That says it all.

Strollen posted a good point.

An elite phalanx in a city with walls has a 50% chance to stop a tank !

Here are his calculations, and I see his logic;
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7104

It would be a simple matter to use artillery to smash the little bugger and roll in the same turn, but I question the sanity of a tank vs. phalanx equasion that isnt 99-100% in favor of the tank.

Anyway, artillery and bombers (battleships if on or near the coast) are going to be crucial to attacking a city.

The mech infantry is now nearly impossible to root out of a good defense. As it should. It defends at a 20!!!

Multiple airstrikes and massed artillery are going to be needed to weaken it enough to budge. Then an "army" will probably be necessary to destroy it.

Does anyone know how the A/D/M of an "army" is calculated?

From the best 'stats' of the units that make it up?

Example: Modern Tanks attack at 24, Mech defends at 20, both move at 3

So, an army of tanks and mech inf would be 24/20/3 ?

A lethal combination, to say the least.

Or is it just a stack, like civ2 ?

Artilery will play a HUGE role in conquest. We can't just go charging in anymore. I like that, I think it encourages realistic, strategical attacks rather than 'Yeah, run in there and shoot up the place'.

Time to use the big guns then, artillary, battleships, bombers, and all those fun things. Or you could just nuke them out.:)

i dont know about defence, but i actually believe that when an army attacks they "pool their attack values together" so that if an armour was grouped with two other armours, they would attack with a power of 24*3=72!

That is not how armies work. If you want to check out how they work, it's explained in the infocenter and there are several good threads over in the general discussion forum. I don't really feel like typing it out again.

When an army attacks, its most powerful unit attacks until almost dead, and then the next most powerful begins the onslaught, and so on until the defender is dead. When your army switches units, it doesn't allow stacked defenders to do the same, unless they're also in an army. This is all coming from memory from reading posts, so I'm not guaranteeing the accuracy.

An elite phalanx in a city with walls has a 50% chance to stop a tank !



It would be a simple matter to use artillery to smash the little bugger and roll in the same turn, but I question the sanity of a tank vs. phalanx equasion that isnt 99-100% in favor of the tank.

Why use artillery when you can just save your old catapults to stone the phalanx? The catapults are probably cheaper to maintain than the artillery.

What's insane about having your catapults destroy the enemy phalanx so your tanks can move in?:crazyeyes

Hey, if you don't get rubber you won't have tanks anyway.:p

Imagine you can't get rubber because there's an elite fortified pikeman in the way and your riflemen can't dislodge it!:rolleyes:

The point is theres no way on God's Green Earth that a phalanx (even elite and fortified) could stand up to a gunpowder unit, must less a tank unit, ever! They would be dog food. Period.

Now that all units have 3 hit points (forget the 4 and 5 for now) no matter what era, and firepower is gone, it ruins the realism of combat. We are back to Civ1!

I have read several reviews today, of people complaining about this same thing. Archers shooting down cruise missles! WTF!!!

Whoever decided this was a bonehead.

One good point, though. Naval bombardment of ground troops is one-sided. Ground troops cant fire back, which is acurate enough.

The phalanx cant kill the battleship!:D

True, it seems that units to attack, units to bombard and units to protect bombarding units (like catapults) from enemy capture are going to form the "siege triangle".

I think it's realistic, siege of any city should require significant military resources. Individual cities are much more vaulable with the larger number of civilizations on the map at once, the cost to establish a city, and the effect of culture on smaller cities.

I'll enjoy the challenge.

Originally posted by joespaniel
The point is theres no way on God's Green Earth that a phalanx (even elite and fortified) could stand up to a gunpowder unit, must less a tank unit, ever! They would be dog food. Period.



The phalanx could stick his sword/spear into the tank treads and cause them to jam up! :lol:

Originally posted by joespaniel
I have read several reviews today, of people complaining about this same thing. Archers shooting down cruise missles! WTF!!!

Whoever decided this was a bonehead.

