You want the Reality? You can't handle the reality!

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Segal
Actually I would love to see all these things added.

Agincourt is a great example. How did an army of 4,500 men, mostly light infantry and longbowmen, defeat a army of 25,000 including some of the French's best knights?

Weather - A rainy night caused the battlefield to become a large mud pit. Heavily armored men could barely move in the muck and once they engaged were so exhausted that they could hardly defend themselves.

Terrain - The battlefield as set in a muddy plowed field with woodlands to either side. The narrow field virtually eliminated most of the advantage of superior numbers. The lightly armored Bowmen were able to move about the battlefield in response to threats while the heavily armored French were forced to move either forward or backward.

Morale - King Henry has the loyalty and confidence of his men, Morale was high. French nobles were trying to place themselves in the best position to gain glory in what was assumed to be a easy fight. The French bowman were moved to the back of the formation since such 'low-births' had no place at the front with the nobility. Morale dropped even more once the horsed knights were butchered as they slogged through the mud and had to retreat the field.

Leadership - King Henry had control of his small army while the French had no central command.

Though the Longbowmen won the day due to numerous factors as illustrated above. Without these factors, they would have been easily slaughtered in a straight up battle. It was the circumstances of the day that made all the difference.

I would love to see all this stuff in the game but I do see one point that others might be missing. Realism, to some degree, makes the battle less predictible, not more.

Go play a tactical war game simulation if you want this. Simple solution.

[Moraelin]

Oh, jesus... Noone asked that Civ 3 actually models the exact armour slope on a T-34 or Panther, or anything. Just that the numbers used be brought to somewhat more believable proportions. I.e.:

1) That modern units should have a bit higher numbers than they have now. The ratio between one unit and the next currently rises very abruptly in the beginning (1 warrior, 2 spearman, 4 pikeman), which is OK, but then it's like it hits an invisible ceiling. E.g., a unit of Marines, which are at the high end of the research spectrum barely has 50% more defense power than one of Pikemen and is the same as Riflemen. That's laughable.

2) There is some VERY uninspired disproportion between attack and defense values of some units. It's as if someone thought in terms of armour, but then it got transplanted into a game where it means something completely different. In the actual game, "attack" and "defense" basically mean "attack power when you attack" and "attack power when you defend". So that kind of massive disproportions just have no justification.

So basically all I'm saying is that the numbers need to be changed, not that the whole combat model needs to be re-written from scratch. And definitely not that combat needs to be deterministic. Again, I'll accept flukes when they really are flukes. Something that happens all wrong 9 times out of 10, really isn't a fluke any more.

[Malleus]

Agincourt is simply an example of 4/1/1 longbowmen defeating an attacking knight unit while fortified in a forest. And I can guarantee you the French were screaming...

This game is sooo unrealistic! I'm returning it! It's a load of merde that a longbowman can defeat a knight!

hehe
I think this argument is pointless. War is filled with upsets.

K

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Moraelin

2) Almost no combat since Thermopilae had one single kind of unit in either attack or defense, so that's irrelevant. Always the archers had some support, and swordsmen were always backed by some archers. E.g., most actual Roman legions weren't the Civ 3 "bunch of identical guys with swords", they also had integral cohorts of horsemen and archers.

E.g., a real WW2 Panzer division had only ONE regiment of actual tanks, but TWO regiments of infantry. It also had towed artillery, self propelled artillery, towed AT guns, SP AT guns, AA guns, 81mm mortar tubes, howitzers, and so on. Not just a few, but LOTS of them. I can give you the numbers if you want to.

In fact, if you want something more funky to think about dig the following equipment that was an integral part of an 1944 German _paratroopers_ division. You'd think it's just a bunch of guys with rifles jumping from airplanes, right? Actually, wrong:

2x 75mm light gun
8x HMG
8x 81mm mortar tubes
63x 120mm mortar tubes
76x bazookas
24x 105mm howitzers
12x 150mm howitzers
27x 20mm towed AA guns
12x 88mm towed AT guns
12x self-propelled 20mm AA guns
21x 75mm towed AT guns
14x 75mm self-propelled AT guns

(If you have to ask how do you para-drop an 150mm howitzer, you don't. That's what gliders are for.)

