Firaxis wants to make you happy...

[King of Rasslin]

If you really want to know why defensive units (spearmen) are so hard to kill, its because Firaxis knows that you guys are turtlers. You wait until the modern age until you get the only unit that can break a turtler, the modern armor.

Blah, its unfair that you need a unit with twice the attack power of a units defence to kills it, plus defensive units are so cheap...

We either need weaker horsemen, since they can retreat.

Or weaker defenders, as the only reason ppl attack is to get resources.

Or stronger 1 move attackers, like the swordsman and the longbowman. These types actually disappear in the industrial age, when its just cavalry and riflemen.

And thats just another proof that Firaxis favors the slow people. At that point, you only have to make 2 units, 1 rifleman in your border cites and all the rest cavalry. They have 3 moves, and it makes the artillery useless.

Mainly because most of you Civ 3 players turtle, they keep the spearmen (or worse, hoplite) far too powerful.

The only solid attack that beats horses is the "siege tank" offence a la WWI. Infantry and the 2 shot distance artillery can actually beat cavalry back, and they can recover in enemy territory with Battlefield Medicine.

Before that little wonder, you either HAVE to take a city or retreat-easy to do with them cavalry!

If someone makes a good scenario, let it be a WWI style battle with only a few cavalry. And i still can't find Snoopys graphic style

I want to have those cool looking trees.

[Ming]

ROTFLMAO

Hmmmm... 10 cheap warriors can beat 2 or 3 spearmen almost every time. If you are waiting for the modern era to fight, you obviously don't understand the new combat system

[Colonel Kraken]

I'm not sure I understand the gist of the post, but I agree with Ming. I have no problem taking out enemy spearman with Ancient units, and definitely no problem with Middle Ages units.

I've never really experienced the problem that so many agonize about: namely, spearman beating a tank, etc. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it really must not happen too often.

The crux of the matter is whether or not you're using enough units to attack. Yeah, it might suck that you lost your knight to a stubborn spearman, but, hey, I've got 7 more right behing him. Guess what? That spearman's a dead man.

(BTW, I'm not trying to be in anyone's face with this post. Just giving my observations . . .)

[Ming]

I agree... I don't see any problem with the combat system. Sure, superior units can lose... so what. And yeah, fire power might provide a more "realistic" combat system, but what the heck, there is so much else stuff that isn't realistic, I don't see the point of complaining about it. It's different, that's all. I think I've lost a couple of modern units to old units, but **** happens.

I think a lot of people moan about it because they lose units.
Well... people die in wars You will lose troops. As the Colonel points out, just bring along enough units to do the job. You no longer can sweep the enemy out of position with your ten howi's... an improvement if you ask me.

[Argos65987]

I agree with Ming and the Colonel. While I have lost superior units to old units, it has never really affected my overall war plans. If losing a tank or 2 in a war ever prevented me from achieving my goals then I consider that to be rather poor planning on my part, not the computer cheating.

[Alex]

Yes, war in Civ3 now requires a better planning. And I think that it is an improvement.

Take my actual game, for instance. I am the greeks, the richest and most productive civ in the world. But my army is not so significant. I've been trying to avoid war at all costs, not because I would not be able to defend myself, but because a war would cost precious resources now, and I am slowly planning to attack the aztecs, they dominate some strat resources. In order to do that, I am maximising my production not only to be able to build a large attack force, but also to be able to replace parts of it quickly when necessary.

So yes, Civ3 needs a better planning before you go to war. But that is strategy, isn't it?

[Zachriel]

Yes! I just had a wonderful little game of ancient conquest. I used Impis (1/2/2), and they did a great job. Took about 10-15 Impis to run over my enemy.

Hey, it's not my fault. They started it. We finally settled the matter. They gave me two towns; and his last town, the capital, is behind fortified Impis on a frozen penisula.

[TacticalGrace]

its unfair that you need a unit with twice the attack power of a units defence to kills it, plus defensive units are so cheap...

