Combat Results

[Corentor]

Hi I am new to the game.

I have some questions on why the computer seems to beat up my units so badly. Situations like this happen all the time to me.

I had an injured Modern Armor and a mech infantry guarding one of my cities and they both had 2 health points, some egyptian troops come along and they had a chariot and 3 infantry units.


The infantry units attacked my mech infantry and despite the fact that i was fortified inside the city, they managed to kill off the mech infantry while only losing 1 infantry. The remaining tank killed off the rest of the infantry but only had 1 hp left. I thought it would be fine but nope, a chariot from way back in the ancient days manages to take them out.

Other occurances include my battleship losing a single enemy destroyer (both at full heath and both with 5 hp), a moniter sinking a full health nuclear sub, a single industrial rifleman stopping all 3 of my modern armor trying to take a city.

I am already playing the game on the easiest difficulty yet these things keep happening. I have had many occurances of simple spearman hurting my Modern armor so badly while it was attacking that my tank had to retreat.

Yet, I get little to none of these lucky breaks the AI does. My rifleman get run over regularly without putting up resistance against enemy industrial age tanks and my infantry seem to fall without giving much resisetance to enemy tanks.

What am I doing wrong?

[statusperfect]

You're having bad luck

[Corentor]

Bad luck for the entire game? wow.


It almost feels like the AI doesn't play using the same rulebook you do...

This a major turn-off.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Are you building units in cities with barracks?, sorry if its a silly question but units are stronger ie veteran if built at a barracks. If there units are elite and yours are regulars then they have an advantage. Have you built any Hospitals and the Battlefield Medicine small wonder? you need to build five hospitals before you can build the small wonder but this allows your units to heal in enemy territory.

I also find that my army seems stronger the larger and better trained it gets, one way to aqquire better units is to retreat successful attacking pieces like MA to a safe place city or hill etc to recuperate rather than losing more valuable hit points from repeated attacks. As your army grows you get a larger number of elites and consequently more chances of getting a GL.

Also try building some Artillery etc to knock down your opponents hitpoints a little before commiting your best units to the battle. Bombers are very good for this task.

The other really good thing you could do is go to the Strategy forum and read some of the threads there for much more hints tips and strategy.

[statusperfect]

Have you tried combat calculators?

[statusperfect]

COMBAT CALCULATOR:

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3combatcalc.html

[Corentor]

Thanks for the tips. The combat cacluator helped a lot.

I did not realise terrain and city defence bonuses.

Also, I noticed that numbers of units seem to count more towards victory than techonolgy.

Seems putting emphasis on more troops and staying less on the technological edge seems to be in order for me.

Thanks for the help.

[statusperfect]

Seems like you've got it.

Happy civving.

[Kramsib]

I think you are suffering about "Phalanx vs Battleship" problem.

Sometimes in Civ I when attacking a coastal city with a battleship your ship was defeated by a simply phalanx (Civ III's spearman).

In Civ II it was impossible because it has a combat system which is very simmilar to some Rol Games, more realistic including Hit Points and Fire Power so ancient units are unable to defeat modern ones.

But in Civ III the problem is back, you may say "Phalanx Vs Battleship" is not a problem because Battleships can bombard, so "Spearman Vs Modern Armor" can be its new name.

I prefer Civ II's combat system and I wish it would come back.

[statusperfect]

The combat system of Civ 3 makes the game more stable but less fun. I just loved those damn Howitzers

[Zero-Tau]

Originally posted by Kramsib
But in Civ III the problem is back, you may say "Phalanx Vs Battleship" is not a problem because Battleships can bombard, so "Spearman Vs Modern Armor" can be its new name.

Actually, it already has a name on these forums. It's the "Spearman vs. Tank" syndrome. There's been lots of discussions on the issue. I'll try to dig up some.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Corentor
Hi I am new to the game.

I have some questions on why the computer seems to beat up my units so badly. Situations like this happen all the time to me. . .
What am I doing wrong?

You are doing nothing wrong. We have gone over this for a year, but you are new.

The combat values are whacked out and unrealistic at best.

The reasons for that, as admitted by Firaxis, is they "wanted to give civs without a resource a chance", what with resources being so very rare. Of course resources are far too rare in the game; iron and coal is especially unrealistic. So you should edit that also.


You must mod and edit the game. I spent many hours trying to get it to make sense. If you don't have the time, see the completed mods forum and see what they have.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

I find the combat system fine and easy enough to master, so if you just keep at it experience will soon show you the way. As for tinkering with the Editor if it gives you more of a challenge then okay but if youre doing it to make the game easier then I see no point.

That said the editor is there for you to use as you see fit, but if you wish to improve your mastery of the civ3 game then you would be best advised to stick with the game as it comes. Once you understand the basics then Chieftan level becomes virtually impossible to lose, and you will slowly find yourself going higher in the levels of difficulty.

