Another look at combat

Tarquelne · February 7, 2002, 08:54

I suppose Civ3's combat _might_ have been discussed here before... but lets look at it again.

"I disagree civ3 gives better gameplay with regards to combat. fast units are too powerful. Ships bombardment sucks. Air bombardment sucks. shall I go on?"

Yes.
What's wrong with fast units? They're more expensive than the slow units, don't have retreat advantage against any other "fast" units, and don't _always_ retreat. With those facts in place to start with - What exactly is the argument for them being too powerfull?

And, btw, I have found myself winning militarily too often - I've increased the cost of offensive units already. But I didn't find "fast units too powerfull", just what I thought was less-than-optimal balance in the combat units, just like almost every other game I've purchaced. As with many games I could edit things and change the balance. Now, rather than rant on about it I just changed things to suite myself, placed a few messages explaining what I'd done and why, and happily played on. Which is what I generally do when I'm not pleased with a game's unit-stats. I find all the vehemence of the complaints against fast units unseemly. First - the less-than-expert 80%+ of the Civ3 players probably either don't appreciate the power of Fast units, or simply can't take advantage of thier knowledge if they do appreciate Fast units. For them the units are balanced. Secondly, the more-or-less-expert-20% of us can make some pretty simple adjustments to fix things.... that's why I think so many people complaining about Fast units are characterized by others as "whiners"... If it's YOUR problem, and YOU can fix it, but you don't... you probably really are just whining.

Ship bombardment/air bombardment: "Sucks" how? The most common complaint I see is that bombardment can never destroy a unit. I was disgusted at first, but I came to see the reasoning behind it. First, you need to actually risk a unit to destroy an enemy unit. The human player can't, for example, get Flight before the computer AIs and wipe out the enemy with bombers alone. You have to use "combined arms" more. Not only is that almost certainly more interesting, it's also actually more realistic. Real-life bombardment can and does destroy individual units, but seldom utterly destroys a fleet or regiment - you've generally got to really have someone go in and finish 'em off. And, of course, given Civ3's scale, you should think of each combat unit as a collection of individual real-life units, not 1 soldier, 1 tank, 1 ship. I think it's fun to pretend a Battleship is 1 battleship, but I think it foolish to insist that it really act just like 1 battleship in the game.

The new bombardment system allows you to use bombard ment to "soften up" the enemy _almost_ to the point of utter destruction. Very, very much like real life. The biggest departure is certainly in naval combat.... that can certinly be considered a "flaw" in the game... but "bombardment sucks"- I think that's going way too far. Realism has been sacrificed for better gameplay - Civ3 would still be a _rotten_ historical simulation or wargame even with far more realistic bombardment rules, but it might have become a worse strategy game.

Finally, you can fiddle with the bombardment stats somewhat in the editor. If Firaxis allows us to give bombers or ships the ability to sometimes sink a ship as cruise missiles can I'd be completely satisfied.

The tech advantage: The other big criticism I see of the combat system is the ability of lower-tech units to defeat higher-tech units.

First of all... havn't you people ever played another game before? Other than in wargames or simulations combat unit values are very seldom realistic, and even some wargames/simulations screw things up. Civ3, as has been mentioned before, is neither a wargame or a simulation...

Unit costs: A Tank costs, what, 12 times what a Warrior costs? Obviously a huge departure from reality... but the game is supposed to be playable from ancient times to the modern age - imposing realistic unit costs would screw up gameplay at one end or the other (if not both.) How'd you like warriors to cost 1/2 a shield... a decent sized ancient city could then produce, what, two dozen or more a turn? Or how about if Tanks took 60+ turns to produce? Not good gameplay.... who's got some counterarguments?*

So the game has "flattened out" (made more equal) unit costs. With the flattening of unit costs the game then _must_ flatten out combat statistics or the more advanced units (the ones that "realisticly" should be far more expensive") will _utterly_ trounce the less-advanced units. That'd be realistic, but it'd make the military part of Civ3 little more than a race to be first to key military techs. "I got Knights before the Aztecs, so I destroyed them. Then I got Cavalry before the Indians, so I destroyed them. Then I got Infantry and Artillery before the English, so I destroyed them...." I'm sure some people would think that's great fun.... and those people can edit the unit values to make the game play that way.

