Is Combat Screwed up?

[Thrawn05]

I voted NO, because I feel that combat is not THAT bad, it could be tweaked some more (say, making the odds of a weaker unit destroying a stronger one somthing like 1/25 or 1/50), because I like the idea of a historical battle where the underdog won, particuraly when I'm the underdog .

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Plumbean
I love the game but I think combat stats are off.I had a warrior not a veteran beat 10 barbarians and become an elite.I served in the USMC and even they wont attack a army on a assult with out 3 to 1 odds

The reason you beat the Barbarians so easily is that (unless you were playing Diety level or had changed them) you had a 200 to 400% advantage over them!!

Go into the Editor, Difficulty Levels and change the Attack Bonus Against Barbarians to 0% in the Difficulty Levels you are playing -- I did.

[EPIC]

OK, how 'bout this: A civilization that hangs on to its elite force of warriors and spearmen must have a good reason to do so. Those mutha's have had a long time to become the best damn axe throwers on the planet. I mean, who needs gunpowder weapons when you can wing spear at 90mph and knock turret-heads off tanks in one mighty toss of the bolo!

Yeah, there are fantasy games that have more tangible and explainable combat systems (well, of course your dragon destroys my pillar of fire?) and tech should always make a clear and unmitigating difference in combat.

I think this was done so that mediocre players could stand a better chance of coming up from a long flood of desperate or silly playing. This does not excuse anything, I am myself a mediocre and inexperienced player and I would like to be dealt a swift and unquestionable defeat if I have missed something important. The only way I'll really learn the game is to be punished into submission, forcing me to start afresh with a new strategy. Besides, I hate it when my assured defeats just drag on forever like a badly crippled steed -- just take this lame horse out and shoot it for pity's sake!

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Jaybe
The reason you beat the Barbarians so easily is that (unless you were playing Diety level or had changed them) you had a 200 to 400% advantage over them!!

Actually, with the unmodded Civ 3, the advantage over barbarians can go up to +800% if he's playing on Chieftain. Yep, those barbarians can hit up to 9 times weaker against the players' Warriors, and very weakly against the AI's Warriors too. Basically, yep, unless you're playing on Deity, the Barbarians are just something you train your units to elite on, as well as a source of money.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
Try taking your own advice. C&C is not a wargame either any more than Civ3. Both are nothing more, and nothing less, than _strategy_ games which use a combat model for that strategy gaming.

Perhaps that C&C is not a TRADITIONNAL wargame like Battle Isle, but give me a break : this game was ONLY about war. Fighting, killing, producing units to fight and kill, and killing ennemy before he could produce unit to fight and kill yours.

[Moraelin]

Actually, I'd guess "Battle Isle" wouldn't be a war game by his standards, either. Heck, neither would "Steel Panthers".

Frankly, I can't think of ANY game which meets most of those criteria. Supply routes and interdiction of those supply routes? Seriously. I can't think of a single game which implements that. Morale modifiers from having the retreat route cut off? What game implemented that, ever? The only one that I can think of that came even close (but not too close) was "Steel Panthers", but even there it would only happen if a unit was actually encircled. (As in: you had at least 3 units around it, so no matter which way it could try to retreat, it would still end up adjacent to one of your units.) It also happened only when it actually tried to retreat, not in advance.

Either way, what I've been trying to say is: I don't care if it's a proper "war game" by some arbitrary definition. If I spend over 50% of a game in War, it's a game about War, and it darn better have War well modelled. As long as no matter what I do, and how much I'd rather concentrate on culture instead, the AI WILL attack and force me into war after war after war... yep, it IS a game about war. (By the same token, if I fly a plane in a game, I'll expect it to have a good flight model, instead of a bunch of fans going "But it's not a REAL Flight Sim." Who cares? If flying wasn't important enough to warrant a proper flight model, then it darn better give me the choice not to fly at all. Likewise, if I drive a car in a game, it darn better have a palatable driving model, not just a bunch of guys claiming it should be excused because it's not a REAL Racing Game. If racing isn't an important part of that game, then why do I have to drive in the first place?)