The good thing about this game is there are so many ways to win, so many different strategies you can try. Some say that some of the win styles are no good or frustrating but you can easily switch off the ones you dont like so there is no real issue there. It is quite a challenge on the higher difficulty levels to keep on top of all the victory conditions and many people here have been caught out whilst warmongering and another AI gets the UN or spaceship etc so you must keep an eye on all of them.

My final advice would be to master the original game at least up to regent before you tinker too much with the editor. I play mostly on regent I have had wins at monarch and one at emporer but I find regent level most enjoyable. I would say that I win at regent 9 times out of ten but the AI is quite capable of giving you a run for your money at this level especially if you play out a not so good start. Ive only recently started to use mods and maps etc but not to learn this game but to enhance my already great interest in this the best game Ive yet played.

[vmxa1]

ChrisiusMaximus advices is very sound. The combat is not hard to handle and I do not even think about it anymore. You will not see any of the long term serious players complaining about it. I would only add that going to Monarch before modding, as that is about the break point, no more help for the human. I find Monarch and Emperor games to be the best and Deity to be more constraining. Good luck.

[Kramsib]

Of course, but it forces you to change your Civ II's strategies, it is no longer possible for you to conquer a city with only one mercenary archer in the beginning of the game.

Now, in Civ III, you need a quite big army and a lot of money too. :$:

[Thrawn05]

In the topic of combat calc... I agree with Coracle.

The only way around the Tank killin' Spearmen, is to just churn out units. When I want to go on a major compaign, I usual make soo many units, that I nearly go into bankruptcy. I cut down on entertainment and increase taxes just so I can support my military just long enough to win (and when I say win, it means total annihilation of the enemy).

[Datajack Franit]

SMAC was the best in this field- you could conquer a capital 10 turns after the game start

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Kramsib
Of course, but it forces you to change your Civ II's strategies, it is no longer possible for you to conquer a city with only one mercenary archer in the beginning of the game.

Now, in Civ III, you need a quite big army and a lot of money too. :$:

I for one am very glad to made Civ3 so you could not beat the AI with a few good units.
Civ2 was a great game, but it was broken. One unit could defend a city against all attacks. That was crazy.
Spies were way over powered.
Forget how you played Civ2, it has no bearing on Civ3 and can hurt you. This is a different game.

[FNBrown]

In the "real world" it would take an overwhelming military force to conquer and hold a foreign nation. Wars are ended with treaties, not total annihilation, it most cases.

I'm not a historical expert, but I sincerely doubt you could find a real-world example of a nation being subjugated by anything less than a totally overwhelming enemy force.

With that in mind, I think the Civ3 combat system does a pretty good job.

[GePap]

By the time you have tanks, you should have an industrial base that would allow you to easilly overwhelm and enemy that technologically behind. Everytime I have faced an opponent still using primarily spearmen for defense I also have a huge numerical supeiority, even using units 5 times as costly in shields.

[Corentor]

Originally posted by GePap
By the time you have tanks, you should have an industrial base that would allow you to easilly overwhelm and enemy that technologically behind. Everytime I have faced an opponent still using primarily spearmen for defense I also have a huge numerical supeiority, even using units 5 times as costly in shields.

That kinda kills a lot of the fun. I mean, most strategy games let you take the path of either numbers of superiority, this one makes you take both if you don't want bad luck to screw you over?

It is kind of not fun..... especially when tons of units create a major micro headache

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Corentor
Hi I am new to the game.

I have some questions on why the computer seems to beat up my units so badly. Situations like this happen all the time to me.

I had an injured Modern Armor and a mech infantry guarding one of my cities and they both had 2 health points, some egyptian troops come along and they had a chariot and 3 infantry units.


The infantry units attacked my mech infantry and despite the fact that i was fortified inside the city, they managed to kill off the mech infantry while only losing 1 infantry. The remaining tank killed off the rest of the infantry but only had 1 hp left. I thought it would be fine but nope, a chariot from way back in the ancient days manages to take them out.

Other occurances include my battleship losing a single enemy destroyer (both at full heath and both with 5 hp), a moniter sinking a full health nuclear sub, a single industrial rifleman stopping all 3 of my modern armor trying to take a city. . .

What am I doing wrong?

This is an old issue.

Simple answer:

What you are doing wrong is playing with the ridiculous and non-historical unit values that came with the game, in large part because Firaxis made resources so unrealisticaly rare they had to give very low ratings to post-gunpowder units "to give the civ without a resource a chance".

You must edit the game, including resource appearance rates and unit strengths. If you don't want to do it yourself check many mods.

[Zero-Tau]

Coracle, this is the second time you respond to this thread, with exactly the same answer...

Do you even look at other posts than the first?

[Kramsib]

Well, I had a look to the Civ III editor and I have discovered that the HP Bonus is not being used by any unit, so those who want to erase "Spearman Vs Tank" problem could manage to do it with this feature.

That is a positive point for the editor, if you don't like a part of the game, change it!.

[Tattila the Hun]

What is the HP bonus exactly?