course what are the chances a bunch of phalanxes swim out and sabotage a battleship bombarding 2 miles off shore...so who knows.


What are the chances that an old woman dressed in a green silk shirt and wearing brown pants and wears glasses will come to your house and award you $24,235.75 in a blue metal box that is wraped in red satin that is wraped in a brown potato sack at exactly 9:48 a.m. on July 17, 2024?

What are the chances that a group of phalanxes will destroy a bomber flying at an altitute of 10,000 feet?

What are the chances that you will drown on land? (Not from a bucket (of water) or anything like that)

Of course there is always a chance that an old woman will come knocking at your door at 9:48 a.m. on July 17, 2024.
dStryker is offline  
Old April 28, 2000, 08:48   #18
Az
Emperor
 
Local Time: 03:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: A pub.
Posts: 3,161
OrangeSfwr: you know, you've touched a very important point : planes and Navy should have no chance in completely destroying ground units : no operation could be done by Navy only : I just remember those fights in CIV 1 : 1 battleship . 1 turn . all city defences are gone ! no NAVY or aeral operation could Harm very heavily the ground units , especially the infantry ones

... but navy units must be sunk easily ... (3 ot 4 2000lb bombs on the right spot and the carrier is gone ... my air-simulation past ....) ... also I think that that u can set fighters to do CAP ( patrolling ) missions so they dont only cover that small square ( CTP : nice idea ! SAMS ... )


------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .
Az is offline  
Old April 28, 2000, 10:23   #19
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Civ combat just makes no sense at all, period. The game cannot represent genuine warfare when it has 1-20 year turns. The current combat is extremely artificial but attempts to make it more genuine without addressing the timescale factor are (imo) doomed to failure.
Grumbold is offline  
Old April 28, 2000, 15:07   #20
Az
Emperor
 
Local Time: 03:18
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: A pub.
Posts: 3,161
Well ... " it's sad but it's true.. "

( a ship can move only about 700 miles per year !!!!!
Az is offline  
Old April 28, 2000, 23:17   #21
OrangeSfwr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
quote:

Originally posted by Dalgetti on 04-28-2000 08:48 AM
OrangeSfwr: you know, you've touched a very important point : planes and Navy should have no chance in completely destroying ground units : no operation could be done by Navy only : I just remember those fights in CIV 1 : 1 battleship . 1 turn . all city defences are gone ! no NAVY or aeral operation could Harm very heavily the ground units , especially the infantry ones




This is very true. I believe it was mentioned in another thread but not in depth and it was sorta shrugged off. I feel that there should be a system to show the difference between ships, planes, and ground units. This will increase the use of transports (air and sea), airports, and also
paratroopers. I also feel cruise missles should not completely destroy a unit. Just harm a unit and destroy an improvement.


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
 
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:18.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team