idea for ballancing combat and older units

morb · December 5, 2001, 06:27

A bunch of people are clamoring about the combat system being "a brilliant way of ballancing combat between disparate civs." I say the combat system is plain brocken and in any case all doesn't achieve "the goal" of ballancing combat. all it does is induce frustration in the player and utter disbelief.

Instead of having tanks loose to archers as a way of ballancing the game, why not instead use variable maintanace pay rates for unite support? This way an advanced civilization can deploy advanced weapons which actually have a chance to defeat BC armoment but at a higher price. This way tactics play a much greater role in combat (which i HOPE was the original intent or someone stop me) AND combet outcomes get to be on this side of reasonable. What it comes down to is, you can't rush your neighbore who has garrisoned musketmen with 100 tanks because they can't all be supported. But by the same token, a much smaller amount of modern "armies" with tanks aren't likely to be grinded down by ancient units in the most perverse ways imaginable.

Of course this would mean that a new combat AI system would have to be put in place to make this all worth while.

But I mean, didn't this idea occure to anyone on the development team?

barefootbadass · December 5, 2001, 11:26

Quote:

Originally posted by morb

Instead of having tanks loose to archers as a way of ballancing the game, why not instead use variable maintanace pay rates for unite support? This way tactics play a much greater role in combat (which i HOPE was the original intent or someone stop me) AND combet outcomes get to be on this side of reasonable.

But I mean, didn't this idea occure to anyone on the development team?

Do you even understand that the(small) chance that ancient units can stand up to industrial/modern units is deliberate in the design? Playability is far more important than realism, would you really want a game that is basically decided by who gets gunpowder first?

Also, if your tanks are losing to archers you SUCK, you are losing because of faulty combat tactics, and because you seem to think they play no role in the combat system as it currently is. Combat results are completely reasonable, I just wiped out a civ(about 6 cities, some on hills) that had a mix of pikes, musketmen, and some riflemen with a mix of calvary, artillery, and ironclads. I only lost 2 calvary(not even tanks) in the whole war.

People complain about the combat system not having firepower. Not true, the firepower is in the bombardment units, literally. When you get artillery, it is sooo much better than cannons your war making capacity is multiplied like 10 times, on offense AND defense.

rid102 · December 5, 2001, 12:24

"Combat isn't broken, it's how the game is supposed to be."

Yeah, like my car only has wheels on one side...

"The game doesn't have problems, it's you who has problems."

Hell yeah, I was the one who paid for it!

How many times do we have to hear the same tired arguments?

Velociryx · December 5, 2001, 13:45

Since I began making extensive use of combined arms and sending appropriate force totals in to do the assigned job, I have stopped seeing bizzare combat results altogether.

Sure....if you send in a couple of unsupported tank/cav/whatevers into the heart of an enemy civ....the predictable will happen. They'll get surrounded and attrition attacked to death.

This is the equavalent (realism!) of a unit being isolated from his command post, cut off from all supplies, and eliminated.

That seems....pretty realistic to me. I dunno, but watching the History Channel for about fifteen minutes on pretty much any night of the week will reveal stories of exactly that kinda thing happening in war.

The question in my mind that's just begging to be asked then, is: If I CHOOSE not send enough troops to do the job properly....if I CHOOSE not to use combined arms, bombardment to soften the target, take advantage of terrain, make informed and intelligent decisions about troop placement, make sure my reinforcements can get to the areas I'll need them, not just charge willy-nilly into the heart of the enemy's land totally unsupported, etc.....if I lose battles under those conditions, does that mean the game is broken, or are my tactics just bad?

-=Vel=-

Jack_www · December 5, 2001, 15:23

In alll the wars I have been in were I use tanks, usually only lose one or two tanks in the war. I dont know why you think the combat system is broken. I have never had any problems taking a city the had spearmen in it with tanks. I have conquered the world with tanks and bombers, so I just do not see how you figure the combat system is broken.

If you have your tanks lose to spearmen does it happen a lot of times? Can you give a specific example with details, not this general statement "my tank lost to spearmen."
What happened? In real life there is always the chance that things can break down in tanks. A chance that the spearmen can get on to the tank and be able to get inside of it and kill the people inside of it.

