this combat system has to **GO**

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Well, it's sort of annoying how no one has paid any attention to my suggestion on fixing the tech issue. I gave the example that a civilization with computers should find it basically impossible to keep other civilizations from knowing electronics. It seems to me that any advanced civilization is not going to be able to keep it's older technology a secret, such technology is simply too integral to society and knowledge of it would be far too common. Hence you could easily make a system where it became trivial to research such techs, and it would be hard or impossible to be more than an age behind anyone else...and more likely about half an age. You'd need a better combat system to back this up though (IMO).

Blue Moose, I should have addressed this, sorry for that... I am afraid it solves virtually nothing (besides, it is already implemented - first, by lowering costs of the tech research once it is known to other civs, second by trading techs). In 90+% of cases, the reason for having tanks facing spearmen is not that the spearman civ would not know techs for better defenders (just check the trade screen - they usually know techs allowing them to build infantry, since it is - due to the extensive tech trading - very rare that a civ gets way behind tech-wise). The reason is that the spearman did not get upgraded. Your idea of tech knowledge "spread" would do absolutely nothing to change that. You would still have woefully outdated units running around...

Humans upgrade as much as they can. That's why there are always complaints of AI spearmen beating human tanks only. I know of nobody trying the opposite regularly (and you need a lot of tries to get that one lucky shot). Humans simply upgrade everything they can, AIs do not (even though it has been greatly improved since the initial release!).

[vondrack]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
This could be done now by someone with the needed animation skills (Firaxis, if you are reading this thread, I'm talking about you). The file structure supports a different animation for each unit in each era. It's be cool if the spearmen grabbed a shoulder mounted anti-tank missile in the modern defense animations. That's tell you that these "spearmen" are living in Modern Times.

This would probably be a bit complicated and not fully implementable... there is no "general age", every civ is in its own age. Thus, you would still have outdated units facing more advanced ones, since different civs would be in different ages. The definition of the age would have to change to allow for using the current age-dependent unit "skins"... Like that the age changes (for EVERYBODY!) at the very moment the first civ enters it...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose Are you purposefully being obtuse?

No. As I stated before, I am not against refinements in the combat system, but it is after all a strategy game (both words are important). Strategy means that the local events are beyond control of the planner. Game means that, well, it's a game, a diversion.

Citing a fictionalized account of history doesn't help your case, not that even one or two accounts would show that it is more than a very, very rare event.

Henry V is not fictional, nor was Ben Franklin's story, nor was Hanssen's betrayal.

So that's over 200 years of history with no military betrayals, and America has been in many wars.

Betrayal, friendly fire, incompetence, bad decisions, poor morale, weather, local terrain, typhoons, and so on. Many factors, not just betrayal, affect tactical combat. America is just one nation and 200 years is a short period of time in the Annals of Civilization.

The game might be fun to play and all, but the combat system is simply unrealistic in the extreme. Vivid and wild imagination are required to delude oneself into thinking otherwise (or some of that combined with sheer ignorance).

Only imagination is required. Fun is the point, I believe.

My intention is to only point out this lack of realism, and to provide some ideas as to how you might design a better system, I don't intend to imply *you* can't have fun playing the game.

There are a thousand ways the game can be improved. However, the original thread did start as an admitted gripe.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by vondrack

but I distinctly recall many games (in fact, I guess lots of my games fall into this category) that had one or two AI civs grow to heavenly heights (in terms of the histograph performance) and than simply crumble to dust without my direct involvement. Which in turn means that there were other AI civs (not only me) that fell - in a certain moment - behind another one, but managed to get back on the train.

Yes the AI can get behind other AI's and get back into it, they can not fall many techs behind a good human player and get back into the game. That is what I was talking about. Anyway your .02 is as germain as anyone elses. In fact, I do not recall them doing it at emp/deity even verses the AI. I have seen it, I just do not recall the level of that game.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Betrayal, friendly fire, incompetence, bad decisions, poor morale, weather, local terrain, typhoons, and so on. Many factors, not just betrayal, affect tactical combat.

Forgot normal wear-and-tear when it comes to tanks and planes. Some tanks will just never make it home, they've been expended, used for parts, abandoned, etc. Some planes will just fall out of the sky. What percentage of the U.S. B1b bomber force was lost in Afghanistan?

