 |
Is Combat Screwed Up?
This poll is closed. |
| Yes |
   |
62 |
50.00% |
| No |
   |
62 |
50.00% |
| Total: |
124 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Jurassic Joe
|
|
San Jose, CA
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
I disagree. Custer was not fighting against an up to date unit. Those were mounted archers who had equipped themselves with firearms through other means. they did not have a country that produced them and they didn't have the tech. I don't think that they even made their own ammo. It's a clear case of a modern unit losing a battle to an obsolete one. Sh*t happens!
I'm sorry that your modern units keep getting killed by inferior ones, but I have been playing since day one and this just doesn't happen all that often. I have lost modern units to obsolete ones, but it is so rare that it doesn't affect my game play. I do use combined arms for most of my battles and I take casualties, but I dish out far worse than I recieve.
I'm not saying that you are a bad civ player, I'm sure you rock at this game, but you have to look at this in a different light. So the idiot AI beats you in a battle, big deal! I bet it doesn't follow up the victory with any kind of a plan, while we humans plot and scheme the eventual destruction and subjegation of the AI's entire civ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moraelin
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jurassic Joe
I disagree. Custer was not fighting against an up to date unit. Those were mounted archers who had equipped themselves with firearms through other means. they did not have a country that produced them and they didn't have the tech. I don't think that they even made their own ammo. It's a clear case of a modern unit losing a battle to an obsolete one. Sh*t happens! |
Huh? Who cares HOW they got those rifles? Who cares WHO produced those rifles? In both the US independence war and the secession war, there were a lot of foreign weapons and ammo used. Does that mean that the US forces using them were not really modern units? They were, what, then? Hoplites?
Those indians had rifles which shot 2-3 times more often than Custer's, and you're telling me it's not an up to date unit? Then WHAT would count as up to date for that era? X-Wings and battle-mechs?
The fact remains, those indians did have rifles. In game terms, it's an UPGRADED unit. You know, same as when you upgrade your own horsemen to Cavalry. Noone says they're still not up to date, just because 2000 years ago they had spears instead of rifles. NOW they have rifles, and are trained to use rifles. They're Cavalry. That's it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jurassic Joe
|
|
San Jose, CA
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
No, they are not up to date units. You can't update your units unless you have the tech, the resources and a barracks. They don't qualify in all 3 areas. Mabey they have a barracks, but not the other 2.
In the revolutionary war we had the tech, the resources and some sort of barracks. I would agree that our units were inferior to the british, but it's just another example of an obsolete/inferior unit defeating a modern army. We bought lots of rifles from the French, we captured british cannons and we had a great leader. The British were the worlds super power at the time and we beat them.
Tell me this, are you actually losing any games because of the combat system or is your victory timetable just pushed back a bit?
In my games the timetable gets pushed back a bit or I go off on a tangent for a short time. I do get upset about it, but when I sink their navy, enslave their people and smash down the gates of their capitol, you know I'm dragging the dead bodies of those spearmen behind my tanks! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boney
|
|
Thailand
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
In the revolutionary war we had the tech, the resources and some sort of barracks. I would agree that our units were inferior to the british, but it's just another example of an obsolete/inferior unit defeating a modern army. We bought lots of rifles from the French, we captured british cannons and we had a great leader. The British were the worlds super power at the time and we beat them. |
So it is another 'we beat the brits' american post. Now first thing is that the majority of people fighting on noth sides were ethnic Brits, so who beat who? In fact there were a lot of mercenaries in the British army at that time, so it is quite possible that there were actually more Brits in the revolutionary army than the British army. The fact that it was a 'revolution' seems to acknowledge it was a fight from within. Also the British army was far from home and many did not want to fight their ethnic brethren. The British generals were totally inept. And the revolutionaries were on their home soil, which always creates a greater fighting spirit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cypselus
|
|
Arlington, VA
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
It must also be added that we Americans had plenty of French help against the British. Also, any characterization of George III's Great Britain as a "super-power" defines the term rather too far downward for my tastes. Britain never, even in the salad days of the mid-19th century, had the degree of military dominance that the US does today, or that the Soviet Union had only a few years ago.
