this combat system has to **GO**

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by aneeshm
The chances of a conscript tank attacking an Elite fortified Spearman on a hill across a river in a metropolis and winning is ONLY 48.o91 % . Sad , isn't it ? Applying the same to modern Armour Vs Elite Musketman , it is 35.117% , while the same Modern armor Vs Elite Rifleman is a disgusting 19% .

What you're saying is that well-trained, committed troops trump technology. . . . That is exactly right.

Untrained, undisciplined troops will break and run. They don't know how to use their weapons, they have little knowledge of tactics, they are susceptible to deceit, and most of all, they have no loyalty to their comrades-in-arms.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by aneeshm
The chances of a conscript tank attacking an Elite fortified Spearman on a hill across a river in a metropolis and winning is ONLY 48.o91 % . Sad , isn't it ? Applying the same to modern Armour Vs Elite Musketman , it is 35.117% , while the same Modern armor Vs Elite Rifleman is a disgusting 19% .

Its more disgusting to me that you would try to take a city defended by a dead horse with only one conscript tank. You're just asking for trouble.

I liked Zachriel's description. I would hope that human ingenuity and tactical skills represented by the elite unit could at least sometimes defeat a rookie tanker with barely enough skill to fire at a target. Not all the time, but sometimes.

[Nubclear]

Just a small question....

Do the different units represent different times eg does the spearmen represent ancient times while a cossack represents latemiddle/earlyindustrial times?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Just a small question....

Do the different units represent different times eg does the spearmen represent ancient times while a cossack represents latemiddle/earlyindustrial times?

small question?

Its really whatever you want it to be

Personally I feel that there is a difference between a spearman in 2000 bc and 2000 ad, they are just the weakest defenders possible, that the tech gap is just more extreme in modern times. The modern spearman is a local militia or something with very small arms. I wish that they could represent this like they do for the workers, but my imagination is sufficient. I like it that way more, as its a bit silly to have guys with swords taking on tanks.

But, its whatever you want it to be.

[faded glory]

"So you were wrong. Perhaps you should just admit it."

Actually. Judging by the popularity of these forums. I would say I was right.

"You often ARE a troll. Your reference to sucking the big could be the reason for the other remarks."

My opinion. Im not a Troll, but some people here are just hardcore fanboys IMO


"My fighters DO shoot down bombers. Never lost a tank to an Impi. Lost ONE to a speaman since the game came out."

See and pre patch the bombers were invulnerable. And as for a handful of men armed with clubs fighting off my tank divisions. It happens to me ALOT.


"Might be. I would not be at all surprised if you complain that Human Zulu's are killing your tanks."

No cause the human will actually be worth playing. And wont be a retarded, random set of actions.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by aneeshm
The chances of a conscript tank attacking an Elite fortified Spearman on a hill across a river in a metropolis and winning is ONLY 48.o91 % . Sad , isn't it ? Applying the same to modern Armour Vs Elite Musketman , it is 35.117% , while the same Modern armor Vs Elite Rifleman is a disgusting 19% .

Ok, some tips: Conscript tanks? Only if you mod or get a really unlikely barbarian camp in the industrial era... and I don't think even those put out tanks. Try again.
With a regular tank, that gives the spearman about a 30% chance of winning.

And no, it's not sad.

Moving right along...

Actually. Judging by the popularity of these forums. I would say I was right.

1) When was the latest "faded glory popularity poll"? I'm sorry, I missed that one.
2) Who told you that just because you are popular you are right?

My opinion. Im not a Troll, but some people here are just hardcore fanboys IMO

And "fanboys" have to do with you being a troll... how?

[faded glory]

"1) When was the latest "faded glory popularity poll"? I'm sorry, I missed that one.
2) Who told you that just because you are popular you are right"

What the hell are you talking about? I was talking about how popular the forums are. The CTP section is faster and has more browsers than this place.

I am popular? thats news to me. (wtf that has to do with anything?)


"And "fanboys" have to do with you being a troll... how?"

Incase you dont know
Fanboys ala - Opposite of the Troll. You'll take it up the ass for firaxis and jump on the forum gernades.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by faded glory
What the hell are you talking about? I was talking about how popular the forums are. The CTP section is faster and has more browsers than this place.

