Still Don't Like the Combat system

And yes I refuse to use the editor to tweek the combat system to my liking. I feel that the game is lacking mostly in its combat model. If I was only changing one slight aspect of the game to fit my playing style that would be one thing, but I feel like I would have to make sweeping changes to quite a few units to make the game play right. For example: I have been playing a new game with the latest patch hoping for some salvation. I am enjoying the game mildly, but I see weird combat results already. I am the Germans and I have calvary as my main offensive unit and the Greeks are using hoplites and archers to counter my superior calvary. I can understand a loss here and there, but I am lossing at least one calvary every time I attack the Greek Hoplite. It seems quite random how the battles are determined. One turn I can't touch the Hoplite. Next turn they are push overs. I don't think the combat system is very fun and you really just have to leave the battles to the luck of the roll. I can't wait to see what happens once I get tanks and my enemies have calvary. No doubt I will see my tanks losing to the inferior calvary units quite often. These are the same calvary that had troubles killing hoplites. Does anyone else think this is a problem? I have seen posts mentioning this very problem before, but I see no mention of this as a future patch fix anywhere.

[Dida]

Yes, this combat system sucks.

[Tarquelne]

A pretty easy change you could make that would help maximize the differences in combat stats is increasing the number of hit points for all unit types. 4 numbers on 1 page in the editor.

OTOH, you could treat the game more like a strategy game, and less like a simulation or a wargame (Try Combat Mission, maybe, or Steel Beasts, or TOAW for that.) As a wargame Civ3 SUCKS. Ditto for simulation. That's not a flaw in the game - it's just part of it's nature. Civ2 was better about the wargame part - but it still sucked as a wargame. (When I say Civ2 was a better wargame it's like saying "Cheese is a better armor than butter.") I think by decreasing the differences between units of different tech levels the designers made a good decision. Not only is a significant tech lead more difficult to achieve in Civ3, but - because of the decreased tech differences among the units - the advantages any tech lead gives you are harder to exploit. I stopped playing Civ2 and SMAC (and Civ1) when they became too easy... it should take me longer to reach that point with Civ3.

As a wargame Civ3 SUCKS. Ditto for simulation. That's not a flaw in the game - it's just part of it's nature. Civ2 was better about the wargame part - but it still sucked as a wargame. (When I say Civ2 was a better wargame it's like saying "Cheese is a better armor than butter.")

What you just said backs one of the points I have been trying to make. Civ 3 should have a better wargame experience than Civ 2. Granted the game is not a wargame or even a simulation. At least combat was somewhat consistent in Civ 2. I know there are many factors that go into a battle. Since Civ is a general gaming experience I don't expect an in depth wargame. I do expect the game to improve the combat system. What Firaxis has done is simplified the combat to make the wargame experience even less realistic. Since when is less considered more? I want a logical extension of the previous chapter not a degradation. I can play Risk if I want a game of strict randomness.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by number6


What you just said backs one of the points I have been trying to make. Civ 3 should have a better wargame experience than Civ 2. Granted the game is not a wargame or even a simulation. At least combat was somewhat consistent in Civ 2. I know there are many factors that go into a battle. Since Civ is a general gaming experience I don't expect an in depth wargame. I do expect the game to improve the combat system. What Firaxis has done is simplified the combat to make the wargame experience even less realistic. Since when is less considered more? I want a logical extension of the previous chapter not a degradation. I can play Risk if I want a game of strict randomness.

I agree. Civ III is a step DOWN from Civ II in so many ways. The moronic combat system is about as realistic as RISK.

I have Edited the units as much as possible but it still stinks.

Unless Firaxis offers a real patch soon I think most of us will have given up on this game by June and gone back to Civ II which I miss.

[kailhun]

Yesterday an elite legionary attacked a swordsmen down to his last point and was defeated. I was upset.
Especially as it f*cked up my attackplan. To take a city you need at least double the number of units defending the city and be one tech up (swordsmen are one up on spearmen; pikemen are one up on swordsmen; knights are one up on pikemen etc.). This defeat meant I had one attacker less than needed.
Does this make the combat system a bad one? I'd say yes. A legionary has a higher attack than the swordsman has a defence. A 'random' combat system means that a couple of points could have been knocked of with a few lucky blows. But that my legionary couldn't get a single blow in? Bad.
Of course, you won't hear me complain if I'm the lucky swordsman.

