Thread Tools
Old January 21, 2002, 05:50   #31
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
PS

I think the guy is either unable to express himself clearly, or is a troll.

*a three unit "raiding party" through about 20 blockading cavalry and attempt to march into our heartland with the* /Comment. Twenty Cav (actually 9) could completely surround a stack and prevent it from moving anywhere.

*capture my forbidden palace city, killing six entrenched inf and 3 cav defenders with ONLY THREE REGULAR CAV* /Comment. 3 Cav attack 6 times. 6 Inf dead. What did the 3 defending Cav do? Wait for the enemy Cav to heal and renew the attack? I find this example hard to accept as being in good faith.

*seeing 3 or 4 ironsides decimate a modern navy three times their numbers* /Comment. Anybody seen this? What were your Battleships doing while the Ironclads were adjacent?

*the ai successfully defend a city against an attacking stack of TWENTY FIVE UNITS with 3 regular and 2 conscript infantry, DESTROYING SIX ELITE CAV IN THE PROCESS.. (two defenders died) * Comment/. I simply can't belive it. It does not agree with any of my observations of how the game plays out. Anybody else attacked with 25 units against 5 and lost? Of course the other 19 could have been Warriors.

etc

Salve
notyoueither is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 05:59   #32
Aeson
Emperor
 
Local Time: 13:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: orangesoda
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
Originally posted by Jumping Choya
3. I expect the unit I see on screen to reflect what it is.
What you see on the screen is a 1/2/1 unit. If you actually had a bunch of real life Spearmen and Tanks on your screen, it would probably be pretty hard to play the game. Using regular units on grassland, the 1/2/1 Spearman has a 1.5% chance of winning when defending against a 16/8/2 Tank. The chance of it actually killing the Tank in that battle is 0.8%. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. The alternative is to take randomness out of the calculations completely, and make Civ 3 warfare the most boring thing ever put in a game. I dont know about you, but I really don't care to check if 16 is bigger than 2 over and over again.

Quote:
And, before anybody says "well duh u just had a dum tank comander!"
The "tank comander" is the player. There will be some losses in warfare no matter the tech superiority, thats just how things work. Every once in a while military units end up killing themselves (crossfire) or just having accidents of one type or another. A smart commander is one that allows in his plans for unforseen setbacks and doesn't let them compromise the success of the mission. If ever the success a Civ 3 game depends on 1 Tank beating 1 Spearman, it was a poorly played game.
Aeson is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 07:13   #33
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 20:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally posted by GnuZ
- I found combined arms (once I could make ranged weps available) made little difference, 100% of the gunners are unable to hit a target 75% of the time.
Shows me that you brought not enough artillery.

Quote:
Originally posted by GnuZ
Having played many hours of a fourth, to a point where EVERY city in my Egyptian empire, including my capitol, decended into civil disorder by the 4th turn after an unwarrented and unprovoked Pearl Harbour style attack on our industrial heartland by the Germans - who were "polite" towards us and good trading partners at the time... (complete with whining peaceniks destroying infrastructure and stopping military production, sure, that's believable.. As if!)
Egypt is a religious civilization. You could have changed into Monarchy or Communism in 1 turn. Others need 4-6 turns.

Quote:
Originally posted by GnuZ
Having earlier been nearly at the "tearing hair and rending clothing" stage of frustration attempting to elegantly handle another "polite" trading partner ignoring requests to respect zone of control in order to "force land" a three unit "raiding party" through about 20 blockading cavalry and attempt to march into our heartland with the "friendly" objective of doing a walk in capture of an undefended city... (One must assume that someone's aunt sent a letter back to Russia saying "there are no soldiers here, quick tell the Czar to send a Cossack!" as I didn't trade my maps.) THAT'S reasonable, OH yeah.
There is no zone of control in Civ3. And unless they are Superman, Rambo and Captain Kirk, 20 cavalry will always stop 3 units or at least block them. By the way, who leaves cities undefended?

Quote:
Originally posted by GnuZ
In all cases of agression having had the entire REST OF THE WORLD take the side of the ATTACKERS (b.s. they had mutual defense agreements, unless they were "secret", and what would be the POINT of having them, if so?) and declare war on us for DEFENDING OURSELVES..
What have you done to drag them at your side?

