 |
|
xobsidianx
|
|
The combat system sucks. can someone explain to me why the smac combat system was not used in civ 3? The smac system is much better.
Also, changes made by me using the editor crash the computer when I try to use them in a game. Is the editor buggy? if someone has used it successfully, I'd appreciate a step by step procedure for incorporating changes. Thanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Rifleman attack = 4
Spearmen fortified defence = 2 + 50% = 3
In a city = + 50%
in a metro = + 100% = 5
then a 10-50% bonus depending on terrain. So a spearman can have a defence in a hill metro of 5.5, while a riflemen has a low attack of 4.
Duuuh. Riflemen can attack, but if you don't want to take 70% casualties against... anything, you'd better blast the opposition down to 1 hp and no city bonus with artillery first. I've waged war with em before.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sytass
|
|
There are a number of cases where technologically inferior troops beat supposedly superior troops. The Zulu in South Africa gave the British a hard time. The Vietnamese in their fight against the US. The Swiss pikemen of medieval times whose demise began when the crossbow appeared. The barbarian tribes that through the Roman back out of Germany.
A lot of people claim it unrealistic when a low tech unit beats a high tech unit. However, as long as it's not occuring too often, it's still within reason (bad luck, superior commanders, boosted morale, and all that reasoning one does to immerse further into the game).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
vmxa1
|
 |
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
I am tossing my vote to tweak the combat system. Zulu did give the brits some trouble. They lost hundreds doing it though. The one big fight they won was due to bad tactics by the commanders. It had to do with the smoke from the rifle firing making it impossible to see after a few vollies. Had they understood this phenominon it would have been a masacre in reverse. A truer test was later when a vastly out number Brit army held off the Zulu. I think this all has nothing to do with the complaint. If you talk about massive numbers verse small numbers, fine they can win at great cost. Ask the Afgans about that with Soviets, they loss a miilion people to win that war. The Vietnamese are the same, they now say they lost 2 millon people to our 5x,xxx. Viets had really equal hand to hand weapons, they only lacked air power. I lost an Elite Modern tank to a pikemen last night? All of the colorful rationalization of having units have devices of the time do not fly. I mean talk of spearmen have a gun/rocket because it is modern times, that stuff. It is an agorithmic function, numbers. It would seem defense it over done, I say it is the bonuses that are the big factor. I do not mind if a rare case occurs, but it is not that rare. I have not played any games that did not have many of this strange out comes. I am not talking about warrior beating hoplite, but spearmen (regulars) beating elite or vet calvary is not that uncommon. This is happening on cases where my unit has the most bonus, such as I am on a hill and they are on the plains/grassland. I am fortified, they are not. I am Elite. It does not ruin the game, but does cause frustration. What I am saying is do ot shown me how the system can come up with that out come, make it so it does not do so. No more galley sinking Battleships. I had that where an Elite Battleship lost to a frigate and a galley. The frigate was regular, the galley was vet. This should never be allowed. A capitol modern ship could just ram it and sink it with no damage. Many things could be done, reduce the defence or HP for units that are still in use after a new area is reached by anyone. Wait I am not sure that HP will work as one battle I had I never even score one hit point with my better unit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
Now to retread this yet again, especially with the patch so close, but...
1) Riflemen are for defense - what does that mean? You mean they screwed the unit up and now all it's good for is defense? Yes. You mean riflemen in formation should not be expected to attack guys with spears and win? No.
2) Zulu's with a 20 to 1 numerical advantage gave the British a hard time - who won though? The Vietnamese weren't spearmen, they had assualt rifles, mortars, and other contemporary combat weaponry. The only way inferior troops carrying spears defeats troops carrying guns is with sheer numbers - that means two riflemen units should walk over a pikeman. Period.
3) Looking at the history of the unit in Civ, in Civ2, you would never have this goofy combat result - because riflemen had 2HP to the pikemen's 1. Funny, nobody complained about this case in Civ2, but when it's screwed up in Civ3, we see all sorts of defenders talking about how balanced it is in Civ3. So where were you in Civ2 when it was completely different?
