10% Defense

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Oh, and forget that movie from last year, where the Roman shielwall is broken easily by the Germans. Normally, you needed Horsemen for that......

You noticed that too. From the movie, you couldn't really see why the Romans were so powerful in their methods of warfare. And it wasn't because Romans were better fighters. It was because of discipline, training and persistence. If the spear line had broken, the Romans would have been just another rabble.

(Of course, it was depicted that way to make the movie more exciting. Maybe the Romans were badly outnumbered.)

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Zachriel


You noticed that too. From the movie, you couldn't really see why the Romans were so powerful in their methods of warfare. And it wasn't because Romans were better fighters. It was because of discipline, training and persistence. If the spear line had broken, the Romans would have been just another rabble.

(Of course, it was depicted that way to make the movie more exciting. Maybe the Romans were badly outnumbered.)

I just read a quote the other day from a Roman historian around 200 A.D. He said: "Our armies get beaten time and again because they do not set up camp anymore! The discipline is low and they do not train because the Caesar need the men and cannot afford to affront them with decimation"


Same here about the movie, they needed it to show what a great figther that guy is... Even huge numbers wouldn't to that, the turtle tactic would still keep them safe. Practically only broke, when attacked by war chariots (even Horsemen don't do the trick unless suicidal, it is extremely hard to make a horse run into a solid wall....)

But the big thing here is discipline and the guts to stick to the training. There's this little story in the Gallic War about the two Centurions who were competing for promotions and the first left the camp in a fight to prove his worth. After killing 25 (!) enemies without hte benefit of a shield wall to cover him, he was tackled and stumbled. His competitor rushed out to save him, then stayed to impress Caesar even more. this 'game' repeated itself several times, until the enemy death toll was over 100 for the two of them. Caesar decided that from now on they were only to be promoted together

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by Kilroy
Can anyone confirm that it even makes a difference for units with a defence less than 5? I know in civ2 combat values were rounded off before the outcome was determined, if it's the same in civ3 then the reasoning behind the 10% bonus is totally beyond me.

Nope! In CivII, no rounding occurred at all - random factors were multiplied by 8, resulting in integers.

In any case, it would make a difference no matter what the defense value - over time, not in any single combat. In CivII (haven't tested it in Civ3, sorry), ties between the attacker's and defender's random numbers went to the defender. If this holds true in Civ3, you'll need to attack with a solid advantage to have good odds of winning.

It does seem a bit too much to not just leave it at whatever the defense value is, tho.

 

[cegman]

You guys say defenders know the land better what about when you are attacking in your own land wouldn't you have the land advantage?

 

[kring]

Originally posted by ufftyuwe
Hi all

Well in MY opinion...

it should depend on the WAY you attack them...

If you are at war for a few turns...ok defenders have an advantage (a bit only)...

BUUUUT if you are at peace and you suddenly assault, there should actually be a disadvantage for defenders...

I agree that a sneak attack, ala Pearl Harbor or any other historical ambush, should negate the 10%, possibly even a bonus instead. But the game does not allow such tactics. You can attack without warning, but that is not necessarily going to result in a sneak attack ambush negating a bonus. You can hear and/or see most attacks coming long enough before they get there to take some basic defensive posturing. Also, common sense for commanders is that if you see another civ's units nearby, you make some basic defensive plans, esp. if you know such a civ has a backstabbing leadership or you have little or no knowledge of their trustworthiness.

 

[Higher Game]

Look at how much that defence helped the Romans. If not for it, they probably wouldn't be alive today!:skull:

Pure strength always wins over strategy. Pure strength is defined as outnumbering the AI 10 to 1. You really can't lose in that situation.

 

[alver]

I feel we don't really need any real life justification of the 10% bonus. It helps balance the game. Remember that attack strengths during most of the game are higher than defense strengths. It must be possible to defend, too. I don't think it's too hard to attack at all in the game. Plan your attack well, and you'll win.

 

[alver]

And I might add...

... plan your entire war as well as I usually do, and you'll probably lose.

 

[Higher Game]

This game really favors defence. The terrain bonus, city bonus, fortification bonus, blah. You can even make a fortress terrain improvement. If you think it's bad now, just wait until the expansion pack and the radar tower. Seriously, I think enough is enough.

 

[alver]

I find I can successfully fight offensive wars when swordsmen arrive, when knights arrive, when cavalry arrives and when tanks arrive. I don't have much experience with the modern age, though.

I disagree. The game might favor defense somewhat, but offense is more than possible!

 

[Higher Game]

It may be easy to kill an AI, but defence will be too powerful in a multiplayer match. Defence units are:

#1- cheaper
#2- require less resources
#3- upgradable all the way to mech infantry
#4- hard to kill, esp. after the bonuses.