From what I can see, Code Monkey's arguments revolve against an idea of his that can be summed up as: "if it's not a 100% perfect simulation, then it darn better be a total screw up instead." If you have ONE unrealistic thing, like immortal leaders, then you're automatically excused (or rather: expected) to have as many other wildly inaccurate things as you can possibly squeeze in a single game. The more stuff you just pull out of your rear, the merrier. If you don't have a 100% perfect combat model, down to the exact ammo type and the grade of the gunpowder in it, then it's actually better to make a total screw up of combat. And so on.

[Code Monkey]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Actually, I'd guess "Battle Isle" wouldn't be a war game by his standards, either. Heck, neither would "Steel Panthers".

Give me a break. Steel Panthers = wargame, Battle Isle = TBS. These aren't my classifications, they've been around a lot longer than I've been gaming.

Why don't you head over to some of the wargaming forums or ngs on the webs, I'm sure they'd love to have you tell them that a game is a wargame if it's about war.

You do nothing but obstinately refuse to consider that game can have a well thought out combat system even if you don't personally don't like it's abstractions. A wargame must have abstractions that accurately model reality and history, a strat game is under no such restriction and I'm glad this board has an ignore feature.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Code Monkey
Give me a break. Steel Panthers = wargame, Battle Isle = TBS. These aren't my classifications, they've been around a lot longer than I've been gaming.

Why don't you head over to some of the wargaming forums or ngs on the webs, I'm sure they'd love to have you tell them that a game is a wargame if it's about war.

Umm... Let's read the last sentence again. "A game is a wargame if it's about war." Fair enough. That's what I've been thinking all along.

Then let's get to the previous paragraph, because the two don't add up now. So Battle Isle wasn't about war, or what? I don't remember even being possible to do anything else but fight. (Not to mention that you're probably the first one to say that Steel Panthers isn't a turn based strategy, too.) Let's go a few messages back. Command and Conquer wasn't about war? Could have fooled me, with all the fighting going on in there.

What about Panzer General, then? Where does that one fit?

It looks to me like you're just taking some classifications as far more clear cut than they really are. A game can be a war game AND a TBS at the same time. (E.g., Steel Panthers, Battle Isle or Panzer General.) In fact, TBS is in the end just a sub-category of the war games family. RTS is another sub-category of war games.

[Moraelin]

Actually, I think it's finally starting to dawn upon me what do you mean. I think that what you call a "wargame" is actually a TACTICS level game.

Is that what you're trying to say? That there are different abstractions at Tactics and Strategy levels?

If that's the case, THAT I can aggree with. At tactics level you get to keep track of each individual tank and squad (or sometimes even individual soldier), while at strategy level you can't possibly keep track of them all. When 1 unit = 1 division, there just isn't the CPU power nowadays to accurately simulate a full battle with tens of thousands of soldiers, keeping track of each one of them, and still give you the result back in half a second.

So, yes, at Strategy level you don't get to actually keep track of what ammo type each tank used, and exactly what model of rifle had each squad. No doubt. Obviously.

That said, I do think that simplified as it may be, even at Strategy level, the model should still produce more or less the expected results. Let's say I attack one unit of B-17's with one unit of BF-109's, in Panzer General. Even though yes, the game doesn't accurately simulate each airplane, I do expect that the results would be believable given the historically documented results of such encounters. If I attack a 37mm Soviet AT regiment with a regiment of PzKpfw-IVc's, I do expect that the results are (most of the time) similar to what happened in real history in such encounters.

Simplified is OK at strategy levels. BUT that doesn't mean it's also OK to be wildly inaccurate, and have situations where awfully unbelievable results happen 9 times out of 10.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Frankly, I can't think of ANY game which meets most of those criteria. Supply routes and interdiction of those supply routes? Seriously. I can't think of a single game which implements that.

Civ3 does, sort of, in an obtuse way. Units cannot heal in enemy territory - this is a fair if rough approximation of loss of supply.

Venger

[Akka]

Originally posted by Code Monkey


Give me a break. Steel Panthers = wargame, Battle Isle = TBS.