And Civ III combat is still broken.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boney
|
|
Thailand
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Cypselus, I agree with you. But it must be taken into account the time period in question. In the 'Salad' days Britain was pretty powerful, especially when considering its size. Though its power was not militarily huge its cultural power could give it the right to 'superpower' status. Even the US, as we know it, for the most part derived from Britain and retained many cultural aspects including both religion and language, even US football derived from the British game of rugby, and arguably, baseball derived from the British game of rounders.
Also the British influence was strong internationally, with Thailand even benefitting. The Brits managed to keep the french from taking Thailand. This led to many Brits coming to work here, including the guy who made the first map of Thailand. Thai people still seem to hold the British in special regard.
As to CIV3 Libertarian has spelled out what needs to be done. Combat in CIV3 sucks but can be changed (I think). I do not play CIV3 now, but will when I have more time and when bugs are fixed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
Obviously civ3 is not a historical war simulation, it is basically impossible to simulate anything with the scale that civ3 uses
if we just take the custer example, first thing that battle happened in 1876, so that turn represents all of 1876 and 1877 and not just the clash in the summer of 1876
it also represents something far greater than the amount of men custer had under his command, Custer is at best a hitpoint and not an entire unit
all of the battles from custer's last stand to wounded knee was only eight turns
the entire US civil war was only three turns
world war II was only four turns, and if you count US participation it was only 2 turns
so instead of trying to balance civ3 to anything historical it needs a historical flavor, and part of that flavor comes in the form of tanks beating spearmen...
even if you try and argue that spearmen are really AK-47 armed insurgents, and use Vietnam as your perfect example of a super power losing to those same insurgents, what you have to realize is that war weariness and not military defeat was what ended Vietnam
guerrilla war is poorly modeled in civ3 so there isn't much room for hit and run attacks, so we have toe to toe slugmatches between two armies and balance should come from comparing the cost of units to each other
balance should come from the following
*combined arms tactics should alway beat a unit type strategy
*if both sides have invested equal amounts in tech then the one with the larger army should win most of the time relative to their size advantage
*if both sides have invested equal amounts in shields then the one with better tech should win most of the time relative to their tech advantage
so a player with tanks, planes, and infantry should never lose to a force composed only of ancient infantry, especially if the first player spent 1000 shields on their army and the second player spent 100 shields on their army
if civ3 had more hit points per unit then the combat results would be better
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moraelin
|
|
OK, since we're basically going in circles, let's make a few things clear. (So we at least know what we're talking about.) My problem isn't with the combat system itself, but with the numbers in the game. An offense vs defense system isn't that bad an idea, and fire-power can be abstracted out after all. But no matter how good a system is, if you feed it the wrong numbers, you end up with a case of "garbage in, garbage out." And, yes, the numbers can be edited, which is what I did.
And my gripe about the numbers used is that in some cases they produce wild results very often. I'm not as much concerned with stuff that happens 1% of the time (tank vs warrior), as with stuff that happens all wrong half the time.
The point is that the only way to play the game is to learn those numbers and think those battles in terms of numbers. And THAT is what I dislike.
And it looks to me like there are basically two groups of people.
1) The "maths commander" group, who has no problem seeing it as purely a 6 attack unit vs a 3 defense unit. Now let's roll your 4 sided die against my 6 sided die, and see who won. Darn. Let's try again.
2) The rest of us who actually play a game (ANY game) as a thing to be immersed in. And who actually see that battle not as a 6 sided dice vs 3 sided dice craps game, but as an Infantry division (complete with howitzers, mortars and squad LMG's, in addition to each soldier's assault rifle) taking on a few hundred guys with bronze tipped spears (which is what a Hoplites unit means).
And I'm sure that the "maths commander" group will cheerfully point out "but why the heck are you using Infantry on offense?" Because a lot of actual wars were fought that way, and because if you think of it as INFANTRY and HOPLITES, not as a generic 6/10/1 unit vs a generic 1/3/1 unit, it makes sense. The squad weapons alone should be enough to make mincemeat out of those hoplites.
