Ancient Age Attack/Defence ratios totaly unfair

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
This is why I stay away from anchient warfare and even middle age war as well at times. I guess I just don't have that warmonger blood in me. I usualy lose due to a lack of units.

Ditto. But I am trying to get an earlier start at the warfare. Wasn't too hard when my Zulus found Xerxes next door. Had to put him on a reducing plan FAST before he found some iron, using archers & impis!

Now that I am on his 'bad' side, he is out for revenge.

[YC4B4U]

I think the moral of the story is - what you originally thought was alot of units, really isn't.

The 3 to 1 rule of thumb as stated before is exactly correct.

And just when you think you have so many forces that you fall asleep moving them and you think that you have no chance of losing -> that is when you don't lose a single unit and you wonder why the hell you brought so many units...

[Foolishman]

Originally posted by YC4B4U
The 3 to 1 rule of thumb as stated before is exactly correct.

And just when you think you have so many forces that you fall asleep moving them and you think that you have no chance of losing -> that is when you don't lose a single unit and you wonder why the hell you brought so many units...

Yes but, many times when I have gone to war, the odds have been completly in my favor, but, it still lets the spearman prevail, even against me when I was chinese and used Riders, I still lost 2 to just one Spearman, bad luck? Yes. (The spearman was on grassland, no river, not veteran, and my riders were veteran.)

[Foolishman]

The Speraman was also in a TOWN and fortified

[Deathwalker]

I once had it worse, I lost four warriors to one yes one Barbarian Warrior. Sometime the games acts a little wierd. I mist the old firepower option

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ksim3000
I thought Archers were mainly for Defence not Offence?

Their flag is set for Offence. However, if you give them a bombard strength, range 0, then they come in fairly handy at defence.

[narmox]

Catapults useless?

I had a war once.. Me (egypt) vs the Greeks. Ancient ages. I didn't have Iron Working yet. 14 Catapults + a bunch of war chariots, then later on swordsmen, reduced the greek empire to rubbles. Yes, even with their mighty Hoplites.

[Lord Merciless]

The random number generator in Civ 3 is kind wacky. I have lost Tanks to Spearmen, Cavalry to Longbowmen, and MAs to Pikemen. I think there are certain "killer" units on a given turn. Regardless how many times you reload and with which of your unit to attack, the outcome remains the same. However, if you bring bombard into the equation, then these "killer" units are no more.

Should you really get pissed, you can always resort to reload and wait another turn. Every new turn seems to generate a different random seed.

Also when you play SMAC in Ironman mode, the combat random number generator works in a similar fashion. An unit may be "DESTINED" to win in the current turn.

[Foolishman]

Hm, I see Lord, but, that defeats the point of mathematical wins which should be coherient in this game, it was certanly a mathematical way of winning in CTP2.

[Foolishman]

For instance, in CTP2, muksteers and cannon would certainly always win agains legions and archers, and would certainly lose against marines and tanks, (granted that certain defense bonuses were added) but it seems that a random chance of victory drives this game. I don't like that kind of uncertainy of what should win not being able to win against things that should always lsoe against it.

[Foolishman]

Because in reality, a Rider should always win against a spearman, and a tank should ALWAYS win against a spearman even if he is in a metrpolis.

[Foolishman]

Also, the inabillity to stack units is quite annoying, a winning combo in CTP2 was always the mukseteer/cannon that could conquer almost anything, but now it seems that more advance units do not have as much assurence of victory against even primitive units, that is really something Firaxis should change, because it irritates me beyond belief when I lose more highly advance units to fortified spearman and the civulator tells me I have a 70+ chance of winning. very unrealistic.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Foolishman
Because in reality, a Rider should always win against a spearman, and a tank should ALWAYS win against a spearman even if he is in a metrpolis.

So, if you were behind in tech, you would want to lose against someone who has more advanced units than you ALL THE TIME. Not only does that make for a poor game, but it is historically inaccurate.

History is full of (well, almost full ) examples where a less advanced army wins against better armed foes.

Can we say "USSR in Afganistan?" Tanks, artillery, bombers, & jet fighters against infantry (or "riflemen"). Vietnam. When Shaka beat that British unit in South Africa (my history is 'vague' there).

[Foolishman]

Yea well, that is mathematicly wrong almost everytime I lose to an AI with only regular spearman And I attack with a LARGE amount of veteran riders, it ussualy makes me so angry, I just quite because I wasted all that time.