I read the post about the archers destroying the cruise missle as well, but what you are forgetting, or didn't see is this... they guy was moving his missile from 1 city to another and he ran out of movement points before he got where he was going. Well, you don't move a cruise missile by firing it, you load it on a truck an haul it. I think that the only time you should think of a cruise missile having actually been fired is when it's targeted at an enemy, otherwise, it is just being moved.

At least that's the way I look at it.

Loduke

Originally posted by joespaniel
The point is theres no way on God's Green Earth that a phalanx (even elite and fortified) could stand up to a gunpowder unit, must less a tank unit, ever! They would be dog food. Period.


That's what Colnel Custer thought too.

The 10,000 Sioux that destroyed Custer's 500 men were armed with rifles, in addition to bows and hatchets. It would have been more like;

Sioux - 5 warriors, 5 horsemen, 3 swordsmen, 3 bowmen, 2 musketeers and 2 cavalry.

Americans - 1 cavalry.

You get the picture...

However, with a full load of gas and ammo, I would happily roll up the whole lot with a tank regiment!:D

I like what Zandar said about the "siege triangle".

Only a fool would send armor against a fortified city without infantry support and after blasting the crap out of it first with artilllery and bombers. Nobody does that (and survives!) anymore. Its basic military strategy.

Armor will kill things in the open (thats realistic), and bombardment is necessary against defensive positions (also realistic).

Loduke - I understood that, but how could a bunch of yahoos with bows and arrows destroy a modern military convoy? Its not possible. Trucks with cruise missles on them would be escorted by heavy guard.

However, for games sake, I will steer clear of any archers with my ICBMs! :lol:

Argh! My game didnt come today...:(

:tank:
First of all, when you think of armor, you are thinking of modern day equipment. The original tanks (WWI and *early* WWII) were canTANKerous pieces of equipment. While it is certain that one shot from the main gun would be the end of military service for quite a few footsoldiers, if the rest kept their composure, they could get close to the tank and do horrible things to it. Italy had many problems in Ethiopia because of just that. Also, ask the British about the Zulus in Africa. Ask the Soviet Union about *their* stay in Afghanistan. :cry:

Second of all, history is loaded with civilizations that whipped everyone's collective a$$ with advanced technology just so they could get thier own butts whipped by the next technological advance that came along. Essentially, no jump in technology ever came that was not spurred on in some way by military spending. The point is that it would be a very poor game to play if simply having a technological superiority was enough to guarantee victory like it can in real life.

It is a game, not a simulation. What ever makes the game *playable* may have to take precedence over what makes the game *realistic*.

Have Fun

:cool:

Civ I was playable (or else we wouldn't be talking about Civ III would we?) but still it was not fun to lose a battleship to a phalanx. That won't happen in Civ III but we are a bit worried about spearmen destroying tanks and swordsmen killing mechanized infantry. The game must be playable and fun!

As for early tanks being susceptible to spearmen we should remember that the tank drivers had guns!

In any event the strategy to avoid losing modern units to ancients ones is bombardment. I don't have the game yet so I can't comment any further...

The point is theres no way on God's Green Earth that a phalanx (even elite and fortified) could stand up to a gunpowder unit, must less a tank unit, ever! They would be dog food. Period.

First off, it's no longer a phalanx, it's a spearman, and secondly, that's not necessarily true. Primitively armed but determined fighters in a metropolis could hold off a tank assault if you didn't even bother to bombard them first. Anybody who knows guerrilla tactics will tell you that. Look at what happened in China between the nationalists and communists, or in Vietnam. Those damn Viet-Congs were in there using sharpened bamboo sticks against US Marines when they ran out of ammo (which happened often), and although the Vietnamese were getting killed in a ratio of like 100 to 1 they still won the war.

Remember that a civilization that has its resources sabotaged is reduced to fighting with spearmen or some other "free" unit, so spearmen can also represent just hastily assembled rag-tag militia who are improperly armed and lack ammunition. These kind of warriors could certainly hold off tanks with a big bit of luck and the proper circumstances, though at heavy casualties, and certainly not if they were the target of a concentrated bombardment first.