The only way I can see how to do a real offense is to make a ton of units and upgrade them all immediately when possilble. Like making 20 warriors and making them swordsman very quickly, or the same with horsemen to knights.

Just wait until the radar tower becomes available. I bet you can even "layer" its effects. I hope it isn't like the ones in CTP

 

[God]

Originally posted by Higher Game
This game really favors defence. The terrain bonus, city bonus, fortification bonus, blah. You can even make a fortress terrain improvement. If you think it's bad now, just wait until the expansion pack and the radar tower. Seriously, I think enough is enough.

Isn't defense more important? When you're on the offensive you're trying to get more. On defense you're just trying to protect yourself. It would be ridiculous if all the offensive units could cut through the defensive units.

 

[alver]

Originally posted by Higher Game
It may be easy to kill an AI, but defence will be too powerful in a multiplayer match.

You may be right... I didn't really consider MP. Bringing in some cannons or artillery in the attack might even the odds, though.

 

[Higher Game]

Offensive units should be more useful than defensive because they are more expensive and they don't upgrade all the way. You can see an attack coming for a long time, so you can prepare for it. You really can't do that offensively. It is difficult to get a 3 to 1 advantage over another civ, impossible to do that in multiplayer after railroads.

Really, infantry's only weakness of slow movement is not a problem because they get railroads at that point. Defence is truly overpowered when railroads are available. Offence has (somewhat) of a change in the middle ages, but it is still too hard to succeed. A fortified spearman is as tough as a swordsman, plus it doesn't require iron and it is cheaper. The imbalance only growns as units like the musketman and rifleman become available and cities grow larger. Artillery isn't powerful enough if it only succeeds half the time. You would need 6 cannons to reduce a single rifleman to 1 hp. What a waste.

 

[Random Passerby]

Eh, forget tanks. I beeline for Replaceable Parts and unleash holy hell on the AI. It simply can't cope with the era of trench warfare and the heavy artillery power it demands, and so there's never really any contest.

But back to the topic at hand: hell, I say give defenders more advantages. I'd like to ocassionally see a MP game that doesn't end up with the world getting conquered by horsemen and knights. Too many players act like they have a divine mandate to conquer the world; territorial acquisition should rightfully require overwhelming numbers and/or well-executed strategy. The one thing that I'd change would be to make pillaging/bombarding take out ALL improvements, rather than one shot to take out the railroad and another to take out the road.

 

[alver]

Originally posted by Random Passerby
Eh, forget tanks. I beeline for Replaceable Parts and unleash holy hell on the AI. It simply can't cope with the era of trench warfare and the heavy artillery power it demands, and so there's never really any contest.

Replaceable Parts means Infantry, doesn't it? I agree totally, swarm your opponents with infantry and artillery! Slow, but steady!

 

[Higher Game]

I find offence is very difficult if you don't have some stupid saltpeter and you need cavalry. I am still at war with the French and their musketeers, which they actually use very well. I can't really beat them if I have to use samurai. I can pillage improvements and destroy them economically, but I can't take their cities. Worse, I planned this after making the Forbidden Palace so close to them. The city defence bonus on top of fortification makes the musketeers very, very hard to kill

And I won't get a better offence unit until infantry... I am probably going to trade 3 or 4 techs to the f'n English before they hand over the saltpeter. They trade so hard, you notice?

 

[Moss]

Defensive units should be more powerful than Offensive units. It is a lot harder in real life to conquer a country than it is to defend it. Esspecially now days. It was a litle different years ago. But it's also easier to attack in the Middle ages than in modern times int the game too.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Higher Game
It may be easy to kill an AI, but defence will be too powerful in a multiplayer match. Defence units are:

#1- cheaper
#2- require less resources
#3- upgradable all the way to mech infantry
#4- hard to kill, esp. after the bonuses.

The only way I can see how to do a real offense is to make a ton of units and upgrade them all immediately when possilble. Like making 20 warriors and making them swordsman very quickly, or the same with horsemen to knights.

If there is no magic bullet for battlefield tactics, I guess that means you'll just have to win strategically; one of the most important considerations being who to attack, when, and who will back you up.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel


You noticed that too. From the movie, you couldn't really see why the Romans were so powerful in their methods of warfare. And it wasn't because Romans were better fighters. It was because of discipline, training and persistence. If the spear line had broken, the Romans would have been just another rabble.

(Of course, it was depicted that way to make the movie more exciting. Maybe the Romans were badly outnumbered.)

The fact that the line broke was probably a SNAFU, a military acronym defined by Britannica as . . .

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=snafu

Another explanation is that we were only seeing part of the battle, probably a German flanking maneuver met by Roman dismounted cavalry. Elsewhere, presumably the infantry line held. Once the barbarians developed effective cavalry for flanking, the Legion lost much of its effectiveness.