There's also the issue of what the Civ3 combat units _really_ represent. If my neighbor has developed Infantry and Tanks and I've got Riflemen then it's foolish to think that my Riflemen units are "really" using Civil-War era weapons while my neighbor has developed refined semi-automatic rifles and large-bore guns. In real life there's almost always at least a trickle of tech "leaking" from the most advanced nations. A country doesn't go straight from Henry-Rifles to 155mm cannons.
If I've got a Spearman that's been sitting in a city for 2000yrs I'd have to be pretty stupid to believe it's _really_ a bunch of guys with pointy sticks when everyone else has got automatic weapons. Sure, it'd be nice if the game had an additional dozen or so "default" units that obsolete units ungraded to with era changes, or key tech-advances. But that'd add some more complexity, some more work for the programers, and wouldn't change the gameplay at all. A 1/2/1 unit is a 1/2/1 unit by any name.

OneInTen · February 7, 2002, 09:38

Quote:

If I've got a Spearman that's been sitting in a city for 2000yrs I'd have to be pretty stupid to believe it's _really_ a bunch of guys with pointy sticks when everyone else has got automatic weapons.

No, no, no, you've missed the point of spearman beats tank arguments.

What people are really saying is that by the time the spearmen reach 2000 years old they'll have crippling arthritis and be wheelchair bound.

Thus the objection is they don't believe their wheelchairs would be able to handle the rough or boggy terrain as well as a tank and therefore they would be stuck unable to move while the tank spends the entire year of it's combat turn lining them up for the killer blow.

Of course, the not so often mentioned corollary of this is that spearmen over the age of 100 years should get a bonus when fighting on road tiles, where their wheelchairs do not suffer from problems due to terrain.

ACooper · February 7, 2002, 10:01

Great post. The part about a unit not representing 1 actual unit but a group or fleet is the key to what most people miss. There has never been a boming raid that has sunk a whole fleet of ships. You may hurt the fleet pretty severly, but not completely wipe it out.

Once again, good post, excellent points.

Watch out for threadjackers. The Whiners(TM) don't like logic.

fittstim · February 7, 2002, 10:42

Quote:

Originally posted by OneInTen

Of course, the not so often mentioned corollary of this is that spearmen over the age of 100 years should get a bonus when fighting on road tiles, where their wheelchairs do not suffer from problems due to terrain.

Maybe...but have you ever seen what happens to asphalt when a tank rides on it? Not a pretty sight. So the wheelchair-bound spearmen should also suffer a penalty if a tank had been in the same square during the previous 10-turns.

Anyway, a wheelchair-bound spearman is, by default, upgraded to a lancer (knight). With +1 to attack after the discovery of electricity.

But as to the original post, I think that Tarquelne has just about committed the whining that s/he cites in the other 80% of the people.

Akka · February 7, 2002, 13:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquelne
There's also the issue of what the Civ3 combat units _really_ represent. If my neighbor has developed Infantry and Tanks and I've got Riflemen then it's foolish to think that my Riflemen units are "really" using Civil-War era weapons while my neighbor has developed refined semi-automatic rifles and large-bore guns. In real life there's almost always at least a trickle of tech "leaking" from the most advanced nations. A country doesn't go straight from Henry-Rifles to 155mm cannons.
If I've got a Spearman that's been sitting in a city for 2000yrs I'd have to be pretty stupid to believe it's _really_ a bunch of guys with pointy sticks when everyone else has got automatic weapons. Sure, it'd be nice if the game had an additional dozen or so "default" units that obsolete units ungraded to with era changes, or key tech-advances. But that'd add some more complexity, some more work for the programers, and wouldn't change the gameplay at all. A 1/2/1 unit is a 1/2/1 unit by any name.