Well, that was the ideal organization on paper, so an actual unit may have differed a bit, but still. The whole point is that if we accept that one unit is a division, it already has combined arms IN it. Infantry is not just a bunch of guys with rifles, and armour isn't just the unsupported tanks that anyone can destroy with pot lids.

*sigh*

You have asked Grim Legacy to read what you wrote but have you even read any of what anyone else has written? How do you know that all the "support" units aren't part of what makes units have the values they have.

Do you think an aircraft carrier has a defense of 10 (12? don't have the manual or game here at work) because aircraft carriers have really, really thick armor? Or that MAYBE all the other ships in a carrier task force are abstracted???

You want realism, you want absolute values, you want modern units to ALWAYS or almost always win in a given situation. You want a game with a little empire building and mostly detailed, realistic combat models. Why don't you go play Age of Kings instead? That game has some science you can do, and even city building and lots and lots of fighting.

You complain you don't want to have to know the numbers of a unit, yet want a lot of detailed numbers for each unit so it is more realistic. Which do you really want?

Do you want tanks to almost always win, regardless of the terrain and other values because "a tank should always beat a bunch of guys with swords". I guess you don't want to think about the possibility that the values in the game represent not just the unit depicted but other things as well.

Think an infantry "unit" is just 10, 100 or 1000 guys with rifles? How do you know that all the support units, HQ, engineers and everything that comprises an infantry batallion or brigade isn't abstracted? With time measured in years later in the game, how do you know that the cost to build a single unit isn't a rationalization of training all these people to fight together, how to not shoot themselves in the foot and to get all the supplies together that they might need?

You don't know that this isn't the case, and yet you REFUSE to consider the concept because it isn't spelled out to you in black and white, yet you would probably REFUSE to look at the numbers involved even if it was, because that wouldn't be "realistic" or some other garbage.

Again, Civ3 is NOT a war-simulation. Tanks do not ALWAYS win. Superior technology does NOT always win, if it did then we'd have won in Vietnam and the Germans would have turned around and won in WW2 because at the end they had technology that was just about better than anyone else's.

Give it a rest and go back to playing Steel Panthers where, contrary to what you think, you really DO (or at least SHOULD) lok at the numbers to see what units are best in a given situation.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Oh, jesus... Noone asked that Civ 3 actually models the exact armour slope on a T-34 or Panther, or anything. Just that the numbers used be brought to somewhat more believable proportions. I.e.:

Actually most of the "I want 'realistic' combat!" group HAVE been screaming this since the game came out. Some (most until this post) of what you said sounded almost identical to what they said.

1) That modern units should have a bit higher numbers than they have now. The ratio between one unit and the next currently rises very abruptly in the beginning (1 warrior, 2 spearman, 4 pikeman), which is OK, but then it's like it hits an invisible ceiling. E.g., a unit of Marines, which are at the high end of the research spectrum barely has 50% more defense power than one of Pikemen and is the same as Riflemen. That's laughable.

There is the concept of game balance to consider as well. Essentially a rifleman and a marine is what, a lot of people with some sort of repeating rifle. Can't get much more generic than that. Or course with the 'modern' marine like the US has they would have mortars and small artillery, but that's what they "artillery" unit is for.

You stick a guy in a foxhole with a Bolt action repeating rifle and a guy in the ground with an M-16A2 and you essentially have the same defensive value. Someone comes into range and if the soldier has ammo the enemy is (hopefully) dead.

You reach a point in the game where the technology might be advanced more so than before, but the same people or type of people are using the equipment and this is why the values flat-line. Should the values be tweaked a little? Depends on the person playing the game, that is what the EDITOR is for you know.

2) There is some VERY uninspired disproportion between attack and defense values of some units. It's as if someone thought in terms of armour, but then it got transplanted into a game where it means something completely different. In the actual game, "attack" and "defense" basically mean "attack power when you attack" and "attack power when you defend". So that kind of massive disproportions just have no justification.

Why don't they have justification? Isn't defense really the strength you can counter-attack someone that's attacking you? THe exception here would be that on defense you have (usually) limited mobility and in general can't be as good as you could be if you were on offense.