Yet on grassland, and without the hoplites being even fortified, between veterans, they'll slaughther the attacking infantry about 25% of the time. Not in mountains (a la Thermopilae), not in jungle (a la Vietnam), but on flat ground and non-fortified to boot. Between regulars or conscripts, even more battles will be won by the hoplites. Now I don't have a problem with stuff that _occasionally_ goes pear shape (ambushes, Custer forgot his Gattling guns, etc), but THAT kind of probability isn't an accident any more. ONE general may leave his Gattlings behind, but if 25% of your generals leave their Gattlings behind, you have a major problem there. (Not to mention they'd also have to leave all other firearms behind to lose to an unmaneuverable hoplite unit.)
But that will still not stop the first group from going "yeah, ok, but why the heck don't you look at those numbers before attacking? Infantry isn't an offense unit."
And in fact THAT is the whole point. If I have to play a numbers game instead of an "infantry attacking hoplites" game, then suspension of disbelief goes right out the window. I've never memorized all the numbers in, say, Panzer General.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
I see your point, Moraelin, and believe that it is well taken. What sort of rules set would you use in lieu of the numbers? Or do you simply believe that the numbers, as are, are skewed? Or that the units are misnamed, etc.?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moraelin
|
|
I think that the system itself is actually pretty good for the scope of the game. But the numbers it shipped with are skewed. The scale flattens way too much at the higher end, not to mention that some high end units like the Marines got slapped with some totally ridiculous numbers. (And if Firaxis didn't beta-test the modern days, that would explain it.) Simply raising the numbers at the higher end works like a charm. (And it still won't make it totally impossible for hoplites to defend against infantry, just less probable.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
 |
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MORON
 the poll is at 50-50
yes, combat is screw up, but this isn't real life simulator (TM) so I don't mind. |
I don't mind either, but then again, I almost never see the results some of these guys are complaining about. I have never lost a tank attacking a phalanx, even in a city on a hill across a river, and I rarely lose a rifleman defending against a bowman. When I do, I just assume some idiot forgot to post guards that night, or that the troop got drunk the night before (Washington v. Hessians).
Have you seen my barbarian defense against tanks? It involves taunts, yo mama jokes, pride, elephant pits, stolen gasoline and a match. They fall for it every time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
|
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469 Custer is at best a hitpoint and not an entire unit
so instead of trying to balance civ3 to anything historical it needs a historical flavor, and part of that flavor comes in the form of tanks beating spearmen...
|
Most of the time.
quote:
what you have to realize is that war weariness and not military defeat was what ended Vietnam
|
You may believe it was war weariness that lost Vietnam, but it was exactly the attitude that superior units will always win -- hubris -- that lost that war. War weariness was the result of poor combat strategy. Why fight? Why plan? Just shove your pieces into combat and they should win. Right? Not so fast.
Only if soldiers are willing to fight and DIE are they capable of winning. If your infantry men go native, prefer getting drunk, have poor morale, or scatter at the first sign of trouble, they will lose. It doesn't matter how many guns they have. In Civ3, this factor is accounted for with the randomizer.
quote:
*combined arms tactics should alway beat a unit type strategy
|
Nothing always wins every time. Now, if you think the numbers are somewhat skewed, I can better understand the argument.
quote:
so a player with tanks, planes, and infantry should never lose to a force composed only of ancient infantry, especially if the first player spent 1000 shields on their army and the second player spent 100 shields on their army
|
There's that "never" word again. Hubris loses wars.
quote:
if civ3 had more hit points per unit then the combat results would be better |
That is probably true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
|
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
Obviously civ3 is not a historical war simulation, it is basically impossible to simulate anything with the scale that civ3 uses
|
Absolutely correct. Thank you for saying that.
quote:
it also represents something far greater than the amount of men custer had under his command, Custer is at best a hitpoint and not an entire unit
|
The division of units is somewhat arbitrary. You could just as easily believe that Custer had several Cavs at his command, his unit was destroyed, but the others survived.
Indeed, perhaps a Legion represents 5000 soldiers, a Cavalry unit only 200, considering the cost of raising and outfitting these units being not all that much different.
------------------------------
In any case, the destruction of Custer's unit did have strategic effects. Custer would have been a candidate for President, and may have won. It also whipped the U.S. into a war frenzy, which gets back to my point. Isolated units are vulnerable. Massive retaliation (stacks) is the appropriate military response.