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Zachriel
... What percentage of the U.S. B1b bomber force was lost in Afghanistan?

Well Zach, how many B1's WERE there supporting the Afghan affair??

(One was lost on the way back to Diego Garcia due to mechanical failure)

[Nubclear]

Alright vod, I'll conceed to you that you are correct. It was bad tactics, and I'm bickering about graphics and math but......It is my right to bicker about such things! All I can really say in reply to your post is that....for me, it just wasn't fun. It was incredibly irritating, frustrating, and just didn't hit the spot for me (Whether for logical reasons or not) and...it may be justified, but I really care less about its justification. I'm looking for the fun....and in Civ3, I can't find it anymore.

So.....whatever rocks your boat. I happen to disagree with you that Civ3 is fun, but I suppose thats just my opinion

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Alright vod, I'll conceed to you that you are correct. It was bad tactics, and I'm bickering about graphics and math but......It is my right to bicker about such things! All I can really say in reply to your post is that....for me, it just wasn't fun. It was incredibly irritating, frustrating, and just didn't hit the spot for me (Whether for logical reasons or not) and...it may be justified, but I really care less about its justification. I'm looking for the fun....and in Civ3, I can't find it anymore.

So.....whatever rocks your boat. I happen to disagree with you that Civ3 is fun, but I suppose thats just my opinion

Tass, feel free to bicker as much as you like!

I guess how you feel about Civ3 is exactly how I felt about SMAC... Others kept telling me it was one hell of a game, but I just did not have fun with it... perhaps the graphics and those strange unit/tech names... yeah, that must have been it... the graphics and strange names, definitely.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jaybe

Well Zach, how many B1's WERE there supporting the Afghan affair??

You would ask! Frankly, I'm not sure. The U.S. has about 90 B1b Bombers (soon to be only 60). From what I can gather from the Air Force website, 40-50 planes were deployed in Operation Enduring Freedom. That would be a loss rate of about 2%.

http://www.b1b.wpafb.af.mil/

[Gen.Dragolen]

Tassadar5000,

I have been bedevilled by lousy combat results so many times I don't even get upset by it anymore. It's merely another factor to work in when I estimate the forces I will need to win a series of battles.

Having been a soldier in my youth, you get the concept of "plan for the worst case and then for success" hammered into your skull. A sargeant's instructional lessons tend to stick when they force you do drill over and over and over... especially when you haven't slept for 3 days. Combat in Civ 3 has about as much relation to reality as the comabt in Risk.

There are some strategic and tactical ideals that do still hold true, but when people are involved in real life situations, **** happens. The only tool for a programmer to use to approximate it is a psuedo random number generator. It is possible in real life for a rag tag bunch of highly motivated civilians to tie a professional military unit in knots. Just think of the resistance if someone decided to park an armoured division in your neighbourhood and all you could come up with were spears and rocks. You're not going to kill a tanker while he's inside his tank, but when he gets out to resupply, or to have created tank traps and ambushes, even in open ground, the only protection a tank has from some determined soldiers with molotov cocktails is to move. This is where the combined arms concepts come in: you need infantry inbetween your tanks to keep enemy infantry from getting too close.

Part of the problem was the way the combat system in Civ 3 was labelled. Change the words "hit point" to morale and it suddenly becomes a lot more palettable. And a little more realistic. Napoleon succeded more often than not in the face of numerically superior opponent because he understood how important was the fighting spirit of his men:

"An army's effectiveness depends on its size, training, experience and morale, and morale is worth more than all the other factors combined."

The only thing I would change in the combat system is what it takes to form an army. You should be able to build generals even in ancient times, and they should be able to make a 3 unit army (no blitz attacks), since that was the whole point to having leaders. Units that succeed as elites in that army should be able to great a GL, since this is where they were usually forged.

To balance things out, there should also be a chance to generate a GL from building improvements and trading with other Civs. This could represent people like the Buddha, Aristotle, Jesus of Nazareth, Mohammed, Leonardo Da Vinci, Ghandi and others who made their presence felt without being a soldier.