Quote:
Originally posted by GnuZ
Having just watched (it seems like for the hundredth time) the ai successfully defend a city against an attacking stack of TWENTY FIVE UNITS with 3 regular and 2 conscript infantry, DESTROYING SIX ELITE CAV IN THE PROCESS.. (two defenders died)
Oh well, who attacks 10-defending infantry in a (may be even 13+ = 100% bonus) city with 6-attacking cavalry without weakening the defenders with LOTs of artillery or battleships, deserves to take severe losses. I once have survived a raid of 25-30 barbarian horsemen in a city with 2 vet hoplites. One died, other was down to 1 hp but held the city. So far about loaded dice.

Quote:
Originally posted by GnuZ
Having then watched it magically capture my forbidden palace city, killing six entrenched inf and 3 cav defenders with ONLY THREE REGULAR CAV.
I refuse to comment this. It's just too ridiculous.

And I refuse to comment the whole rest. I suggest you to switch to another game, without war and diplomacy. Teletubbies will be fine.
Harovan is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 07:56   #34
Willem
Emperor
 
Willem's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
Quote:
Originally posted by Jumping Choya
You're overlooking several key points here:

1. If my tanks are facing spearmen in some grasslands, there is no ravine.
I believe the circumference of the Earth is about 25,000 miles. My maps have 256 tiles, making one tile roughly equivalent to 100 miles. I'm sure somewhere in there it's entirely possible to have a ravine, or some other terrain feature that's not suitable for a tank.
Willem is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 09:27   #35
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by Jumping Choya
You're overlooking several key points here:

1. If my tanks are facing spearmen in some grasslands, there is no ravine.
2. If there was a ravine, I doubt the tanks would just drive on into it, throwing all caution to the winds. They would take the high ground.
3. I expect the unit I see on screen to reflect what it is. If I see a spearman, it is a spearman. It fights with a spear. It is not a molatov cocktail thrower, or a boulder pusher, or a guerilla fighter. If it was any of those, I would expect it to be named so and be upgraded accordingly.
4. I don't see how I group of guys with spears (since in this case, we're dealing with spearmen) would do anything like sabotaging supply lines. And even if they did, the tank crews would still have sufficient ammo in the form of pistols and machine guns to massacre any guys running with spears.
5. Well, you just can't have a list end with four points, can you?

And, before anybody says "well duh u just had a dum tank comander!", here's my response: don't be silly, and don't make up random excuses for a pathetic situation. The game makes no mention about random factors like dumb commanders and other adverse conditions. Thus, I don't consider it a feature of the game. And even if I somehow ended up with a dumb commander, at worst he would order his men to run the damn spearmen over.

And just in case somebody wanted to say "You need to use your imagination, it could be plenty possible!"...no. I didn't buy this game to make inane explanations for crazy situations. I enjoy using my imagination to form stories about my empire, but I don't see any reason why I should have to make an excuse for a lame combat result. If I felt like doing that, I might as well have not bought the game and instead created "Mental Civ" in my head, where I could make all the little excuse-stories I wanted ("and then the pikeman, with a wind of 100 MPH at his back, heaved his pike, and given the added power of the wind, it sliced through a tank, and meanwhile, everybody else was having the same, stellar results!...")

Unless the 100 square kilometers are paved, there are always "interesting" terrain features. Even spearmen have the technology called "fire". Tanks often have to invade difficult terrain in order to control the area. For instance, how do you think they got on the high ground? A boulder-pusher or fire-lighter is hardly an upgrade to a spearman.

You are making the same mistake countless generals have made. By believing them to be "only savages," you leave yourself and your soldiers open to a catastrophe.