The morality of the Indian wars and the breaking of solemn treaties is another issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
|
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Ben Franklin explains how to lose a battle to an "inferior" force:
----------------------
This general was, I think, a brave man, and might probably have made a figure as a good officer in some European war. But he had too much self-confidence, too high an opinion of the validity of regular troops, and too mean a one of both Americans and Indians. . . .
In conversation with him one day, he was giving me some account of his intended progress. . . . "I see nothing that can obstruct my march to Niagara."
Having before revolv'd in my mind the long line his army must make in their march by a very narrow road, to be cut for them thro' the woods and bushes, and also what I had read of a former defeat of fifteen hundred French, who invaded the Iroquois country, I had conceiv'd some doubts and some fears for the event of the campaign.
But I ventur'd only to say, "The only danger I apprehend of obstruction to your march is from ambuscades of Indians, who, by constant practice, are dexterous in laying and executing them; and the slender line, near four miles long, which your army must make, may expose it to be attack'd by surprise in its flanks, and to be cut like a thread into several pieces, which, from their distance, can not come up in time to support each other."
He smil'd at my ignorance, and reply'd, "These savages may, indeed, be a formidable enemy to your raw American militia, but upon the king's regular and disciplin'd troops, sir, it is impossible they should make any impression." I was conscious of an impropriety in my disputing with a military man in matters of his profession, and said no more.
The enemy, however, did not take the advantage of his army which I apprehended its long line of march expos'd it to, but let it advance without interruption till within nine miles of the place; and then, when more in a body (for it had just passed a river, where the front had halted till all were come over), and in a more open part of the woods than any it had pass'd, attack'd its advanced guard by a heavy fire from behind trees and bushes, which was the first intelligence the general had of an enemy's being near him.
This guard being disordered, the general hurried the troops up to their assistance, which was done in great confusion, thro' waggons, baggage, and cattle; and presently the fire came upon their flank: the officers, being on horseback, were more easily distinguish'd, pick'd out as marks, and fell very fast; and the soldiers were crowded together in a huddle, having or hearing no orders, and standing to be shot at till two-thirds of them were killed; and then, being seiz'd with a panick, the whole fled with precipitation.
-----------------------------
Strategically, the commander in Philadelphia sees only this: He orders his veteran musketmen to march to Niagra. They don't make it. Of course, they blamed the Firaxis combat system, but now Franklin is aware that even the vaunted British could be beat by "irregular" tactics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaybe
|
 |
Las Vegas, NV USA
Sep 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whoha
One unit can raze a city. How is this possible since all civilians are experts in panzerfaust use? It should be impossible to raze cities in the same fashion that it is impossible to hold cities.
As for the musketeer thing, well the british commander should have known that he had a defensive unit. He should have brought along some knights or longbowmen, or even swordsmen, as they all have higher attack values then muskets.Though its a good thing for us that he didnt, or we might well not be americans now. Now you could argue that the British didnt have an easily available iron ore site to make knights or swordsmen, but then how did they get their Man O' Wars, it should be obvious that they were trading for iron. Even catapults would have served him well, bombarding those pesky american spears er musketmen. |
Hey, the city razing is OFF TOPIC -- it's a gameplay thingy! 
The muskets vs. 'savages' is all about TACTICS, not equipment. The main point, as good ol' Benjamin said, is that this commander would have done fine in a European battlefield, where 'guerrilla' warfare was rarely seen in this period.
And when a tank unit gets destroyed by spearmen, it's because the tanks were early versions, had inadequate mounted machine guns or stayed buttoned up, or had no infantry support. Pure tank charges against foot sloggers is a bad idea -- and it had to be learned and relearned many times in history.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
saxamaphone
|
|
daly city, ca
Dec 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
just a thought,
I usually get done building warriors and such before 1000 ad, I can only guess that the ai does too. When I attack in the modern area of 1500 or later with calv. and >1900 with tanks, these warriors are really, really old guys, and they're still swinging!!! That's totally unreal!!! Maybe they are just made of stronger stuff than the rest of us.
