Be the defender

[RickFGS]

Before attacking a spearman, take a look around , if you find yourself having to attack a metropolis in a hill beyond a river with a vet spear on it you´ll probably get your ass kicked

 

[Diviner]

Before attacking a spearman, take a look around , if you find yourself having to attack a metropolis in a hill beyond a river with a vet spear on it you´ll probably get your ass kicked

so this way spear have

2 * 1.25 (fortify) * 1.25 (river crossing) * 1.5 (hills) * 2 (metro) = 9,375

and yet attacking MI have only 4 points. i wish that combat system would give more advantage to offense instead of these incredible defensive bonuses.

and its just getting worse and worse later on, especially with mechinfs

18 * 1.25 * 1.25 *1.5 * 2 = !84,375! though this is the worst scenario, but without the lethal bombardment and artillery traditions such strongholds are virtually uncapturable.

 

[RickFGS]

Not quite since the attacker will have the iniative most of the times, meaning, choosing where, when and how much force to strike, making in turn play games an advantage for the attacker and on simultaneous moves an advantage for the defender if a road network exists, the so called "reinforcing" exploit, also used in some PBEM´s at turn ends - "Double moves".

In general a good attacker just ignores your mahamouth stronghold and rapes/raze/conquer every thing around it till your sieged in, so the enoumous defensive bouns i think is actually quite ballanced in the game, else it would be just a walk in the park for the strongest attacker with no war skill or strategy in general required, kinda like in real time strat games.

18 * 1.25 * 1.25 *1.5 * 2 = !84,375! Mech Inf, you forgot to add the Civil Defense city improvment bonus

 

[Diviner]

Not quite since the attacker will have the iniative most of the times, meaning, choosing where, when and how much force to strike, making in turn play games an advantage for the attacker and on simultaneous moves an advantage for the defender if a road network exists, the so called "reinforcing" exploit, also used in some PBEM´s at turn ends - "Double moves".

In general a good attacker just ignores your mahamouth stronghold and rapes/raze/conquer every thing around it till your sieged in, so the enoumous defensive bouns i think is actually quite ballanced in the game, else it would be just a walk in the park for the strongest attacker with no war skill or strategy in general required, kinda like in real time strat games.

i agree its quite sensible to give the defender advantage on the attacker, but this is somehow too much in my opinion. though the bonuses are realistic, the result will be devastating to the attack force. (4-9, as well as 24-84 is really hard) thanks god and firaxis that retreat abilities are included which makes sieges easier.

18 * 1.25 * 1.25 *1.5 * 2 = !84,375! Mech Inf, you forgot to add the Civil Defense city improvment bonus

probably because i never ever build them, but YAAAY EVEN MORE MECH-INF . .. .. .. .

 

[sercer88]

so this way spear have
2 * 1.25 (fortify) * 1.25 (river crossing) * 1.5 (hills) * 2 (metro) = 9,375

mech infantry have
18 * 1.25 * 1.25 *1.5 * 2 = !84,375!

not quite...

the correct way is to add up all of the defensive bonuses and then add 1 (for 100% of the original defense.)

so, for a spear,
2*(1+(.25+.25+.5+1)) = 2*3 = 6

and for the mech infantry,
18*(1+(.25+.25+.5+1)) = 18*3 = 52

 

[Diviner]

not quite...

the correct way is to add up all of the defensive bonuses and then add 1 (for 100% of the original defense.)

so, for a spear,
2*(1+(.25+.25+.5+1)) = 2*3 = 6

and for the mech infantry,
18*(1+(.25+.25+.5+1)) = 18*3 = 52

really? then i guess i was all wrong and the sys is better than i assumed. (well 24-52 is still weird).

 

[RickFGS]

So a hoplite or num merc will have 3*3=9 In case you dont have metropolis a barricade can give the 100% to achieve the 9 plus a moutain it will be:

3*(1+(0.25+0.25+1+1))=3*3.5=10.5!

Join in a couple archer and catapults and its fun for the all familly

 

[WackenOpenAir]

It's not about reallity, it's about good strategic gameplay. When the attacker is too strong compared to the defender, attacking becomes a way to attractive strategy compared to other (builder) strategies.

As it is, most of us agree that brutal agression is the most effective strategy in civ, if we like it or not. (luckily i do)
Civ would strategically be a more balanced game if defenders got another 50% bonus for defending in their home territory for example.

 

[sercer88]

Civ would strategically be a more balanced game if defenders got another 50% bonus for defending in their home territory for example.

???

I don't really understand your reason for saying this...please explain!

IMO, the defenders already get enough of a bonus. If units would get more defense guarding home land, then the AI would be at an even greater dis-advantage, because they don't know how to use any sort of artillery (except maybe bombers...)

 

[WackenOpenAir]

Attacking is so much more rewarding than building city improvements that everyone who playes for competitions like (s)gotm has to play very agressive in order to make a chance, even if they go for non military victories.