And yes, there are always random factors, meaning uncontrollable and unpredictable factors, hence the randomizer.
Zachriel is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 12:30   #36
Spaced Cowboy
Emperor
 
Spaced Cowboy's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 6,939
Just wishing that those people would understand. It is not a spearman against a tank. It is a 1-2-1 against a 16-8-3. Regardless of attacking unit the odds are 8-1 (or 1-8). That means that in 9 battles, the spearman, opps I mean the 1-2-1, will win one of them. It gets worse if the odds are capped like they are on many board games. Most board war games use a look up table and dice to determine the odds. They usually do not go over 4-1 odds.
__________________
We're sorry, the voices in my head are not available at this time. Please try back again soon.
Spaced Cowboy is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 13:38   #37
Jumping Choya
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 11:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel



Unless the 100 square kilometers are paved, there are always "interesting" terrain features. Even spearmen have the technology called "fire". Tanks often have to invade difficult terrain in order to control the area. For instance, how do you think they got on the high ground? A boulder-pusher or fire-lighter is hardly an upgrade to a spearman.

You are making the same mistake countless generals have made. By believing them to be "only savages," you leave yourself and your soldiers open to a catastrophe.

And yes, there are always random factors, meaning uncontrollable and unpredictable factors, hence the randomizer.
Oh, come on. Savages or not, spearmen would just have downright crappy luck against tanks. Could you imagine any modern country fielding the "105th Special Tactics Spearman Division"? I think that says something about how succesful they'd be. I'm even skeptical of this boulder-pushing concept. Tanks aren't blind, and they aren't that slow either. They'd see the boulder and adjust their speed accordingly. Or, the boulder would skip unpredictable down the hill, and miss altogether. And again, in a grassland, there isn't going to be terrain that will lead to a situation like that. Sure, it wouldn't be completely flat, but it wouldn't ever be a situation where spearmen would have any outrageous advantage.

I admire your patience in justifying everything that people find wrong with Civ III. I see that you take the time and find instances where an army defects, for example. But, I think you need to step back and think about it. Just how reasonable is it that a bunch of tanks, made of metal and firing high-velocity projectiles, would ever have trouble with spearmen, who fight by running up to their targets and stabbing them? Even if the spearmen weren't actually spearmen, do you think that an entire division of tanks would be wiped out by boulders and molatovs? Keep in mind, also, that modern battle groups are better trained and are usually superior in numbers as well.
__________________
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
Jumping Choya is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 13:42   #38
Jumping Choya
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 11:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 70
Quote:
Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
Just wishing that those people would understand. It is not a spearman against a tank. It is a 1-2-1 against a 16-8-3. Regardless of attacking unit the odds are 8-1 (or 1-8). That means that in 9 battles, the spearman, opps I mean the 1-2-1, will win one of them. It gets worse if the odds are capped like they are on many board games. Most board war games use a look up table and dice to determine the odds. They usually do not go over 4-1 odds.
I realize that it's just a bunch of statistics, which might be the underlying problem. In my opinion, there should be some flags in the game that render certain units invincible to other units - but that's not the issue right now.

Actually, I think you're off on the way the game figures it. Don't ask me how it works, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't as straightforward as comparing offense to defense, because I know that my tanks have had better luck than losing one battle every nine.
__________________
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
Jumping Choya is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 14:19   #39
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Quote:
Originally posted by Jumping Choya
Oh, come on. Savages or not, spearmen would just have downright crappy luck against tanks.
You're right! I wouldn't give them a one in a hundred chance.

The civulator says that a veteran tank v. regular spearman on grassland is 99.739%. That is about what I see in my games.

Civulator
http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html
Zachriel is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 15:57   #40
vmxa1
PtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
vmxa1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oviedo, Fl
Posts: 14,103
I agree with Jumping and the apologist will have unlimited excuses. I think that RPMisCool has the answer, they cap the odds so the real chances are lower than one would expect. All rationalization aside it just a number crunch. The fact that some say they never see this tells me that they are very cautious and have no exposure, that is fine, but as I have seen and said, why would I sit there with my Calv and let an archer grap a worker, just because I only have a Calv at that time and location. I would attack and have lost the calv to even a warrior (Elite Calv so it takes more rounds). I can live with that, if was truly a 9x.xx% as the calc says. It seems that the levels do have an impact as I see it very seldom on Regent or higher and quite often on Chief. I like to play with min levels of troops so I will not have enough to blanket the land, why should I need a back up for a tank when it is going after an acient unit? My point is that for all who have no problem with or have not seen it, that is great, but the ones who have tossed the game over and told friends not to buy it are bad for business. It is not hurting me as I can win on any level either way, well actually I have not played Emperor yet.
vmxa1 is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 21:59   #41
Aeson
Emperor
 