@FG

the CTP forum is faster? to load or what? Even if this were true (which I doubt, wouldn't the whole site be slowed due to the number of viewers, not the individual fora?) but wouldn't this be the inverse of what you say? The Ctp is faster because there are fewer people viewing it. Duh!

As for more browsers, prove it. Which Ctp forum do you mean? Are you including Ctp2 fora? Are you including the other Civ3 fora? What is your measuring stick, everything I look at points to this civ3 forum (excluding the strat, ptw, civs, etc) as being more popular, please explain to me your reasoning.

[faded glory]

Faster as in I see more people post there than here. My god. You thought I was talking about load times?




Im sorry. I see maybe 100 posts per day in all the civ3 forums (thats a rougly an esitimate). CTP gets as much and is two years older. If the game was sooooo great then lots of people would be here posting wouldnt they?

[Blue Moose]

I did read it. I ignored it because it was incongruous with your previous statement of "automatic win" for units 2 eras better or more.

Though congruous with the overall paragraph.

Quote:

But the combat system in Civ3 can't handle giving hoplites/phalanxes more attack points to account for their attack uses in primitives times, because of how the combat system works, surely you realize that. Otherwise you'd make bowmen worthless or some other unit worthless....the system is simply too primitive to allow a more realistic portrayal of units and combinations of units.

I think you are confused between the combat system itself and the way firaxis has decided to use it. When your base unit is 1/1, it is true that there is very little variation possible. But if a warrior was 5/5, you could have a whole range of units, using many more possible combinations of ADM numbers. The fact that Firaxis didn't do this doesn't invalidate the system.

You are the one confused, I think. The current system is limited. The historic value and purpose of units is partially lost. Hoplite battles in history, for instance, were largely affairs of equals, a hoplite attacking another hopelite would be (and should be) and even fight. Off the top of my head I cannot think of one unit in Civ3 that shouldn't have an equal fight on its hands if it attacks a like unit (assuming flat terrain and no forts or fortifications). Of course units can't all have equal values for attack and defense, and unequal ones don't make sense really, so this is a large problem with the basic concept.

The problem with this is that there is a difference in who attacks apart from simply where the attack takes place. Defending means holding a position, often from a fortress, something cavalry are ill equipped to deal with. Cavalry won't do as well in a great stone fortress as they will when facing the enemy in a field, and when they are fighting in a field they are fighting by charging... which is an attack. They aren't holding ground or even advancing/retreating slowly. A strategic defense is different from a tactical defense. Besides, making the attack and defense values the same would make combat extremely one-sided because all units would be either better than or worse than one another as far as combat stats are concerned.

And if you recall my original post, I said that there should be modifiers for wether or not a unit is fortified or in a fortress, but otherwise things are even. In retrospect I suppose a modifier for having high ground should be there as well. I also said that they should only be granted such bonuses if appropriate for the unit, so Cav couldn't gain much if any benefit from a fortress as you say. Something that isn't in the Civ3 system. And I prefer a totally new system as opposed to the ADM, for the more I think about it, the more silly it seems. Units should do better against some units than others, units that have a long ranged attack should be able to deal damage and possibly kill units before melee units can deal damage to them. This is simply impossible under the current system, and is indirectly responsible for its faults (as well as the upgrade system and partially the technology system). You get odd combat results because things aren't handled reasonably well, and hence to make 'sense' of it, you are forced to come up with often ridiculous 'theories' (though some theories aren't so bad) as to what is going on. Horse are bad against pikes, but swordsmen can do a better job against them (compared to horses), and two pikemen would be pretty evenly matched (and archers would do very, very well), and pikes with archers would slaughter them. This is simply not modelled in any way whatsoever with the current system, nor could it be. With a ADM system, you can't duplicate a Rock, Paper, Scissors system.

And it is only functionally the same as HP if HP are different for various units, but they aren't, they are the same for every unit (varying only by combat experience).

Quote:

and attack indicating ability to deal damage

And that is the same as attack/defense rating.

Unless you are defending, then defense is ability to deal damage.

Why is that? How is every last tank destroyed? Is that very realistic?

Artillery can easily demolish tanks, they are big targets, and one hit will most often incapicitate a tank. Against infantry however, artillery is better for just keeping them from doing anything (they'll take cover and hide, won't be able to do anything, but probably won't suffer the damage a tank unit would). In a modern army, a few tanks aren't going to make a big difference (surely in a civ-style game), so artillery killing the vast majority of tanks is enough for the tanks to be dead).