And Vondrack, there were some really useful features in SMAC that I wish had made it into Civ3. The diplomacy model was light years ahead of anything else I've seen before and since. And I have played them all from Civ and CTP to Civ3 and SMAC. However, the sci-fi genre may not be to your taste. And there is nothing wrong with that. I've come across a lot if games that just didn't to it for me either.

Anyway, some of our issues will be put to rest in PTW, and a whole host more will rise to take their place. In the mean time, just remember to use at least 5:1 strength to ensure victory (and yes I have lost 4 veteran cavalry to a fortified spearman, with only the 5th one killing the little bugger, and the cavalry had only 1 hp left too...)


D.

[tinyp3nis]

I tried to read all but uhhuh..
Nobody said this yet? Maybe it has been said since this has been discussed like ...zillion times? Well I'll say it then:

The main problem is that the random number generated for each turn has more influence over things than attack and defence. Means almost any unit can kill any unit. This random number also ruins everything else in a turn that has a roll

Why didn't anyone tell this to the starter of the thread? Instead this once again got completely out of hand

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
The main problem is that the random number generated for each turn has more influence over things than attack and defence.

When I see a stack of enemy Cavalry approaching my city defended with Spearmen, I start to worry. If I can upgrade them to Infantry, I feel safe again. To me, at least, the combat values of my units matter greatly.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Zachriel


When I see a stack of enemy Cavalry approaching my city defended with Spearmen, I start to worry. If I can upgrade them to Infantry, I feel safe again. To me, at least, the combat values of my units matter greatly.

Too bad Firaxis didn't think they should matter _greatly_.

[Blue Moose]

Well here's an idea...

Double the number of units, more or less, fill in some historical gaps with unit types, make attack power increase a bit more smooth.

Make the tech proliferation for a society's common knowledge techs (electronics if they have computers is the example of such things) much, much more powerful than the current system. Perhaps even have it almost like the great library, where 'older' techs are given for free to more primitive cultures. The ideal here should be that it is almost impossible for a society to get more than 1 age behind, and with some decent research going on, you can stay .5 or so (perhaps). Of course, there would still be advantages for maintaining the lead (wonder access first, military unit access first).

Incorporate some simple supply line system (with a improved trade system showing the trade lines). Cutting supply lines would decrease the effectiveness of troops after a short time. This could be done so it is easy and intuitive. I believe the trade system in CTP used something like this...it would also allow the pirating of trade routes and the like.

With the increased number of units, make it much, much easier to upgrade them. Barracks are not required, only access to the supply system. The cost should be fairly inexpensive, though perhaps the current pricing system would suffice. In any case, upgrading should be easier, considering the length of terms and the like. This would make it so you are far less likely to encounter more primitive units.

Revamped combat system, focusing on unit counters, the RPS system I have aboved described, and a grouping of units into armies that attack together. Balanced armies of various unit types would hence be encouraged.

I think this system would be more realistic and more fun, since combat would have a lot more depth. True, as many have said, combat is not the entire game, but it is an important part. Better combat systems would improve the game. I also think there are other areas that could be improved, but this thread is about combat so I have stuck to that.

As for concerns about how the game is unrealistic in many areas. This is true. But some of those are essential to the premise of the game. It is about you ruling your civilization in your version of the "ideal" way, which is essentially unrealistic. That doesn't require the combat system to be unrealistic though, the main lack of realism is that your civilization has one leader with vision throughout its entire lifetime. A big difference, but there is no reason why other factors can't be more realistic. There's no reason why more realism in the combat system can't add to the fun. Civilization-like games are based on history, and that adds in a certain expectation of some realism.

Anyhow, I think perhaps the most glaring error (the more I think about it), is combat between units of the same type. Each side should have about an equal chance of winning such an encounter on open plains with no fortification (perhaps assume that the attacker was attacking from a plains too, so it wasn't hiding). I don't think anyone has addressed this issue I've brought up...but I'll double-check.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Zachriel


Forgot normal wear-and-tear when it comes to tanks and planes. Some tanks will just never make it home, they've been expended, used for parts, abandoned, etc. Some planes will just fall out of the sky. What percentage of the U.S. B1b bomber force was lost in Afghanistan?