Local Time: 13:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: orangesoda
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
Originally posted by vmxa1
It seems that the levels do have an impact as I see it very seldom on Regent or higher and quite often on Chief.
The lower the difficulty level, the more likely that the AI will have inferior units. That means more of these lopsided fights, which should result in more occurances of "impossible" AI victories. The odds for each individual fight are the same regardless of difficulty level, other than against barbarian units.
Aeson is offline  
Old January 21, 2002, 22:44   #42
Murtin
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 20:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sweden
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally posted by vmxa1
I like to play with min levels of troops so I will not have enough to blanket the land, why should I need a back up for a tank when it is going after an acient unit? ¨
I'm thinking this might be responsible for quite a lot of the outrage concerning bad breaks: The style of playing which involves no backup at all. Having no backup units will turn every instance of losing a battle into a full-blown disaster. And on top of that, minimal numbers of military units will make the AI all the more likely to think you're a pushover and decide to wipe you out. No wonder people get ticked off.

Quote:
My point is that for all who have no problem with or have not seen it, that is great, but the ones who have tossed the game over and told friends not to buy it are bad for business.
That concern I can understand, but I really can't see there's any way to stop people from trying to play a game using strategies inappropriate for the game, then fail, get disappointed, and eventually tell their friends what a crappy game it was. You will always run into newbies who are either too impatient to learn what works and what doesn't, or too stubborn to accept that their pet strategy won't work.

Now I do think that Civ3 has some serious design issues, but this bad break thing isn't one of them.
Murtin is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 00:04   #43
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
I agree. Every game posted by people complaining about bad combat results or negative cultural results played with the barest minimum of military units to take ground, but not to hold it.

I myself do take chances, especially when I'm behind, but I know when I am taking those chances. Sometimes a tank will sneak behind enemy lines to cut supply lines. Sometimes a Cavalry will expose itself to save a damaged infantry. But I don't disrepect my enemy just because he appears to be technologically primitive. So when I attack, I send a combined force of cavalry, riflemen and cannon in sufficient quantity for the mission.

Spartacus wiped out a Roman Legion. But how? A Legion is a combined force, not just a bunch of guys with swords. It includes sword, spear, archer, seige, engineers, command structure, and very strong unit cohesion. Spartacus won because the Romans did not take him seriously. They did not follow the manual, didn't build field fortifications, didn't patrol, and so ceased being a Legion and in effect became a bunch of guys with swords.

So in Civ, if your tank attacks a spearman on a hill, and loses, some would blame the gods of Firaxis. A more distant observer might note the artillery in the town and wonder why it wasn't brought up. It just sat there unused.

Read about infantry and combined arms:
http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Infantry.htm
Zachriel is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 02:48   #44
vmxa1
PtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
vmxa1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oviedo, Fl
Posts: 14,103
The number of units nor the strategy is the issue. It does not matter if I have 10,000 units and you have one. If your spearmen wins over my tank I do not like it. If this happened once in a few games, great. These things are more common than that. The outcome of the battle is not going to hurt me, I will still win, you are going over a point that is moot.
This is what I am looking at: 5 games 4 will see one or more battleship defeated by galley or some such. If it was once or trwice in that 5 games, I would say nothing, just laugh. When it is more often than that, I suggest it could be corrected.
For others to say, well I must have an army of units to attack a mighty spearmen, makes no sense. Tactics are simple and well understood, circumstances will lead to less than optimal conditgions from time to time, this does not mean I do not understand the value of combined arm or over powering force. I am not talking about having one unit going all over the land attacking everything and expecting to win all battles, merely one unit in a postions to defend an improvemnet or a worker from an greatly inferior unit. This are not freak conditions is the point, they will occur unless you never get in one on one combat often. Combat, not invasions.
vmxa1 is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 09:07   #45
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
A military disaster only once or twice in the history of the world? Must be nice to live in such a perfect world.