LOL


Do I need to add more ? Battle Isle NOT a wargame ???



Guess you just shot yourself in the foot.
I feel sorry for ya

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Bad Ax


The failure to implement proper obsolesence, just like the failure to establish strong temporal differentials, is the result of the resources system. Since resources are too rare for any one game to ensure that every player will have the oil to build tanks, or the rubber to build infantry, units must not go obsolete (so people will have *something* to build)

Nothing wrong with the resources, as long as all ancient units you have the resources to build disappear when something better shows up. But if you only have the resources to build swordsmen, pikes, and knights, then what is wrong with being able to?

The fact that units like warrior/swordsmen don't disappear no matter what resources you have is a problem that occured because Infogreed rushed this game. This is a problem, the combat system is not.

Given the resource system(which is IMHO a wonderful thing) it is important that there be some remote chance(yes it IS remote, and normally requires vast numbers) that older units can prevail against newer ones, but requires the one with the better units to suck and try to use their pre-conceived strategies based on the supposition that their units should be invincible. All those people have arguments that are DEEPLY flawed(actually they aren't really even arguments, its just screaming 'it don't work like I think it should!'), especially since you can edit the game to stack the odds even more firmly against ancient units if you aren't happy as it is. The game has a set of rules for combat that both you and every ai have to play by, that is the same(at least now that air superiority is fixed), so the game is perfectly fair in combat.

[C Chulainn]

Originally posted by Code Monkey


The game claims:


It doesn't say "recreate" history, it says "rewrite" and "reinvent" and the game certainly lets you do that.

All well and good, but your version actually entails reinventing the laws of physics. There is no chance that a bunch of cavemen with flint spears could overrrun infantry positions defended by troops equipped with assault rifles, grenade launchers and support machine guns - even if the enemy runs out of bullets before they run out of men, they're still outclassed by steel helmets, body armour and fixed bayonets...

[Chronus]

I was pleasantly surprised to see the number of "no"s. With all the complaints posted on the board about combat results, I was beginning to think that I was the only who rarely got these freaky results. Then again, I should count my blessings.

Spare me the storyline and rationalizations. The whole point is that seriously superior units should not lose to seriously inferior ones - ever!

I object to the use of your word "ever". This is unrealistic and unhistorical. I'm sure you've already read all the posts about the fluke battles and such so I won't repeat it. Freaky things do happen in real life. If your objection is the frequency of these things happening . . . then fine. But to say "ever" is unrealistic.

I don't want to hear about tornados, muddy fields, or stealthy attacks in the night. Save that for fanfic writing!

Funny, I don't just read about these things happening in fanfic writing. I read them in HISTORY books as well.

[Ghengis Brom]

Originally posted by Code Monkey


Units always get better through the ages and a higher attack versus a lower defense usually wins.

What game are you playing?

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Ghengis Brom


What game are you playing?

Civ2 evidently.

[yin26]

Moraelin: Ever played the Operational Art of War series? Supply routes, etc., are all in there ... along with morale and so forth.

[Jurassic Joe]

I still say the combat system is not screwed up. So you lose a couple of battles to inferior units. Oh well! Have you lost a war because of it? I haven't.

If you continue to look at it as spearmen vs tanks, then you will continue to have problems. In the modern world today, can you name a country that fields spearmen in its army? The tribes in the amazon basin and the aboriginees are not countries, they are goody huts and encampments. I think every nation in the world is at least armed with firearms and some sort of armored vehicle. There are also over 300 nations in the world. In civ3 there are only 16 civs that just represent the biggest ones. Just because they didn't pay to upgrade their units doesn't mean that they are still equipped with axes and bows. They represent untrained units armed with low grade weapons of the era like Mausers and molotov cocktails or something.

Don't have a cow man, have fun. This is not a war game. If you want to play a wargame then go and get the close combat series or buy Avalon Hills Squad Leader (the board game). Those are war games.

[Moraelin]

Yin26: Nope, never played those. Sounds like I've been missing something good.

