Firaxis: Metropolis ruins affect combat!

Jaybe · May 29, 2002, 22:20

Inspired by the vision of ruins in PTW, I'm finally letting this out:

Especially in modern combat, it is well known that the ruins of a large city (metropolis) generally only increases the defense benefits. All the brick, twisted steel, snipers hiding in the rubble, and blocked streets.

It is contrary to RL to want to reduce a metropolis to a town so it would be easier to defeat the defenders. (Out of hate for the residents is totally OFF TOPIC).

Therefore, I suggest that when bombardment kills off population and a metropolis becomes a city, or a city becomes a town, that it's defense bonus NOT be reduced.

Use of a metropolis size graphic (w/ruins) could be used as a convenient indicator, etc.

Capt Dizle · May 29, 2002, 22:35

I see your point but here is mine. Did you ever think why they set up the defense bonuses like they did? Think about it a second and scroll down..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To aid the AI. Logically you would expect a series of defensive improvements that would step up urban defense. But its hard to program the AI to know when it needs to build defense and what priority to put on it. So, dumb the game mechanics down, institute a built in defense step up implemented by something that occurs naturally, growth. (which we all know the AI can do).

Design decisions like this is why I hate the game and why I continue to post about it. I hope someone hears me and these guys are not allowed to do anymore games I might want to play.

jt

notyoueither · May 29, 2002, 22:47

Great idea Jaybe.

We bombard cities to weaken defenders and reduce the city size. The AI doesn't usually, and never in concentration (that I've seen).

This idea would help the AI in SP and the surprised defender in MP.

Capt Dizle · May 29, 2002, 23:16

It would help the AI in SP to give all their units triple hit points. It would help the A in SP if they got double movement, double production, and double research! Lets do it!

Tuberski · May 29, 2002, 23:21

The whole point is that, while the AI can Bombard- it doesn't. So changing the way metroplois bonuses work wouldn't really affect them when they are doing it. But, it will make the AI a little tougher because it will affect a PLAYERS bombard ability. When you get to MP both sides would have the same advantage.

Even if the AI did bombard it would still benefit. Because it would keep the metro bonus.

Adm.Naismith · May 30, 2002, 03:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
The whole point is that, while the AI can Bombard- it doesn't. So changing the way metroplois bonuses work wouldn't really affect them when they are doing it. But, it will make the AI a little tougher because it will affect a PLAYERS bombard ability.

Oh, c'mon! Probably it will simply change the usefulness of bombard: if bombarding I'm risking to help the defender, I'll simply avoid it (if not when I have a hundred of artillery and can probably destroy every citizen 'till the last one is fresh meat ready for my infantry.

I like the idea of a graphic change

(reduced city=town surrounded by ruins), but I don't think we shoul add a defensive bonus.

Look, we know in real life urban combats have special rules, but ruins aren't necessary good for enhance defense of/from armies.

They are goods to add some cover to snipers, but you can't win a battle by snipers, while the most cover effect for common troops is not more (sometimes really less) of a good entrenched line with some fort/bunkers.

We have some example in history of good defense in city, but usually the most quoted is WWII Stalingrad defense, a very special situation (and a defensive blood bath, until the Russian were able to counterattack).

In fact a city defense suffer from a logistic point of view: in country terrain you can have good cover from forests, hills, mountains and still be able to receive more food than in a city under siege. We should also add the mess of civilian management in a sieged town, a fact that can't be managed at a strategic level as in Civ III.
More often than not, cities were left behind from defenders in WWII (while town and villages are sometime well defended because they are relevant point for communication, as main route crosses or relevant train tracks junctions.

Forts were the real backbone of a defense, in medieval age, and Firaxis should tune up a bit more their ZOC effect, IMO.

Regarding to ruined town defense, better left this part of the game as is, IMHO.

notyoueither · May 30, 2002, 03:29

As it is now, bombard is a one way ticket to defeating the AI. Even if the city never lost the defence bonus, you could still bombard all the defenders to 1 or 2 HP and then take it.

I normally focus 16 to 20 Artillery and 8 Bombers on a large AI city. Rarely, if ever does it take more than 1 or 2 turns to turn the city and it's defenders into goo that can easily be mopped up. If the large city did not lose its bonus, it would cost more to mop up the remnants, that's all.

zulu9812 · May 30, 2002, 03:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
Oh, c'mon! Probably it will simply change the usefulness of bombard: if bombarding I'm risking to help the defender, I'll simply avoid it

Absolutey: I would expect mass bombardment to reduce a city's defenses.

notyoueither · May 30, 2002, 03:43

It does. It weakens the defenders. It does not reduce the defensive value of the terrain. In fact, it enhances it IRL.

Jaybe · May 30, 2002, 10:43

I was only suggesting that the defense bonus not be lowered as its population flees or is mutilated.

Another thing we could discover is a rationale and mechanic for having battles for major cities OUTSIDE them as often (but by no means always) occurs.

Myrddin · May 30, 2002, 15:45

Quote:

. I hope someone hears me and these guys are not allowed to do anymore games I might want to play

Coracle · May 30, 2002, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
Inspired by the vision of ruins in PTW, I'm finally letting this out:

Especially in modern combat, it is well known that the ruins of a large city (metropolis) generally only increases the defense benefits. All the brick, twisted steel, snipers hiding in the rubble, and blocked streets.

It is contrary to RL to want to reduce a metropolis to a town so it would be easier to defeat the defenders. (Out of hate for the residents is totally OFF TOPIC).

Therefore, I suggest that when bombardment kills off population and a metropolis becomes a city, or a city becomes a town, that it's defense bonus NOT be reduced.