I often get the feeling that the computer decides who will win the combat round and distributes damage accordingly. For example, you will almost never kill the first defending unit with the first attackig unit unless the tech difference is high. So a spearman will usually take out a tank (kidding ).
Of course this could be due to defence boni and difficulty level, but I'm just too lazy to figure it out. Game on!, after all.

Robert

[player1]

number6, nice you finnaly put to rest Patch thread and moved discussion here.

Now to combat system:

Is it good?
Not really.

What is needed to make it good in standard game?
HEAVY patching and MODing (Firaxis needs to test dose changes, repair bugs, and glitches, and etc...)

Do you think that Firaxis will waste money for that?
NO.

Can you make it more enjoable for yourself?
Yes, increse hps in editor and similar.


Now some discusson:
What makes people go mad?
Cavalry vs Hoplite.
Hoplite is in city = 5.25 defense.
Cavalry has atatck of 6.
What's the problem?
Not combat system, it's units stats and ability that 3def unit fortified can kill 6attack unit.


I dont want to have:
this unit has attack of 12, this has defese of 10. On open first one will ALWAYS kill second one.
I don't want that.
That's Civ2 combat model (not randomness).

Personnaly Firaxis had gone in totaly opposite direction.
Now 4:1 battes are possibile.

For me it's ok to have 2:1 battles possibile, but anything else is just to much.



Only solution:
Face it, Firaxis will not chage combat system. If you would to like this game accept that or MOD it.

[Dienstag]

In my last game, I found myself at war when my best offensive unit was Cavalry, and my enemy's cities were defended by Infantry. I was enduring ruinous losses and inflicting pathetically little damage. (Casualty rates approximately 2.5:1, I guess) Ordinarily, I would not choose to attack in that situation, but it was one of those gang-up type wars, and at stake was Adam Smith's, The Pyramids, Magellen's Expedition, and Hoover Dam, all in the nearest two enemy cities.

Anyway, what with the now reduced chance of withdrawing, the higher defensive rating of Infantry, and the HP usually lost to Artillery, my Cavalry (all veteren and elite) were being massacred. I used massed artillery to reduce size 21 metropolises to size 3 rubbleheaps, and yet the defenders would seldom lose even a hitpoint to my artillery and assaults. At one point an entire 14 HP Cavalry Army was destroyed, having only dealt one HP of damage (I reloaded because if this, then lost that army a few turns later it what I deemed a 'fair' battle'). By the way, neither enemy city was on hills, and I never attacked across a river.

I did get tanks in time to send two of then against the 2nd city I took, but by then the war was winding down... One might say that Infantry are appropriately more powerful than obsolete Cavalry, but (A) I had no other choice and (B) I really think that for about 12-15 turns of intense warfare, my Cav vs Inf battles were statistically improbable in favor of the Inf.

End result: I beelined for Fission and rush-built the UN, and clocked in a cheap diplomatic victory just to put my efforts in the Hall of Fame.

I know this isn't the best example of problems with the combat model, but it's one of the biggest examples of combat ruining my game.

Also, I am sick to death of my elite Ironclad attacking another elite Ironclad, knocking him down to 1 HP in 4 consecutive shots, and then getting hit in the next 5 consecutive rounds. I call this the Rocky Syndrome (tm), and it seems to happen way too often.

[player1]

Originally posted by Dienstag
In my last game, I found myself at war when my best offensive unit was Cavalry, and my enemy's cities were defended by Infantry. I was enduring ruinous losses and inflicting pathetically little damage. (Casualty rates approximately 2.5:1, I guess) Ordinarily, I would not choose to attack in that situation, but it was one of those gang-up type wars, and at stake was Adam Smith's, The Pyramids, Magellen's Expedition, and Hoover Dam, all in the nearest two enemy cities.

Anyway, what with the now reduced chance of withdrawing, the higher defensive rating of Infantry, and the HP usually lost to Artillery, my Cavalry (all veteren and elite) were being massacred. I used massed artillery to reduce size 21 metropolises to size 3 rubbleheaps, and yet the defenders would seldom lose even a hitpoint to my artillery and assaults. At one point an entire 14 HP Cavalry Army was destroyed, having only dealt one HP of damage (I reloaded because if this, then lost that army a few turns later it what I deemed a 'fair' battle'). By the way, neither enemy city was on hills, and I never attacked across a river.