Jurassic Joe: As was said before, those countries did upgrade their units or created new ones. Basically, if they have AK-47's, then they are Infantry, not Spearmen. (And some of them even have AK-74's. And most of them have various models of RPK squad LMG's too. That's very modern as Infantry goes.) If they have bolt action rifles, then they are Riflemen. (But I don't think any countries still have those.) And they did pay to upgrade their troops, either by importing Soviet weapons, or even by licensing the Soviet designs and building several factories of their own. For a small and nearly bankrupt country, I believe that does count as paying for an upgrade all right. Poorly trained, yes, but we already have "conscript" for that. Spearmen, no.

Basically what I'm saying is: since the game DOES offer the choice to upgrade your spearmen to Riflemen or Infantry, which is what those poor countries have, there's really no reason to assume that the Spearmen hordes kept by the AI are anything else but guys with spears.

Chronus: In all fairness, I'll have to somewhat aggree with you, too. While I _am_ disappointed with the frequency of weird results between different tech eras, wth, it does look like some people expect 100% guaranteed results. And that just does not happen in real war.

[Antonin]

[Plumbean]

Second front.Western Front,Clash of Steel are all older cool wargames

[Blaupanzer]

The units are 1-1-1, 2-1-1, 1-3-1, 3-2-1, 6-3-3, up to 12-18-2, amd 24-16-3 or whatever. Don't get so hung up on the titles. The wide disparity between British infantry and tribesmen in the veldt is not what this game is trying to portray. As someone noted, that's what the villages represent. Major powers will arm even their most rudimentary units with weapons which, while obsolescent, will do some damage to the enemy. That's what those "older" units represent. I agree that the ability to still build swordsmen and longbowmen in modern times is an oversight of the unit progress tree. I do not agree that combat is outlandish or "broken." Have fun, don't get quite so serious. Poorly armed troops do win tactical confrontations. Such outcomes seldom affect the course of wars.

[Lord of the Isles]

Originally posted by Moraelin

Either way, what I've been trying to say is: I don't care if it's a proper "war game" by some arbitrary definition. If I spend over 50% of a game in War, it's a game about War, and it darn better have War well modelled. As long as no matter what I do, and how much I'd rather concentrate on culture instead, the AI WILL attack and force me into war after war after war... yep, it IS a game about war.

Too right. I mean, I spend over 50% of my time in Age of Empires moving units around and no one pretends *that* is a wargame, do they? It's a game about moving things around.

From what I can see, Code Monkey's arguments revolve against an idea of his that can be summed up as: "if it's not a 100% perfect simulation, then it darn better be a total screw up instead." If you have ONE unrealistic thing, like immortal leaders, then you're automatically excused (or rather: expected) to have as many other wildly inaccurate things as you can possibly squeeze in a single game. The more stuff you just pull out of your rear, the merrier. If you don't have a 100% perfect combat model, down to the exact ammo type and the grade of the gunpowder in it, then it's actually better to make a total screw up of combat. And so on.

Agree totally. All we ask for is some realism so that warriors never defeat tanks. Code Warrior and others can only rant on about the units just being abstractions and how Firaxis made certain decisions about the combat system to make the game play better. As if we care about game play! And what's all that stuff about "abstractions"? That's a real warrior on my screen, isn't it?

Moraelin's last point is the clincher, though I admit he had to distort Code Monkey's argument out of all recognition to make it. There's no excuse for not making the combat system more realistic, not game play, not anything. Why do I have just 3 units in an army??!!! Real armies have tens of thousands of units in them, if not more. Tedious to implement you say? But that's realistic. Do you think generals just click on a couple of buttons to send their units into battle? Of course not, so the next patch had better include radios, uniforms, a full headquarters staff and so on.

[Code Monkey]

Let's attack this from a different angle, forgetting for a moment what would really happen when warrior meets tank and just how much of wargame Civ3 is or isn't.

Instead, let's put a different way, given all of the underlying game mechanics, is combat screwed up? Phrased that way, the answer is not only a clear 'no', it's actually imbalanced towards modern units.