Anyhow, to add my two cents on the issue of out of tech units...one way to handle this would be to have a greater proliferation of technology. It should be basically impossible to be two ages behind another player, and hard to be one full age behind. Realistically, a nation can't keep that much technology secret. If you have computers, it is going to be almost impossible to keep electronics out of the common knowledge, and hence it would be easy for a foreign nation to get that knowledge. This would fix most of the arguements about fighting out of date units.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by faded glory
Im sorry. I see maybe 100 posts per day in all the civ3 forums (thats a rougly an esitimate). CTP gets as much and is two years older. If the game was sooooo great then lots of people would be here posting wouldnt they?

Check your math pal

I'm sorry that I've wasted this much time with a troll, but here is what I have found.

Number of posts to Ctp mp forum on 7/10/02 as of this post: 47

Number of posts to Civ3 main forum on 7/10/02 as of this post: 132

Since you have a problem with numbers, that's slightly less than 3 times the amount of posts, in ONE forum, not the all of the Civ3 forums as you suggested. Is there any need to look at the others?

And I should add, most of the posts on ctp are the same 4 or 5 people playing pbem games. I would hardly call THAT active.

[Theseus]

1) The Civ3 combat system is the Civ3 combat system. Eihter deal, or play something else.

2) For any who complain of unusual results, well, first there's Zachriel's comment, which I think quite elegant:

"What you're saying is that well-trained, committed troops trump technology. . . . That is exactly right.

Untrained, undisciplined troops will break and run. They don't know how to use their weapons, they have little knowledge of tactics, they are susceptible to deceit, and most of all, they have no loyalty to their comrades-in-arms."

Adding to that, and stressing the value of training, comradery, esprit-de-corps, etc., I would point to the many instances of heroic perfromance, starting with Thermopylae and continuing through many unbelievable feats in the 20th century.

Hell, I'm a Marine... give me a spear, and show me a tank.

Enough of this already.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Though congruous with the overall paragraph.

Well, I don't knwo about that, but it seemed incongruous to me so I didn't comment. Fair enough.

You are the one confused, I think. The current system is limited. The historic value and purpose of units is partially lost. Hoplite battles in history, for instance, were largely affairs of equals, a hoplite attacking another hopelite would be (and should be) and even fight. Off the top of my head I cannot think of one unit in Civ3 that shouldn't have an equal fight on its hands if it attacks a like unit (assuming flat terrain and no forts or fortifications). Of course units can't all have equal values for attack and defense, and unequal ones don't make sense really, so this is a large problem with the basic concept.

Well, taking into account my belief that there is a difference between an attack and a defense (and thus different values for each), the AD system seems perfectly appropriate to me. Having each unit attack and defend the same would make for a very boring combat system... and I'd take an unpredictable system over a boring one.

I also said that they should only be granted such bonuses if appropriate for the unit, so Cav couldn't gain much if any benefit from a fortress as you say. Something that isn't in the Civ3 system.

Actually it is. The cav's defense is less, so thus it gets less defence value from the fortress than, say, a rifleman. I fail to see the gameplay difference.

And I prefer a totally new system as opposed to the ADM, for the more I think about it, the more silly it seems. Units should do better against some units than others,

Units with high attack do well against units with low defense

units that have a long ranged attack should be able to deal damage and possibly kill units before melee units can deal damage to them.

Fair enough, give them bombard ability

You get odd combat results because things aren't handled reasonably well, and hence to make 'sense' of it, you are forced to come up with often ridiculous 'theories' (though some theories aren't so bad) as to what is going on.

Actually, odd combat results have nothing to do with the combat system itself... they are two different things. It has been shown by mods that so-called "ridiculous combat results" can be all but banished by simply adding additional hit points, or changing the ADM values. The odd results in no way justify a new system.

Horse are bad against pikes, but swordsmen can do a better job against them (compared to horses), and two pikemen would be pretty evenly matched (and archers would do very, very well), and pikes with archers would slaughter them. This is simply not modelled in any way whatsoever with the current system, nor could it be. With a ADM system, you can't duplicate a Rock, Paper, Scissors system.