[Foolishman]

And that is funny, because, I am playing with Aztecs, and they own early age combate, with, only warriors, I am not sure why but, a warrior that has a 2 defense when fortified and all the terrain balh, blah, is defeated by the Aztec Jaguar Infantry, that is totaly mathematicly wrong also, my only explanation for that is the speed of two, and that my jaguars are veterans, I guess that is the only factor.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Foolishman
And that is funny, because, I am playing with Aztecs, and they own early age combate, with, only warriors, I am not sure why but, a warrior that has a 2 defense when fortified and all the terrain balh, blah, is defeated by the Aztec Jaguar Infantry, that is totaly mathematicly wrong also, my only explanation for that is the speed of two, and that my jaguars are veterans, I guess that is the only factor.

Foolishman, speaking of "mathematical incorrectness" is itself incorrect. The probability count, upon which the Civ3 combat model is based, applies reliably for large numbers only, not for a single battle or for just a couple of them. A unit with A=2 will defeat a unit with D=2 (for the sake of simplicity, let's assume no additional combat strength modifiers) in 50% of cases. That is, it will win roughly in 50 out of 100 battles.... 1-2 battles that will not conform to the exact probability count mean nothing... it's 1-2 exceptions out of a hundred... but 1-2 exceptions in five or ten battles are likely to make you think there's something wrong. Until you experience 100 similar battles, it is premature to say that the combat model is problematic. Try using the Civulator or a similar combat strength calculator often to determine you odds before attacking - sometimes you will find out that the odds are way from what you would "feel" by just looking at the battlefield. After you play as many games as other people here, you will learn that it is pretty easy to play the game even if there is no certainty about the result of an individual battle...

[Foolishman]

Originally posted by vondrack

Foolishman, speaking of "mathematical incorrectness" is itself incorrect. The probability count, upon which the Civ3 combat model is based, applies reliably for large numbers only, not for a single battle or for just a couple of them. A unit with A=2 will defeat a unit with D=2 (for the sake of simplicity, let's assume no additional combat strength modifiers) in 50% of cases. That is, it will win roughly in 50 out of 100 battles.... 1-2 battles that will not conform to the exact probability count mean nothing... it's 1-2 exceptions out of a hundred... but 1-2 exceptions in five or ten battles are likely to make you think there's something wrong. Until you experience 100 similar battles, it is premature to say that the combat model is problematic. Try using the Civulator or a similar combat strength calculator often to determine you odds before attacking - sometimes you will find out that the odds are way from what you would "feel" by just looking at the battlefield. After you play as many games as other people here, you will learn that it is pretty easy to play the game even if there is no certainty about the result of an individual battle...

Vondrack, in the early game, "individual battles" count a lot. And also, leaving defensive bonuses out is completly wrong, defesne bonuses is what allow spearman to beat tanks, riders, ect... in battles that should ALWAYS be won. Leaving out defense bonus is like saying that a spearman inside a town fortified will not have a greater chance of beating an archer. Also, the battle system is based largly on mathematical chance, it tallies up the "chance" outcome from the attack/defense ratings, this means that even a spearman can beat a tank (givin certain cicumstances) which is totaly wrong and stupid, think about commun sence, who SHOULD win, a more advance rider, or a primitive spearman, you make the decision.

[Foolishman]

I have found that using the Aztecs presents an extreme advantage in warfare between even 3500-2000 Bc. This is because of their Jagaur Infantry, though these units only have 1/1/2, their speed makes up for their sucky attack. Often, before even 1500 BC, the AI will not have built very many spears, maybe even non at all, so, using the speed of these soldiers, I can quickly build a barracks and about three of these people, then rush them to the enemy AI. still using warriors and attack, very often, the warrior defending will have a 1.5 defence advantage, and three jagaurs should be enough to overhwhelm the poor warrior. But, as you all know, the AI will pop-rush a spearman if you have more then one soldier near its city, so, what you do is get on the tile that is two tiles from the actuall city (Not the boarder, but the smallest part fo the boarder) so that you can rush in in oen turn and take them down.

This is what often makes your archer attacks harder then expected because the AI will instantly pop-rush a spearman if it knows it only has a warrior or one spearman there, but, with the jauguars, it does not have the extra turn to do that.

Try this out for yourself! and see the results, remeber, you MUST attack befor 1500 BC befor the AI starts producing spearman to defend it's cities, ounce they do, this stratagy is useless because there is no way the jaguars can counter their three defence!