In short, the system needs work...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Elite modern tank to a pikemen? Right. I assume you mean with 5 hps still, since hp is all "elite" means. So a 24 attacker lost 5 rounds to a 3 defender.
It seems a lot of the complainers are having very interesting combat results... "man, I lost 50 modern tanks against warriors, and galleys are sinking my battleships, and..."
Sure.
Tragically, there's no way to really demonstrate it. Even a screenshot it mid sinking doesn't tell the whole story. But... a 24 attacker lost to a 3 defender. 5 times. I lost a wounded infantry against a knight once, but nothing that comes close to this screwy.
Anyway, even if you don't want to rationalize or ignore it, it's not as though this represents a gameplay crisis. If you have modern tanks and he spearmen, congratulations, he loses. But you should think about moving up to Warlord 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
Venger, riflemen have 4-2 against a spearmen in the field, no problem, and 6-1 if they are defending. City multiplication bonuses make it harder, but bets are off in cities anyway. Level the town and wipe out the HP.
The model is working fine for me. I fail to see meaningful suggestions. Double modern unit HPs so they can't lose to ancient units? What the hell difference does that make? Modern units usually cream ancient ones, and it's not supposed to be something that happens very often. Remember the last time a phalanx of spearmen was rolled over by Leopard IIs? Me neither.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jason
Venger, riflemen have 4-2 against a spearmen in the field, no problem, and 6-1 if they are defending. |
And they have zero advantage attacking a bunch of pikemen in the plain...using the .1 terrain and .25 fortify bonus.
So which is the more appropriate system, the Civ2 example of riflemen attacking pikemen or the Civ3 one? Musketeers are even worse.
quote:
City multiplication bonuses make it harder, but bets are off in cities anyway. Level the town and wipe out the HP. |
How about we relevel the field with values that make sense?
quote:
The model is working fine for me. I fail to see meaningful suggestions. Double modern unit HPs so they can't lose to ancient units? What the hell difference does that make? |
Then you clearly aren't looking at any threads that have had numerous examples of both meaningul suggestions and what doubling the HP does. The combat values need adjustment, and having the HP/FP model redone will as well.
quote:
Modern units usually cream ancient ones, |
Except for:
Ironclad vs. Caravel - can lose up to 43% of the time
Cavalry vs. Tank - tank can lose up to 48% of the time
Longbowmen/Immortal/Knight/Elephant vs. Tank - tank can lose up to 32% of the time
Samurai vs. Tank - tank can lose up to 43% of the time
Musketeer vs. almost any unit - likely to lose any attack
And strap this on:
Elite ironclad will defeat regular battleship a whopping 25% of the time! That's bull!
Either these are out of whack, and you can admit it, or these make total sense, and every other Civ game and other TBS game is screwed up. I vote the former...
quote:
and it's not supposed to be something that happens very often. Remember the last time a phalanx of spearmen was rolled over by Leopard IIs? Me neither. |
I saw the infamous polish cavalry charge defeat my tank unit. Each was veteran, full hit points, and this was with doulbe HP turned on. Unacceptable.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shaka II
|
|
Regarding rifleman vs. spearman, give those old spearman a fighting chance! It keeps the game interesting. Besides, I wouldn't attack in the above scenario unless I was out in the plains or grasslands (or desparate).
The increased frequency (in Civ III) of cases ('outliers') where a significantly stronger unit loses to a much weaker unit has been explained in one of the threads in General. Since the hit points/fire power model of Civ II was abandoned (by Soren), and the number of hit points is less (a 1HP in Civ II was really 10HP), the number of random trials in a battle is fewer, thus increasing the likelihood of an outlier. Someone suggested increasing the hit points by e.g. a factor of 5 from 1-5 to 5-25. This should fix things, but I think it means an increase in random trials by a factor of 5 and might slow things down, especially on a large map? Maybe a factor of 2 in the number of random trials would be enough and still be fast enough (a Soren question).