One thing to solve this problem for good is to have the computer upgrade its units. Why does the computer still have spearmen in the modern age when it can make mech infintry? Then that way your tanks would never face spearmen.

Raleigh · December 5, 2001, 15:36

I constantly loose tanks to archers and cavalry both of which are ridiculous.

Obviously there are a number of extremely long threads on this already but here goes the dead horse.

Archer: Attack Strength = 4
Tank: Defense = 8
Archer chance attacking tank: 30% (cavarlry have 42%).

That means that archers hit tanks 1/3 of the time, so that 3x as many archers can destroy tanks. Actually, what it really means that if you attack with a tank to tank and lose your tank, but damage the other one to within 1 hp and an archer or two comes along, they can finish it off. Is this what you mean by combined arms?

barefootbadass · December 5, 2001, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Raleigh
I constantly loose tanks to archers and cavalry both of which are ridiculous.

Obviously there are a number of extremely long threads on this already but here goes the dead horse.

Archer: Attack Strength = 4
Tank: Defense = 8
Archer chance attacking tank: 30% (cavarlry have 42%).

That means that archers hit tanks 1/3 of the time, so that 3x as many archers can destroy tanks. Actually, what it really means that if you attack with a tank to tank and lose your tank, but damage the other one to within 1 hp and an archer or two comes along, they can finish it off. Is this what you mean by combined arms?

Why do you have your tanks alone? Same situation, combined arms also includes defensive units that will protect them. Even on pure defense, you should have forts set up with an infantry or two at the very minimum, probably an artillery or two as well. In real life, tanks cannot effectively control an area by themselves sitting out in the open, there has to be some sort of defensive infrastructure to support them, their crews have to sleep, etc. etc. I tank by itself is VERY vulnerable. If a tank is at 1hp from a previous battle, it is not working well, severly damaged. This is completely reasonable. In this case that EVEN A WARRIOR could beat it(probably won't but it could happen).

Anyway, if you are constantly losing them like you say I say you SUCK like the other people upset for similar reasons.

I personally think calvary attacking and beating a tank is completely reasonable, its a gunpowder based unit and faster(remember the tank is a WWI or at best WWII style tank).

Velociryx · December 5, 2001, 16:24

LOL Raleigh! Sorta...yes.

My point is, and has been from the beginning, that combined arms (using catapults, cannon, artillery, and later, bombers) to soften up a target prior to attack basically throws the "straight line calculation" method of determining who should win or lose a battle based on their stats alone, out the proverbial window. That spear-chucker will only have one HP (elite or no), by the time my tank gets *ready* to attack him.....he's toast, no matter how you slice it.

-=Vel=-

Wrong_shui · December 5, 2001, 16:32

Ok if where going for fun than realism.

I dont find it fun having to amass a huge army of defenders, attackers and artillary (Under a democracy this is extremely expensive and war weariness) to eith raze everyone of chinas 72 cities or take them over just to loose them in 3 turns to culture.

Theres so many cities in this game when you take a city you dont really care cos theres 200 more and im sure they'll found 5 for everyone I kill.

So you ppl quit tellin us its "Fun" coz its "balanced" because its really "Tedious" coz its "Monotonous".

Well I still enjoy playing. So ill just shut up.

Velociryx · December 5, 2001, 16:57

So....if I'm reading your post correctly, Wrong, what you're saying is...because it's more FUN to run over the AI with no regards to tactical maneuver, good use of terrain, and combined arms, we should change the current model of combat so that a player can just take half a dozen unsupported tanks and overrun the planet?

::shrug::

Different strokes for different folks I guess, but that doesn't seem like a whole lotta fun to me....give me the current system any day....just my two cents.

-=Vel=-

Dravin · December 5, 2001, 17:11

I've yet to loose a tank to Longbow men or Calvary unless it's already damaged. A damaged tank alone in enemy territory is quickly dead. (or so I have found.)

The combat system has some quirks, but I don't think its insanely unbalanced. Keep your units together and you should do well. A half dozen tanks with some Mech. Inf. and 2-3 artillery is pretty defensible [ If a tad slow] (A SAM unit would be nice to keep bombers off you, but that really isn't pertinent.)