For example... Tank attacking is stronger than tank defending. Well an attacking tank (at least the modern type) can fire while moving and has a lot of techno-stuff that allows the commanders to know where friendly and enemy targets are. If an attacking tank is experiencing a problem with attacking a certain way (speed, direction, etc) they can disengage and try something different, atack a weaker spot, etc. This, IMHO, is why the tank is so strong at attacking.

Now then, a defending tank is usually stationary in a bunker of some sort, usually with just the turret showing. While this is a strong defensive position the tank can't really move to cover other areas that might be breached for fear of leaving it's area unprotected. THis, IMHO, is why a tank is weaker at defending.

Makes sense to me, but then again I am mosre of a strategic thinker instead of tactical (although tactical cam be great fun!).

So basically all I'm saying is that the numbers need to be changed, not that the whole combat model needs to be re-written from scratch. And definitely not that combat needs to be deterministic. Again, I'll accept flukes when they really are flukes. Something that happens all wrong 9 times out of 10, really isn't a fluke any more.

Ok, so modify the numbers of the units in YOUR game to reflect how YOU think they should be. That's what the editor is for.

[Deornwulf]

Originally posted by Ozymandous


Do you think an aircraft carrier has a defense of 10 (12? don't have the manual or game here at work) because aircraft carriers have really, really thick armor? Or that MAYBE all the other ships in a carrier task force are abstracted???

Again, Civ3 is NOT a war-simulation. Tanks do not ALWAYS win. Superior technology does NOT always win, if it did then we'd have won in Vietnam and the Germans would have turned around and won in WW2 because at the end they had technology that was just about better than anyone else's.

Give it a rest and go back to playing Steel Panthers where, contrary to what you think, you really DO (or at least SHOULD) lok at the numbers to see what units are best in a given situation.

I think most players understand that the units are based on abstractions and do not expect the level of realism as can be found in a traditional wargame. Your comments do not really address the major complaint that the combat model does not work well beyond a certain level of technology.

I don't want reality but feel that the combat model used in CTP2 and in SMAC is superior to the current model. I would have hoped that Civ III would represent great strides in how combat is resolved between units and instead it seems to have moved backwards.

However, I agree with you and don't think dissatisfaction with the combat system is worth all of the screaming and threats to stop playing the game. There are bigger problems and bugs about which to be screaming, ranting and raving.

[madmario]

Originally posted by Moraelin
So basically all I'm saying is that the numbers need to be changed, not that the whole combat model needs to be re-written from scratch.

Conveniently, this IS something you can do with the editor, to make it as perfect as you want. I think it might screw up the balance of power, I.e. mkaing science much more important, but that's just me.

-m

[Moraelin]

*sigh* Again, if all y'all read the beginning of this thread, that's what I said. That a simple moving the numbers on an exponential scale balances it all pretty nicely. AND I also posted the edited .bic file with those units balanced like that. Exactly which part of that means that I want the combat unit re-written entirely, made non-random, or any of the other stuff? I don't mind the combat system, I just mind the probabilities, and for that I already posted how it can be adjusted. I'm not responsible for what OTHER people wanted from the combat system, you know.

MY point was that in spite of shipping with some VERY uninspired numbers, it can be saved. NOT that I want Firaxis dead and buried at crossroads, with a stake through its chest. (Well, not for the combat system they made, anyway.)

As for the Marine, thing is: the "defense" value here is how much damage you do to the enemy when you're in defense. THAT is how the game uses it. Units with higher defense kill an enemy faster in defence, while your attack rating means nothing at all when you're in defense. Defense doesn't mean the armour rating of your foxhole or whatnot, it means how much damage you dish to an attacker.

And a marine unit with a assault rifles AND with fully automatic squad weapons AND with mortar/bazooka/whatever squads, will dish a LOT more damage to an attacker than some guys with bolt rifles. Even more so than someone Musketmen with smoothbore muzzle-loaded muskets that take half of for ever (and then some) to load. Saying that the marines have exactly the same chances to defend a position as musketmen do, is just silly.

But again, it can be fixed by just changing the numbers.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Ozymandous

*sigh*

You have asked Grim Legacy to read what you wrote but have you even read any of what anyone else has written? How do you know that all the "support" units aren't part of what makes units have the values they have.

