01-06-2004 22:31									#1
	Combat System Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Does anyone know if its possible to alter Civ III so I can get a Civ:CTP I/II battle system. I hate when the AI has hundreds of troops in each city. I would like there to be a limit to the number of troops you can have in each city. My games are getting ridiculus with the AI armies. Any way this can happen? I would actually rather a full CTP style system, but I'll be happy with troop limits. Thanks for any input you can give me.

	01-06-2004 23:11									#2
	Remove this text

To my knowledge that is not possible. I guess you just have to learn how to deal with it(probably not the answer you wanted )

I'll admit that taking out those heavily defended AI cities are Hard Work.

First, cut them off from reinforcements.
Second, bring many units
Third, BRING MANY UNITS
Fourth, armies are cool, let you pick away units at your leisure without own losses.
Fifth, try to kill them outside the city.
Sixth, try to lure them out(then #5)
Seventh, artillery, artillery, artillery. You need *roughly* 2-3 per defender to make an impact(assuming same tech-level)
Eight, when you get enough artillery+attackers to take the city in one turn, do so.

	02-06-2004 03:16									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Or if it's the late game, bombers.

	02-06-2004 10:30									#4
	Increase Your PM Length

I never liked the CtP model.
It's a communistic model: everybody is equal.
What fun is it to not fully be able to defend a city so your enemy can come any day and take the city?

Let me and the AI defend our cities as good as possible.
It's cool if it's hard to take a city. It's a game. It should be hard to win

	03-06-2004 18:22									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy I never liked the CtP model. It's a communistic model: everybody is equal. What fun is it to not fully be able to defend a city so your enemy can come any day and take the city? Let me and the AI defend our cities as good as possible. It's cool if it's hard to take a city. It's a game. It should be hard to win

...and it should be as tedious as possible

	04-06-2004 01:54									#6
	Remove this text

Its not that I don't want it tedious. Its just ridiculous for the AI to be able to support hundreds and hundreds of troops without any apparent consequences. They seem to do fine in science, happiness, everything, yet they can support many many more troops than me. And having to take a out a city defended by 100 troops is annoying b/c units early on can only attack once, which means you need at least a 100 yourself to take the city over in a turn before they bring reinforcements. War weariness is through the roof with 100 units missing. It just seems that the AI should have been designed to be smarter with its money/resources. I mean, they support hundreds of troops, like I said, with no bad results to my knowledge. Plus, they don't upgrade, so you're forced to take out stupid ancient units with tanks, and its really realy sad when an archer beats a tank. It still happens to me. But thanks anyway, I'll just have to deal with it or something I guess.

	04-06-2004 02:27									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

It is not absolutely neccesary to take the city in one turn, but it will be cheaper most of the time. If you got a tech advantage(and are able to lay a successful siege) you can kill the defenders over many turns.

	04-06-2004 08:10									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by SilverbergHeir Its not that I don't want it tedious. Its just ridiculous for the AI to be able to support hundreds and hundreds of troops without any apparent consequences.

The AI gets a bonus on support on the higher levels. Its a standard type of cheat for all civ-style games. So the AI can maintain a larger army to offset the ability of the player to outthink it on a tactical level.

quote: Originally posted by SilverbergHeir And having to take a out a city defended by 100 troops is annoying b/c units early on can only attack once, which means you need at least a 100 yourself to take the city over in a turn before they bring reinforcements. War weariness is through the roof with 100 units missing. It just seems that the AI should have been designed to be smarter with its money/resources. I mean, they support hundreds of troops, like I said, with no bad results to my knowledge. Plus, they don't upgrade, so you're forced to take out stupid ancient units with tanks, and its really realy sad when an archer beats a tank. It still happens to me. But thanks anyway, I'll just have to deal with it or something I guess.

2 words...Stacked combat
Structure civ3 to allow a player to send multiple units at at a target with a single push of a button (or key) and I'd be playing civ3 now instead of (Modded) CTP2.

The issue that Cybershy has with CTP is that there is a cap on the number of units that can be on a tile. But even with that cap, CTP2 Modders have been able to offset much of the the shortcomings that cap entails - thus providing the player with a more realistic and less tedious form of combat over civ3's current model.

Let's hope Firaxis finally gets a clue for civ4...

	04-06-2004 10:43									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Stacked combat would be a cool option indeed.
But it should be better executed than PtW I think.

SilverBergHeir, it sounds like you're playing on a too high lever. Just lower your level and things will be better.

	04-06-2004 10:55									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy Stacked combat would be a cool option indeed.

I'd like to see stack combat with a tactical map where you can arrange your troops.