Well, it seems to me that Civ2 had an ADM system, and gave pikemen bonuses against horses. Pikemen defending archers can do quite well against swordsmen, as the pikes defend the archers as they move into position to hit the swordsmen. If you add bombard to the archers, it becomes even better, as you can whittle down the swordsmen so they can't penatrate your pikeman line. All those things seem quite well modeled.

And it is only functionally the same as HP if HP are different for various units, but they aren't, they are the same for every unit (varying only by combat experience).

There used to be arguments over dropping firepower from Civ2... people wondered if it was necessary. It turns out, combats that deal high damage some of the time were pretty equal to combats that dealt low damage very often. In other words, it was shown that functionally all the results achieved with firepower could also be achieved with sinply a higher attack rating. Why does there need to be a guage for many things when one serves equally well?

Unless you are defending, then defense is ability to deal damage.

That's what I meant.

Artillery can easily demolish tanks, they are big targets, and one hit will most often incapicitate a tank.

No, artillery can easily demolish a tank. I'm talking divisions here. An entire division, every last tank, destroyed by artillery alone seems highly unlikely.

In a modern army, a few tanks aren't going to make a big difference (surely in a civ-style game), so artillery killing the vast majority of tanks is enough for the tanks to be dead).

That's what the health bar is for. A tank with one hp left from bombarding won't make a difference, so artillery killing the vast amount of tanks makes the unit essentially invalid until is repairs/is reformed.

Incase you dont know
Fanboys ala - Opposite of the Troll. You'll take it up the ass for firaxis and jump on the forum gernades.

Fanboys != opposite of troll

Clearly you need a better definition of a troll... seeing as there are trolls who, as you would put it, are "fanboys." A troll can have any opinion.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by aneeshm
The chances of a conscript tank attacking an Elite fortified Spearman on a hill across a river in a metropolis and winning is ONLY 48.o91 % . Sad , isn't it ? Applying the same to modern Armour Vs Elite Musketman , it is 35.117% , while the same Modern armor Vs Elite Rifleman is a disgusting 19% .

War is not mathematics. Armies with higher probabilities to win do not always win.
Odd results happen in real life, too.

In 1552 the ottomans were at the peak of their power and under the rule of Suleyman the Magnificent they've conquered almost the entire Eastern Europe. In the autumn of the same year, an army of 70.000 - 80.000 ottomans gathered in front of a small hungarian town, the fortress of Eger, defended by 2.000 hungarians (~1000 trained soldiers plus ~1000 armed peasants and women).

Let's put this in civ3 terms:
The attackers: 60 or 70 veteran Jannisaries and Sipahis plus, let's say, 10 cannons.
The defenders: one veteran plus one conscipt musketman, maybe 2 cannons, fortified in a small town (size: 2 or 3) on a hill, protected by walls.

What probabilities would you give for the turks to win, aneeshm?

The ottomans attacked with all they've got, and they weren't able to defeat that lousy veteran and conscript musketman. After a month of futile siege they've got so damaged and demoralized, that they gave up and left.

Sheer numbers and probabilities are not the only things that count in a battle. Commitment (especially commitment!!), morale, discipline, training, leadership, loyalty, knowledge of tactics, these all do count. Is this so difficult to understand and accept?

Hell, I'm a Marine... give me a spear, and show me a tank.

Well said

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by faded glory
Im sorry. I see maybe 100 posts per day in all the civ3 forums (thats a rougly an esitimate). CTP gets as much and is two years older. If the game was sooooo great then lots of people would be here posting wouldnt they?

I'm sorry, exactly how many copies of CTP2 did Activision sell ?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by faded glory
Actually. Judging by the popularity of these forums. I would say I was right.

Funny I think its exactly the opposite. Both the forums and the game are popular so its obvious that your level of disapointment is unusual.

My opinion. Im not a Troll, but some people here are just hardcore fanboys IMO

Only trolls call people fanboys. You have been doing that for a long time.

See and pre patch the bombers were invulnerable. And as for a handful of men armed with clubs fighting off my tank divisions. It happens to me ALOT.

The game was patched long ago and you still are complaining about the same thing. That is trolling at best. I have NEVER lost a tank to a warrior. If it happens to you a lot:

You must still be playing the game after nearly a year so the game must be better than you are trolling.

You must be incompetent on top of being a troll. What did you do, mod the game to give Warriors an anti-tank ax?