The history I know if full of human folly leading to disaster.
Zachriel is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 10:52   #46
Heliodorus
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 12:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 72
I'm on record as being a great fan of the as-built combat engine. That remains true. I wish the AI upgraded and built modern units, and I wish it understood force protection and combined arms strategies, but...

In the early running, I realized that to succeed in the combat system, I had to adapt from Civ2 mentalities. Among the keys to that adaptation were the following:

1) Bringing enough troops to the party. Gone are the days when a slightly better unit will win over a slightly weaker one with 75%-plus reliability. The result of archer on archer combat is widely variable. To counter, you have to bring more archers to be sure of the win.

2) Combined arms makes all the difference. Catapults in the ancient era may be weak, but they are a requirement. Especially on city attacks - if I don't get some serious successes, I don't send in the regular troops. Additionally, you simply HAVE to have the mobile, retreat-capable attackers to soften up enemies. And you have to understand that quite often, retreatable units fail to retreat and die in that last 1HP-vs-1HP death struggle. Refer to my first point on dealing with this issue.

3) Damaged enemies MUST be destroyed. Damaged friendlies MUST be preserved. Especially enemy mobile units, you have got to kill them when they are damaged. I spend a lot of time maneuvering stacks behind the main area of combat so that I can destroy retreating units. The AI is very good about withdrawing them. Letting him live to fight another day is extremely bad policy. The converse of this is true - always protect your own damaged units, get them to a city, and heal them. The AI is very good about killing them if it can.

4) Bombard, bombard, bombard. Free hits make a huge difference in force multiplication. Especially at sea (when you have artillery, you can bombard ocean squares two tiles out from the coast, which is a great advantage).

5) Support your military with roads and frontier towns. Take the battle to enemy territory, and you will need an even greater number of troops to help you protect retreating units. If fighting in your own terrain, you have to have roads available. If you are into razing enemy cities, bring along a settler or two to establish hospital cities.

6) Weather the storm. The AI can manage a long offensive war in the ancient and early medieval game (it dies out quickly thereafter, especially if invasions become necessary for it). In virtually any game in which I had a war with the enemy, I lost cities to it - if not my own, then some of the cities I took from it. If you strive to conserve units, and thus maintain the edge in attrition, you can eventually overpower the AI so long as you're following the first three rules well.

I LOVE the combat system. Can you imagine the party that spearman has after he destroys your tank? Oh, wait, by then,he's already been killed by the NEXT tank you had... D'oh.
__________________
I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish small tasks as if they were great and noble. - Helen Keller
Heliodorus is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 11:28   #47
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Great post, Heliodorus.
Zachriel is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 11:42   #48
Arrian
PtWDG Gathering StormInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamApolyton UniversityC4DG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Cake or Death?
Deity
 
Arrian's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Kneel before Grog!
Posts: 17,978
Heliodorus,

I tend to agree with you, except about bombardment in the ancient (and, in truth, medieval) era. I just don't bother. I'm all about the "Mongol Horde" rush with horsemen or knights. It works beautifully, at least until the next patch comes out... I suspect some changes will be made to the retreat ability. I do not, however, discount the usefulness of bombarding the enemy, particularly later on when you're dealing with infantry in size 40 cities.

The real key to Civ III combat is bringing more troops than you might think you need. That way, when you lose a veteran Tank to a regular musketman (which, I admit, pissed me off), you roll over the s.o.b. with the next Tank. A normal strike force for me in the Modern Age (normal map) includes at least 50 Modern Armor. Usually, I'm picking a fight against an enemy that has Cavalry and Infantry... maybe even riflemen (and I KNOW they've got all sorts of spearmen, pikemen and musketmen underneath their primary defenders). Why do I need 50 M.A.? Well, I suppose it could be done with less, but building all those tanks really doesn't take all that much effort, and that way I KNOW, beyond all doubt, that I will crush my enemy easily. When I throw a wounded unit into battle against tech. inferior ones because I want to speed the war along, I understand and accept that my unit might just get whacked.