I mean if you can accept the abstraction that these guys don't die of old age 2 turns after creation, why can't you accept that they send away for handguns (or whatever) from ads they find in magazines like "Soldier of Fortune"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:16
|
|
Zachriel et al
while we can justify the results using any farfetched dellusion we want, what it comes down to is that a regular pikeman (cost 30 shields) fortified on a mountain will beat a veteran paratrooper (cost 100 shields) 40.1% of the time according to the combat calculator, when it has the following description in the pedia
quote:
The growing deployment of knights on the battlefield demanded that foot soldiers develop new means of fighting
that would lessen their vulnerability to mounted opponents. One of the best ways to do this was to lengthen the reach of the infantrymen by arming them with long, sturdy spears known as pikes. Massed infantry armed with pikes -- particularly in conjunction with archers -- managed to even the battlefield odds. Armies equipped in this manner were able to hold their own until the invention of gunpowder made archers, pikemen, and knights a thing of the past. |
and if you compare a veteran pikeman compared to a regular paratrooper it will win 70.9% of the time!
this is not a random occurance, troops that cost less to build, take less technology and have less training can give a competitive fight to well armed modern troops, i mean the 101st airborne in WW2 armed with garands and BARs wasn't going to lose to your average conscript from braveheart probably ever, much less on a fairly consistant basis
elite hoplites versus regular mech infantry in the same situation will win 49.1% of the time, and if you add a fortress to the mix, the hoplites will win 59.6% of the time, and versus regular marines the hoplites will defeat them 78.5% of the time
elite samurai's on a mountaintop fortress would defeat regular marines 88.1% of the time
certainly the defenders at Iwo Jima were better than Samurai, and yet they never managed these impressive results
guerrilla warfare is certainly one way to wage war, but the guerrillas certainly don't always win, and in virtually all cases it takes a powerful backer for the guerrillas to achieve victory, for anyone who cares the Viet Cong lost the Tet Offensive on the battlefield, but they won a political victory
combat is not balanced, neither historically nor on the amount of value derived from a unit based on the effort out into creating that unit
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Calorman
|
|
IMO, Most of the civilopeadia entries are just meanginless fluff with little bearing on the actual game system. I mean, in the entry for the nuclear sub it clearly states that it is faster than the older sub and yet in actual fact they both have the same sea-slug speed of 3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SiriusX
|
|
The Nuclear sub does go faster than the standard model. It travels at a sluggish speed of 4!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Calorman
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SiriusX
The Nuclear sub does go faster than the standard model. It travels at a sluggish speed of 4! |
Just the other day I went into the editor and changed its speed from 3 to 4. Perhaps you have done the same and forgotten that 3 was its original value?
Or am I just crazy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Moraelin
|
|
Thanks for illustrating the point much better than I could, korn. THAT indeed is my whole problem with the shipped numbers. Not that some stuff happens 1% of the time, but that some things happen all wrong over half the time. I'm willing to accept that maybe once a century something totally unexpected may happen (like Custer's case or whatnot), but there are plenty of cases where the screwed up results are the NORM, not the occasional exception. ONE general may well underestimate guerilla tactics, but the next one would think twice before repeating the same mistake. If 50 generals in a row do the exact same mistake, wth, ANY nation would realize it needs to do something about those generals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grumbold
|
 |
London, UK
Mar 2000
time: 05:16
|
|
The poll being 50-50 pretty much shows the dilemma Firaxis are in. No matter what they do, many people will see it as a step in the wrong direction.
With the current resource-based units it is essential (imo) that they not be unbeatable by effectively used resourceless units. If Firaxis actually release a true super-editor so that the likes of WesW can produce a mod with 30 more techs, 60 more units and more sensible upgrade paths then hell, yes, lets make pikemen lose to tanks every time, even up Mt Everest or in the middle of the Amazon jungle with a supply line 2,000 miles long. If the AI can cope and upgrade then it will probably improve the game no end.
Until that point, if we are going to play a resource based game I want to be able to fight a war to obtain the resources I need, even if the enemy has the new units I cannot build. The alternative is to produce a mod that eliminates the importance of strategic resources completely because Civ 3 just can't handle the real life ability to mine, import and stockpile those resources properly. Its likely to be the only fair way to get a multiplayer game (assuming the expansion is not pure myth) since lacking iron and saltpetre is not going to be as easy to overcome as it is in the current single player game.
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-12-2001 02:39
|
|