The only obsolete units that beat my tanks fairly often are cavalry and they still lose most of the time. Takes several of them at least to beat a tank and it has to be on open ground.

No cause the human will actually be worth playing. And wont be a retarded, random set of actions.

Unless I am playing someone that frequently loses tanks to spearman and guys armed with clubs.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Theseus
1) Hell, I'm a Marine... give me a spear, and show me a tank.

Steady soldier. We admire your courage, but that won't be necessary. You will be provided the best weapons, training and support we can muster. War is dangerous enough as it is.


EXETER: There's five to one; besides, they all are fresh.
SALISBURY: God's arm strike with us! 'tis a fearful odds.
. . .
WESTMORELAND God's will! my liege, would you and I alone,
Without more help, could fight this royal battle!

http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?...enryv/iv_iii//

[vondrack]

This post will seem rather off-topic now, since the thread is quite fast-growing, but I can't help...

Originally posted by Ethelred
I thought I had the coolest avatar. My mistake.

This is the way to go, Ethelred!

Originally posted by Ethelred
I like FG's avatar too. However I am an equal opportunity picker onner and will pick on any, all and sundry. Whether they have a neat avatar or not.

Yes, Ethelred is 100% serious about this. I have to confirm that. Any, all and sundry! Beware, everybody!


EDIT: I have read several very good arguments in favour of the current combat system here. As this is perhaps the 368th thread on the topic, it strikes me that those defending it can always come up with new examples, parallels, and reasons why it's okay, while those that oppose it just repeat "spearmen can't beat tanks" over and over... must be a crucial lack of imagination or something...

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I have CTP. I loathe its combat system. First of all, the "randomness" you experienced is expanded 10-fold... I had an abolitionist, a 0/0 unit, sink one of my men-o-war and damage another. By herself. So please, before you vouch for the virtues of the CTP system over the Civ3 one, do a little more research.

There isnt, and never has been a Man O War unit in CtP1 or CtP2, and an Abolitionist simply couldnt do that. It helps if it looks like you know what your talking about before you randomly bash something you dont like simply because its different.

Randomness is not the only reason it's [CTP] bad.

Very sound argument coming from a Civ3 lackey

I can only stack 9 units in one tile, for obvious gameplay reasons. First of all, I have a hard time suspending disbelief that 10 units of musketmen, or anything else, can't "fit" in a tile (which is many, many square miles).

As i understood it 1 musketmen represented a small company, and not simply one man. Thats the reason theres stacked combat, because there is no need for piles of the same units rushing at the same target over and over again. CtP2 has a 12 limit. To have an infinite limit on size would negate the need for true stacked combat, because it would be simply be about number of units, which seems like less strategy to me. *shrugs*

Second, It actually interferes with the movement of troops, so I can't do things like, say, moving a stack of my units through a road occupied by another without un-fortifying, moving all stacks, etc... very tedious.

You dont need to unfortify anything, you just have to move them in groups of say 2 or 4 through the fort, as i would think an army would march, through a crowded fortification, but neverless its a (small and rarely seen) gameplay annoyance, i agree.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
There isnt, and never has been a Man O War unit in CtP1 or CtP2, and an Abolitionist simply couldnt do that. It helps if it looks like you know what your talking about before you randomly bash something you dont like simply because its different.

Sorry, I meant ship of the line. And an abolishionist did do that. I attacked a city garrisoned by only one abolishionist with two ships of the line. The abolishionist killed one of my ships and damaged the other into the yellow. I was playing no mods. I would give you a save, but I uninstalled the game a long time ago.

As i understood it 1 musketmen represented a small company, and not simply one man.

That's how I understand it, too.

Thats the reason theres stacked combat, because there is no need for piles of the same units rushing at the same target over and over again. CtP2 has a 12 limit. To have an infinite limit on size would negate the need for true stacked combat, because it would be simply be about number of units, which seems like less strategy to me. *shrugs*

But a finite and arbitrary limit doesn't make logical sense and gets in the way of troop aneuvers that should be routine. Size is part of strategy, CTP rejects size by "capping" armies to a point where they can no longer grow.

You dont need to unfortify anything, you just have to move them in groups of say 2 or 4 through the fort, as i would think an army would march, through a crowded fortification, but neverless its a (small and rarely seen) gameplay annoyance, i agree.