Still the same used, worn, flawed and repeated argument.
Ok, let's see. A pikemen unit is 1/3/1. It's supposed have to have a bonus vs mounted unit (not found it in the editor, but it does not change the reasoning, and it's perhaps hardcoded). Why does it have these stats ? Well, it's because of the weapon it uses. The long pike allows defensive formations that uses the lenght of the weapon to be used with great efficiency (hence the defense of 3), and the same pike is very good at dismounted men on horses (hence the bonus against mounted units).

Now we will take your reasoning, hence that your people, being not so stupid, got some automatic weapons, rifles, grenades, things like that, because you are neighbor with a much more advanced civ. Then I ask you : why my pikemen are still 1A3D ? Why did their stats did not improved with better weapons ? Why do they get the same bonus against mounted unit ? Why the spearmen unit who share their barracks, and which is supposed to have got the same weapons than them, still have one defense point left ?

And why do you bother to play a game with different units with historical flavor as you see only them as "X in attack, Y in defense" units ?
Doh, some times I'll make a mod for all of you people that see Civ as if it's an Excel sheet, and I'll see how many people will like it :P

copcartman · February 7, 2002, 13:50

Quote:

Originally posted by ACooper
Great post. The part about a unit not representing 1 actual unit but a group or fleet is the key to what most people miss. There has never been a boming raid that has sunk a whole fleet of ships. You may hurt the fleet pretty severly, but not completely wipe it out.

I don't think many people really assume that. Maybe with naval units. Anyway, that doesn't make it more logical. If 75% of a fleet is destroyed on day 1, what makes the remaining 25% fleet indestructible on day 2?

The rule is arbitrary and a "fix" of some other arbitrary rules. Bombardment as a concept was added to keep units like cavalry from damaging an attacking air unit. Yet some units can defend against stand off attacks from air units. That's probably why this second bombardment rule was created.

What I'm saying is that the board game rules that civ 3 build upon has many inherent flaws and if these kind of odd events are to be avoided, the whole rule-system has to be rebuild from scratch (and be made slightly more complex). For instance, most units should not be able to heal completely (after all, many are as you said not units of one but hundreds or thousands). To counter-act this, they should be able to merge with each other, and most units should be able to retreat, even if the attacker has faster moving units.

Tarquelne · February 7, 2002, 13:52

"Why does it have these stats ? Well, it's because of the weapon it uses."

And the training, and the quality of the weapons. (Panzer vrs. Tank, Cossak vrs. Cavalry)

"Then I ask you : why my pikemen are still 1A3D ?"

Because they are poorly trained and are not fully equiped with the new weapons, of course.

"Why did their stats did not improved with better weapons ?"

Same question, same answer.

"Why do they get the same bonus against mounted unit ?"

Assuming this bonus actually exists - because the game isn't perfect.

"Why the spearmen unit who share their barracks, and which is supposed to have got the same weapons than them, still have one defense point left ? "

You mean "less", not "left"? Because they have even worse training and even worse weapons. It's a military unit origionally organized several hundred (at least) years earlier than the pikemen. Every little virtual soldier in an Infantry unit has a rifle, good boots, and each squad has a machine gun. Your Spearman unit has, say, 20 year old rifles and no squad weapons.

The training/weapon arguments are rationales that offer a realistic explaination for a modern unit with poor stats. It doesn't address game play - but then, the criticism "Spearmen beat my TANK! THIS GAME SUCKS!" doesn't address game play either. I think the rationale is rather lame, but I think the critique its a response to is just as lame.

Tarquelne · February 7, 2002, 14:01

"What I'm saying is that the board game rules that civ 3 build upon has many inherent flaws and if these kind of odd events are to be avoided, the whole rule-system has to be rebuild from scratch (and be made slightly more complex)."

Other than poor realism, what's wrong with the system? Remember - Civ3 isn't supposed to be a wargame or a simulation.

"slightly more complex" - How much better would the game play be with say, merging units and ships that can be sunk by bombardment in the turns after they are first bombarded down to 1 hp? It'd be more realistic - no argument there, but better? I think that's quite debatable, esp. when you consider the audience Firaxis was trying to reach with the game. Most people won't accpet much complexity at all.

