Combat system still sucks?

[Gaal Dornik]

well, wanted to buy a game, but still threatened by this:

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Quite simply, the results are too given to flukes. I can live with the unreality of the enemy pikemen doing alright against my cavalry, but the enemy Spearmen should be getting their asses kicked. At the very least, I want an general idea of how the battle will turn out if I have 10 cavalry attacking a town defended by spearmen...or what have you. As it is now, you really can't have any comfort in how the battle will turn out, becaue the too often occuring runs of bad luck can eliminate a lot of an attacking force.

and this:

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. Means almost any unit can kill any unit. This random number also ruins everything else in a turn that has a roll

Dont want to play gamble but a strategic game.
Patches, addons or mods perhabs?

[Arrian]

Mods perhaps. Some people took to modifying the number of hitpoints units have. There are two ways of doing it, I think:

1) just double every units' hps. Conscript get 4, Regs get 6, vets get 8, elites get 10. With more hp, flukey runs of luck tend to even out before resulting in the death of the superior unit. I guess.

2) increase hps through the ages. Give the medieval units +1 hp compared to the ancients, add another for the industrial units, and add another for the modern units.

That's all I can think of for you. I play the game as-is, and though I can definitely get mad at individual combat results, I've decided I can accept the flukey results (for and against me). Some people can, some just can't, and it ruins the game for them.

-Arrian

[Gaal Dornik]

oh :/ Thx for quick reply. I hoped it would be patched or added in an addon or somehow changed since a last year. A game which could drive me mad even if its only from time to time isnt a good thing i think. Real-life already has this feature build-in.. Im the one who likes to plan i think.
This HP thingy looks good, im gonna try this as soon as i get access to civ3.

Is it true that those random numbers are generated at the beginning of a round for all battles in it, so f.e it is for sure that one almost definitely looses battles 2,3,4 and wins 1,5,6? and could exploit it by "sacrificing" non important units at those rounds and winning all the key ones? - so HPs dont matter?

[vmxa1]

Yes all of the points are valid, you will get some ugly combat results. Like Arrian says, you can accept it and try to plan for it.

The RNG can be manipulated as you suggest. By changing the sequence of events and combat, you can alter the outcome. I find this worse than the bad rolls. This can mean that just sending a unit to a different tile and path, will alter the game. You see it in some of the games that others have played here. One person took a slightly different path with a warrior and gets to a hut in a different turn. They often will get something from the hut that the other does. In AUSG101, some got a settler from a given hut and others did not.
You see one fight a given barb and lose and others win. This occurred because they fought in a different turn or sequence.

[Cookie Monster]

Ok I've got to ask as I don't think this has been answered before.

I've had Civ3 since day one and it had been a rollercoaster ride. I've gotten better at the game and as Arrian has stated learned to accept the combat results for what they are.

However my question is this. What was wrong with the Civ2 combat model? Why did they feel it needed to be changed for Civ3? I've heard one arguement that this new system supposedly eliminates the chance for a phalanx to defeat a battleship. Well in Civ3 a spearman can't kill a battleship but now he has a chance to kill a tank. This is what gets a lot of people I suppose.

I've learned to accept Civ3 for what it is and do occasionally play the game and enjoy it. It is my curiosity that begs the above question and nothing more.

[WackenOpenAir]

It might suck, but it IS realistic the way it is.

In reallity, there have been amzing victories for smaller armies and defeats for large ones.
The luck factor (so it seems for the planning general, for the man in battle, it's not just luck but mostly morale and stuff like that) is pretty big.

Also do you see the chance that a simple solder with some rocket/granade thingy takes down an apache. It isn't a big chance, but it is there.

[Arrian]

That's how I look at it. Warfare is a very uncertain thing. The orders from up on high (you) can be great, but if an underling (unit commander) is an idjit, you could lose anyway.

Imagine how pissed the French king must have been when he heard about Agincourt.

Anyway, though it can sometimes be frustrating, overall it works for me. I've gotten my share of good luck too.

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

I don't know about real or not real, but Civ2 combat was very poor. Beat one, beat all? This and walls make a lone defender kill massive numbers of attackers. I thought it was very weak. I would rather have it as it is now. I would prefer they reduced the RNG factor by using Fire Power from Civ2. So it woudl be a lot less likely that an ancient units would win against a unit from another age.
The designers wanted to keep those backward civs in the game, but I think that was a lost cause and it only made the players mad.

[Gaal Dornik]

dont wanna flame.. it will not change something anyway since its a dead horse beating..
Its SMAC time it has all the good sides, never drives me mad, good old combat system, superb diplomatic system, but the graphics are rather old.

This all reminds me of a little story/phrase, dunno whether i can translate it proper in english.:

"Mice cried, were pricked, but continued to eat a cactus..."
Its a game after all and only then a world simulator

[Ljube]

Yes, and SMAC also has the best border/territory system.
No culture flipping (by the way, specialists don't count in the equation for culture flipping, so Blitzkrieg on earliest, nicely placed AI cities that don't overlap is the best option to prevent flip of a captured city)

[Verto]

I haven't had too much of a problem with Tanks getting defeated by far inferior units. It does happen, but not so much that I want to smash my monitor.

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I would prefer they reduced the RNG factor by using Fire Power from Civ2. So it woudl be a lot less likely that an ancient units would win against a unit from another age.

That is a good suggestion. Firepower would reduce the chance for a warrior defeating a tank.

[WackenOpenAir]

a nice solution would IMO be:

calculate the chance like done now, than multiply it by 1.5 and substract 25.

this way, if you now have 90% chance to win, 90*1.5 -25 = 100 (cut off at 100 or 0)

80% *1.5 - 25 = 95%

50% * 1.5 -25 = 50%

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Gaal Dornik
well, wanted to buy a game, but still threatened by this:

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Moose Quite simply, the results are too given to flukes. I can live with the unreality of the enemy pikemen doing alright against my cavalry, but the enemy Spearmen should be getting their asses kicked. At the very least, I want an general idea of how the battle will turn out if I have 10 cavalry attacking a town defended by spearmen...or what have you. As it is now, you really can't have any comfort in how the battle will turn out, becaue the too often occuring runs of bad luck can eliminate a lot of an attacking force.

Actually, spears and pike would kick serious ass against mounted troops. Picture a mounted charge against set spears and you'll see what I mean.

Spearmen vs. Tanks? Build ditches and Burmese tiger traps. For added fun, fill them with water or fuel. Bye-bye tanks.

Spearmen vs. Aircraft? Just hide. Planes can't occupy terrain.

Spearmen vs. Marines? Modern infantry would probably pose the greatest threat to spearmen. They could lessen the danger somewhat with guerrilla tactics.

Though I agree that outclassed units in Civ should almost always lose, it should not always have to be that way. Superior leadership and adaptive tactics can help bridge the gulf.