I did get tanks in time to send two of then against the 2nd city I took, but by then the war was winding down... One might say that Infantry are appropriately more powerful than obsolete Cavalry, but (A) I had no other choice and (B) I really think that for about 12-15 turns of intense warfare, my Cav vs Inf battles were statistically improbable in favor of the Inf.

End result: I beelined for Fission and rush-built the UN, and clocked in a cheap diplomatic victory just to put my efforts in the Hall of Fame.

I know this isn't the best example of problems with the combat model, but it's one of the biggest examples of combat ruining my game.

Also, I am sick to death of my elite Ironclad attacking another elite Ironclad, knocking him down to 1 HP in 4 consecutive shots, and then getting hit in the next 5 consecutive rounds. I call this the Rocky Syndrome (tm), and it seems to happen way too often.

Cavalry vs Infantry is very big problem in any game.
These are hardest war for me, especialy if AIs gang aginst me.
Suggestion:
take group of 4-5 Infanrty and pillage his rubber.
Battlefield Meidcine would help.

Or, wait for Tanks.

[ACooper]

Excuse me....isn't Infantry 10 on defense and Cavalry 6 on offense? Since the Infantry were fortified in a city aren't the results you got the way it should work?

Did I miss something?

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Tarquelne
...
OTOH, you could treat the game more like a strategy game, and less like a simulation or a wargame (Try Combat Mission, maybe, or Steel Beasts, or TOAW for that.) As a wargame Civ3 SUCKS. Ditto for simulation. That's not a flaw in the game - it's just part of it's nature. Civ2 was better about the wargame part - but it still sucked as a wargame. (When I say Civ2 was a better wargame it's like saying "Cheese is a better armor than butter.") I think by decreasing the differences between units of different tech levels the designers made a good decision. Not only is a significant tech lead more difficult to achieve in Civ3, but - because of the decreased tech differences among the units - the advantages any tech lead gives you are harder to exploit. I stopped playing Civ2 and SMAC (and Civ1) when they became too easy... it should take me longer to reach that point with Civ3.

A significant tech lead is possible on emperor/deity?
For a couple of turns yes, a lead in two or three techs yes, but not for long! The AI will trade and trade between themselves ...Please, explain me ..!

I don't agree with the statement of civ3-warring being worse than civ-2 warring. As a matter of fact, the warring experience has been greatly improved in several ways.
Though I must agree to the criticism of 'suspect' battle outcomes too often and the unreality of the 'Rocky -effect' or something like that mentioned by ... (you first take out all HP's of the adversary except one, and the adversary succeeds in killing YOU by consecutively taking out all of your HP's --> happens a lot)

AJ

"Hoplite is in city = 5.25 defense.
Cavalry has atatck of 6.
What's the problem?
Not combat system, it's units stats and ability that 3def unit fortified can kill 6attack unit. "



player1,


I understand that the Hoplite gets an increase when fortified in a city, but where do you get these numbers from? I am just curious where everyone is getting these stats. Is it listed on the official site somewhere. All I saw for the Hoplite on the official site for the A/D/M was 1/3/1. I have attacked hoplites in the open with no cover and they have killed my calvary. Not very often I must admit, but I still find it odd. It also strikes me as odd that the calvary is not rated higher for attack values considering the technology needed to create a calvary unit is much more than to create a hoplite.

Face it, Firaxis will not chage combat system. If you would to like this game accept that or MOD it.

I hope this is not true, but I am starting to think you are right. If this turns out to be true I will tire of this game very soon. I stick by my decision to not use the editor to fix the combat system. The game is half finished as far as I am concerned.

[dunk]

The combat in Civ III reminds me of what it was in Civ I, annoying. Even if I play "Chieftan" level, elite Cavalry attacking regular or even conscript Swordsmen in the open field get beaten enough to annoy me. When I first played Civ II, I felt good not seeing Bombers destroyed by Phalanxes at all. I got annoyed when every ship I had got pummeled with Cruise Missles even though I was "out of sight" for all the AIs units and cities. Civ II introduced the idea of HP, which I loved. The ancient units had 10, the medeval/industrial ones had 20, and the modern ones had 20 or 30. This gave what I'll call an "Age Difference" and greatly reduced the number of musketeers lost to knights chariots and emphasized the importance of technology on the battlefield.

