this combat system has to **GO**

self biased · October 1, 2002, 01:02

this may or may not have been posted before, but i feel the need to gripe.

Knights should be NO match for Riflemen.

i've even had spearmen succesfully defend against tanks...

just wanted to piss and moan about the step backwards in combat systems...

Wormwood · October 1, 2002, 01:15

Yes, it has all been posted to death. The computer does not see a knight or a spearman, it sees a unit with an attack value of 4 facing a unit with a defense of 6. Battles are random affairs, and statistically unlikely events are still statistically possible. Just live with it.

notyoueither · October 1, 2002, 01:33

Step back from what?

Hurricane · October 1, 2002, 01:53

You know, there is something called an editor...

vmxa1 · October 1, 2002, 02:25

Cheer up it was a lot worse before the patches IMO. You just get use to it and only occassionally scream.

Ethelred · October 1, 2002, 03:48

Quote:

Originally posted by self biased
this may or may not have been posted before, but i feel the need to gripe.

Knights should be NO match for Riflemen.

Why not? Those are single shot rifles. Come out of the woods from behind and you have dead rifleman. The odds are a bit unrealistic though.

Quote:

i've even had spearmen succesfully defend against tanks...

Seen it ONCE in a nearly a year of playing. I proceeded to grind it under the treads of the next tank.

Quote:

just wanted to piss and moan about the step backwards in combat systems...

Firaxis decided it was necassary to give backwards civs a chance since they added strategic resources. That way numbers can be used to make up for a lack of iron or saltpeter. Not sure it was such good idea myself but I can live with it.

coryl · October 1, 2002, 05:50

IMHO if you care or it is significant that you lose a tank to a spearman or rifleman to a knight, you have probably made a strategic error. You have to plan for the worst. Most of my losses are simply because I didn't take the time to build a few more military units in key locations.

Demerzel · October 1, 2002, 06:07

I've had three enemy regular spearman in a size 6 city make 3 of my tanks retreat ( i.e. down to 1 hp ) and killed one. None of the spearman went down to 1hp. Luckily through strategic forethought, I'd dispatched 10 tanks or so just to defeat those 3 spearman and the remaining tanks made mincemeat out of them

In that case it was fine but the time when I'm desperate to grab what I can with full rampant WW and 4 vet tanks on full health all retreated or died when attacking a size 4 city with 2 regular spearman. That's when I can sympathise with the topic above. Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh is often what comes to mind.

Tiberius · October 1, 2002, 06:42

I usually don't have problems killing riflemans with cavalry or infantries with tanks. Sometimes odd results happen but in my experience only in rare ocasions.

I see no fundamental flaw in the combat system. It isn't perfect, but who wants exact calculations for battles? That would be boring. Like in real life, strange situations could occur. War is not mathematics.

planetfall · October 1, 2002, 11:13

biased--

It sounds like you are ignoring terrain. I don't see anything wrong in combat, but you have to pay attention to rivers!! It is worth it to take an extra turn to avoid attacking across a river.

--PF

Arrian · October 1, 2002, 11:14

Quote:

this combat system has to **GO**

Keep dreamin, pal. That is how the combat system works in CivIII. Either you learn to live with it, or you go play another game. I'm not trying to be nasty, but that's the truth. The combat system will not change, therefore you must accept it in order to play the game. If it ruins the game for you, you are not alone. Others (many of them, repeatedly) have registered the same complaint as you.

-Arrian

self biased · October 1, 2002, 11:38

easy, guys... i love the game, and yes i know that's-how-it-is-so-i'll-just-have-to-tighten-up-the-old-belt-and-take-it-like-a-man, but you're taking this just a wee bit out of context... i had lost five cities each defended by at least two riflemen apeice, to knights so chill out... i'm going to pawning my copy of the game and go on an anti-civ 3 rap... i just wanted to complain and comizzerate.

Cyclotron · October 1, 2002, 12:38

1) Civ2 option: All units are exponentially better than their less advanced counterparts. While "realistic," Anybody with a tech lead can wipe anybody else off the map with essentially no challenge. Result: Very, very easy game and wimpy AI.

2) Civ3 option: All units are arithmatically better than their less advanced counterparts. While "unrealistic," all players have a chance, strategy must actually be utilized instead of raw tech advantage, and the gameplay is vastly improved.

Firaxis chose option 2. So would I.

Nyl · October 1, 2002, 12:45

I always just figured that as you progress through the ages your older units get some makeshift enhancements that at least give them some small chance against modern units. Like giving swordsmen molotov cocktails or grenades or something.