Regarding Zulu, I'm no historian, but there was a good PBS documentary on one of the battles with Zulu where they theorized that the rifle barrels could not dissipate the heat quickly enough to withstand the shooting frequency required against 4,000 zulu warriors (they overheated). Some good old flicks zulu/zulu dawn/there was a third.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shaka II
|
|
Also the British ammunition boxes were too difficult to open, given the urgency of situation. So, sometimes modern technology fails, and the spearman wins!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jason
|
|
Halifax, NS, Canada
Aug 1999
time: 05:16
|
|
You're citing the best examples of high attack values against low defence values. And besides which, the normally embarrasing "apologist" approach actually works fine with a lot of these. You're assuming that all battleships are incomperably better than all ironclads.
quote:
Then you clearly aren't looking at any threads that have had numerous examples of both meaningul suggestions and what doubling the HP does. The combat values need adjustment, and having the HP/FP model redone will as well.
|
What I've seen is the Indefatigable Whining Brigade venture out into the virgin fields of "making up anecdotal combat results that we can't prove and they can't disprove." And people who are using modern armour to beat phalanxes getting upset because once a year a spear goes into the jerry-can or whatever, and they're all broken up about it, when the real difficulty is them playing on chieftan.
Cavalry offence against tank defence doesn't upset me too much. In the specific case of the Panzer unit we know we are talking about sophisticated tanks, but the idea that tanks are vulnerable without infantry support is very accurate. Kursk anyone? And those were good tanks, if especially vulnerable to infantry attack. I don't see this offence-defence combo as unacceptable. The relation of infantry offence to cavalry offence is ok, 6-6, and infantry can definately take a run at tanks, so why can't the cavalry fight as dragoons, dismounted when their horses become a liability? Cavalry performed on the eastern front in both world wars, you know. And not just as APOCRYPHAL polish lancer charges that you get from bad Hitler channel documentaries.
Elite ironclad will defeat regular battleship a whopping 25% of the time! That's bull!
Isn't. We're not talking about the Monitor vs. the Arizona here. Maybe a few river monitors vs. the Gloire or something. You can interpret the extra HP as numerical superiority and modernization efforts if you like as well.
I would not MIND either way if they changed hitpoints for units by era, but I'll tell you one thing, it would change the balance situation something awful the other way. The first people to reach chivalry, nationalism would have grotesque combat advantages that make a mockery of continuous development of military technologies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
People are just not bothering to learn how the combat system works.
I still suspect streaky clumps of random numbers though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sytass
|
|
Well, I think a lot of these "odd" results can be avoided by following a simple rule that's even made it into NATO doctrine.
Do not attack unless you have three times the strength of the targeted unit. And I am talking about nominal strength, not strength in combat stats.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Umgssda
|
|
I think, that the combat problem is caused by the calculation not being radom enough. Good results seem to be followed by good results and really bad results often come in a row. That why it relatively often happens, that a overwhelmingly stronger unit might loose several hitpoints in a row.
You might argue, that those situations will only take place on low difficult levels, but that's no reason not to fix it.
The combat situation that annoyed me most, took place on sea: A frigate and a galleon vs one caravel. Both attackers sunk and the caravel hardly scratched.
Of course the odds for the caravel aren't bad, but they should be. Imagine, that the galley would fight as well...
Fighting values of sailing ships need adjustment. If someone needs Iron and Salpeter to build a Frigate he can expect it to outgun at least a galley.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Umgssda
|
|
Well, if you define 'Caravel' to be a unit with defense 2 and 'Frigate' to be a unit with attack 2 everything is in order.
But if I think of a caravel I cannot help to think of a 15th century ship poorly armed, which main focus was exploration and trade.
The 19th century frigate was a full purpose warship.
What concerns me, is that you cannot build any proper warships, that can really rule the sea up to the iron clads.
Iron clads being heavily armored steam ships, which highly depended on calm water, very similar to galleys.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-11-2001 15:12
|