I like the idea of changing the number of hitpoints for units. Last night, I decided to raise the elite units HPs to 6. I will try increasing all of the levels to 2 or maybe even 3 times the base.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR


A significant tech lead is possible on emperor/deity?
For a couple of turns yes, a lead in two or three techs yes, but not for long! The AI will trade and trade between themselves ...Please, explain me ..!

I regularly get what I consider "significant" tech leads on emp/deity. Long enough to get a head start on a Wonder, long enough to pump out enough military units to matter. I don't often fight an entire war where my enemy is a full generation of military tech behind me, but I do fight and win wars in which I've got, say, Cavalry and my opponent doesn't, or I have LOTS of tanks and my opponent has had time to build only "some" tanks.

I don't agree with the statement of civ3-warring being worse than civ-2 warring.

Me too. I agree with the statement "Civ3 is worse _as a wargame_ than Civ2." And what I mean by "wargame" is games like TOAW or Combat Mission - realistic, trying to be simulators. The unit stats in Civ3 are very unrealistic - obviously (as in "easy to notice") more unrealistic than the unit stats in Civ2. However - I do think that Civ3 is a strategy game, and that, for a strategy game, Civ3 does better with combat than Civ2. I've tweaked it quite a bit because I thought that offense was overpowered - but I did similar things to Civ2's system. What I think is important is that in Civ3 the differences between the tech levels are decreased, so an AI that's behind in tech can still sting, and you have a better chance of surviving if you're behind in tech. (In Civ3 you _can_ survive and even win after being far behind in tech.)

mentioned by ... (you first take out all HP's of the adversary except one, and the adversary succeeds in killing YOU by consecutively taking out all of your HP's --> happens a lot)

As far as I know, the there's no funny-business in the combat resolution, and the outcome of any given "round" of combat is completely unaffected by the results of previous rounds. Note, though, that the combat factors in Civ3 are both smaller (in an absolute sense) than in many games (including Civ2 and SMAC, IIRC), and that the differences in tech don't give realistically-overwhelming advantages. Smaller numbers + smaller differences = more room for random chance to be important. Individual combats really are less predictable than in Civ2 or SMAC.

[Tarquelne]

There's a perspective that I wanted to comment on. Lots of people seem to share it. dunk999's message is an excellent example. The most important parts are quoted below.

Originally posted by dunk999
Even if I play "Chieftan" level, elite Cavalry attacking regular or even conscript Swordsmen in the open field get beaten enough to annoy me.

When I first played Civ II, I felt good not seeing Bombers destroyed by Phalanxes at all.

This gave what I'll call an "Age Difference" and greatly reduced the number of musketeers lost to knights chariots and emphasized the importance of technology on the battlefield.

Realism. The validity of Civ3 as a war-simulator is what's being violated by Cavalry often getting beaten by Iron-Age swordsmen, Greek-style Phalanxes shooting down Bombers, and, in general, technology not being very, very important on the battlefield. And not just, say, the relatively minor differences bettwen discarding sabot ammo and simple steel-jacketed tungsten ammo... but between Napolenoic Cavalry and Roman swordsmen.

I've said it before, but I didn't use caps in the entire statement, so here we go: CIV3 IS A TERRIBLE WARGAME. HORRIBLE. SUCKS. COMPLETELY WITHOUT ANY REDEMING QUALITIES. Execpt one - it works well for a strategy game.

Maybe it's because most civ player's don't play "real" wargames, like TOAW, or the board games where you shuffle zillions of little cardboard pieces around a map for days on end, and so they don't realize just how truely rotten all the civ games have been as wargames.

I certainly think that the combat system in the game should be as realistic as possible, but only within it's mandate - a simple combat system for a highly abstract historically flavored strategy game. Civ3 is supposed to _taste_ like a history-simulator, but it's far too simple and abstract to really be one. I think we don't see lots of complaints about the simply/abstract nature of the non-warfare elements of civ because everyone knows that making that part of the game more realistic would be a HUGE job, and would generate tremendous amounts of detail for the player to wade through. There are games that are better simulators of that sort of thing, but they sacrifice Civ3's scope and accessibility. Warfare, on the other hand, tends to be cool and fun (as long as it's in a game.) It's also more familar to many people. So they want more of it, and it's obvious when the combat system falls down - we all know that Napoleonic cavalry should -realistically - utterly crush a Greek phalanx. The violated expectation makes things less fun. Well, what I'm saying is: Don't expect Civ3 to play like a wargame - expect it to play like a history-flavored strategy game. Look at a unit's stats, not it's name - _thats_ how powerfull the unit is.