For the sake of playing the game, I will keep Robespierre's explanation in the back of my head.http://community.theunderdogs.org/smiley/happy/thumb.gif

I really like the bombardment ability, and cant wait to try it out. Alas, my copy of the game has not come yet. I pre-ordered from Amazon. Has anyone gotten theirs yet? From Amazon?

Amazon hasn't shipped to you either? I'm in the same boat. I hope It ships today, otherwise no way will it arrive before monday (shipped 2nd day)

this is exactly the point!
If you move your cruise missile WITHOUT an defender-escort, don´t be surprised that even an archer can and will take the missile!

btw, it seems like catapults and stuff aren´t that succesful. seen some of the posts, hitting once in 6 attempt is frequent...
so this tactic might not be as powerful as hoped for. :(


Originally posted by joespaniel
I Trucks with cruise missles on them would be escorted by heavy guard.

However, for games sake, I will steer clear of any archers with my ICBMs! :lol:
(

What is all this statistical/theoretical nonsense!?

Field report, sir: about 300-120 BC our Mounted Warrior were all over the French like white on rice- we took two of their cities before they knew what hit them, obliterating a fair number of "spearmen," sir! With our own proper use of screening them out in the field on hills with our own spearmen and charging down on them in the plains, we pushed their soldiers back enough to give us diplomatic room to sue for peace- gaining 4 french workers, money, and of course our fair-gotten gains of Rouens and that other frenchy-named place... If you gave me a tank sire at this point, I could go all the way to their capital... theory schmeory!

100 to 1? Yeah but in the game a single unit of spearmen can survive attack from modern units WITH ranged weapons...

After 3 games I have to say that I am defininitly disappointed with the combat. For all the fanboys out there that said trust them it will be great... I have to disagree with you.

Its a shame that the professionals let this slip through to the paying public. There are a number of ways the problem can be solved:

1. Skew the attack and defense values up for both attack and defense for units from each age.

2. Release a patch with Civ2 style hp's

or

3. Just play for the cultural victory since war is no longer necessary in the game.


I am curious if they took into account ranged attacks(within a single sqare of combat) vs melee attacks? For example, tanks should have ranged attacks while spearmen would have a much lower range (but still being to outrange swordsmen)...

But how after four games is it that I'm just not experiencing your imbalance problem- when I have a tank go up against even riflemen I tend to wade right through them- I win when its expected- I think the unit balance is much better than Civ2.

The worst I've seen so far is losing a Battleship (at half damage) to an Ironclad... but that seemed fair to me- they were limping with 2 hps.

To the original poster : give me a phalanxs, fortified in a decent city and it will kill your tank anytime in real life. Anytime.
Ask the Americans about Vietnam.
Ask the Germans about Russia.
Ask the Russians about Afghanistan.
Ask the Brits about Africa.


But that's not your point, I suppose. Your point is that a old and weak unit shouldn't win against a new and strong unit, isn't it ?

Well let's see how this could happen :
1. fortified defender (I presume)
2. defending behind the cities defense
3. defending on a river / mountain / ... perhaps ?
4. veteran defender (I presume)
5. regular attacker (I presume)

Well, that are alot of possible bonusses there !
So it seems fair that that unit has a change.

Just my 2 cents

To the last poster: ;)

Give me a tank regiment, and I will meet your phalanx in any city, and turn them into guacamole! Anytime!:D

I am already over that topic. As far as Civ3 is concerned, I too have had no problem with unit imbalances. Quite the contrary. I agree with Dearmad, everything has worked out fine. We were worried about a problem that never came to pass.

However, the catapult has yet to impress me. I bombarded an enemy phalanx for 6 straight turns, and all I did was make it elite! That sucked! :(

I will report back later. Tank commander signing off.

The thing we're not used to is called 'combined arms' and if I remember correctly it was an advance in Civ2. You must launch an invasion with three types of units (regardless of age) ... attack, defense, and bombardment. Keep them together and stick to good defensive terrain where you can. It seems you can only advance one square at a time in enemy territory anyway.