And even assuming that most players would find the gameplay improvments worth the added complexity I think it would be (and has been) better for Firaxis to spend its time on other things. If I want a realistic wargame I've got plenty of realistic wargames to play.

volcanohead · February 7, 2002, 14:32

The combat system can be modded to suit your tastes, so much of this discussion is pointless. One other thing, why do the hardcore pro-Civ people use both the 'Look, its a fleet of ships" or "they need training" arguments and 'it's not a simulation' to defend the annoyances which are seen by more critical people?

Isn't it clear there's just a small problem of logic in an argument that claims the combat system is _very_ realistic but disregards everything that doesn't make sense by saying it's because it's not a war simulation.

Bleh.

V

Ming · February 7, 2002, 14:55

I'm still trying to figure out why people are still whining about tank losses to spearman stuff. It's not like it happens all the time.
I rarely see it... so stuff happens... big deal. It makes the game more interesting. Whose is to say that the leader of your superior forces didn't do something REALLY stupid.

Many people are whining that the firepower system for Civ II was far superior... but it lead to a bunch of crazy stuff too... like airplanes losing to ground units with no anti air capibility... Granted, the pilot could have made a mistake... but it happened far too often. Far more often than tanks lose to spearman in CivIII

So the combat system is different... both have their advantages and disadvantages... deal with it. And if you don't like it, you can modify it toward your own tastes.

Mike Breitkreutz FIRAXIS · February 7, 2002, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

A pikemen unit is 1/3/1. It's supposed have to have a bonus vs mounted unit (not found it in the editor, but it does not change the reasoning, and it's perhaps hardcoded).

A pikeman has no inherent bonus against mounted units.

volcanohead · February 7, 2002, 15:12

A fun mod might be to prevent mounted units from retreating when attacking pikemen. Sort of balances things a little.

Very good to see someone from Firaxis on the boards, it's been a while. I guess things must be pretty busy there, huh?

V

ACooper · February 7, 2002, 15:13

We could argue about this over and over. In the end the game is what is is. It is not a wargame. Never has been, never will. It is not a real life/history simulation. Never has been, never will.

The game is a alternate history game. It's a game of "what if". It is supposed to be a simple, loosely abstracted game that roughly approximates this alternate history. It cannot encompass everything.

The combat system is based on probabilities. If you do the math behind the spearman vs tank issue you'll find that the tank will win almost all the time. (I have yet to see a spearman beat a tank.)

The reason that ships don't get sunk is that it was a game design decission. Live with it.

This is the best game that they could put out. It is a very good game. Maybe it's not enough for the "hard-core" gamers but it is exactly what most gamers want. A fun escape from the real world. A chance to play a (semi)omni-potent god who can guide your Civilization to glory. All of the whining and complaining that it isn't what you wanted will get you nowhere and only affect yourself.

I wish my wife had blonde hair and big --- eyes. But she doen't and I'm still happy.

Zealot · February 7, 2002, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by ACooper
Great post. The part about a unit not representing 1 actual unit but a group or fleet is the key to what most people miss. There has never been a boming raid that has sunk a whole fleet of ships. You may hurt the fleet pretty severly, but not completely wipe it out.

Ok, I'll bite this one.
So could someone please explain to me how can I lose an army of 3 veteran swordmen against one non-veteran spearman? I mean, we're talking about a full army, with a leader and everything! And the spearman was on plaind, for crying out loud!

I agree with what Ming said, but at least in Civ 2 I could get what I expected more often than in Civ 3!

Ming · February 7, 2002, 15:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Zealot
So could someone please explain to me how can I lose an army of 3 veteran swordmen against one non-veteran spearman? I mean, we're talking about a full army, with a leader and everything! And the spearman was on plaind, for crying out loud!