I understand the frustration of the "realist" gamers who are upset by the very idea that a Tank can lose to a spearman. Part of me agrees (*nod to vmxa1*). What I do not sympathize with, however, is the apparent refusal on the part of many people to adjust their tactics to fit the game - instead choosing to complain about the combat system. Ok, if the combat system ruins your fun, maybe this game isn't for you. Play different games, then (I mean no insult here).

-Arrian
__________________
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!

The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Arrian is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 12:39   #49
Zachriel
King
 
Zachriel's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,194
Of course, occasionally one can't create the massively overwheming force we would like have on the attack. In this situation sometimes risks must be taken, and random results will have a much bigger impact on the strategic situation. That is the nature of risk.

But if sufficient production capability is available, then there is little excuse in not providing overwheming force.
Zachriel is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 12:41   #50
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 20:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally posted by Heliodorus
Can you imagine the party that spearman has after he destroys your tank? Oh, wait, by then,he's already been killed by the NEXT tank you had... D'oh.
A turn lasts at least 1 year, so give the brave spearman one evening to party, before the next tank rolls.

Good post, Heliodorus!
Harovan is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 13:32   #51
Spaced Cowboy
Emperor
 
Spaced Cowboy's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 6,939
One quick correction to my previous post. I was referring to 1 to 8 odds for each combat round, not for the whole attack. Also if they use limiting odd and some type of look-up table (such as the old war board games) even the max 4-1 odds would habve something like (dice roll) 3,4,5,6 win; 2 ties, 1 lose. Anyway just my 2 cents worth

Has anyone noticed the likelyhood losing compared to one relative strength and strength in the immediate area. I seem to lose more lopsided battles when I am relatively weak or my forces are scattered. Or am I just imagining it?

I also agree with Heli's post. I usually bring 6-10 of my units to each defender. Haven't gotten the hang of combined arms, usually just beat my army down on the other guy so that I can rebuild with better units (exception being mounted units which I always save). Those archers, longbows and legions do not go anywhere anyhow.
__________________
We're sorry, the voices in my head are not available at this time. Please try back again soon.
Spaced Cowboy is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 14:09   #52
barefootbadass
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 378
One thing to note when losing a tank or modern armor to a spearman is that it really could have had something like a piece of dynamite or a simple grenade launcher or something. This is not an 'imaginitive' leap, as the civ defending probably has at least gunpowder level technology by the time you are fielding that kind of unit, so the spearman could be a unit that has not been properly trained to use such weapons, and may be severely limited in amount of ammo(hence the lower stats). After all, upgrading requires a barracks.

Now the best solution would be to have the ai build barracks and upgrade troops(unit ai could move to a city to upgrade when more pressing issues aren't available). Although this would make things much more difficult, although more satisfying to win.
barefootbadass is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 14:24   #53
ShuShu
Chieftain
 
ShuShu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, Il.
Posts: 86
Mark Caro vs. a Tank.
Freshman year in college, a new friend was talking about how backgammon was a game of luck. I insisted it was not and that I was willing to play at any stakes he wished. He chose a penny a game. One semester and $143.00 later I forgave him his debts because at no point could I have been considered to have been gambling.

Despite having to win at significantly higher rates than tanks have historically shown against spearmen (sticks and stones DO break their bones... err treads) I did in fact lose a few games. And although I feel safe in claiming that most of those losses were due to bad luck, none were unnexpected or unfair. No the one complaining about his lack of luck was the one who lost 14,300 games in fewer than 3 months. Hmmmmm....
ShuShu is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 15:20   #54
Aeson
Emperor
 
Local Time: 13:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: orangesoda
Posts: 8,643
Obviously the "luck" involved in backgammon is getting a poor player as an opponent who is willing to lose 14,300 games before giving up! The bad luck was that he wasn't rich enough to bet $10 a game, and that you had a conscience.
Aeson is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 15:37   #55
ShuShu
Chieftain
 
ShuShu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, Il.
Posts: 86
Must be a character flaw...
That may explain why I prefer rolling over that spearman with Big Mac's rather than tanks...
ShuShu is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 16:25   #56
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 20:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
ShuShu: Wow, you played 14300 backgammon games in a few months? Did you something else in that college, like studying or so?

