The facts on Spear/Tank Phenomonon, please

[Cyclotron]

I only installed Civ3 a few weeks ago, and have played at least 6 games (most of them up to the modern age). It seems that every now and then, a post pops up here about how the combat system is flawed. Most notably, there seems to be a recurring reference to a spearman winning against a tank... but I have not seen anyone actually refer to this as a disticnt instance )rather than just as abstraction).

In my experience to date, I have never seen this phenomonon. The most grevious "anachronism" I've seen yet was an elite pikeman winning against a veteran cavalry... and even that isn't too far-fetched.

I'm not trying to start an argument about whether the combat system is flawed or not, that's been done and re-done. I just want people to post specific instances, with all relevant details, to observe how widespread this "problem" really is.

[Munroe]

I really agree here. In all my games I have never encounted something like this. I have had a few battles were I lost a unit that I thought was a sure win but when you do the math the odds weren't so great and does it even matter ?? One battle shouldn't change the outcome of a war. IMO there is no problem. A few people come here and rant non stop because they lost an advanced tank to a spear holding guy and go on how we need firepower + hitpoints etc etc. I for one like how every unit still has a chance... It gives people behind a bit of a chance.


Btw go check this out if you wanna see the numbers behind the battles:
http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

I've personally lost a couple of tanks to fortified/forest/elite spearmen. Sure it pisses me off, but so does losing tanks to cavalry which happens far more often than statistically probable. But I hate losing any of my brave soldiers

[Coracle]

I had a situation where two units, both full strength veterans, fought: a longbowman attacked cavalry. The rifle-armed cavalry was destroyed by guys whose arrows had about a third the range of rifles, who had a limited suplly of arrows, and cavalry being mounted could better get into supoerior tactical position by being mounted.

I've also had far too many ironclads defeated by frigates.

There are other examples I consider sufficiently idiotic to require me to Edit all unit values; those post-gunpowder have gone way up. Knights are now 5.2.2.

Firaxis admitted their stupid unit values were the result of their brainless resource allocation in which they made resources far too rare - requiring them to keep advanced units weaker than they should be to give players without those resources "a chance". And that is a CROCK.

EDIT, EDIT.

Longbowmen, BTW, should be English-specific; everyone else should get crossbowmen.

[Zachriel]

It's very rare. Mostly because tanks rarely encounter spearmen. I finally encountered a spearman in the modern age in a recent game. I had to kill several riflemen and a couple of mustetmen in the city first.

The spearman was probably the palace guard, but I had heard about the "killer spearman" and the soldiers were getting a little nervous, with talk about spirits of the past and what not. And how this particular spearman was a top elite unit, with an ancient reputation, and funny ancient clothes to match. Once they fought to the last hitpoint, but had saved the city from a barbarian horde. That was about 1500 years ago.

I wasn't taking any chances, so I rolled up some artillery and bombarded them for about a dozen volleys. After that I started hitting the spearman with tanks. Well, only one tank, because that's all it took.

But I wasn't taking any chances!

[MOHonor]

Originally posted by Zachriel
It's very rare. Mostly because tanks rarely encounter spearmen. I finally encountered a spearman in the modern age in a recent game. I had to kill several riflemen and a couple of mustetmen in the city first.

The spearman was probably the palace guard, but I had heard about the "killer spearman" and the soldiers were getting a little nervous, with talk about spirits of the past and what not. And how this particular spearman was a top elite unit, with an ancient reputation, and funny ancient clothes to match. Once they fought to the last hitpoint, but had saved the city from a barbarian horde. That was about 1500 years ago.

I wasn't taking any chances, so I rolled up some artillery and bombarded them for about a dozen volleys. After that I started hitting the spearman with tanks. Well, only one tank, because that's all it took.

But I wasn't taking any chances!

You should turn that into a short story and send it to Sid!

[Journier]

heh

ive had the spearman bring a full health veteran tank to red before dying... which was... crazy...

Anything above a spearmen i just imagine they are like some villagers with pitch forks and !!!Grenades!!!

its imaginable that a pike could hold off a tank with a few grenades and good defensive lines of houses ))

heh...

spearman i think not...

[TitanTim]

I think the key fact being missed here isn't that the unit ADM values are incorrect but rather the randomization of this game is so bad it competes with Heroes3.

My example is simple. A veteran Legionary (3-3-1) attacking a normal Archer (2-1-1). I can't remember if plains give defense bonus but I don't think so. My legionary lost all hit points and didn't even take out one HP of the Archer. For his Archer to do damage to my Legionary it is a 25% possibility. It's been a while since I've done finite mathematics and propability but I believe that for his Archer to obliterate my Legionary as he did it works out to a 0.4% possibility. Remotely possible but possible right? Maybe but when I attack again and the battle wavers back and forth with my veteran Legionary (another one) barely making it out alive makes you wonder how that Archer could be defending himself so well.