That's handled by the maintainance system.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Henry V is not fictional, nor was Ben Franklin's story, nor was Hanssen's betrayal.
....
Betrayal, friendly fire, incompetence, bad decisions, poor morale, weather, local terrain, typhoons, and so on. Many factors, not just betrayal, affect tactical combat. America is just one nation and 200 years is a short period of time in the Annals of Civilization.
....
Only imagination is required. Fun is the point, I believe.
...
There are a thousand ways the game can be improved. However, the original thread did start as an admitted gripe.

I believe Shakespeare's account of Henry the V is fairly fictionalized, from what I remember of studying Shakespeare.

There is still the issue that this is sort of things is very, very, very rare. True, there are other random factors besides betrayals and the like, but the randomness rules out things like local terrain and even morale. Morale is not a very random issue. If your troops are doing well and have been winning battles (and the war effort in general has gone the same), they'll have good morale. This doesn't change the random element though. For this reason I don't consider morale an issue that has been implemented in the game in any sense. The only thing left really is weather and dumb luck..and especially with modern units, I don't think this comes close to accounting for the variability. I meant to imply that such variability is fine with some, but for me and others it robs the game of fun. And since fun is one of the prime points of the game, this is a big problem.

As you say, there are many ways the game can be improved. It seems pertinent to the thread to suggest ways to improve the combat system.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Well here's an idea...

I agree that discussions of improvements to the combat system are in order. My main point on the original complaint was that reality is much less predictable than Civ3. For instance, I *know* that a Tank will win 38.72% of the time in a certain situation. No real planner has that ability. There are so many factors outside of the control of the strategic planner, that reality makes for a very poor game. Indeed, the combat system is a certainty, not random at all; almost too easy to predict.

Double the number of units, more or less, fill in some historical gaps with unit types, make attack power increase a bit more smooth.

Techs go by so quickly now that I rarely get to have a good Musket and Cannon battle now. If a lot more units were added, they may very well be superfluous.

The ideal here should be that it is almost impossible for a society to get more than 1 age behind, and with some decent research going on, you can stay .5 or so (perhaps).

Many players are already complaining about the rampant tech trading. As I mentioned before, I almost never see Spearmen in the Industrial Age, unless it's some miniscule and beaten-down civilization with no money and no prospects. If they are miniscule and beaten-down, and are about to be overrun by my rival, I'll often provide them the means to protect themselves; thereby slowing my rival's expansion. In this example, "Mao's Problem," I provided extensive help to China.

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm11/ad1796-China.htm

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Make the tech proliferation for a society's common knowledge techs (electronics if they have computers is the example of such things) much, much more powerful than the current system. Perhaps even have it almost like the great library, where 'older' techs are given for free to more primitive cultures. The ideal here should be that it is almost impossible for a society to get more than 1 age behind, and with some decent research going on, you can stay .5 or so (perhaps). Of course, there would still be advantages for maintaining the lead (wonder access first, military unit access first).

It is sort of annoying to see that you haven't noticed my comment regarding the proposed increase in tech proliferation earlier in this thread...

The reason for your tanks fight AI spearmen is not the lack of the tech knowledge on the AI's part. The reason is the spearmen was not upgraded when the proper tech was discovered by the AI civ. Greater tech proliferation would not change this. In my games, it is very rare that a civ gets 2 ages behind (unless it is isolated on a tiny island somewhere in the ocean). As for the upgrade costs/prerequisites... I believe that as they are now, they are fairly balanced. If there is something to be further fine-tuned, it is the AI engine. Maybe increasing the tendency of the AIs to upgrade units to such an extent that it would not keep spearmen when there are infantries running around... Maybe even increasing upkeep for units outdated even in the scope of one civ (reasoning: spare parts/weapons more costly to build because of small scale etc.).

As someone else correctly stated, availability of a certain technology does not automatically grant you the ability to "build" the corresponding units/improvements. If you deliver several truckloads of brand new Dell notebooks into the Amazonian jungle or a small Polynesian island, believe me, the natives will not start cranking out nonames few years later...

This is true even on the larger scale... modern industry in the third world belongs almost entirely to foreign corporations (to other "civs", even though this is not adequately modelled in Civ3).

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Revamped combat system, focusing on unit counters, the RPS system I have aboved described, and a grouping of units into armies that attack together. Balanced armies of various unit types would hence be encouraged.