I'd love it if a civ game had a full featured wargame tacked onto it. And it'd probably sell better than most wargames.... which is, I'm sure, is still not the market Firaxis was going for. And Civ3's combat is certainly far from perfect... but I really think that most criticisms based on the lack of realism in Civ3's warfare are severely misguided.

Look - there _are_ games with realistic combat. And they tend to sell very poorly compared to Civ3. The public, in voting with it's dollars, has voted to give Civ3 a simple, abstract, and highly unrealstic combat system. Firaxis put in some good "touches" to help give the combat system a more realistic flavor (OK - 1 "touch" - bombardment. No, 2 - retreat), but for the most part they seemed to have more or less ignored realism and have instead tried to give Civ3 a combat system suited to a simple, abstract, unrealistic strategy game. That would be a simple, abstract, unrealsitc combat system.

If you want to _can_ mod the combat system to make it more realistic... But it's just isn't appropriate to criticize Civ3 because the combat system isn't as realistic as it could be.

[dunk]

I agree with you Tarquelne about Civ being a strategy / history game and not a wargame. But combat is such an important aspect. It's more of a gripe of mine rather than a real criticism. I am going to make a mod and tweak it until I'm happy with combat. I realize the combat was changed from Civ II to level the battlefield for technologically deficient civs. My opinion, . Regardless of your strategy (military, culture, commercial), technology is the most important aspect. It's just not, IN MY OPINION, important enough in combat as Civ III stands now.

Hopefully, this thread will lead to a bunch of people giving ideas on how to modify the rules to make the combat better and some mods where the units have different values. I'm going to try increasing everyone's HPs as Tarq suggested. Of course, that will wait until I get home from work.

[korn469]

try a mod, there are many that deal with improving combat

[dunk]

Do fractions count in the combat system? If they don't, are they rounded or truncated?

Does 5.25 become 5?

Does 5.75 become 6, or does it become 5?

[Thrawn05]

So, is everyone thinks Cavalry is over powered or under powered now? I thought everyone was complaining that Cavalry was over powered but I guess there are people who want it more powerful?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by dunk999
Do fractions count in the combat system? If they don't, are they rounded or truncated?

Does 5.25 become 5?

Does 5.75 become 6, or does it become 5?

I believe that it is interger notation.

9 / 2 = 4
10 / 3 = 3

It seems that would be the best route from a programmer's standpoint.

[player1]

Originally posted by Thrawn05



I believe that it is interger notation.

9 / 2 = 4
10 / 3 = 3

It seems that would be the best route from a programmer's standpoint.

No, no it's a FLOAT (Firaxis said that).
What would be the point of forified Warriors (+25%) if it isn't.

It was float in Civ1, Civ2, SMAC and even in CTP.

[dunk]

Thrawn...

Thanks for the info.

I personally feel that the Cavalry unit is underpowered.

[dunk]

And thanks to player1

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Dienstag
At one point an entire 14 HP Cavalry Army was destroyed, having only dealt one HP of damage (I reloaded because if this, then lost that army a few turns later it what I deemed a 'fair' battle')

I do that with every battle, even if making it fair is against me! Every time I attack, I save... Hitpoints should really be brought back...my advice is do teh following:

Conscript--15 hp
Regular--18 hp
Veteran--21 hp
Elite--25 hp

The ratios arent the same as normal, and the graphic result is horrible, but it should be more fair...

[Tarquelne]

Hopefully, this thread will lead to a bunch of people giving ideas on how to modify the rules to make the combat better and some mods where the units have different values.

I think combat is flawed - yes, not a gripe - I think _I know best_ - in the balance between offensive and defensive units, and that offensive units are too powerfull - at least vrs. the AI. Against another human things might be fine. (Because I'm sure a human would use the offensive units better.) This is probably the opposite of what most people want to change... But here, in general, is what I did:

Hmm... actually, not much, come to think of it. I made a bunch of tweaks to individual units, but the only systemic change I made was to make all the "offensive" units - units that don't have a defense factor that is higher than the attack factor - more expensive. I also made bombardment units more expensive. I think I increased the costs by about 40%.

(I didn't apply the above change to ships - I made a different set of changes to the ships.)