Maybe the leader was an idiot... and lead them into a trap

Again... sometimes the results can piss you off. But as the old saying goes, your battle plan becomes obsolete once the battle has begun. Stuff happens. And I personally have never seen those strange events happen very often. And I like the fact that sometimes they do. I'm never concerned about losing units. Units die in combat... it's that simple

ACooper · February 7, 2002, 15:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Zealot

Ok, I'll bite this one.
So could someone please explain to me how can I lose an army of 3 veteran swordmen against one non-veteran spearman? I mean, we're talking about a full army, with a leader and everything! And the spearman was on plaind, for crying out loud!

I agree with what Ming said, but at least in Civ 2 I could get what I expected more often than in Civ 3!

If your unhappy with Civ 3 than go back to Civ 2. A new patch will come out sometime. Check the Apolyton main Civ3 site occasionally and as soon as it comes out you can download the patch and try Civ 3 again. Maybe it will suit your wishes then, if not let it go.

Zachriel · February 7, 2002, 16:23

I have the same problem with that other game, Chess. I have this King. He's got to be the best unit, right? He can't even move more than one square. Even a lousy Bishop can do that. And the knight, he can jump, but my rook can't. And the Queen. A pawn -- I said a stupid pawn -- killed her. What is that all about?

The gamemakers certainly don't care about realism, that's for sure. I want my money back.

steelehc · February 7, 2002, 17:13

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously, I love Chess. I don't get many chances to play.

I think combat in Civ3 is arguably messed up, however, it isn't a wargame as many people have said.

Steele

Tarquelne · February 7, 2002, 17:16

To volcanohead

"One other thing, why do the hardcore pro-Civ people use both the 'Look, its a fleet of ships" or "they need training" arguments and 'it's not a simulation' to defend..."

Hardcore pro-Civ people? Anyway....
The two arguments you mention ("fleet", "training") are both appeals to realism, yes. "Not a simulation" is simply a statement indicating that the level of realism isn't very high. The "fleet" type argument is used when someone says "This is too unrealistic" or something similar.... the "not a simulation" argument is used when someone says "Civ _should_ be totally realistic."

Life isn't digital - and neither is Civ3. Strategy games are allowed to go for a realistic "feel", but still have extremely unrealistic characterstics. (Panzer General is a good example. It looked and felt so much like a war game that many people thought it was supposed to be one, and hated it because it was such a BAD wargame.)

"...the annoyances which are seen by more critical people?"

What more (too?) critical people call "annoyances" I _might_ agree are annoyances, but I'd be more likely to characterize them as imperfections. Or the even more neutral "compromizes."

Personally, I'd love to see a full blown wargame-style combat engine added to civ. Would a Firaxis rep. like to comment on the sales potential of such a game?

"Isn't it clear there's just a small problem of logic in an argument that claims the combat system is _very_ realistic but disregards everything that doesn't make sense by saying it's because it's not a war simulation."

Yes. That's why I'd _never_ argue that the combat system, as a whole, is very realistic. The point here is that the game has to strike a balance between realism, playability, and - though its often forgotten - accesibility (simplicity.) As a mass market strategy title Civ3 should emphasize playability and accesibility over realism.

Zeolot:
"So could someone please explain to me how can I lose an army of 3 veteran swordmen against one non-veteran spearman? I mean, we're talking about a full army, with a leader and everything! And the spearman was on plaind, for crying out loud!"

Welcome to the wonderful world of chance. I recently lost in one turn more than a dozen Cavalry to a mixed group of Spearmen, Cavlary and Pikemen.

Or maybe "welcome to the wonderful world of math." Are you not aware that the Defense of a Spearmen is 2, and that a Swordman's attack is only 3?

copcartman · February 7, 2002, 19:58

To Tarquelne:

I wasn't saying that the game would be better if it were more complex, or that I would want it that way. I just said that the occasional strange, unrealistic events are unsolvable by adding more layers to the current game.