Could you give me an example of the RPS system? Say, three units representing the R/P/S elements. As far as I can remember, military units are/were primarily offensive, or defensive, some of them capable of bombardment (which can be offensive or defensive, again). That is two variables: A/D. RPS is three - how would you (realistically) explain/assign the third variable?

Your "armies" is what others call "stacked combat", I believe. I would not oppose having that, of course. It would add greatly to the strategic depth. But it has absolutely nothing to do with the (mathematical basis of the) combat system (i.e. with how outdated units fight more advanced ones).

Originally posted by Blue Moose
I think this system would be more realistic and more fun, since combat would have a lot more depth.

True. Just keep in mind that a more complex combat system needs a more complex AI engine. And keep in mind that there are many people that do not consider more complex things more fun.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Anyhow, I think perhaps the most glaring error (the more I think about it), is combat between units of the same type. Each side should have about an equal chance of winning such an encounter on open plains with no fortification (perhaps assume that the attacker was attacking from a plains too, so it wasn't hiding). I don't think anyone has addressed this issue I've brought up...but I'll double-check.

I think I saw an example of yours involving two cavalry units. You said both should have an equal chance to win if fighting in an open terrain. I disagree. Cavalry is great for breaking lines, for ripping through defenses, charging through openings in the enemy line... but it is not suitable for holding positions (because when defending something, it can't manoeuvre as easily as if attacking). Could you give me real world examples of cavalry units being successfully used to defend something (as cavalry, of course, not unmounted)?

In Civ3 (at least as I understand it), the defender tries to "hold" his position. The attacker tries to break the defender's line... it seems very appropriate for me that a defending cavalry will be smashed by the attacking cavalry...

[vondrack]

OK, posting in this thread, an idea crossed my mind. It is not for Civ3, rather for Civ4 or Civ5, as it assumes a major change to the game fundamentals.

Separate soldiers from their weapons!

This would address two problems we currently have. First: military units are being "built" like products. That is rather unrealistic and leads to "cranking out" units that are immediately sent into battlefield bloodbaths... effectively countering massive human casualties by powerful economy, which is somehow inappropriate - you should need population to replace lost lives, not production. Second: weapons could be automatically destroyed after a certain period of time (weapons DO break and get rusty in the real world). The ability to produce various weapons could be directly or indirectly limited in such a way, that you would never see tanks killing spearmen. Besides, weapons might become subject to trading.

I do realize that implementing this concept would require major changes in other parts of the game design, too.

Further developing this concept, military units would consume citizens just like workers and settlers currently do (a reasonable ratio would have to be found). This would also limit the warfare in Civ, as long wars would tend to wipe out the population, inevitably bringing the war efforts to a halt...

OK, just a vague idea... feel free to continue the current-combat-system-is-broken discussion, if you wish... I guess I have had enough.

[Gen.Dragolen]

Vondrack,

Your idea of adding a population cost to units has already been incorporated into some of the mods out there.

I have played several games upto the industrial era using a unit pop cost and it does stop the early archer rushes and like stratagems. And increasing maintenance costs adversely affects you in ancient era: even an increase of 1 will permenantly bankrupt most of the civilizations until late industrial era. At least in the test games.

However, adding a pop cost does other unforseen things: it slows down the technology race as well. Even being in contact with all the other civs, I was still researching Monarchy by 1000 AD. And the others were in even worse shape. The cost to research advances will need some tuning if you make a major change to the game balance, just like all the other costs.

One unforseen side effect was what to do with the unit's pop when you went to disband the unit. It allowed for culture bombing at a nasty rate, so I still need to find the balance point again. It also led to riots in cities where I didn't have at least some happiness improvements when I demobilized troops. (the Oracle became the most important Wonder to have)

There are a lot of variables I'm hoping that the PTW editor allows us to access. Too many things about the game that are hard coded into the .exe. One thing I would love to see is variable maintenance costs so as the technology improves, the cost of maintaining the units goes up too. Lot more expensive feeding a regiment of M1 Abrams that a regiment of cavalry horses.

The one nice thing about mucking around with the editor is that it forces you to look at history from as many perspectives as possible. Any books or tv programs on a given incident in history would have one message for you and a different or only similar message for me. Just like a mod that you create will be very different from one I would make.