This is only a concept that military commanders have used since Sun Tzu was cleaning the latrines. We're all just surprised to find it in our game. :)

Try to think that a type of unit represent not the real unit,but a certain tech level of their equipments..
as Roberspierre did
a phalanx is not only the greek spearman in ordered ranks,but also the Viets with bamboo sticks(GREAT EXAMPLE) using guerrilla strategy

On the other side i would like to increase the hp with the tech level,at least for ground hth units..
I mean (rounded for defect)
tech level 1-2 (warrior,spearman) 1hp for xperience rank as normal
tech level 3-4 (swordsman,knights,pikeman) 1,5hp for experience rank: regular 1,5x3=4hp,veteran 1,5x4=6hp, elite 1,5x5=7hp
increasing everytime of 0,5
etc..
so tanks would have a lot of hit points,so even with low possibilities to break an ancient but solid defence they 'd have more occasions to inflict damage,sustaining more for their natural strength and their higher level tactics
That wouldn't change the combat situation between same tech level units..
Losing 1hp every attack has replaced firepower,when a strong unit damaged the opponent of 2-3 hp for attack,according to civ2 manual..
Now it's realistic only if we increase the number of hit points for more advanced units...
Forcing the player to use combined armies is a beautiful initiative
In Civ2 without bombarding and w/o armies we built a lot of catapults and legions to take a city losing the most of them in the first attacks...
don't be lazy producing units,as we weren't lazy in civ2

My problem seems to be that the enemy laugh their way through my defenses...

The scenario is so: 3 musketmen, two swordsmen, and two cavalry fortified in a pop 12 city (walls too, but no matter at this size). My opponent brings in 6 swordsmen and two longbowmen. Overall ratio is 7:8, attacker has more folks, but I'm defending. I lose.

I checked my info, and I think that I was low on my chances if anything... According to other sources, I get a 100% bonus for being in a big city (pop 12) and +50% for being fortified, which would make my musketmen 2/10/1 if I did that right. Final chance 4:10 a:d, and I lose every time... :eek:

I saved before the battle happened, so I load again to see if sheer un-luck struck or something. Lost. Again. Lost. Again. Lost. The battle never went on for more than one round. They attacked, they killed me. Every time. :mad:

Another case in point. Two musketmen and a swordsman are in a fortress on the plains. The enemy is attacking from the plains as well, so terrain is no modifier really. Musketmen are 2/4/1 as I recall, and swordsmen are 4/1/1 (I may be mis-remembering the names, but I hope you get me), so head-to-head if I get attacked I should have a 50/50 chance of losing. Fortified in a fortress I think I got a 50% bonus to defense or more, making my guys 2/6/1, giving me a 6 in 4 chance of winning.

Yes yes?

No. Loaded that one 15 times before even I got bored. Lost every time when attacked by three swordsmen. :confused:

So, when we hit the modern age, I'll be long dead since I can't defend ANYTHING!!!

Oh yeah, Chieftain level difficulty, and on the fortress scenario one musketman was veteran and one elite, swordsman was elite. Attackers were all regulars.

I gave up and loaded back further in the game and accepted their atrocious offer of peace treaty/embezzlement, I'll have to shoot for a cultural win I guess...

I formed up an army and attacked an enemy city. Figuring I'd see more of the crud I had so far, I saved and attacked. Three swordsmen in the army, all elites, they fail to kill more than one defending swordsman. Ever. I am so tired of the load screen I can't even begin to describe it....

Any suggestions? Am I missing something? This is effectively unplayable for me unless I try very hard to keep the other civs assuaged however I can...

The more I read of these posts about the combat system, the more upset I get. You guys need to remember that this is a GAME and that there are play balancing issues that need to be adressed. If every modern unit always won against ancient or middle age defenders, then the entire goal of the game would be to get as much technology as you could and there would be no alternative strategy. Furthermore, with the new addition of strategic resources it is impossible for some civilizations to build some of the more advanced units. What would be the fun in watching your entire civilization go to hell because you can't obtain any iron? Firaxis' goal in making this game was to make it FUN not "realistic" and I think that they did an excellent job.:love:

Fun is when a tank works like a tank!!!!!
It means that it can't allow me to conquer the world alone,that it can be beaten by obsolete units,but that it works like one of the most powerful units ever built,not like a chariot.
It's quite logic that if I can't get iron i'm disadvantaged,it's not logic that if I get iron,perhaps making war or improving culture to get it,I lose against a less powerful civ...
A game needs a winner,it's just a game,if you want to survive in any condition,play solitaire....:rocket2: :rocket2:

Originally posted by DanPMN
The more I read of these posts about the combat system, the more upset I get. You guys need to remember that this is a GAME and that there are play balancing issues that need to be adressed.