It's this stupidity that has me ranting and raving about how the game sucks every time I try to play. Add corruption into the mix and I never make it past the second age before I practically kick my computer out of frustration.

Thankfully, though fully worn out, I can return to my old faithful copy of Civ2. Heck, maybe I'll even try a little round of Civ or CivNet. Anything but Civ3.

[theEntity]

Originally posted by TitanTim

(Snipped story of a Bowman that massacred a Legionary)

It's this stupidity that has me ranting and raving about how the game sucks every time I try to play. Add corruption into the mix and I never make it past the second age before I practically kick my computer out of frustration.

I can understand that corruption adds to the frustration, but I do not understand how such combat results makes you think the game sucks.

The history is full of stories about (seemingly) inferiour troops beating a better equipped army, due to luck, better tactics or whatever. CIV3 is such a large scale game that it cannot simulate tactical battles - but I think the randomization of the battle results is a good way of representing the uncertainty of a war.

Persia did loose at Thermopylae, and I think it makes CIV3 more fun when I sometimes get the same type of suprise.

And finally - is it any fun to have a war where you know the outcome and you never need much backup - knowing that the opponent can never make a stand as the Greek did at Thermopylae?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by TitanTim

My example is simple. A veteran Legionary (3-3-1) attacking a normal Archer (2-1-1). I can't remember if plains give defense bonus but I don't think so. My legionary lost all hit points and didn't even take out one HP of the Archer. For his Archer to do damage to my Legionary it is a 25% possibility.

In the early first century AD, three entire legions (probably 5-10 units in Civ3) were wiped out by barbarian warriors in the Teutoburg Forest. It was a trap, but in any case, there is ample historical precedence.

In Civ3, there is a 5% chance of your legion being destroyed, or a good chance in every war for it to happen at least once. Meanwhile you have probably destroyed their entire civilization. I just don't get it.

Anyway, for your reference, here is the Civulator:
http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

[Zachriel]

In war, Son, soldiers die. You must steel yourself and your fighters for losses.

[David Murray]

I've had many infantrymen killed when attacking spearmen, even on grass plains. In my most recent game, I've even lost infantrymen to attacking legionaries. But it doesn't bother me because...well, it's just a game! I treat it like a board game--just follow the rules and use your imagination!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by David Murray
I've had many infantrymen killed when attacking spearmen, even on grass plains. In my most recent game, I've even lost infantrymen to attacking legionaries. But it doesn't bother me because...well, it's just a game! I treat it like a board game--just follow the rules and use your imagination!

Not as "unlucky" as Isandlwana, where British riflemen lost to impis. Of course, what is reflected in the randomizer are tactical decisions which can, indeed, lead to disaster.

The proper use of bombard will negate most ill effects of the randomizer.

[The Rook]

Originally posted by Coracle
I had a situation where two units, both full strength veterans, fought: a longbowman attacked cavalry. The rifle-armed cavalry was destroyed by guys whose arrows had about a third the range of rifles, who had a limited suplly of arrows, and cavalry being mounted could better get into supoerior tactical position by being mounted.

Custer (Cavalry) was defeated by a bunch of indians (Bowmen)

OK, it isn't the exact same thing. The idians did have some rifles and they were mounted too. They also outnumbered Custer. My point is this though; there is more to warfare than just technological advantage. Your cavlary could have been ambushed, trapped, cornered. The longbowmen could have had some rifles to suppliment their arrows. Perhaps they attacked at night while the cavalry was encamped?

Let me ask those of you who are so against a spearmen killing a tank. What if I put YOU as the leader of my elite spearmen brigade and I informed you that a tank unit was heading towards our city. Surrender is not an option, the enemy would kill us all, rape our wives, and force our children into slavery. What would you do? Give it up as hopeless? I know what I would do. I would set to work devising some plan to entrap the enemy tanks. It may not work. We may fail, but it's better than the alternative.

[The Rook]

Originally posted by Zachriel

The proper use of bombard will negate most ill effects of the randomizer.

A more true statement can not be made. I think that is the crux of the problem. People lose their higher tech units due to over confidence and brash moves.

You: "Hah! that city is only defended by a unit of pikemen! Colonel Smith, send in the 356th armored division. I want that city by nightfall.

COL Smith: "But sir, they have had time to prepare for our attack. The 57th Artillery Division is only a day away. Shouldn't we hold our attack until we can soften them up with a bombarment?"