Without getting too technical about the situation, I experienced such "stack annoyance" upwards of once or twice a turn whenever I was at war (I don't skimp on the units). It was enough of an annoyance for me.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by vondrack
EDIT: I have read several very good arguments in favour of the current combat system here. As this is perhaps the 368th thread on the topic, it strikes me that those defending it can always come up with new examples, parallels, and reasons why it's okay, while those that oppose it just repeat "spearmen can't beat tanks" over and over... must be a crucial lack of imagination or something...

I think I've just been insulted...I believe my arguements have been better than that.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Theseus
1) The Civ3 combat system is the Civ3 combat system. Eihter deal, or play something else.

I'm sorry...it seemed to be the topic of this thread to discuss combat issues, and hence the system itself. If you can't handle that, maybe you should post somewhere else.
(woo, I made a scathing retort...hurrah, no offense intended, naturally )

Originally posted by Theseus
2) For any who complain of unusual results, well, first there's Zachriel's comment, which I think quite elegant:

"What you're saying is that well-trained, committed troops trump technology. . . . That is exactly right.

Untrained, undisciplined troops will break and run. They don't know how to use their weapons, they have little knowledge of tactics, they are susceptible to deceit, and most of all, they have no loyalty to their comrades-in-arms."

Adding to that, and stressing the value of training, comradery, esprit-de-corps, etc., I would point to the many instances of heroic perfromance, starting with Thermopylae and continuing through many unbelievable feats in the 20th century.

Except this isn't how it always works. I am not saything that the Civ3 system totally sucks, I am just saying that it could be much, much better. Yes indeed, it just mostly sucks (hehe...I am going to be less serious about these discussions now since some people don't seem able to read what I say and understand it...though I don't think you are one of those).

Though, in all honesty, if you are going up against machine guns, and you are using a melee weapon, I'd expect you'd need to outnumber the enemy by far more than 100 to 1, even if he was pretty green (though he knew how to operate a weapon). Even 1000 to 1 might not suffice (assuming enough ammo was available).

Thermopylae was a group of hoplites, at least one Elite and several regulars-veterans, in a very narrow pass in the mountains, up against what basically amounted to warriors and a few archers. The cavalry being useless in that scenerio. You'd expect them to do well (and they still lost when they became surrounded, and flanking and the like is something the civ3 combat engine doesn't take into account). Additionally, Persia's foot troops would probably be the equivalent of conscripts in training. So the Greeks had technology and training, whereas Persia only had numbers, and those numbers couldn't be used very well. The result was much as you'd expect (not that I am discounting the final heroism and symbol the 300 Spartans provided at the end).

I still think the Civ3 system is fundamentally flawed though. If a Cavalry unit is on open ground, and it is attacked by another Cavalry unit, assuming equal training, then they should be just about even with each other (equal numbers, the ground favors no one, etc). If anything, the defending unit should have the advantage, since it might know the terrain a bit better. It isn't like the attacking group catches the defender camping or some such, the defenders would have scouts and the like and would be prepared for a fight. This is not how it works in Civ3 though, and the basic system doesn't allow it to work like this (because if you increased the defensive value of Cavalry, then it would defend better against all units). Historically, certain units are better against some other units, worse against some, and even with a few...that can't be modelled in Civ3's system without adding a bunch of special rules, and quite frankly (for me) it is very annoying. I merely think Civ4 could do a much, much better job, and I hope it does.

Originally posted by Theseus
Hell, I'm a Marine... give me a spear, and show me a tank.

Enough of this already.

I hope that, since you are a Marine, you could make a better plan than that : )
And I think a spear would probably break in a tank's treads. I believe against an M1 you'd be better off with flour than with a spear (that is the model that basically has a jet engine, yes? I can't remember which one it was exactly...I think the M1). Of course, you have to know how a tank works to do that. Which primitive spearmen probably don't.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Sorry, I meant ship of the line. And an abolishionist did do that. I attacked a city garrisoned by only one abolishionist with two ships of the line. The abolishionist killed one of my ships and damaged the other into the yellow. I was playing no mods. I would give you a save, but I uninstalled the game a long time ago.

Without any intention to enflame, I also find this a bit hard to believe. But like those who claim to have lost 4 Modern Armours to a single spearmen, claims like these can hardly be taken for granted without evidence.