Hey thanks for the indirect help, Ozymandous.

I also already tried to convey the discrepancy in the opinions of yin and moraelin (having (un-)lucky combat vs predetermined odds etc).

Still I may be able to add another helpful insight to this thread - for all the people who feel 'mistreated' by unlucky combat outcomes and don't want to mess with the editor: You can still save and load! Yes it is true! But now let the other unit attack first... see?

[Seeker]

Ozy:
There is a difference between 'abstracted' and 'not fun'. I know that Civ III is an 'empire building game', I'm not an idiot. I'm not saying that combat should be like TOAW, but c'mon!

There's got to be a happy medium, and this ain't it.

And yes, I could go play Waterloo, or Gettysburg, or Shogun or whatever but I don't want to.

I want to play a game where I build a world empire over thousands of years....with a combat system that doesn't make me go 'jeeze that was stupid' every twenty minutes!

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
I also already tried to convey the discrepancy in the opinions of yin and moraelin (having (un-)lucky combat vs predetermined odds etc).

Jeeze, Grim, you sure don't even try to understand what I'm saying.

Read my lips: if it happens 10% of the time, it's unlucky combat and I can live with that. If it happens 90% of the time, it's screwed up numbers in the game.

NOW do you still not understand? Or doesn't the pre-packaged list of standard anti-whiner answers include one for that, and you really have to pretend I've said something that is on that list??

Originally posted by Ozymandous
You have asked Grim Legacy to read what you wrote but have you even read any of what anyone else has written? How do you know that all the "support" units aren't part of what makes units have the values they have.

Ozy, for crying out loud, the WHOLE idea I've been trying to convey is that the numbers are all wrong PRECISELY in the idea that those units have a reasonably realistic set of support people. Yes, I'm assuming that those units DO have the support stuff included. THAT is why the numbers are all wrong.

Having a 4:1 ratio between attack and defense on a unit is all wrong precisely BECAUSE it would always include some support units to protect those longbowmen.

[cavebear]

I understand the point being made by those mentioning the mathematic involved. Of course that is the basis, it's a computer (duh!) not some guys pushing little figurines around on a gaming table and arguing about how enfilades or flanking attcks affected the likely outcome. I accept that the battles are determined by calculation and probability.

I *do* pay some attention to the numbers. I know the relative "strengths" of an archer and a swordsman (as defined in civ3). But at some point, one should be allowed an intuitive feeling for the likely outcome of a battle. A unit that attacks at "2" should beat a unit that defends at "1" 2 out of 3 times. A unit that attacks at "10" should beat a unit that defends at "2" 5 times out of 6 (all on even terrain, of course).

The problem is that it just doesn't happen that way. Oh sure, among all games and all years, it might work out right in the long run (I won't hold my breath, though). Even if it did, the shorter turn randomness is just wrong.

Here's why: As some (here and elsewhere) have pointed out, the battle is not really 1 lone archer vs 1 lone swordsman. It is hundreds of archers vs hundreds of swordsman. THE PROBABILITIES SHOULD BALANCE OUT WITHIN THAT ONE BATTLE!

In other words, it is entirely realistic to expect that a superior unit should succeed in its effort (whether attack or defense) VERY closely to the A/D (and bonuses) numbers, and THAT should be very intuitive based on the A/D numbers for the units. The very broad range of probabilities that allows 3 successive archer units attacked by 3 successive swordsman to all win is just too ludicrous, and diminishes the sense of the game.

It makes no sense for "them" to tell you to think in terms of whole armies being represented by individual icons and then turn around and calculate the results as if they were individuals (where a wide range of results is more realistic).

They need to seriously tighten up the range of randomness in battles before this game is playable!

A last thought: Some people have attempted to rationalize the frequently nonsensical battle outcomes by inventing stories of brave samurais sneaking up on tank units and slitting their throats in the dead of night (and other scenarios). That is cute and fun (in its own way) but shouldn't be required in any sort of strategic game. I can understand how one might be driven to such fanciful explanations, though, given the lack of sensible understanding of the game's battle outcomes. *s*

If I want luck, I'll just play minefield or battleship. I just didn't expect that kind of weakness in a game like this.