You: "Didn't you hear me Colonel? Those are PIKEMEN down there! They are palace guards, not real soldiers. Send in those tanks now! We will make quick work of them and be ready to move in the morning."

[PatLasch]

I don't know what the big deal is. If my last surviving defense unit in a city was a spearman for whatever reason, I would be ecstatic if it defeated a tank. Besides what are great war movies about? Overcoming huge odds. Anyone seen Braveheart? sure that wasn't as technologically lopsided but it was by numbers. Anyone remember anything about Israel's wars of the past? How about Al-Qaeda's being able to damage any of our units? Upsets happen, through luck, through tactics, or through just plain randomness. It doesn't happen all the time in the game, but it does happen. Just like it does in real life.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by The Rook

COL Smith: "But sir, they have had time to prepare for our attack. The 57th Artillery Division is only a day away. Shouldn't we hold our attack until we can soften them up with a bombarment?"

It is a very common reason in history (and Civ3) for "odd" results. Custer lost simply because he didn't think he could. He split his army; and he actually had access to machine guns, but didn't want to bother with them. Hubris.

[Spiffor]

In my last game, as the French, I lost one of my first knights attacking a British longbowman. This was frustrating. Then I thought about Azincourt, during the 100 years war, when most French knights died miserably attacking English longbowmen. This should have been frustrating for the French king of the time

[ACooper]

Originally posted by Spiffor
In my last game, as the French, I lost one of my first knights attacking a British longbowman. This was frustrating. Then I thought about Azincourt, during the 100 years war, when most French knights died miserably attacking English longbowmen. This should have been frustrating for the French king of the time

The French king was quote as saying, "Damn vous Firaxis!"

[LarryLard]

And let us not forget how bad intuition is at dealing with improbable events. If you experience an event 10000 times, and one of those times something extremely unlikely happens, you will say "That could NEVER happen!". You will forget that the other 9999 times, it did indeed not happen There are books about such things, search amazon for coincidence.

I think some people want a game where a unit with an attack A always beats a unit with defence D, whenever A > D. But I also think that such a game would not be as much fun.

[Cyclotron]

Alright, so as of now only Alpha Wolf has posted that he has actually experienced a tank being defeated by a spearman. As for our other examples, with % chances (note: All percentages are calculated with no terrain or fortification bonus beyond the normal 10%. If experience levels were not referred to, regular is assumed.):

Cav(V) vs. Pike(E): Winner pike---------------- 30%
Longbow vs. Cav(V): Winner Longbow------- 44%
Legion(V) vs. Archer(R): Winner Archer------- 5%
Infantry vs. Spearmen: Winner Spearmen--- 12%
Knight vs. Longbow: Winner Longbow-------- 7%

Tank vs. Spearmen: Winner Spearmen-------- 1%

So, in other words, none of the examples here are as abysmally improbable as tank vs. spear (although some come a bit closer than others). From what I read, the problem of "tank vs. spear" game mechanics seems much less widespread than I originally thought. Is the problem of unfair combat results even a problem?

What people seem to be saying here is that although the combat system technically works, they don't beleive the results because they are wildly different from those that they know of from history. Of you who no longer play Civ3, I must ask: Was the difference between in-game results and real historical results the reason (or main reason) that you no longer play?

I'm getting the feeling that the idea of a "flawed combat system" may be a side argument, used by people who may have more significant argumants than just the combat system. How flawed do you think the combat system is, and does it matter?

[PatLasch]

Of course it's a side argument. It's something that a person will pull out in order to make their point about the game. A sperman defeating a tank just sounds ridiculous, which it is. But it happens.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Originally posted by Zachriel
It's very rare. Mostly because tanks rarely encounter spearmen. I finally encountered a spearman in the modern age in a recent game. I had to kill several riflemen and a couple of mustetmen in the city first.

The spearman was probably the palace guard, but I had heard about the "killer spearman" and the soldiers were getting a little nervous, with talk about spirits of the past and what not. And how this particular spearman was a top elite unit, with an ancient reputation, and funny ancient clothes to match. Once they fought to the last hitpoint, but had saved the city from a barbarian horde. That was about 1500 years ago.

I wasn't taking any chances, so I rolled up some artillery and bombarded them for about a dozen volleys. After that I started hitting the spearman with tanks. Well, only one tank, because that's all it took.

But I wasn't taking any chances!

Better safe than sorry

[Ninot]

i played one game recently where i beat down Babylon SO badly, that even tho they could build infantry and such... they didnt have the resources or the time too, so they builts lots and lots of spear-pikemen...

so, i had plenty of Tank vs. Spearman fights... the only thing that was keeping Babylon in the game was the fact that it took no time at all for them to build these units. The spearman did damage so infrequently... that i could have easily have reasoned "the tanks got damaged cuz the blood was causing rust"...

