A possible solution to the "Spearman-Beating-a-Tank" problem

[TheNiceOne]

I think its perfectly fine that you mod your games this way, but I wouldn't do it myself. CIV3 is a great game but a horrible simulation - there's really so much wrong with CIV as a simulation that I actually think its wrong to think of it as a simulation at all.

Fortunately, this is not due to bad design, but rather because CIV has sacrificed realism over good game design all the way.

The spearman vs tank debate is (IMHO) another question of realism vs a good game. It is more realistic if the tank beat the spearman all the time, but the game suffers. It simply means that the better force will be even better and meet even less resistance. That's not my idea of a good game. It's good that it can be modded for your pleasure though.

 

[Sim_One]

Very good points NiceOne.

 

[Free Enterprise]

The game is indeed supposed to be a game not totally a simulation, however it *is* unbalanced. Therefore some modding is almost required to increase the enjoyability of the game.

Here is a riddle for some who say everything is balanced always all the time:
If everything it the game was perfect, then is the ability to changes things in the mod perfect too? Why does the mod exist if it is utopia? If you mod the game would it still be "perfect"? Would the mod be the "imperfect" part of the game?


Btw, I don't really think the spearmen winning against a tank is a problem. I just try to increase the use of units that aren't too useful or are underpowered.

 

[DaDoo]

Originally posted by Free Enterprise
The game is indeed supposed to be a game not totally a simulation, however it *is* unbalanced. Therefore some modding is almost required to increase the enjoyability of the game.

Here is a riddle for some who say everything is balanced always all the time:
If everything it the game was perfect, then is the ability to changes things in the mod perfect too? Why does the mod exist if it is utopia? If you mod the game would it still be "perfect"? Would the mod be the "imperfect" part of the game?


Btw, I don't really think the spearmen winning against a tank is a problem. I just try to increase the use of units that aren't too useful or are underpowered.

being balanced or not all depend on the person looking at the game. Different points of view will bring up different opinions. TheNiceOne only stated his(?? sorry... can't be too sure nowadays.. ) point of vew. But reading your post I can't help feeling that you are belittling anybody that thinks the game is balanced. There are mods out there simply because you just will not ever be able to have *everybody* that buys the game to agree to 1 single set of rules that's carved in stone. There'll be people think the rule is fair and there are people that think the rule is all bunk. The mod exist so that the latter could alter the rules so they could like the game too, not because the game is not "perfect", nor is it making it more "perfect". Just different possible variation of the same game.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

The spearman winning against the tank is not the real issue. It has more complex origins. The game gives too much defensive bonuses to units that should be trounced the majority of the time. Note that I did not say all the time. Increasing the power of modern units won't help solve this problem.

If you cut defense bonuses it would help tanks more than just increasing their stats further. This would also improve other units that are supposedly classified as attack units such as marines and paratroopers. In my opinon it is better to reduce the rediculously high bonuses than to keep improving modern armor/mech infantry.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Reichsmarshal, I understand people who will decrease the chance of a spearman winning against a tank, but I don't understand the point in decreasing the defense bonuses at all:

From a realism point: The defense bonuses are if anything, lower inn CIV3 than in real life. Don't you think a unit behind walls should defend itself more than twice as good as out in the open?

From a game point: Decreasing the defense bonuses will have one effect: The civ that's on the offense (and that probably wins 90%+) of the wars already will become even more overwhelming. I think the balance in CIV3 is already skewed - it's far too easy for both the human and AI players to take out other civs.

Fortunately, some of the additions in PTW makes offensive actions harder, since there are two new structures that increase defense bonuses (although I'm afraid they come too late in the game).

 

[Ayatollah So]

TheNiceOne, your point brings up important issues: is the game too favorable to the attacker, and if so, is this because of the combat system or the culture/nationalism/happiness/mobilization type issues? I think the answers are Yes, and The Latter, respectively. But it's OT enough that I'll make a new thread, when I get some time.

 

[Smoking mirror]

I'm working on a mod to make the game a more realistic simulation, the early versions (units and combat; governments etc still to perfect) already feature a few things that will make it more realistic...

#1 The default HP rating is 1 for conscript, 2 for regular, 3 for veteran and four for elite,
#2 ancient units have -1 hp
#3 knights, longbowmen and pikemen have +0Hps
#4 Units equiped with firearms have +1hps (equivalent to standard civ III)


having lower HPs overall makes wars quicker and in the early game makes experience just as an important factor as technology, regular swordsmen have only 1hp, elite spearmen have 3hps; you will need at least 3 regular swordsman units to have a reliable chance of defeating the spearman.

also you will se that elite spearmen with 3hps are the equivalent of a regular tank, so even tanks built in a city with no barracks have the same staying power as a (rare) elite spearman.