A warrior, the most basic unit, has 1/1/1 for its stats and costs 10 shields.

Archers, spearmen, and chariots cost 20 shields and have 2X attack, defense, or movement respectively - a doubling in cost just to double one of the stats.

The swordsman has 3X the attack and 2X the defense of the warrior for 3X the cost, an ancient times bargain.

Horsemen, pikemen, longbowmen, and knights hold to a formula of 10 shields per additional stat point beyond the warrior's.

The musket man only improves on the warrior by 4 points (+1a, +3d) but costs 50 additional shields.

Then things start getting lopsided in favor of modern units:
Riflemen have (+3a, +5d) but only cost 70 shields more.
Cavalry have (+5a, +2d, +2m), 9 additional stat points, and only cost 70 shields more
Infantry get 14 additional stat points but only cost 80 shields more.
A tank gets a whopping 23 additional stat points but only costs 90 shields more.
Mech Infantry get 29 additional stat points for only 100 additional shields.
Lastly, modern armour gets 40 additional stat points for only 110 additional shields.

So, although in Civ3 world it's conceivable that a tank might go down to a cavalry attack, you're also only talking about units with only a 20% cost differential. In the real world, I'll bet plenty of meglomaniacs would love to be able to field a WW2 era tank for only a pittance more than a man on a horse with a carbine. Put another way, in the course of the game, units only increase in costs 12X but increase in firepower 24X and maintenance never changes.

If you want to declare that Civ3 results are unrealistic compared to what they're meant to represent, by all means do so. But, please, don't go calling it all screwed up unless you are also prepared to accept a number of changes to the underlying system including vastly increased unit costs and upkeep. If you want to see things such that tanks would almost never lose to cavalry then a tank should cost, at a minimum, twice what the unit it's 99% outclassing costs.

The whole of the combat system was designed and balanced for the abstracted system that they use - if you want real world results then everything has to be retooled.

[Jaybe]

Gotta love all these people who are really into the details! If you look just at the details then you can argue anything you want, because there are real life examples of anything happening!

It's those aggravating incidents (and overcoming them) in the game which makes the game so rich and fulfilling!

JB

[TrainWreck20]

I have got to conclude from all the debate that Civ III must be a great game to convince so many people that it is a warrior winning a battle against an armor unit, instead of a 1-1-1 defeating a 16-8-2 (or whatever the armor is rated). You would think that most people claiming to want a war game would pay more careful attention to the stats instead of the icons.......

[Bad Ax]

Originally posted by Lord of the Isles

Agree totally. All we ask for is some realism so that warriors never defeat tanks. Code Warrior and others can only rant on about the units just being abstractions and how Firaxis made certain decisions about the combat system to make the game play better. As if we care about game play! And what's all that stuff about "abstractions"? That's a real warrior on my screen, isn't it?

How, exactly, has gameplay been improved by this system? I mean, the manual claims that firepower, HP differential, etc. have been removed from the game, no longer needed because "combat has been improved." Improved how? By returning it to the good old fashioned CivI system? The gameplay is only "better" for you under the present system if you've gotten screwed by the poor strategic resource implementation.

As for abstractions -- I'm fine with abstraction, as long as it's internally consistent. If Firaxis wanted to program the game so that there was only one kind of unit for each tactical zone (land, sea, air) that was supposed to represent the most modern strengths in each particular era, then fine. If, however, this unit gets replaced, so that we have a warrior unit armed with an axe and a rifleman unit armed with a gun, then I expect that the abstractions should at least maintain consistency with the implied advance.

The units certainly are abstractions. After all, we don't designate Riflemen to be specifically armed with Martini-Henry's or Enfields. Nor do we designate whether our warriors are armed with stone axes or obsidian-lined clubs. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the Warrior is an abstraction of a very primitive army, and the Rifleman is an abstraction of a reasonably modern army. As such, the abstraction system should remain reasonably consistent. Warriors defeating Cavalry should happen less than one in a hundred times.