I love this game too, don't get me wrong ... but a lot of these 'balancing issues' are obvious to us in less than a WEEK of playing. What were the playtesters and beta folks doing all that time? Playing Half-life? These are fairly obvious problems that all of us are seeing from the get-go. That points to a real issue with quality control.

It's time to start discussing a patch, Firaxis.

Theres no need for a patch, or for the origional argument. It was speculation, and it was premature.

The unit balance seems to be OK. Musketmen shred spearmen. Nuff said. Just bombard any cities or forts first.

Diamon - Were your units veteran or elite? Were theirs? THAT makes a big difference. More hit points means more punishment. I have barracks in all my cities, and only make veteran units.

The AI is fiendishly clever as well.:satan: When they demand something, you can assume theres a dozen units outside of your observation range.

Having siege units in your cities is usefull as well. Attackers get bombarded before they close with your defenders. A nice touch!

Taking cities deffinately requires some bombardment. Ive lost veteran swordsmen to spearmen (without walls in a size 4 city) due to lack of catapults. Wont make that mistake again...;)

My units were a mix of Veteran and Elite (listed above), but I had no bombardment units in the city. I thought they were useful only for attack, so mine were all in my staging city... Still odd for my city defenders to be wiped out like that. Oh, and I'm playing Germans, so I get Elites pretty quickly.

I've finally worked up a decent battle collection, but no great leaders for an army unit yet. I think I've decided my tactic will be to bombard cities into submission, with the exception of well-made cities or cities with wonders.

Oh yeah, and diplomacy; they're all FAR below my cultural level. :)

Maybe I can get a few cities "on the cheap", as it were.

Oh, for added meanness, on my Huge size map, I've found only 3 sources each of coal and oil, and none of them are on my continent! Fooey. So now I've got exceedingly corrupt daughter colonies out in the hinterlands. :)

Anyway, the French have been prodding me a bit too much recently, so I'm thinking I'll see how the war option goes shortly. Glad to know about bombardment units, the French love to have huge stacks of guys attacking...

Oh, as an aside, wouldn't it be mean to make a stack of workers and defenders and go to the enemy lands and destroy the resources? Chop down the rubber source's jungle, plant trees on the grasslands oil source, etc? I wonder if that's doable. If nothing else I'll do fortresses on them. If they lack saltpeter, life gets easier for me every kill. :P

<rant>
You know what will eventually happen is people play the game- get cracked wide open, whine and complain about units not working the way they should- go back to playing the game, figure out how to win, and then retract the wanky crybaby stuff of before...

If you want the easy win comfort then go back to CIV2! Civ3's units are NOT broken by any means and conquering ANY other nation is simple once you come up with a plan, realize the amount of resource it will REALLY take, make sure they are diplomatically isolated enough, execute your tactics without rushing headlong and exposing yourself or ASSAULTING a city with ANY offensive unit BEFORE you soften it up and no GREEN health defender is left.

If you can't do that you are taking a RISK and should realize that you MAY (oh SOB, heaven's FORBID!) LOSE your stinking unit! Get over it and get on with your poor military decisions...

Maybe a diplo victory would suit these players better... THAT'S why diplo victiry (and culteral and spaceship) is there...

I swear if Firaxis tones down the AI or adds in rules that make it impossible for my tanks to be defeated by Hoplites in a city, I will firebomb their offices. That will take ALL the challenge and strategy and tactics out of warfare. As it is I've yet to LOSE a tank in such a manner because I don't RISK my tanks so foolishly!