Test out some of your ideas just to see what happens. I'd like to see what sort of changes you'd make so we could all compare them to others we've seen.

Well, I've finished my tea, so it's time to get back to work...


D.

[wilbill]

I've lowered my stress level over some of the more bizarre combat results by changing the way I view obsolete AI units. I see them not as what the graphic says they are - spearman, archer, etc. Instead I think of them as what they represent in game terms. They're poorly equipped, poorly trained forces belonging to a civilization that was unable or unwilling to field a modern army.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by vondrack

It is sort of annoying to see that you haven't noticed my comment regarding the proposed increase in tech proliferation earlier in this thread...

Yes, I did notice it. I addressed it by including an easier method of upgrading units....which you seemed to have sidestepped in your response....

[wrylachlan]

I think two fairly simple things would make the combat system much more strategic.

1.) A flanking system. IF you are attacked from one square, and then attacked again in the same turn from a square that is 90 degrees or more away from the original attack, the second attacker gains a bonus. This would cause you to use strategy in moving your troops around to gain a flanking advantage.

2.) Each unit should have the ability to have specific bonuses for terrain and flanking.i.e.
Longbowmen, if they are flanked are truly F'd so the flanking bonus against longbowmen is pretty high, but how do you flank guerillas... so their flanking bonus is low.
Similarly, longbowmen in a forest should get a good defense bonus, whereas swordsmen get less of one (you have to step out of your cover to swing your sword).


Maybe I'm very wrong, but I don't think either of these things would tax the AI very much. It already analyzes potential moves for terrain bonuses, throwing one more bonus into the mix won't change that too much.

And on a related note, I would love to see the way Great Leaders function changed. Instead of building armies I would love them to confer a bonus to units within a certain range of them, up to a certain maximum amount of units.

And here's something I would love a Great Leader to do that would do away with a lot of micromanagement: Plan Attack. Here's how it works:

You select your great Leader.
Hit the Plan Attack button.
On the Right side of the screen a window pops up with all the units that the Great Leader can command, and Plan and Execute buttons at the top.
You then left-click on every stack you want to attack with these units and hit Plan.
The AI automatically assigns the attack in the correct order (Air superiority, Bombers, Artillery, Land Forces). It also calculates where to move the land forces to get the best terrain and flanking bonuses.
Once the calculation is done, the window on the right is reordered so all the units are in the order that they attack and you can scroll through and see what they are going to do.
If you like it, you hit Execute and all your units move with no micromanagement from you.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would find a function like this a godsend in the late game which I find to be extremely micromanagement heavy.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by vondrack
As someone else correctly stated, availability of a certain technology does not automatically grant you the ability to "build" the corresponding units/improvements. If you deliver several truckloads of brand new Dell notebooks into the Amazonian jungle or a small Polynesian island, believe me, the natives will not start cranking out nonames few years later...

This is true even on the larger scale... modern industry in the third world belongs almost entirely to foreign corporations (to other "civs", even though this is not adequately modelled in Civ3).

True. Just keep in mind that a more complex combat system needs a more complex AI engine. And keep in mind that there are many people that do not consider more complex things more fun.


I think I saw an example of yours involving two cavalry units. You said both should have an equal chance to win if fighting in an open terrain. I disagree. Cavalry is great for breaking lines, for ripping through defenses, charging through openings in the enemy line... but it is not suitable for holding positions (because when defending something, it can't manoeuvre as easily as if attacking). Could you give me real world examples of cavalry units being successfully used to defend something (as cavalry, of course, not unmounted)?

In Civ3 (at least as I understand it), the defender tries to "hold" his position. The attacker tries to break the defender's line... it seems very appropriate for me that a defending cavalry will be smashed by the attacking cavalry...

Amazons and other primitive tribes are handled by "goodie huts"...one assumes that the civilizations in the game represent the "significant" world powers.

Cavalry on an open field with no position to defend should not be trying to hold their position. Any halfway decent commander would know that. They'd take a more offensive approach, and hence you'd get an even battle. Of course, maybe they'd get a combat penalty if you just fortified them...or maybe you simply shouldn't be able to fortify them at all. At any rate, the idea that Cavalry should be try to defend any square they happen to be in is very, very silly.