If you add more custom units then you need never face the prospect of tanks facing spearmen; because if the gap between unit upgrades is smaller the AI can afford to upgrade his/her obsolete units. Upgrading form spearmen to phalanx costs just 10 gold, upgrading from phalanx to pikemen costs 10 gold, upgrading from pikemen to musketmen costs 20-30 gold (I make musketmen slightly weaker to make room for napoleonic riflemen) and so on; with the small gaps encouraging the AI to modernize its armies and also meaning that the armies that are being built are more modernized (for example instead of building knights for 6 centuries then switching straight to cavalry, which leaves dozens of obsolete units too expensive for the AI to upgrade (even the player has trouble, having to build wealth, or increase tax for a few turns) the Ai will build knights untill firearms apear, at which time they switch to dragoons and can at that point upgrade their knights to dragoons at "half price" then later upgrade them to cavalry ath the other half of the price).

 

[Gen]

Originally posted by Smoking mirror
I'm working on a mod to make the game a more realistic simulation, the early versions (units and combat; governments etc still to perfect) already feature a few things that will make it more realistic...

#1 The default HP rating is 1 for conscript, 2 for regular, 3 for veteran and four for elite,
#2 ancient units have -1 hp
...

Don't your modifications make it impossible to get conscript warriors from goody hut, Smoking mirror? They would be dead just after recruitment What's with barbarians? Or maybe game don't allow unit to have 0HP? But in that case barbarians would be really serious threat (their conscripts equal in power to your regulars).
As for modifications you have made, I don't think they make really realistic simulation, lowering HPs generally increases randomness in battle results (1HP regular fighting 1HP regular - common scenario in ancient age - it's just Civ1). On the other hand, giving firearm units +1HP is good idea (at least makes those expensive musketmen worthy replacement for pikemen). I've also experimented with modding and prefer Lt 'Killer' M. approach. My units gain +1HP for age (ancient get none). I've left experience levels unchanged with exception +1HP for elites (rewards keeping them alive and gaining experience. However, I'm not sure that was good idea, because AI cases less about building barracks than me, so I'm always in advantage...).

 

[Free Enterprise]

Nope, in real life it is insane to say that a spearman could trounce a rifleman all because they had city walls or a metro. It isn't there for realism, just balance.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
Reichsmarshal, I understand people who will decrease the chance of a spearman winning against a tank, but I don't understand the point in decreasing the defense bonuses at all:

From a realism point: The defense bonuses are if anything, lower inn CIV3 than in real life. Don't you think a unit behind walls should defend itself more than twice as good as out in the open?

From a game point: Decreasing the defense bonuses will have one effect: The civ that's on the offense (and that probably wins 90%+) of the wars already will become even more overwhelming. I think the balance in CIV3 is already skewed - it's far too easy for both the human and AI players to take out other civs.

Fortunately, some of the additions in PTW makes offensive actions harder, since there are two new structures that increase defense bonuses (although I'm afraid they come too late in the game).

Consider these:

A spearman recieves a defensive bonus against infantry, riflemen, long bowmen, tanks, mech infantries, because they are across a river. There is no way to explain how they would get such bonuses against long range units.

Hence gun/bow units should be great on the offensive against melee units.

Units recieve defense bonuses on grasslands when they are attacked by a unit in a forrest.


And if you count walls, those would have been destroyed by siege weapons or be useless at anything later than the early middle ages.


Imagine if this happened (or worse)

Fortify bonus: 25%
Metropolis bonus: 100%
River bonus: 25%
Terrain bonus 10%
Civil defense (when expansion come out): 100%

Total: 260%

Now do the math with an infantry or mech infantry and see the results. How would anything other than modern armor do any good against that?

That is way more than enough. It explains why spearmen have little trouble defeating knights, longbowmen, riflemen, and even more advanced units, like infantry.

No wonder it isn't rare that ancient units win so often.

 

[Free Enterprise]

DaDoo you seem to be a proponent of Gestaltism. Balance is only partial in the eye of the beholder. It cannot be that if a unit had 4/4/1 and required 110 shields, oil, rubber, and came with stealth, it would still be balanced.

Reichmarshal has identified a large portion of the problem, its not the ancient offensive units that routinely thump modern ones, its the *defensive* ones.

I consider a rifleman should not be always,totally,utterly crushed by pikemen or musketmen when attacking.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal
Consider these:

A spearman recieves a defensive bonus against infantry, riflemen, long bowmen, tanks, mech infantries, because they are across a river. There is no way to explain how they would get such bonuses against long range units.

Yes there is. Are you saying that attacking across a river is just as easy as attacking across plains?
Crossing a river will even for long range units mean that most of the units must wade in deep water or use rafts, or in best case, run past a narrow bridge. The defenders can hide until the very vulnerable attackers are close enough, and if some of the attackers are staying at the other side of the river as support fire, then it means that the attackers that cross are outnumbered, and that the ones who stays behind will have a longer range than normal.

A 25% bonus for this don't seem too high too me. Also, rivers are the only obstacle that makes the square the attacker comes from matters, so it's a very welcome feature that adds a little strategy IMHO.

Hence gun/bow units should be great on the offensive against melee units.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Gun/Bow units have higher attack than others, isn't this what you mean?

Units recieve defense bonuses on grasslands when they are attacked by a unit in a forrest.