This sort of works out -- in the open field a Warrior has a 1.3% chance of defeating a regular Cavalry while taking *no* damage. However, in the open field an elite Warrior has a 25% chance of taking defeating regular Cavalry overall! You can jabber that units are an abstraction all day long, but the question remains what they're abstracting from. If a Warrior is just abstracting from a guy who likes to fight with whatever he can get his hands on, well this result might be fine. That's what you want me to buy. But the technology and obsolesence scheme in-game suggests that this *isn't* the case, that the Warrior instead abstracts a primitive soldier using nonmetal weapons.

In sum, just because the combat system is an abstraction doesn't excuse all its sins. The units abstract particular *kinds* of armies, and as such combat results should generally match the results when those *kinds* of armies met. And while there are some striking (but mostly grossly misinterpreted) instances where primitive armies defeated organized contemporary ones, these are exceedingly rare. The combat system should reflect this.

It doesn't.

Therefore, it's screwed up.

[Geez]

I have my issues with the combat system, but as far as all this hubbubb about "obsolete" units....

What happens when or if your civ loses access to iron, rubber, oil, and saltpeter? (or a combination thereof) Tell me what units you will build if ever confronted with that scenario? I know, it's a long shot, but then there are many successful longshots in the game (sigh). I think that makes it obvious why they didn't make longbowmen or spearmen obsolete. It simply prevents what would be a quite fatal flaw in the game.

Tell me, if any country on earth lost access to oil or gunpowder, would they still defend themselves any way they could? You bet they would - spears and all! Not just roll over because they couldn't build tanks like everyone else.

Hey, I may be starting to see the light here!

[Akka]

Originally posted by Geez
I have my issues with the combat system, but as far as all this hubbubb about "obsolete" units....

What happens when or if your civ loses access to iron, rubber, oil, and saltpeter? (or a combination thereof) Tell me what units you will build if ever confronted with that scenario?

Riflemen.
There should have at least one unit each age that doesn't require any ressource. The excuse about ressources is a poor excuse to justify the oversimplification of the combat system, that made no sense and had not a single advantage.

I know, it's a long shot, but then there are many successful longshots in the game (sigh). I think that makes it obvious why they didn't make longbowmen or spearmen obsolete. It simply prevents what would be a quite fatal flaw in the game.

Tell me, if any country on earth lost access to oil or gunpowder, would they still defend themselves any way they could? You bet they would - spears and all! Not just roll over because they couldn't build tanks like everyone else.

It's about impossible to lose access to gunpowder. It's impossible to lose access to iron. Such ressources just existe ANYWHERE in the world. Not a single country have ZERO access to salpeter and iron. And there is too much underway to get ressources that you're lacking to say that there is a COMPLETE IMPOSSIBILITY to get them.
But just for the sake of it, let's consider that the nation is so completely unable to get any ressource that it can't build anything but spears.

Well then, NO it won't build spears and fight. It will surrender.

[Geez]

It's about impossible to lose access to gunpowder. It's impossible to lose access to iron. Such ressources just existe ANYWHERE in the world. Not a single country have ZERO access to salpeter and iron. And there is too much underway to get ressources that you're lacking to say that there is a COMPLETE IMPOSSIBILITY to get them.

Hmmm....I know of a few nations that wouldn't have guns were it not for them being smuggled into the country, donated by foreign militaries, etc. and also have little to no iron manufacturing in place. Were it not for trade, there are PLENTY of countries on Earth that would not have these things like....uhhh Afghanistan or uhhhh......the bulk of sub-Saharan Africa. Get it together, boy! Show me a fine iron product from India. Show me a good Tanzanian rifle. Duh. Riflemen are not found ubiquitously around the world. There are civilizations that still fight without guns. You just obviously have never heard of them. You're probably better off in your world....

Well then, NO it won't build spears and fight. It will surrender.

I hope for your country's sake that you never enroll in the military. Did the Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans give up when the Spanish came to the Americas? No, they were decimated by gunpowder weapons and disease, but they didn't fall on the ground with their legs in the air. They fought. You need to do some more reading before trying to defend your reveries....

Some people pi$$ me off.