As for an example of an RPS system, from history...pikeman are good against knights and the like, Knights are good againts other foot soldiers when they get close, Archers are good against pikes...etc. Maybe there'd be a bit more variation that a pure RPS, but I think the general idea is much better than A/D. Dang, better run or I'll be late for school. Heh. : )

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Yes, I did notice it. I addressed it by including an easier method of upgrading units....which you seemed to have sidestepped in your response....

I know, I was sort of kidding - see that smiley there?

I did not comment on the easier upgrading idea, as I don't believe that upgrading units in the current Civ3 is too costly/difficult. At least I, a human, never have problems upgrading all my units in a timely enough manner, so the adjustment should be done to the AI and its tendency to (not) upgrade, not to the upgrade mechanics itself.

To Gen. Dragolen: sorry for not making it clear enough I was not talking in the current Civ3 context... I can imagine that implementing the idea with the means we currently have cannot work or will have unforeseen side effects. The one/two pop cost for workers and settlers is fine, but even a single pop cost for a military unit would be too much. The same goes for the support costs. The current "measurement units" are too rough for such a system.

Generally speaking, I find the present Civ3 combat model very satisfactory from the gameplay perspective. The only changes I might ever propose would be for the sake of more "realism" or "reality resemblance"... Unfortunately, anything I can think up implies major design changes in the whole game... so I guess I will happily stick to what we have and simply dream of the heroic deeds of the famous Spearman the Tank Basher...

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Amazons and other primitive tribes are handled by "goodie huts"...one assumes that the civilizations in the game represent the "significant" world powers.

Well, how many "civs" are able to actually produce computers today (I am not talking about the ability to assemble them). Advanced processors and chips are produced by very few manufacturers... most of them would be the US, Japan, China (+Taiwan)... dunno, if Britain, Germany, France etc. have their own sources of processors. It is rather tricky to draw parallels from the current world though, as current world is very globalized. Civ will probably never get that globalized. Aztecs will never build a silicon chip factory in a Babylonian city, I guess.

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Cavalry on an open field with no position to defend should not be trying to hold their position. Any halfway decent commander would know that. They'd take a more offensive approach, and hence you'd get an even battle. Of course, maybe they'd get a combat penalty if you just fortified them...or maybe you simply shouldn't be able to fortify them at all. At any rate, the idea that Cavalry should be try to defend any square they happen to be in is very, very silly.

This is simply not possible in a turn based strategy game. You cannot have two units "attacking" simultaneously each other. When it is your turn, your units are attackers. When it is not your turn, your units are defenders. You can't change this attacker-defender scheme, at least I can't imagine a way you could under the current turn system (it would be possible if all the players "planned" their moves first and only after everybody finishes the planning phase, the resulting conflicts would be resolved - if two units tried to enter the same square, both would use their attack values to fight - which is what you would probably like).

Thus, even if you would never use cavalry to defend a position in the real world, it can happen in Civ - if you leave a tile occupied by a cavalry unit only. Actually, it should NOT happen either, just like in the real world. You should always accompany your cavalry/tanks with riflemen/infantry.

If you dislike the term "defense" regarding cavalry, then "control" might be more appropriate. Cavalry is great for beating defenders of a certain area down, for dispersing them and effectively destroying any organized defense. But it is not suited to control any area (as "controlling" an area means establishing strongpoints, holding bridges, and generally preventing any hostile activity).

Originally posted by Blue Moose
As for an example of an RPS system, from history...pikeman are good against knights and the like, Knights are good againts other foot soldiers when they get close, Archers are good against pikes...etc. Maybe there'd be a bit more variation that a pure RPS, but I think the general idea is much better than A/D.

OK, if pikes=R, knights=P, than what is S? Archers? That does not work. Archers are foot soldiers and as such they should be (and in a close fight, are) vulnerable to Knights (even Pikes, too...). But it is obvious that Archers would be fine against anything that is at a distance... That is not an RPS system. That is a rather complicated system that has no general, universal rules. One would have to remember lots of relations. Archers beat Knights, Pikes, and Swords (at a distance), but get killed by just about everyone in close combat, Pikes defend well against Kinghts, but Knights... you need easy to remember rules. For a good RPS system, you need three variables, every one superior to one other and inferior to another. What variables would you choose for a combat system based on RPS?