The spearman may have some odds to defeat the tank, but vs. the Big Mac's he has no chance.
Harovan is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 17:48   #57
bsklepzig
Settler
 
bsklepzig's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 27
Invincible tanks
This thread has been beat to death, but ...

It seems like the outraged folk are focused on the romantic, imaginative elements of combat, not the cold numbers of attack/defense.

Even so, I'm puzzled by the dogged assertion that tanks are invincible against non-modern opponents. Against ANY opponent, tanks can get stuck in mud, lose treads, stall, not get the turret turned fast enough, etc. (When I was a kid, it seemed that 60 Minutes had a story every other week about the crappy tanks that we were churning out. They'd work like a charm on a sunny Kansas day, then die in the rain or the sands of Arizona.)
Mechanical failures or limitations seem part of the risk of modern weapons, hence a small percentage chance for the spearman to win.

Still, the Outraged rage on. A tank vs. a spearman?

That leads me to a look at the realism of combat in Civ3 at all. Let's take the simplest scenario. My single tank heads to City X and meets a spearman on the road. Let's be generous and assume it's something like 1953, where turns only take a year.

This tank-spearman battle rages for a year? (And don't tell me the battle lasts 15 minutes and other stuff takes up the year. Add a few other A/D units and our simple conflict is a three turn (year) battle, with the tank-spearman clash playing one part.)

Given the resources required from the city that built it and the relative population of the cities, I'm forced to surmise that each unit is symbolic of a larger force. (Hence the ability to generate Great Leaders???) 100 spearmen against 10 tanks? 100 tanks? If we're forced to accept that this clash takes a year (or more if techs were rushed early) and have dozens or hundreds (or more) participants, then our imaginations must stretch to include ravines and boulder-pushing. (Heck, in that time, the spearman could save money from a part-time job, buy a Dell and a wireless card, log on to Apolyton and skim some great spearman-tank strategies from this thread!)

If you're going to insist that tank-must-crush-puny-human 'cause that's how it would happen when one tank meets one man in Sarejevo, then you must accept that ...
on a huge map one square = 100 miles
one turn = a year
one unit = many people and
100 miles of terrain is more varied and interesting than grassland-with-road (as it appears on the map)

IMO, it's all symbolic, it's all an approximation. If to-the-letter historical accuracy in combat is critical to your appreciation of a game, maybe Civ3 isn't your cup of tea. Perhaps try Avalon Hill's Axis and Allies board game. If building civlizations and dominating the world through a clever combination of tactics trips your trigger, go Civ. (Personally, I think Civ3 is great!)

Ben
bsklepzig is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 18:50   #58
ShuShu
Chieftain
 
ShuShu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, Il.
Posts: 86
to rephase...
Give me a pointy stick and 6000 years to prepare, and I promise I'll be ready for you when that tank finally shows up!

Come to think of it, I think it is highly unrealistic to expect a tank to defeat these spearmen out of the Highlander movies...

Sir Ralph... It was a net DIFFERNCE of 14,300 games.

Actually, backgammon has a doubling cube which doubles (or quadruples) the stakes every time the cube changes hands. The biggest single contest was worth a halfword. Funny thing, I was very lucky when the stakes were high, and unlucky when the stakes were low...
ShuShu is offline  
Old January 22, 2002, 19:59   #59
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 20:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
Re: to rephase...
Quote:
Originally posted by ShuShu
Come to think of it, I think it is highly unrealistic to expect a tank to defeat these spearmen out of the Highlander movies...
Yea, or take Rambo with his bow (Archer? Longbowman?) against the "evil" Russian attack choppers

Ah by the way, wasn't the Highlander rather a swordsman?
Harovan is offline  
Old January 23, 2002, 11:22   #60
ShuShu
Chieftain
 
ShuShu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:13
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, Il.
Posts: 86
Good Point... :)
Quote:
wasn't the Highlander rather a swordsman
but since we are being totally realistic here, the Highlander movies are not completely accurate because the immortal spearmen were allowed to upgrade to swordsmen and that is against the rules.

Come to think of it, how were the poor immortals supposed to chop off each others heads before they discovered Iron Working, or even once they discovered iron working, were unable to trade for a mountain with Iron in it?
ShuShu is offline  
 

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 15:13.


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