A change that might still shift the play balance in the direction I think it should go, but would also be more realistic, would be to go ahead and make the technology differences much more realistic between units - but also include a more realistic _cost_ for that unit. So fewer, but more powerfull, advanced units. If you increase the cost more than the combat factors then you'll decrease the power of technology, but each individual unit will "feel" more realsitic. If you increase the power more than the cost then you'll increase the power of technology and get units that feel more realistic - but since you have increased the cost play balance won't be as altered as much as it would have been if the combat factors only had been changed. (I, of course, recommend that you increase the cost of offensive units more than the cost of defensive units.)

I wish we could individual adjust the maintience cost for each unit type.

The Draft seems to be a major part of the AI's strategy - I increased the number of unit's that can be drafted under each gov.

Oh yeah - Increaseing the number of hitpoints, if you increase each experience level by the same amount, will also make Drafting more powerfull.

If you find that you're playing on a difficulty level where you rarely get a significant tech lead then giving all the unit's very realistic combat factors shouldn't be much of a problem. I don't think having a handfull of cities fall to super-powerfull advanced units would be a bad thing.

Finally: Do look at how much the AI upgrades it's units. In my experince, the AI is very very bad about upgrading it's units. It seems to me that the AI was very much designed around a combat system that has relatively small differences between units of different technical levels. I seem to remember some people saying that the AI is better about upgrading after the latest patch. Anyone else see this? (I havn't noticed a difference, but I've been playing rather peacfull island-based maps lately, it's hard to tell.) Unless the AI gets better about upgrading, more realistic units might cripple it. (Would lowering the Gold cost of Shields help?)

[nbarclay]

If you flip a coin five times, chances are one in 32 of coming out heads every time. So if each round of combat between equal opponents is analogous to a coin toss (I'm not sure whether that's an accurate representation of the combat system or not), an elite unit fighting an evenly matched enemy could expect to go from undamaged to dead without inflicting any further damage on the enemy one time in 32. With a veteran unit, it's one time in 16. So it shouldn't be surprising when a badly damaged unit rallies and wins every now and then.

And note that those odds are per round (not counting rounds where no damage occurs), not per battle. So battles where one side gets exceptionally lucky at some point would be even more common.

Nor am I convinced that such events are entirely unrealistic. On land, a few survivors might hole up in highly defensible terrain and kill far more than their own number. Or they might get lucky and take out the opposing force's leader and throw it into confusion, providing an opportunity to snatch victory from defeat.

And at sea, a badly damaged unit might get in a lucky shot. As I recall, it was a single shell from the battleship Bismarck that sunk the Hood. (Granted, Hood had a design flaw that made it a bit of a special case, but couldn't a unit in the game have a similar vulnerability?). Yes, in the game it LOOKS like four or five rounds of combat. But if you keep in mind that the game has no built-in concept of a single hit doing several points of damage, you can come up with a story that fits the results in an at least somewhat plausible way.

In regard to spearmen taking out tanks, my interpretation is that a lot of those "spearmen" have gotten their hands on more modern equipment over the years even though they haven't been FORMALLY upgraded. They still don't have anywhere near the equipment and training of a more modern force, but with the right leadership and enough luck, they do have a tiny chance. (Think of the native American tribes that had varying numbers of captured or purchased firearms even though they didn't know how to make them and you get a general idea of what archer units in an era of rifles might be like.) (Hmm, sounds like a story idea, doesn't it?)

For the most part, I like Civ 3's combat system precisely because of its unpredictability. Yes, it gets frustrating when unexpectedly high losses throw a battle plan out of kilter. But isn't that kind of frustration the same thing real-world generals have faced throughout history?

Oh, by the way, in regard to how hard it is to take out infantry before tanks come along, does anyone remember a little conflict called World War I? How many great cavalry charges do you remember from that war?

Nathan

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Dienstag
In my last game, I found myself at war when my best offensive unit was Cavalry, and my enemy's cities were defended by Infantry. I was enduring ruinous losses and inflicting pathetically little damage. (Casualty rates approximately 2.5:1, I guess)
*snip*

Anyway, what with the now reduced chance of withdrawing, the higher defensive rating of Infantry, and the HP usually lost to Artillery, my Cavalry (all veteren and elite) were being massacred. I used massed artillery to reduce size 21 metropolises to size 3 rubbleheaps, and yet the defenders would seldom lose even a hitpoint to my artillery and assaults. At one point an entire 14 HP Cavalry Army was destroyed, having only dealt one HP of damage (I reloaded because if this, then lost that army a few turns later it what I deemed a 'fair' battle'). By the way, neither enemy city was on hills, and I never attacked across a river.

