A CivIII Patch(or combat in CivIV)

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Terser, Nov 15, 2001.

  1. Terser

    Terser Anti-tank Spearman

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    Sylvania or Westeros
    The combat in CivIII is given a needless veneer of complexity by the inclusion of all the modern units. This creates frustration and dissonance for those who expect a modern tank(for whatever reason) to just run over a bunch of half-naked savages carrying stone hatchets. Rather than pretending to have a fleshed out combat system, CivIII (and most certainly CivIV) should dispense with the unit variety and upgrading and go with a radically simplified sytem.

    Instead of having archers, ironclads, tanks and bombers you would have armies, ships, tanks and planes. These "protounits" would represent the combatants of each age. Thus, an army in the prehistoric era would denote a group of unarmored men carrying spears. The same army during modern times would represent a battalion of riflemen with support personnel.

    Combat would be resolved via a coin toss like sytem, with the game designed to randomly choose either a one or a two. If the number chosen is one, player A wins, and player B's unit is completely destroyed. If a two is the result, player B wins and A's unit is destroyed. The crucial difference between units is movement: armies and tanks move one and two spaces on land, respectively. Ships move one space on water squares(and only water squares), while airplanes can move one square over any terrain. Terrain bonuses would be eliminated, as these are both unrealistic and add more pointless complexity to already intricate algorithms.

    This method of resolving the game's battles would actually prove universally beneficial. The AI would be easier to code/modify, as all that would be required is instructions to produce "x number of armies," "y number of ships," and "z number of airplanes." Then instruct the AI to just start shoving them toward the opposing players. Those who enjoy the military experience would have the pleasure of fighting wave after wave of AI units which(being on a completely even footing with the human player at all times) would provide insurmountable competition. Those players dismayed at the present combat system would at least have the comfort of knowing for certain that the playing field will remain even regardless of how far ahead they are in the tech race.:rolleyes:
     
  2. Hitman78

    Hitman78 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Messages:
    25
    Since I'm really, really tired...

    No. :(

    Obviously its just my opinion, but that just seems too simple to me...and coin tosses are BAD in any situation. Especially high school football.

    :( again
     
  3. jdurg

    jdurg Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    151
    Location:
    Connecticut
    :( I have to say no as well. Part of the fun of the civ games is all the different units you get. It's fun starting out with simple warriors, then advancing to infantry and nukes. The problem lies in the fact that the warriors/pikemen can sometimes destroy vastly superior units because they are in a city, or on a mountain, etc. etc. If the game was just limited to a coin-flip system with only four types of units, I would refuse to play.
     
  4. jaguara

    jaguara Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    I strongly disagree with the post originator. A system like that would simply turn the game into "risk" or "diplomacy". What a lot of us like about this game is getting an edge on their rivals in tech - giving an advantage - even if not overwhelming, and even more importantly - in this new version, the importance of using combined arms.

    As for the constant debate over "my infantry lost to zulu impis!" or "my armour lost against spearmen" (both of which must be extremely rare occurances if my experience is an example)...I prefer to think of things this way...

    Nothing in the game denotes the number of troops in a unit. Historically, the base functional unit of an army has been shrinking. So that Roman legion...could in fact be a legion...wheras that modern armor could be the basic autonomous armour unit - a tank platoon of 4 tanks. A Zulu Impi...could be hoards of men.

    Ask the British about fighting hoards of zulus - even with rifles...many times they were swarmed and lost to far inferior units. Is it so unbelievable that once in a blue moon an army of spearmen might get lucky and fend off some tanks - especially in mountain terrain. With luck, the tanks could be immobilized (blocked in a pass or maybe one looses a track whatever), and then the spearmen set them on fire a la Tiannamen Square)


    Anyway...in war, stranger things have happened.

    Jaguara
     
  5. Mike C

    Mike C Centurion

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2001
    Messages:
    286
    Location:
    Toronto, ON, Canada
    I agree.

    Here we go again, attempting to justify something stupid.

    That is a flimsy and to be quite frank, a pretty stupid way of justifying it. Spearman should not take out tanks in any circumstances or terrain. What are they going to do? Try and pry open the tank hatches with their bone tipped spears?

    You might as just say well.... look at it this way. The impys won because Super-Man decided to join their unit that time. :rolleyes:

    The British were outnumbered 20 to 1 in that battle. It doesn't 'just happen' for no reason ala in the game.


    Ya, like people justifying bugs in the game with outrageous stories of Supermen impies.
     
  6. jaguara

    jaguara Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Mike C,

    My first point waas that numbers of troops are not stated per unit. If you can agree that a modern tank unit coulod be referring to a platoon of 4 tanks, while a legion would refer to a, um, legion (forget how many troops in a 'standard' roman legion), then we have a starting point.

    That is why I gave the example of the British vs Africans...an infantry unit might only be a platoon of 16-25 men while that Zulu unit could be hundreds...sometimes the Zulus might just win.

    I was not trying to state that wacky things should happen often...and they don't in the game either...but it has happened that some people in war do stupid things and get killed when they should have slaughtered the opposition. Such as tank commanders leaving hatches unbuttoned...but you don't have to get into a tank to kill it...you need to immobilize it and then tanks burn quite nicely. Even spearmen could do that - Especially in mountains or in the streets of a war torn city - where tanks have BIG problems.