Originally posted by cyclotron7
That's how I understand it, too.

…

But a finite and arbitrary limit doesn't make logical sense and gets in the way of troop aneuvers that should be routine. Size is part of strategy, CTP rejects size by "capping" armies to a point where they can no longer grow.

Accepting the notion that a single unit represents an appropriately proportioned squad/division/squadron size, a cap on the army size makes logistical as well as game play sense. Armies grow more unmanageable as they grow is size, it wasn’t until (and arguably later) modern times that supplying a massive single force was manageable, let alone possible to coordinate. The size cap prevents multi-million man armies, which would be nigh-impossible to coordinate in the best conditions. The cap, apart from game play balance, simulates that. 12 units aren’t 12 men; a 12-unit army can represent hundreds of thousands of troops moving in a single direction, against the same fixed force.

Be careful not to confuse the CtP armies as entire military, or even theater armies. They are meant to represent single groups of force on a single objective.

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Without getting too technical about the situation, I experienced such "stack annoyance" upwards of once or twice a turn whenever I was at war (I don't skimp on the units). It was enough of an annoyance for me.

It’s annoying, yes. But take a military force of 100,000 men moving in close proximity on a road, then have an equally-numbered force moving on the same road in the opposite direction and tell me it’s not difficult. It’s not impossible, even in the game, but annoying as hell like in real life.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Well, taking into account my belief that there is a difference between an attack and a defense (and thus different values for each), the AD system seems perfectly appropriate to me. Having each unit attack and defend the same would make for a very boring combat system... and I'd take an unpredictable system over a boring one

[comment by me inbetween these statements]

Actually it is. The cav's defense is less, so thus it gets less defence value from the fortress than, say, a rifleman. I fail to see the gameplay difference.

[comment by me inbetween these statements]

Units with high attack do well against units with low defense

The problem with the AD system is that it is too simplistic, far too simplistic. As I said in a reply to Theseus's post, a Cav attacking a Cav on open ground should have about an even fight on its hand, it does not. This is because the AD system is a broken system, that cannot model combat well enough. As you say, making A=D in all circumstances would break the fun of the game (which is what I have been saying), and yet not doing so leads one to ridiculous combat situations like that one above. One unit fighting against the same type of unit should have nearly equal chances on equal ground with neither side fortified (the defender might know the terrain a bit better, hence a 10% bonus, but there are still the problems of identical units fighting).

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Quote:

Originally posted by me! units that have a long ranged attack should be able to deal damage and possibly kill units before melee units can deal damage to them.

Fair enough, give them bombard ability

Except that doesn't work either, since you can't give every unit with range bombard. Are you going to give infantry bombard, tanks bombard, every other industrial unit and up bombard? It wouldn't work. The range of all those units is much lower than one square away, but it is a factor when units actually engage in combat in the same square. An AD system simply can't handle this without loads of special rules, which would make it very hard to learn. Sure, in Civ2 having pikes have double the defense value against horsemen worked, because there were so few special rules, but there were still the basic problems of the AD system (I guess I found them easier to ignore since the combat behaved in a more predictable fashion). The AD system is also rediculous in the sense that it acts like each attack is a single thrust of a combat in a much longer battle...because that's the only way the AD system really makes sense (and even that fails, really). Combat in a Civ game, though, is much more general than that. You tell your troops to attack, and the *entire* battle should be done by some dice rolling and calculations. That means you should send your entire attacking army to the square, which means horse, swords, pikes, archers, etc. Again, it is impossible to realistically simulate the battles of armies by having a system where only one unit can attack at a time.

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Actually, odd combat results have nothing to do with the combat system itself... they are two different things. It has been shown by mods that so-called "ridiculous combat results" can be all but banished by simply adding additional hit points, or changing the ADM values. The odd results in no way justify a new system.

See aforementioned issue of like units attacking like units.