Yes, and there are two issues here:

First, the 10% grasslands defense bonus, which I find correct or even a bit low, as an attacker generally will loose at least 10% more units than the defender, even when the defender is not fortified.

Second, I think one of the weaknesses of the combat system in CIV3 is that it doesn't consider the attacker's terrain at all. Attackers on foot should receive a bonus for attacking out from woods or hills/mountains. And cavalry should receive a negativ effect from attacking from (or defending in) woods. But this is another question, and one that I brought up in an old thread (you can search for it).

And if you count walls, those would have been destroyed by siege weapons or be useless at anything later than the early middle ages.

Which is also reflected in the fact that only towns get the wall bonus...

Imagine if this happened (or worse)

Fortify bonus: 25%
Metropolis bonus: 100%
River bonus: 25%
Terrain bonus 10%
Civil defense (when expansion come out): 100%

Total: 260%

Now do the math with an infantry or mech infantry and see the results. How would anything other than modern armor do any good against that?

That is way more than enough. It explains why spearmen have little trouble defeating knights, longbowmen, riflemen, and even more advanced units, like infantry.

No wonder it isn't rare that ancient units win so often.

I don't know how you're playing your games, but from my own experience, and from discussion threads here, my experience is that if a civ relies on spearmen as defense after the enemy has got knights or better, then they're doomed.

And regarding your example, if you're attacking the best defended city in the game, and are so careless that you attack across a river, then I really think its a good thing that you'll need the best offensive unit the game can offer, to stand a chance.

 

[Free Enterprise]

I think the game considers combat takes place in the defenders square hence no combat bonus to attackers.

The main issue I find troubling is that defense units sometimes have too low attack. Add up a tank or modern armor's stats, then add up an infantry or mech infantry's stats. The solution is to up defense units attack(not as high as their defense though).

Example infantry 8attack/10defense

Often an attacker with guns, riflemen for instance, are at a disadvantage against musketmen in *all* cases. The defending riflemen should have an advantage however there should be some reason attack attack a riflemen on grasslands with the same unit, if you bombard them a lot. To sum up the point: Knights should not attack quite as well as riflemen.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne

Yes there is. Are you saying that attacking across a river is just as easy as attacking across plains?
Crossing a river will even for long range units mean that most of the units must wade in deep water or use rafts, or in best case, run past a narrow bridge. The defenders can hide until the very vulnerable attackers are close enough, and if some of the attackers are staying at the other side of the river as support fire, then it means that the attackers that cross are outnumbered, and that the ones who stays behind will have a longer range than normal.

A 25% bonus for this don't seem too high too me. Also, rivers are the only obstacle that makes the square the attacker comes from matters, so it's a very welcome feature that adds a little strategy IMHO.

It is a problem when long range units fight close range/melee units. If the river isn't wide enough the attacking infantry/tanks would trash the defending spearman/pikemen. Grenades would prove decisive. If you have played Age of Empires 2 you would agree that it is far more realistic than what happens in Civilization 3 rivers.

In other cases the river bonus is fine.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Gun/Bow units have higher attack than others, isn't this what you mean?

Knights, pikemen, infamous spearman can easily win against paratroopers, infantry, and even sometimes marines. The is very strange considering these units defend so well against each other yet have so much trouble attacking obsolete units.

Yes, and there are two issues here:

First, the 10% grasslands defense bonus, which I find correct or even a bit low, as an attacker generally will loose at least 10% more units than the defender, even when the defender is not fortified.

Second, I think one of the weaknesses of the combat system in CIV3 is that it doesn't consider the attacker's terrain at all. Attackers on foot should receive a bonus for attacking out from woods or hills/mountains. And cavalry should receive a negativ effect from attacking from (or defending in) woods. But this is another question, and one that I brought up in an old thread (you can search for it).

I agree with this. Eventually civ games will need to take this into account.

I don't know how you're playing your games, but from my own experience, and from discussion threads here, my experience is that if a civ relies on spearmen as defense after the enemy has got knights or better, then they're doomed.

They are, however the reason they win is too heavily based on production and not the actual units fighting.

And regarding your example, if you're attacking the best defended city in the game, and are so careless that you attack across a river, then I really think its a good thing that you'll need the best offensive unit the game can offer, to stand a chance. [/B]

It is very possible to have cities with higher defense improvements. It is also unrealistic that modern armors (since they are the only real attack unit of the final stages of the game) fighting mech infantries have to deal with mech infantries getting so many unrealistic bonuses on a regular basis.

The game lacks any infantry with guns that have a real attack rating (any thing less than 10 is a complete waste and joke in the modern era). Offensive infantry are far more important than tanks in assaults against defended cities. There should be one and the industrial age and an upgrade in the modern age. Possibly a new defensive infantry also (Like a heavy machine gunner).



Why is it ok for a spearman to occasionally when against a modern armor, however it is not for a swordsman to when against mech infantries on equally rare occasions? It will not help to keep increasing the power of advanced units without addressing this issue, unless you want the most scientically advanced civ to always win even if they neglect other aspects of the game.

 

[VinManAgent11]

And this hasn't been stated before?