    That is why in modern war doctrine, armour is never deployed to those areas without infantry support (and preferably close air support), and even then only after heavy bombardment by artillery and air units.

    How many APCs did the UNARMED (I don't count Molotov cocktails) students in Tiennamen square destroy? It was 2 or 3 anyway...that would be enough for a point of damage or two on a Mobile infantry unit from a warrior I would say...

    I get just as burned by these events as anyone, but why get all uptight over it...it is a game.

    I don't have any explanations for the battleship loses versus sail age ships though...or even an ironclad...some things are just dumb, but I accept it as part of the risks.

    One thing...I miss the odds assessment that you could do in AC before proceeding with an attack...

    Ok...one more thing. I agree with the people who have advocated more hp for all units say 20 instead of 2 and 50 instead of 5...this would mean that you would need many more 'bad' rolls to lose a superior unit - though you might still take a bit of damage. I think SM avoided this to make it easier on lesser tech civs.

    Cheers,

    Jaguara


    P.S. - I still remember this one game of Civ 1 that I was dominating, then I lost three battleships in one turn - one to a phalanx I was bombarding on shore, one to a sail unit, and the other to musketmen or some other minor land unit (forget the last one)... I think I was so pissed off that I reloaded. I am just glad that these things are more rare due to the HP system here.
     
  7. CeasarSalad

    CeasarSalad Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2001
    Messages:
    58
    I just want to add that the people who are complaining about pikemen beating tanks and such, I think this is more of a theoretical complaint than a complaint about things that have actually happened. I've played about 15 games of Civ3 at this point, several with war in the modern area, and I have not had a problem like this. My tanks or modern armors might be beaten by a infantry every now and then, but never a pikeman.
     
  8. jaguara

    jaguara Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    Agreed Ceasar Salad...

    I have never had a wacky result like that yet...though it will eventually...statistically it just will.

    THe worst I have had is Cavalry losing against Swordsmen in hills without pre-bombardment. I can accept that.

    In Civ1, I once lost 3 battleships in one turn - one to a sail unit, one to a phalanx, and one to musketeers. At least they fixed the bombardment thing.

    Though I might mention that in history, there were cases of sailing ships sinking from musket fire(caught fire), after either moving close to shore to bombard infantry or after being caught in low tide. This will not happen in the game though...

    Once again, I digress,

    Jaguara
     
  9. RouTaran

    RouTaran Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2001
    Messages:
    106
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada
    i'm content on how the game works right now. Civ has come a long way in the last 10 years. I haven't lost a battleship to some pesky Militia in a long long time.
    The last "silly" result i had was losing a modern armor when it attacked a Jap Samuri(sp?) I suppose i was annoyed when it happened but then i took a step back and looked at the big picture. That was the ONLY unit i lost compared to the entire samuri of the Jap, their capital and almost a dozen cities. If anyone has the right to be annoyned, whine and complain its the Japs not me.

    If you dont like the way combat works right now, propose a system that will fix the problems you see to firaxis instead of saying "this sucks, my tank lost to a warrior" They are using probabilty to solve battles in Civ, and it is in the realm of possibility that a spearman (defence 2) can defeat a modern tank (attack 24) Granted its small, but it is possible. Dont like it? Dont say it sucks, come up with a way to get around it and propose it to Firaxis.
     
  10. Civilizator

    Civilizator Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    85
    Location:
    Sevilla, Spain
    I am sorry too, but I do not agree, I like it the way it is now...
     
  11. Terser

    Terser Anti-tank Spearman

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    Sylvania or Westeros
    My original post was tongue in cheek...

    I'm surprised and a little saddened that no one seemed to realize that. The combat system that I proposed in the intitial post was even more ludicrous than the one we have now, and that IMHO is no mean feat...

    I love the rest of the game, but I simply can't play the game with the combat system it has now. I beseech Firaxis--or a talented mod-maker--please, please, please provide a patch or mod that provides an alternative combat system. Please...
     
  12. Shaar

    Shaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2001
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    USA
    You have to forgive them Terser, most of the people posting here are not old enough to know sarcasm when they see it.
    I started hitting my head on the desk when I saw the first reply taking you seriously, and then I just couldn't believe it when everyone else did too.
    Good point, btw. Firaxis fully deserves their players' cynicism.
     
  13. Hommer

    Hommer Mindless Flooder

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2001
    Messages:
    140
    Location:
    Siberia, Novosibirsk
    I'm playing in Civ-like PBEM (play-by-email) game called E-Civ (see chapter Other games, topic Civilization PBEM).

    In this game every citizen of empire is REAL man (don't worry, you must not manage EVERY people, however it is possible). And military units consists of REAL peoples with proper armor, weapon and equipment (for example: warrior can be armed by StoneSpear, armored by Leather armor and mounted on WarHorse).

    All of warrior's things can not be taken from air, but must be produced in some ways... So if you capture empty enemy city, you cannot hurry production and make tanks. :)

    The combat algorithm is based on combat of two ARMIES, which consists of any number of units (and units consists of any number of people). Every warrior of army fight with warrior from other side.

    In this system the situation when Armor is defeated by Militia is impossible (because it is not sigle roll, but hundreds of it)... And we suggest our system is not yet good enough, we slightly modify it from game to game...

    Thus military model of Civ1-2-3 is only a joke.
     

Share This Page