[Munroe]

I've also had far too many ironclads defeated by frigates.

What really is the big deal with this ? Ya so ironclads would beat frigates in real life but lets think of a bit of game balance. Player A and B both have frigates ruling the seas but wait player B gets ironclads. Guess who all of a sudden can rule the seas because you cant kill ironclads with frigates... Civ 3 isn't real life. It has to play the role of a game too. Games need balance.

[GeneralTacticus]

Persia did loose at Thermopylae, and I think it makes CIV3 more fun when I sometimes get the same type of suprise

The Persians lost a lot of troops, time, and reputation (they were shown to be not quite so invincible as people thought), but they still won. The Greeks that fought at Thermopylae knew it was a suicide mission. They weren't there to drive the Persians out, merely to slow them down.
The equivalent in the game would: Player A shows up with huge 'uber stack', bent on invading Greece. The quickest way in is across a mountain defended by hoplites. Player A starts attacking with his stacked troops and loses and enormous number of units before wiping them out. They are also delayed for some tiome while repairing their units.

[TitanTim]

Wow. I finally get online and I'm bombarded with about 300 posts I've since missed.

Well, for one thing you've converted me. I realize that sometimes the impossible happens as you've indicated with your historical references but my point was more about the following legionary that got almost as badly rocked as the first one.

I guess what frustrates me is the rather poor defense or attack bonuses units get and the number of hit points a unit has. I think the game would be more fair if units had 10 hit points and bonus attack ratings for experience of the unit as SMAC had (green @ -25% to elite @ +50%).

Also, leaders are another sore point for me. I hardly ever get them and I think they should also appear based on a lopsided battle turning out in your favour (meaning you should have lost big time but you won therefore a leader has emerged who brought about the victory).

This new leader unit should become a new unit in addition to whatever military unit he just originally came from and he can be added to any army (which can be created by combining any number of units). The units in an army move together and would get a very minor bonus for being in an army but a leader who is a part of an army brings his expertise (a bonus like +25% attack of defend or maybe an additional point of movement) to the group too.

Bombardments that happen against an army, happen against all troops in the army and they should have the ability to kill a unit.

Anyway, my post here is bordering on irrelevance to the topic of this thread so I apologize and stop here.

[Spock]

OK....I can see a spearman beating a tank, I've had it happen both ways....my spearman winning(holycrow...did...YES!!) and my tank losing(WHA... edit...edit...) so I can understand that...it could and does happen. BUT.....when my 24/20/4 battleship attacks a
1/1/3(2) galley and loses, then I say something needs a bit of adjustment. No way does a little wooden skiff that couldn't leave the sight of a the coast a few turns ago, beat a battleship.

[theEntity]

Originally posted by Spock
OK....I can see a spearman beating a tank, I've had it happen both ways....my spearman winning(holycrow...did...YES!!) and my tank losing(WHA... edit...edit...) so I can understand that...it could and does happen. BUT.....when my 24/20/4 battleship attacks a
1/1/3(2) galley and loses, then I say something needs a bit of adjustment. No way does a little wooden skiff that couldn't leave the sight of a the coast a few turns ago, beat a battleship.

The battleship crew could be overconfident and go too close and end up on a underwater reef because it goes deeper than the galley, or the galley could have a Swarzenegger style of man that swims over to the battleship and takes it out. I'm sure things like this has happened a lot more time in the movies than in CIV3

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Spock
OK....I can see a spearman beating a tank, I've had it happen both ways....my spearman winning(holycrow...did...YES!!) and my tank losing(WHA... edit...edit...) so I can understand that...it could and does happen. BUT.....when my 24/20/4 battleship attacks a
1/1/3(2) galley and loses, then I say something needs a bit of adjustment. No way does a little wooden skiff that couldn't leave the sight of a the coast a few turns ago, beat a battleship.

U.S.S. Maine sunk during peacetime, led to war with Spain. The U.S. press blamed the Spanish, but actually a fire in the coal furnace room led to the explosion of on board ammunition.

The chance of losing that attack (assuming proper training, i.e. Veterans), is 0.002% or 1/50,000. If you are accurate in your story, then you are just unlucky. Remember that the randomizer accounts for "random" events like fires, as well as decisions by the navy commander.

0.002%! That's the same as a modern armor losing to a warrior. You must be very unlucky. To avoid bad breaks of the randomizer, try using bombard. Get the galley down to one hp, then attack.