I just had a nice game in which smashed up the chinese with archers, then took out the greeks with legions. It was easy I think because they were without iron so they couldn't counter attack with swordsmen. It's the swordsmen that normally give the trouble NOT the hoplites!

Firaxis has given us plenty of incentive to go to war early in the game (though maybe this only applies to militaristic) because of the advantages of leaders.

I'm not saying I don't have complaints about some of the combat in civ3 (my planes and artillery can't sink even wooden ships? That swordsman just blew up my tank?) but overpowered defenders isn't one of them.

[Ming]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
I'm not saying I don't have complaints about some of the combat in civ3 (my planes and artillery can't sink even wooden ships? That swordsman just blew up my tank?) but overpowered defenders isn't one of them.

uhhhh.... hmmmm.... I guess I have to revise my earlier comment about not having any problems with the combat system.
I too have a problem with planes, artillery, and ship bombardment not being able to kill a unit.

But again... I don't have a problem with a far weaker units being able to win an occasional battle.

[Kiltdown]

Originally posted by Ming


uhhhh.... hmmmm.... I guess I have to revise my earlier comment about not having any problems with the combat system.
I too have a problem with planes, artillery, and ship bombardment not being able to kill a unit.

But again... I don't have a problem with a far weaker units being able to win an occasional battle.

I may be wrong, but I dont think the units are meant to be considerend individuals - more like brigades or battalions. Defeating a brigade is more like weakening it enough so that it surrenders. Neither ships, nor planes, nor artillery can actually "capture" a unit - nor can they destroy it utterly, except under unusual circumstances.

Naval units are a bit different. I think you should be able to sink them, but I think it should be much harder, and I think the units should be more expensive to build.

[TacticalGrace]

Originally posted by Kiltdown
Naval units are a bit different. I think you should be able to sink them, but I think it should be much harder, and I think the units should be more expensive to build.

Yes naval units are different. For one thing when naval units become obsolete they should really be obsolete. I've attacked frigates with nuclear subs and had my sub lose hit points. The animation shows multiple torpedoes. This is just crazy. One hit with a torpedo would cut a wooden ship in half. The combat should reflect that - hits from something like a sub against a frigate should often subtract 3 or 4 hp in one go.

I can only assume that the game must be simulating the frigate unit as a fleet of frigates, while the sub unit is one lone sub. That would start to make sense (both in terms of unit cost and in terms of how the cannons from the extra frigates start doing damage to the sub).

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
Yes naval units are different.

Could be that a torpedo exploded onboard, sending your sub to the bottom, and it took a Norwegian can opener to get the crew out, but you didn't have one handy?

[cassembler]

I find that a group-o-archers (anywhere between 4 and 8) can take just about any city in the ancient era. Combine them with a couple of defensive units and you get a formidable strategy.
You can build archers very soon, and even a couple of small to medium cities can crank 'em out very quickly.

spearmen die by my archers

[Tarbox]

I think this is the perfect post to accomplish some objectives of mine
1. Introduce myself. Hi, I'm Tarbox, I'm new.
2. Expose my ignorance by blathering endlessly on whatever runs through my head that seems relevant, without thoroughly searching the forums to see if the points have been brought up already.

The way I see it, the two distinct issues with combat -- balance and realism -- have very different priorities. It is my belief that balance should have precedence over realism, and wrt that, the idea that even ancient units can occasionally hold up against modern units is good...it keeps the game from rewarding too much the player who gets just a little ahead and multiplies that lead through the game. IOW, it's easier to be 2nd place...or 16th. This makes civs...ai or player...hang out longer, which I like. Lotsa civs is kewl.

However, certain people prefer some realism. I think they're approaching how to do it...mucking about with the balance...is wrong. Since realism is flavor, anyways, it would be easier to alter the flavor.