Use of a metropolis size graphic (w/ruins) could be used as a convenient indicator, etc.

All of which is totally TRUE.

But I hope you appreciate the adsurd irony of how a single unit with just one hit point left can "raze" a metropolis instantly turning it into a grassland and processing all those corpses (into cat food, perhaps??). Not even a pollution tile is left!

THAT nonsense, dumber even than Culture Flipping, has to be ended before even your suggestions.

MarkG · May 30, 2002, 20:11

yeah, and when you win a battle you dont leave any corpses behind you. civ is so unrealistic....

Cyclotron · May 30, 2002, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
All of which is totally TRUE.

But I hope you appreciate the adsurd irony of how a single unit with just one hit point left can "raze" a metropolis instantly turning it into a grassland and processing all those corpses (into cat food, perhaps??). Not even a pollution tile is left!

THAT nonsense, dumber even than Culture Flipping, has to be ended before even your suggestions.

Ah, the joy of irrelevant, off topic, meaningless posts repeated endlessly...

Jaybe · May 31, 2002, 11:21

SNARG!!

I wish people would stop quoting that Coracle drek! Because of the "great" value of his posts he's on my ignore list, and then people not only reference them, but quote them.

JB

Cyclotron · May 31, 2002, 18:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
SNARG!!

I wish people would stop quoting that Coracle drek! Because of the "great" value of his posts he's on my ignore list, and then people not only reference them, but quote them.

JB

Point taken.

::Adds Coracle to Ignore list::

::Stops spamming him::

dexters · May 31, 2002, 18:20

If you want to be realistic, get your fat asses off the computer and enlist in the Army. Work your way up and be a General and deal with REAL WORLD logistics.

Trying to impose real world values to a game, even a game like Civ 3 is absurd.

You know what, it would be realistic if you died in 80 years. How absurd is it to have a ruler for 4000 years. No civilization has ever managed that. But nevermind that. The pimply faced, dorks who have no life don't mind having power forever, regardless of how unrealistic it is. But they sure like to knit pick on things like defensive bonsuses, culture flipping and call argue their case entirely on realism.

No offense to the thread starter, I am not against the idea of having ruins become a defensive bonus. I personally think it would make the game interesting. But the reasoning that went behind it isn't a gameplay issue. It's a realism issue. And I have a problem with that. Because people who only think in those terms are either blind to the fact that Civ 3 and all Civ games have always had unrealistic rules. The rules in strategy/simulation games are made to simulate the experience of running a civilization given the constraints of gameplay.

Is Culture flipping supported by emperical evidence? It's arguable. But the idea that conquered cities may revert to its original owners or that a stronger culture may absorb neighboring cities has some basis on world history, and makes the game fun.
Those who can't see past that should spend less time on their computers.

Jaybe · May 31, 2002, 18:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
... Firaxis should tune up a bit more their ZOC effect, IMO.
...

Absolutely. Just calculate the odds normally, without any ZOC/movement bonus to the defender.

--
Just as a reminder regarding this thread, I was just saying that an attacker should not be motivated to kill most everyone in a metropolis in order to get better odds when the ground units attack. A metro would STAY a metro for combat purposes, even if it has been reduced to size 1.

Clearing an entrenched enemy in a large city is bloody work according to current military doctrine. For that reason, they train for it a lot.

Reducing a metro is currently a standard procedure for me when at war. Bring in the bombers, deploy the artillery, ....

Tuberski · May 31, 2002, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
SNARG!!

I wish people would stop quoting that Coracle drek! Because of the "great" value of his posts he's on my ignore list, and then people not only reference them, but quote them.

JB

I won't quote him anymore, it's not like he defends himself.

But I may put in a

or too and his name, now and again.

Jaybe · May 31, 2002, 19:20

Tuberski,
'S cool. I just pulled the switch on him a couple days ago, 'cause I had had more than enough. But I'll be reminded of him every time you post -- he's in your sig!

Tuberski · May 31, 2002, 20:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe
Tuberski,
'S cool. I just pulled the switch on him a couple days ago, 'cause I had had more than enough. But I'll be reminded of him every time you post -- he's in your sig!

He's pretty much my favorite person.

You know since I put that up, he hasn't mentioned the cheat mode at all!

Maybe I should keep adding the things he says over and over, and then he will stop...........

Nahhhh

GePap · June 2, 2002, 00:43

While riuns do make for a better defense, to allow metropilises to keep their defence bonus after bombardment, as long as bombardment so rarely hits the defending units, would lower its value, which would be a negative thing in terms of game value. A much better change to keep things more realistic would be to do as in SMAC and give Infantry a bonus attacking cities, or better yet, give fast mobile units, specially tanks and up, significant penalties for attacking into cities. This is just as realistic and makes combined arms more inportant. Also, I have heard that with 1.21 the A.I. does bring infantry along for attacks, which means that it can be taught to use such tactics.

AIL · June 2, 2002, 04:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
But I hope you appreciate the adsurd irony of how a single unit with just one hit point left can "raze" a metropolis instantly turning it into a grassland and processing all those corpses (into cat food, perhaps??).

They are turned into workers... But it's still redicolous! I think Cities from a certain size on (maybe 7) shall not be razebale for realism purposes. Anyways with the 1.21 patch you have the ability to abandon a city at any time and here it's the same: It shall not be possible for cities bigger than 6, not in one turn!

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Also, I have heard that with 1.21 the A.I. does bring infantry along for attacks, which means that it can be taught to use such tactics.

You have heared? I've seen the Japanese going for my cities with 100+ Infantry and only few Cavalrys... I find it much harder to defend against em because their high defesive value while attack is just the same that Cavalry has.