(Note: I have only tested this on regent and warlord, I am not sure if the AI acts any different in the otehr difficulties, chances are it won't but, it may expand faster and get out of its expansion age faster then 1500BC)

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Foolishman
Vondrack, in the early game, "individual battles" count a lot. And also, leaving defensive bonuses out is completly wrong, defesne bonuses is what allow spearman to beat tanks, riders, ect... in battles that should ALWAYS be won. Leaving out defense bonus is like saying that a spearman inside a town fortified will not have a greater chance of beating an archer. Also, the battle system is based largly on mathematical chance, it tallies up the "chance" outcome from the attack/defense ratings, this means that even a spearman can beat a tank (givin certain cicumstances) which is totaly wrong and stupid, think about commun sence, who SHOULD win, a more advance rider, or a primitive spearman, you make the decision.

1) The fact that individual battles count a lot in the early game means that you should not reckon on their outcome too much. You should carefully wage every single aspect: terrain, unit experience, mobility, whether you can afford losing the unit in question or not... I know Arrian and other early warmongers would not agree, but I often find that attacking early on just hinders my own overall progress. Sure, if I am lacking iron or horses, or my natural living space is too small, I will go to war. But if I have space enough for my empire, I will rather choose peaceful building. I feel I am better at it... Keep in mind that the AIs HAVE to use automated workers...

2) I assumed no bonuses not because they could be neglected in the game! Sure you seriously HAVE to consider them. I left them out just to show a simple example of the probability count. It is more illustratory to state that 2:2 means 50:50, than to say 2:2,35 is the same as 46:54.

3) As far as the combat odds. The dice roll is from exactly the same interval for both units (I have to admit that I do not know what the interval is, but I would assume it is from 0 to 1). After its respective dice roll, each unit multiplies the dice roll result by its modified combat strength. Thus, a Swordsman will have the final result from the <0;3> interval, while a Spearman will have the final result from the <0;2,2> interval. That makes it possible for the spearman to win, if somewhat lucky... Remember that he has to be "more lucky" than the Swordsman... This system does tone down the advantage of stronger units, that's right. But IMHO, it is a good thing. Allows even tech-behind civs to retain some chance to defend against more advanced attackers...

4) Whatever you call individual units, they are actually units defined by their A/D ratings. If you call a 1/1 unit not a Warrior, but a Home Guard, you may accept its victory over a 4/3 Knight more easily... but that's just about all... they will still be only 1/1 and 4/3 units. Try understanding their actual in-game names as mnemotechnic and story-telling only... what matters is the modified combat strength, irrespective of how you call them. Complaining of a Tank losing to a Spearman may seem justified. Spearmen could never defend against a tank in the real world. But what goes on in the game is that an A=16 unit lost to a D=2 unit (actually, maybe even D=4 unit). Unlikely, yes. But by all means, possible. The probability of such a thing is 8:1 (maybe 4:1, taking bonuses into consideration).

There were various suggestions how to improve this cosmetic aspect of Civ3, but none seemed to win a majority support, AFAIK... seems we have to put up with the fact that using the unit names, we sometimes get pretty funny results...

[Galvatron]

Originally posted by zulu9812
dude - don't mess with Spearmen. They can take out anything: even tanks and cruise missiles!

Oh the invincible spearmen yes I've hear of them often here in this forum. Hmm never annoy a Spearman. But regarding the topic it's true the game would be too easy having superunits in the ancient era you would perhaps be able to wipe them out completely in this era already. So they had to be weak to encourage you to research and get better stuff.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Foolishman
Because in reality, a Rider should always win against a spearman, and a tank should ALWAYS win against a spearman even if he is in a metrpolis.

That is certainly incorrect. War is dangerous and chaotic under the best of circumstances. If you win with very few losses, it is often considered a miracle. War is hell. Soldiers die.

A military unit may be killed, scattered, panicked, deserted, encircled, bribed, betrayed, mutiny, earthquakes, weather, local terrain, bad decisions, criminal decisions, poor supply, and thousands of other factors known only to the randomizer. Oh, and plague:

Jerusalem is surrounded by the Assyrians. It is only a matter of time, as the Assyrians have overwhelming military superiority.

2 Kings 19:35
Then it happened that night that the angel of the LORD went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men rose early in the morning, behold, all of them were dead.

[Theseus]

Coracle objects...

[Mannamagnus]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
If you see the Greeks early in the game, attack with an exploring warrior one of their hoplites. You will lose for certain, but you just have fired their GA. As they are still in REX mode, they will use the extra shields on settlers, and since a GA gives no extra food, it will be completely wasted, waiting for the settlers to be completed food-wise. Make peace ASAP and don't touch the Greeks again until you have knights.

Wicked