I would prefer if you try to give a general example, not just three units... there are lots of units and there must be a universal mechanism of resolving their encounters. Such a universal mechanism needs simple attributes it would be able to compare and process. Just saying that Pikes do fine against Horsemen and Knights says nothing about how they do against swords, (long)bowmen etc.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by vondrack
Unfortunately, anything I can think up implies major design changes in the whole game... so I guess I will happily stick to what we have and simply dream of the heroic deeds of the famous Spearman the Tank Basher...

And his trusty sidekick, Kid Warrior.

I still like the paper-rock-scissors best.

Archers beat Foot
Foot beat Horse
Horse beat Archers

Archers best in forest
Foot best in hills
Horse best on flat ground

But that's just me.

By the way, the population-cost idea is probably the most important to make the game more realistic. It demonstrates why a relatively small country like Germany has trouble conquering the entire world -- even with a significant technological advantage. However, it would probably upset some of our blitzing brethren who like to do so. And there is still the gameplay aspect to consider. Would it really make the game more fun?

[Randolph]

I do like the pop idea, I don't see it changing for civ 3, but it would be a good addition/change for latter edditions.

[vmxa1]

I agree that when I see a spearmen with my tank, it is usually not because they do not have tech to create a better unit, it is because they do not have money to upgrade. This ocurrs when I go on the attack and get to a city that was not on the front lines. In that case it is reasnable to not upgrade with limited funds as you do not expect that unit to be fighting. This happens to counties all the time, they do not expect to be at war and do not spend money to get all the troops the best gear and training. If they are unfortunate enough to get attacked, it hurts. I often have units not upgraded as I am betting they will not be needed soon. I do not see civs that are ages behind, maybe that can occur at the lower levels, but that is not common even there, I would think (except the afore mentioned isolated isalnd civ).

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by vondrack

I know, I was sort of kidding - see that smiley there?

I did not comment on the easier upgrading idea, as I don't believe that upgrading units in the current Civ3 is too costly/difficult. At least I, a human, never have problems upgrading all my units in a timely enough manner, so the adjustment should be done to the AI and its tendency to (not) upgrade, not to the upgrade mechanics itself.

To Gen. Dragolen: sorry for not making it clear enough I was not talking in the current Civ3 context... I can imagine that implementing the idea with the means we currently have cannot work or will have unforeseen side effects. The one/two pop cost for workers and settlers is fine, but even a single pop cost for a military unit would be too much. The same goes for the support costs. The current "measurement units" are too rough for such a system.

Generally speaking, I find the present Civ3 combat model very satisfactory from the gameplay perspective. The only changes I might ever propose would be for the sake of more "realism" or "reality resemblance"... Unfortunately, anything I can think up implies major design changes in the whole game... so I guess I will happily stick to what we have and simply dream of the heroic deeds of the famous Spearman the Tank Basher...

Well, I did recognize you didn't mean it entirely seriously, but it seemed like you might have missed my comment (it wasn't quoted in your reply). I was also rushing to get to school.

I think an easier upgrade system makes sense, since there are many times in history when troops on or near the front lines were resupplied with better weapons.

As for the combat system, I must say I really hate it. It is just far too random for me. I understand other people can have fun playing the game and don't mind this, but there are some of us for which the sheer randomness ruins the game. This thread is for us to complain about it.

I think if random factors like weather are going to be in the game, fine, I can handle that. But in general most combats have been decided by tactics, and battles by tactics+strategy. Clearly the strategy is up to the player to provide, but the tactics should be give some 'strategic' control. Great Leaders/'normal' leaders that decrease random factors or give bonuses would be nice. Putting your good commanders in various positions is a strategic level decision. My feeling is that such things should either be left out or put in, not left up to the player to imagine that's what all the dice rolling is about. Even so there is room for bad luck, but many, many more battles were decided based on morale, the number of troops, their training, and how rested they were, so far as I know. Most of this issues are at the strategic level (pushing your troops to move faster could be incorporated into the game fairly easily...with a combat penalty that increases until they rest), and hence should either be ignored or added into the game. That's my feeling on the matter at least. I guess it is an issue on the philosophy of game design.