I did get tanks in time to send two of then against the 2nd city I took, but by then the war was winding down... One might say that Infantry are appropriately more powerful than obsolete Cavalry, but (A) I had no other choice and (B) I really think that for about 12-15 turns of intense warfare, my Cav vs Inf battles were statistically improbable in favor of the Inf.

About the only part of this that sounds truly bad is the idea that the bombardment didn't do much to the units in the cities. Of course, this may be entirely realistic. In WWI, the Cavalry got _slautered_ by the infantry. When one side has machine guns and trenches, and the other side has horses, well... the parents of a lot of dashing young cavelrymen are going to be reciving "... regret to inform you..." telegrams. In fact, the idea that only the tank was able to break the deadlock was right on. This is a case of historical realism winning out...

It gets worse as time goes on- in WWII the most modern "unit" that the polish army had was cavalry. I think it took less than a week for the Germans to run over them completly...

[Tarquelne]

OT:

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
In fact, the idea that only the tank was able to break the deadlock was right on. This is a case of historical realism winning out...

The new "light machinegun" was a big help too.

in WWII the most modern "unit" that the polish army had was cavalry.

True.... except for some airplanes, and some rather nice tanks. IIRC, they also had some state-of-the-art anti-tank guns.... not that the state-of-the-art ant-tank gun was very good at the time.

I think it took less than a week for the Germans to run over them completly...

The Germans had more tanks, and used them more effectively.

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
It gets worse as time goes on- in WWII the most modern "unit" that the polish army had was cavalry. I think it took less than a week for the Germans to run over them completly...

Aahh, the Polish cavalry myth. It´s interesting to see how some urban legends never die.

In fact, the Polish army was pretty well equipped, and they out up a much better resistance than for example the Balkan countries or France, considering the proportionally much smaller army.

From http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/WW2.html

There are many "myths" that surround the September Campaign; the fictional Polish cavalry charges against German tanks (actually reported by the Italian press and used as propaganda by the Germans), the alleged destruction of the Polish Air Force on the ground, or claims that Polish armour failed to achieve any success against the invaders. In reality, and despite the fact that Poland was only just beginning to modernise her armed forces and had been forced (by Britain and France) to delay mobilisation (which they claimed might be interpreted as aggressive behaviour) so that, at the time of invasion, only about one-third of her total potential manpower was mobilised, Polish forces ensured that the September campaign was no "walk-over". The Wehrmacht had so under-rated Polish anti-tank capabilities (the Polish-designed anti-tank gun was one of the best in the world at that time) that they had gone into action with white "balkankreuz", or crosses, prominently displayed in eight locations; these crosses made excellent aiming points for Polish gun-sights and forced the Germans to radically rethink their national insignia, initially overpainting them in yellow and then, for their later campaigns, adopting the modified "balkankreuz" similar to that used by the Luftwaffe. The recently-designed 7TP "czolg lekki", or light tank, the first in the world to be designed with a diesel engine, proved to be superior to German tanks of the same class (the PzKpfw I and II) inflicting serious damage to the German forces, limited only by the fact that they were not used in concentrated groups. They were absorbed by the Germans into their own Panzer divisions at the end of the campaign.

Q: How long did it take the Nazis to overrun Poland?

A: About as long as it took them to overrun France and drive the first invading British army to the brink of disaster (before Hitler unwisely halted his attack, giving the Brits time to escape certain annihilation.)

Of course, the French and British had a hell of a lot more time than the Poles to prepare; were not taken by surprise; and their nations had not been recently restored to the map after a 125 year partitioning by three mighty empires, with little or no help from their allies to rebuild their economies.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Hurricane
Aahh, the Polish cavalry myth. It´s interesting to see how some urban legends never die.

Quick! Contact Britannica so they can update their encyclopedia:

When war broke out the Polish Army was able to mobilize about 1,000,000 men, a fairly large number. The Polish Army was woefully outmoded, however, and was almost completely lacking in tanks, armoured personnel carriers, and antitank and antiaircraft guns. Yet many of the Polish military leaders clung to the double belief that their preponderance of horsed cavalry was an important asset and that they could take the offensive against the German mechanized forces. They also tended to discount the effect of Germany's vastly superior air force, which was nearly 10 times as powerful as their own.