</rant>

-shew- I fell better... have a nice day.

MILITARY TACTICS 101

CivIII is not a 3 dimensional "War Game" else it would be in real time and you would consider in many different factors. For civ three you have only two "real" factors to consider.

Economy of Force <---> Mass

For those of you familiar with Military history, you will see that the technologicaly advanced favors Economy of Force, while less civilized organizations tend towards mass (Economy of Force means a few VERY POWERFULL units focused on particular objectives, Mass is a whole lot of units). United States, Rome, and the British are good examples of Economy of force. Soviet Union, Iraq, and the Zulus are good examples of Mass.

Both have advantages. In Economy of Force you can count on a single unit overcomming many lesser units... with Mass you can count on many lesser units overcomming a single more powerfull unit. Strange eh? Hehehe.

If you can Mass Economy of Force. You will be masterfully victorious... you will have many powerfull units that can easily overcome the outnumbered weaker units.

Ironfang

Put catapults in your frontline cities, and watch em damage the attackers before unit combat begins. Its great! Usualy it inflicts 1 hit point of damage, sometimes none.

Bombarding on offense works once or twice, but seems to have no effect on the same target after awhile. This I am not 100% sure of yet, I am still learning the ropes.:D

I've found that bombarding enemy cities /rarely/ damages the units inside. More likely, you destroy the improvements and populace. Maybe after you've killed all but one Pop and have destroyed all the improvements you can start weakening the opposition, but at that point the city is hardly worth having (well, that depends of course).
Not a complaint, really, but Artillery seems more useful in defence to me than in offence.
I've been able to take cities without Artillery. Just use strong attack units, and lots of them, or an Army.

Daimon -
Reloading probably won't help. I'm pretty darn sure that the game stores a number of 'rolls' in advance in order to discourage save/reload 'cheating.' I've discovered that (on my turn anyway) if I save, lose a battle and then reload, I end up with /exactly/ the same result. If, though, I attack with a different unit and then come back to the first one, the result is different.
Once it gets to the AI's turn, unless you can change something to cause the order of attack to change, I'm guessing the results are always going to be the same.

Someone please correct me here if I'm wrong.

- Stravaig

You are right man...
It worked in this way also in smac
It's a good explanation also for the complaints about those phalanxes who often kill tanks..
When you reload a lost battle and you lose it again you and again and again you would say that an ancient unit can easily defeat a stronger one..
But the battle is always the same!!!
It's not a good way to make a statistic.....
I'm not saying the problem is fake and I agree that a tank should be given or more firepower or more hps than other older units...
But to people saying that it's not realistic a spearmen unit wiping out a tanks unit,it's not realistic a tanks unit attacking without support by arty or inf,at least it's not realistic you hope it wins...
Build those f***ing academies and the f**ked pentagon...
Also if you attack in the same turn with separated units you can't expect you're taking any advantage..ever played Colonial Diplomacy?...
Spearmen should know the existence of your tanks even if they can't produce them..you're not fighting in the times they discovered the spear..time passed also for them,even if not enough to upgrade their weapons...

Originally posted by The Ripper

Spearmen should know the existence of your tanks even if they can't produce them..you're not fighting in the times they discovered the spear..time passed also for them,even if not enough to upgrade their weapons...

Now, THAT's a good concept. After all, on many cases all you need is a molotov cocktail...

True enough.... Any warrior's axe can smash a year's worth of computer parts output in just seconds flat.... And I'm sure a molotov cocktail would be very distressing for a tank....

As a defender, the tank really doesn't take full advantage of its power, as they can't bombard them into submission, the spearmen have to expose themselves to the tank... Really think about the mechanics of the battle, and I can see how a spearman could win...

Still a bit of a pisser about being unable to defend my cities. In my previous example, I kept playing, and the frenchies rolled me up like a blanket... Only one city held out for more than a few battles. Dunno. I've got bombardment stuff in my important cities now, and railroads to allow near-instantaneous reinforcements, so we'll see how it goes. They're still being nice, but the russians are restless, and mutual-defensed with the French.

It promises to get interesting in short order... :)