And of course there is room for improvements in the game, without or with little increased complexity. Any step towards increased realism is a step forward if other factors are fixed. The bombardment issue has nothing to do with complexity, for instance. (you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by the bombardment, I didn't imply that one hit point should be "saved" to the next turn, I said that preventing a unit from being sunk just because it is the remains of a larger group, is unrealistic)

Tarquelne · February 7, 2002, 21:17

"I just said that the occasional strange, unrealistic events are unsolvable by adding more layers to the current game."

By more "layers" do you mean more rules? If so, I don't think that's true... and the bombardment of ships is a perfect example. (If not ignore the rest of this post and please explain what you mean.)

"The bombardment issue has nothing to do with complexity, for instance."

Au contrare...

"(you seem to have misunderstood what I meant by the bombardment, I didn't imply that one hit point should be "saved" to the next turn,"

You didn't say that, but I think you did imply it, because...

"I said that preventing a unit from being sunk just because it is the remains of a larger group, is unrealistic)"

And sinking a whole fleet via bombardment is unrealistic... but I agree that sinking the remains of a fleet isn't unrealistic. However, how do you distinguish between the remains of a previously bombarded fleet and fleet that's under bombardment? I think the only way to do that properly is to not allow ships to be sunk via bombardment on the first turn they're knocked down to 1 hp by bombardment. But on subsequent turns bombardment can sink them. (Because the unit is no longer a "fleet", but rather "the remains of a fleet.")

So with ship bombardment I think we could eliminate an unrealistic element by adding a rule.

But requiring the player to make that distinction adds some complexity. The player either needs to remember which ships were damaged this turn (could be a problem when reloading a saved game, or if there are multiple ships) or the programmers have to add a little icon, or make a graphic change for the ship, or something, to mark the unit as a vulnerable remnant. That's not much complexity.... but I don't know if its much of an improvment either, if any. Sure, its more realistic, but does it improve gameplay?

"Any step towards increased realism is a step forward if other factors are fixed."

I think the two problems with that statement are:

1) Increased realism is necessarily good. I think it's usually good... but increased realism generally means more details. A game could be better served by less-realistic but more interesting/fun details - or less details (realism) if the game is already too complex.

2) "if other factors are fixed." True... but "fixing" those other factors is easier said than done.

I think there are few, if any, "holes" - glaring flaws - in the Civ3 combat system... except with regards to realism. And I think that's all because of the relative simplicity of the system. Someone mentioned chess - I think that's an excellent example. There are obviously a host of things one could do to make chess more realistic... but would any really improve it? I don't think so.

copcartman · February 7, 2002, 21:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarquelne
And sinking a whole fleet via bombardment is unrealistic...

That's what I'm getting at! To fix this problem (if you really must fix it) the core rule that an attack is made either by enemy contact or by "bombardment" must me replaced. It's too simple to begin with.

I get the feeling you assume I don't enjoy the game as it is. I really do, my main point was just that if (IF!) you need extra realism (in certain areas) you must rebuild the rules from the bottom. So I think we actually agree there, that it's better to leave the rules as they are than trying to fix them by adding more.

The chess parable is really irrelevant in this case. Civ has appealing aspects both as a mind-game and as a real world model/simulator, whereas chess has only the former.

Quote:

"Any step towards increased realism is a step forward if other factors are fixed."

I think the two problems with that statement are:

There really is only one problem, since they are dependent on each other. And the statement is true nonetheless, and should be applied wherever possible.

Tarquelne · February 7, 2002, 22:24

"And sinking a whole fleet via bombardment is unrealistic...

That's what I'm getting at! To fix this problem (if you really must fix it) the core rule that an attack is made either by enemy contact or by "bombardment" must me replaced. It's too simple to begin with. "

What's the problem with "an attack is made either by enemy contact or by "bombardment""?

"So I think we actually agree there, that it's better to leave the rules as they are than trying to fix them by adding more."

Ok... but I'm still feeling contentious, so:

"Any step towards increased realism is a step forward if other factors are fixed."
....
And the statement is true nonetheless, and should be applied wherever possible."