Demerzel · October 1, 2002, 13:55

or have it like it is apparently in Brian Reynolds' new game "Rise of Nations" where the units auto-uprade as time goes on to avoid this kind of problem.

Oh hang on, I'm not supposed to mention "Rise of Nations"? Dang. Said it again! Oops!

Fitz · October 1, 2002, 14:23

Heya self,

You're probably just suffering from post SMAC/X blues.

Keep playing, and memorize the values of the units (instead of the "type") and you'll be fine.

Think of the spearman as a synthmetal infantry and the tank as a graviton hovertank and you'll curse even more.

It's definately a step backwards towards simplicity from SMAC/X, but the whole game (unfortunately IMO) is anyway, so you just have to do exactly what you described, ie tighten your belt and occasionally let loose a rant.

Maybe they'll get it right if they ever release SMAC II.

Arrian · October 1, 2002, 15:37

self baised,

Hey, I hear you. I've screamed at my screen occasionally too. I've had some wacky results that, at the time, really pissed me off. For me, it's usually the loss of elite units in ancient times when I'm trying to get leaders. I know how the combat system works, and I accept it, but even so I find myself berating my little pixels and/or the evil RNG. But I've also had lots of good fortune.

-Arrian

Raion · October 1, 2002, 15:55

Different Civ's make different soldiers. Are you attacking or being attacked by a militaristic Civ? They tend to do better from the beginning, hanging on with a single hit point left, even from barbarians, who should beat them.

Know your Civ's, and play!

Arrian · October 1, 2002, 16:52

The militaristic trait conveys the following advantages:

1) walls, barracks, harbours and airports are 1/2 cost in shields.

2) units have a better chance of being promoted conscript -> regular -> veteran -> elite.

There is no actual combat advantage, except that which is gained from having more experienced units in the field.

-Arrian

Proteus_MST · October 1, 2002, 17:21

I´ve doubled all HP´s for the different Experience Levels et voila, the probalibilty of SPearman or other Low-Tech-Units winning against Hightech-Units was diminished.
Sometimes your Units still lose a lot of HPs to obsolete Units, but that´s one thing I can live with

I´d still refrain from attacking Pikemen fortified in a fortress on the Top of a mountain if I´ve just one single Tank-Unit near. As Planetfall mentioned, there are still some tactical considerations one has to make, even with Hightech-Units

GePap · October 1, 2002, 17:43

Yeah, this debate was done to death- immensely:

Fiddling with HP values is best. In my personal modifications, I set a standard of 5hp conscrtipt, 7 regular, 9 veteran, 10 elite., then I gave HP bonuses, both negative and positive, to most units. So, the most HP a spearman can have is 8 (-2) while the best a tank can have is 11 (+1). With such a system, spearmen beating tanks is as nearly impossible as in real life. Overall, this woks great, so that with time, not only A/D values but HP imporves as well.

Theseus · October 1, 2002, 18:04

Not to distract anyone from the fascinating debate of the combat mechanism and hps, but...

self biased, do you want to share with the crowd what I would guess to be at least 40-50 Knights were doing attacking you?

self biased · October 3, 2002, 13:13

no.. it was only a handfull. fifteen at most.

the thing that annoys me is that a dis-proportionate amount of battles were being wonby units who should only be winning a third of the time.

Theseus · October 3, 2002, 13:50

I know you've been around for a while, and you seem pretty experienced, so I don;t want to cross any lines here, but I find what you report *extremely* difficult to believe.

15 Knights taking out 10 Riflemen? In Cities? Fortified, I assume?

Assuming all vets and grassland, a Knight has an 8.5% chance of taking out a Riflemen as described.

Hard to believe, although of course statistically possible.

Do you have a SAV?

self biased · October 3, 2002, 20:30

yeah.. that's about accurate. unfortunately, though.. i've trashed that save, and started a new game that i've been playing for a hundred turns or so...

Theseus · October 3, 2002, 21:11

That's a very dramatic anomally... next time something that extreme happens, you should post a SAV.

Dis · October 3, 2002, 22:56

oh wow. I think you're the first person to complain about the combat system.

Everyone else likes it. So it isn't going anywhere.

Tuberski · October 3, 2002, 23:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
oh wow. I think your the first person to complain about the combat system.

Everyone else likes it. So it isn't going anywhere.

Dis · October 3, 2002, 23:45

hey no need to laugh at my grammical error!

. I fixed your to you're.

Tuberski · October 3, 2002, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
hey no need to laugh at my grammical error!

. I fixed your to you're.

I was laughing at the part where you said " everyone likes it."

It was debated to death!