	04-06-2004 11:46									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Pherhaps RTS should meet TBS in combat
So it's all TBS, but when you attack someone, a RTS map of the territory opens, and you can move your tanks around etc. Like C&C or something.

Of course there should be an easy mode, in which the combat just works as in Civ1-3. And an advanced mode that offer you all you want!

That's what I want

	04-06-2004 12:09									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Go play Medieval: Total War then...

Seriously - that's exactly what you describe, CyberShy.

	04-06-2004 12:13									#13
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'd prefer the tactical board to be a TBS system also. It would play something like MoM or LoM (or to use a space game example - Space Empires IV).

	04-06-2004 19:40									#14
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Put a Total War style system into Civ 4

The current Civ 3 system is, lets face it, the Civ 1 system with some extra buttons. Also with a Total War style system, we'll all be able to prove that a unit of spearmen cant defeat a whole unit of tanks. Although they might just be able to take one out

	05-06-2004 17:14									#15
	Tired of ads?

The day they introduce a tactical combat board will be the day I give up on the Civ series, I strongly suspect.

And the AI stuffing to many defenders into cities is a problem? One of my chief complaints with the CivIII AI is its failure to sensibly reinforce threatened cities; if it's got ten cities with three defenders in each, and I land 20 attackers next to one of them, it of course should send troops from the other cities to reinforce it, but it never does.

	06-06-2004 08:38									#16
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I don't mind the big stacks of AI troops. It just means they aren't anywhere else.
(Besides, huge stacks are just nuke magnets in the modern age.)

	06-06-2004 18:19									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I know a lot of people want a Total War type system; also a lot dont. Total War itself gives you the option though in campaign mode - you can choose to command personally or let the computer calculate the result, which may be an option for the Civ series to follow.

	06-06-2004 19:19									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The problem with having an 'option' for tactical combat is that it isn't an option at all. Every game that I have every played that had this option made it so that you needed to take tactical control to do okay. Hence it is not really an option.

I doubt that it would happen due to what Sid calls the "Covert Action Syndrome". This is when you try to put 2 or more different game play styles in one game. In nearly every case it is weaker than either would have been if they were made the point of an entire game. He refuses to make this mistake again.

	08-06-2004 06:15									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

X-Com Apocolypse did alright with a dual TBS/real time tactical system. Before each combat you can choose to resolve either way. I always played TBS; real time went faster but it lacked a finer degree of precision and control.
I think a tactical board in Civ would be great for those stack vs. stack battles but I'm willing to concede it may add an element to the overall game that, for some, may detract from the overall experience of playing a game. An interesting thought though...

	08-06-2004 23:58									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

The problem isn't joining TBS with RTS, but grand strategy with tactical.

	09-06-2004 10:56									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by vondrack Go play Medieval: Total War then... Seriously - that's exactly what you describe, CyberShy.

Pherhaps the battle system is. But civ is much more than just the battle system.

	09-06-2004 11:16									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Two Words: Nuclear Weapons Will destory at least half the units, & the blast isn't as cool as RON, but its up there!!!

	09-06-2004 11:48									#23
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I always loved the 'incoming nuke' sound from civ2 Real menacing.

	09-06-2004 12:03									#24
	Suffering from ads?

Nah, I dislike using nukes.
It makes me feel like a loser.
The only purpose of nukes is scare your enemy away of using them.

	09-06-2004 14:29									#25
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy Nah, I dislike using nukes. It makes me feel like a loser. The only purpose of nukes is scare your enemy away of using them.

There's nothing better than playing as the Americans, & launchng a couple of ICBM's into the heart of Peking (Beijing)

	09-06-2004 23:17									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Perhaps....

the current combat possibilities using what is available in the CSC game editor is not that far off,

if... the AI was tweaked to use artillery. I have done a vast amount of building a mod model that carries much of the sentiments posted in this thread. I think Conquests expansion inadvertantly left the AI behind when they just kept 'adding' things to make CIV3 better (?) or different or just with 'more'.

They need simply to get to tweaking that AI to 'use' well, ok just better then what it is now doing with the built in possibilities. Make good Firaxis, no matter how long it takes you, for obviously it does matter us, as long as it gets addressed.

This is my three cents again,
Happy gaming and modding for those so addicted.

	10-06-2004 01:05									#27
	Remove this text

The AI getting left behind is definitively an issue. One example is the flak units, which the AI doesn't seem to understand.

	10-06-2004 01:30									#28
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

True, i've seen the AI using flak units as escorts for settlers. As they become available when everybody is getting tanks it seems to be a very loose strategy.