I think my problem with the statement is that I simply don't belive you can increase the realism without altering the rest of the "equation" in some way. I don't think you can ever "fix" all the other factors. Can you give me an example of a step toward realism that's "a step forward" but doesn't alter any of the "other factors." (A not necessarily exhaustive list of those other factors being complexity and quality of play.)

Terser · February 7, 2002, 22:36

This debate might never have happened if the Firaxians had imitated CivII:

CivIII Setup Screen:
Please select one:

O Simplified combat rules--Similar to Civilization I. No firepower(default).

O Complex combat rules--Similar to Civilization II.

Can anyone tell me why this option was not included? If not in the setup screen then in the editor. Why?

Anybody?

yin26 · February 7, 2002, 22:39

Soren said of firepower that it added needless complexity.

Zachriel · February 7, 2002, 22:58

Quote:

Originally posted by copcartman
The chess parable is really irrelevant in this case. Civ has appealing aspects both as a mind-game and as a real world model/simulator, whereas chess has only the former.

When chess first hit the market, I think it was sometime before microsoft even, it was considered a state-of-the-art war simulation.

People would have fancy pieces, such as pawns that looked like spearmen, Kings with real gold crowns, and rooks as grand siege machines. But the game didn't really catch on as soon as everybody found out that sometimes an enemy spearman would kill your rook.

Tarquelne · February 7, 2002, 23:02

"Anybody?"

Not that this answer will give you any satisfaction, but it might simply be because Firaxis, like me, never liked the Civ2 combat resolution system. Frankly, I thought the FP/HP system was a bit silly. Maybe because while it was a move toward a more advanced combat resolution system it wasn't, IMO, enough of a change to justify the presence of the mechanic. (I feel that if I've got to deal with an oversimplistic combat system it may as well be _extremely_ simplistic.) I thought Civ1 had a terrible combat system (compared to a wargame), and with the addition of FP the Civ2 system was still terrible. ...Maybe it was just that I thought most people overestimated the utility of the FP mechanic.

The basic Civ3 combat resolution method isn't any better, of course - it isn't more realistic, or detailed, or subtle or anything... just a little simpler. But I don't believe it's any worse either. I think the designers realized that adding a small amount of complexity to combat resolution (such as something like the FP system) didn't improve the game play significantly, and that adding a large amount of complexity would make the game into something they didn't want it to be. OTOH, I do think that the addition of bombardment and air-missions was worth the trouble - they actually change the way you play the game, not just how combat is resolved.

Capt Dizle · February 8, 2002, 00:07

Cooper, you are such a class act.

Zealot · February 8, 2002, 05:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Maybe the leader was an idiot... and lead them into a trap

Helloooooooo! Army of 3 veteran swordmen lost to one single regular spearman fortified on plains!!!
Is there anybody out there who can translate to idiot-language so that I can understand where the heck was the trap?

Tarquelne, here's how I see my army should have worked:
3 units*3 attack + 50 % veteran per unit (4.5) = 13.5 attack/army
now the defense:
1 unit*2 defense + 50% of 2 (I believe a fortified unit gives 50% of defense in Civ 3 as well) = 3 defense

Now you tell me how acceptable can the chance element be in order to allow this defeat to happen.

Sikander · February 8, 2002, 07:03

The biggest problem with Civ3's combat system is that it isn't very interersting, and you end up doing a lot of it. In fact the same can be said for many parts of the game. There are few strategic choices which maintain my interest surrounded by a huge amount of repetetive 'play'.

I have never played any of the Civ games because of the wargaming aspects, they have all been terrible wargames. I play for the grand strategy and the fun of finding new methods and combinations to achieve my goals. Civ 3 stepped back from the strategic dynamics that made the other games so good in large part to help the AI remain more competitive, and rehashed a lot of stuff that is well past it's prime. It's become one giant war of scale and attrition.

I'm glad there are people who find it interesting, fun, and worthy of replay. I just wish I was one of them. I'm looking forward to MOO3, and I'm still enjoying SMAX and EU, so I'm not impossible to please, but Civ3 was disappointing. On to new challenges and ideas. The great thing is there are always new games on the horizon.