Lastly, as for you comments elsewhere about unit stack limits in a square and other issues in CTP...I have thought about it some and it makes sense. All you need to do is add in benefits for having flanking units and it will all make a lot of sense and you won't have any difficulty most of the time. Too many men in too small area is unwieldy, as they'd just get in each other's way, hence the limit. If you add flanking bonuses, you'd want to have them spread out anyways, both to prevent the enemy from flanking you, and to attempt to flank the enemy, hence it would take care of itself. Also, the stack limit would then make the scenerio of the Thermopylae quite possible. A narrow straight through which the enemy can pass...they can only take a limited number of units, and so they have to fight the Greeks with about equal numbers of troops at a time, since the troops have less training and are not equipped as well as the Greeks, they get slaughtered bit by bit (and even more so as bad morale quickly sinks in). So such a system would make things feel better, and make simulations of historic events (as in scenerios) or merely events similar to historic ones, a much more significant possibility.

PS. The issue of bombardment and how much it damages tanks is minor, and doesn't play anywhere near a key role in this discussion, so I will drop it. Heh, additionally, I might very well be wrong about it.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Though, in all honesty, if you are going up against machine guns, and you are using a melee weapon, I'd expect you'd need to outnumber the enemy by far more than 100 to 1.

As usual in these discussions, you are assuming the spearman will charge into the machine guns. That is not necessarily so. They may resort to subterfuge, slit throats in the night, commit sabotage, hijack an airplane and use it as a missile, or simply bribe the commander.

Thermopylae was a group of hoplites

Though the techs were closely matched, the strategic odds were better than 100-1. To be fair to Xerxes, he did "win" that battle.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Zachriel
As usual in these discussions, you are assuming the spearman will charge into the machine guns. That is not necessarily so. They may resort to subterfuge, slit throats in the night, commit sabotage, hijack an airplane and use it as a missile, or simply bribe the commander.

Of course, the defending army can shoot down the plane and use similar forms of subterfuge or trickery. And in a situation like the US attacking Iraq, do you really think Iraq could bribe any of the commanders? I don't think so. Bribing is a very, very rare occurance, especially if you know you are going to win. Slitting throats in the night is also next to impossible, as armies have scouts and lookouts for a reason. This gets all the more true the more advanced the technology. And if they can't get close, they can't sabotage. Hijacking a plane also assumes that there are planes to hijack, and planes that can do damage too, in a WWI timeline, this isn't very likely. Also that sort of thing is a trick that can at best work once (and I think it very unlikely one or even a couple planes could take out an army that spans a huge area).

Tactics like these are basically impossible to acheive in most military settings. That's why when you look through history things like this almost never happen, and when they do, it is usually the richer, more overall impressive army that performs them (such as Thermopylae with the Persians using a Greek traitor to reveal a hidden pass), since the traitors don't want to die. Most times when bribery of commanders or the like occured elsewhere were when there was a coalition of forces, and one country backstabbed another...but that isn't want a spearman beating a tank (or any primitive unit winning over a significantly more advanced one) simulates.

Originally posted by Zachriel
[on thermopylae]
Though the techs were closely matched, the strategic odds were better than 100-1. To be fair to Xerxes, he did "win" that battle.

The tech of the melee troops was not closely matched at all though. The Persian foot soldiers were vastly inferior to the Greek hoplites. Hoplites had much better armer, longer spears, and better training.

[Dis]

this debate never ends. I suggest keeping the option of keeping combat the way it is, and including a new option of going back to civ2 style combat. Although that would be difficult to implement and document.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Of course, the defending army can shoot down the plane and use similar forms of subterfuge or trickery. . . .

(Forgot to mention friendly fire.)

In the game of Civ3, a stack of tanks may consist of dozens of units. Losing perhaps one or two when taking over an entire continent is certainly not "unrealistic."

If you are actually seeing Tank v. Spearman situations, then you are not playing at high enough a level, or already have beaten the enemy to the point where they can't mount a decent defense. And still you are complaining because one Tank commander got complacent and lost, even though there was plenty of Artillery nearby but didn't bother.

I almost never see Tank v. Spearman, and have never seen a Tank lose to one. I will definitely post a screenshot when I do.

[vmxa1]

I admire you memory, I can barely recall anything about CTP and very little of CTP2. It was pretty and filled in until Civ3, but I could not replay it for some reason.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Dissident
this debate never ends. I suggest keeping the option of keeping combat the way it is, and including a new option of going back to civ2 style combat. Although that would be difficult to implement and document.

I'm all for improvements to the combat system, though I find the game quite fun the way it is. It has just a reasonable amount of unpredictability to make it exciting and fit my view of how quirky real life can sometimes be.