What I propose (and what would require significant investment of time....of course) is
that the players work backwards, from combat value to unit names, instead of vice versa. Take the highest valued unit of each era, compare it to the values of units in previous eras, and decide on a new name for the unit based on the odds.

ie. spearman vs. modern armor.
Step 1. Calculate odds. Modern armor attack is 24, spearmen defense is 2.,
so the odds of a spearman winning are 1 in 13.
Step 2. Consider. What kind of unit would defeat a modern armor with 1 in 13 odds?
Let's call it the "National Rifle Association Local Chapter."
Step 3. Rewrite the game (and I think this is *almost* possible simply with the editing tools we...not firaxis, but us schlemiels, currently have) such that your units automatically upgrade based on Era. So you build a spearman in the ancient Era, and when the modern era comes, what have the spearmen done? (What exactly a unit (and its cost and upkeep) represents is open to debate, and I'll be more than glad to share my opinion on this later, but sticking to the point). They've put away their spears and bought rifels...on the *private* market, not the government-sponsored one, so they're not as well trained or even as well armed as the Rifleman unit...a disorganized mess of people who happen to hold guns instead of an organized militia using coordinated fire.

How to implement this? Well, there is *already* different artwork for a unit based on era coded in...look at leaders. It would involve, after deciding on enough spiffy units and getting enough artwork/animation, adding a *significant* number of new unit pictures (No clue if it is possible to get enough new open slots, the units.pcx as given is rather limited...) and set it up so that every unit changes artwork with eras...but doesn't upgrade. Obviously, there are major flaws in this approach, but with enough minds I'm hoping they can be worked out...if only in a mod for a limited audience with peculiar tastes combining balance (as it currently exists, even if that happens to be UNbalanced) and realism.

Even without this Mod, though, I'm curious what ideas everyone can come up with for each unit in each era. Maybe later (lunch hour almost over), I'll post a listing of representative odds per unit per era...which itself will probably open some interesting debate. As an example, let's start with spearman vs. fast attack.

In the Medieval era, the challenge is obviously Cavalry, with 6 attack.
What kind of unit would defend against cavalry 1 in 4 times, all else being equal?

In Industrial, it's Tank. What kind of unit would defend against Tank 1 in 9 times?

(Actually, as these odds don't take hit points into account...which skews things towards stronger units...they aren't quite right.)

In Modern, it's Modern Armor (Gasp!). What kind of unit would defend against Modern Armor 1 in 13 times? And I don't really think NRA chapters would cut it, it was just an example.

Flaws: Currently, leaders are based on *your* era, not your opponents, so if you've managed to keep an opponent stuck in the Ancient Era while you've *still* progressed to modern, you'll still have spearmen beating tanks occasionally. But from what I've gathered so far, such an exorbitant lead is rare, and usually only with a few civs, rather than universal. Trying to figure out a way to upgrade the graphics based on the *highest existing* era...(and attributing Ancient Era NRA chapters to private trade or smuggling)...that's beyond our reach, I believe. (And as long as its beyond our reach, may as well ask for the ultimate: Highest existing era *among civs the civ in question has contact with,* assuming we're using a smuggling explanation.)

I learned about the multiple leader graphics in a post on animation, and am uncertain whether they have different still graphics...or just different animations. That could throw the whole works to the side of the road in a heartbeat.

As I said before, Units.pcx would have to be significantly bigger...or the number of units significantly reduced. It doesn't have to be *four times* bigger, though, cuz you're never going to need an Ancient Era graphic for Modern Armor.

Now to look for threads on corruption or production/upkeep so I can air out my other opinions. If you're going to make a fool of yourself, do it right...

PS: Does the patch fix the spelling of the Phoenicians and Etruscan barbarian tribes? Throws me for a loop every time I get raided by them...

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
... I've attacked frigates with nuclear subs and had my sub lose hit points. The animation shows multiple torpedoes. This is just crazy. ...

When a modern unit loses hit points to obsolete units, I can also assume that the modern unit has only lost "combat readiness," meaning fuel, ammo, fatigue, etc.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jaybe

When a modern unit loses hit points to obsolete units, I can also assume that the modern unit has only lost "combat readiness," meaning fuel, ammo, fatigue, etc.

Or they were scared away, or defected, or were smashed and the remnants used as reenforcements into other units.