In order to balance the game and make city improvements more efficient compared to massive armies, attacking should be made less rewarding (You could also make the city improvements more rewarding, but it would take quite a bit to make the compete with the conquering of luxuries, wonders and population)

a 50% bonus (maybe not only defence, but also attack) in home territory would do a great job in making attacking less rewarding.

 

[psweetman1590]

Less rewarding is different from more difficult, WOA.

Now, if you're going to make it more difficult to attack, then the AI will almost never be able to fight any war properly at all, whether against the human or each other (as Sercer pointed out). This would serve only to make it easier for the human to utterly dominate the game. Harder to win quickly, perhaps, but ever so much easier to win in the long run.

I think perhaps the only reason that outright headlong aggression is the best path to take is because of the somewhat faulty assumption in the game itself - that more is always better. More is not always better, and in fact, may real countries have toppled because they had too much... and could not afford to govern efficiently, or to pay the costs that such a large empire entailed. I think cIV had it better, as far as this aspect is concerned. In cIV, if you start taking cities left and right, you'll run yourself bankrupt so quickly that you won't have a prayer. This is because it is less rewarding to take more cities, because those cities are drains, rather than boons.

Edit: I haven't said this outright, but it's what I'm implying: War should be balanced so that the attacker has the tactical advantage, but the game should be molded so that the attacker is at a severe disadvantage in economy. The question then becomes "can I afford to fight?" rather than "how long will it take to completely conquer that civ?"

 

[sercer88]

Less rewarding is different from more difficult, WOA.

Now, if you're going to make it more difficult to attack, then the AI will almost never be able to fight any war properly at all, whether against the human or each other (as Sercer pointed out). This would serve only to make it easier for the human to utterly dominate the game. Harder to win quickly, perhaps, but ever so much easier to win in the long run.

I think perhaps the only reason that outright headlong aggression is the best path to take is because of the somewhat faulty assumption in the game itself - that more is always better. More is not always better, and in fact, may real countries have toppled because they had too much... and could not afford to govern efficiently, or to pay the costs that such a large empire entailed. I think cIV had it better, as far as this aspect is concerned. In cIV, if you start taking cities left and right, you'll run yourself bankrupt so quickly that you won't have a prayer. This is because it is less rewarding to take more cities, because those cities are drains, rather than boons.

Edit: I haven't said this outright, but it's what I'm implying: War should be balanced so that the attacker has the tactical advantage, but the game should be molded so that the attacker is at a severe disadvantage in economy. The question then becomes "can I afford to fight?" rather than "how long will it take to completely conquer that civ?"

Yes, that's it! You've hit it right on the nose, p-sweet! I just didn't want to explain myself because it seems whenever I try to explain something, I end up confusing that person even more

 

[Snarkhunter]

Less rewarding is different from more difficult, WOA.

Edit: I haven't said this outright, but it's what I'm implying: War should be balanced so that the attacker has the tactical advantage, but the game should be molded so that the attacker is at a severe disadvantage in economy. The question then becomes "can I afford to fight?" rather than "how long will it take to completely conquer that civ?"

You could do that by adding something I think is lacking from the current game: supplies & logistics. Armies have a tough time in any age fighting away from their supply heads, even if they try to live off the land. Defenders are almost always closer to their supply heads, so usually have an easier time with this. It would be complicated to code up in a realistic manner, but would definitely add a dimension to the game similar to what you imply.

 

[psweetman1590]

I'd like to see that implemented, but there is no way in hell that the current developers will ever put it in.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

It is true that eliminating the more=better would solve the unbalance towards attacking even better.
I personally just don't like that concept, it would completely change the game, and it is called civ4.... I hate it when attacking is not worthy at all. It just doesn't have to be so much better then building.

What i suggested, is not an idea specifically on civ and it's AI. It is a principle for strategy games in general.
By making defence stronger, you will need more attackers to conquer the same amount of land. More investment for the same reward = less efficient and a better in line with the return on making other investments.

Also, in strategy games, the attacker always has the strategical advantage of having the initiative, concentrated forces and often a mobility advantage. Most strategy games try to offset this to a certain extend. Many games have defence towers that are multiple times as cost efficient as attackers, civ has defence bonusses. Like those towers are usually not enough to make defending a vialble option, the defence bonusses in civ aren't either. On top of that, the defence bonusses as they exist do not purely benefit the defender. They also make it harder to take out the guys defending that stack of artillery on the hill next to your capital or that damn spear fortified on your only iron source. A defence bonus in your home territory would really benefit only the defender.

 

[Snarkhunter]

Also, in strategy games, the attacker always has the strategical advantage of having the initiative, concentrated forces and often a mobility advantage.

This isn't always true by any means. Quite often the defender's chief advantage is interior lines, hence superior mobility & a chance to concentrate & defeat the attacker in detail. Sometimes the defender has a general advantage in mobility (fewer, but faster, units). And sometimes the defender has the option of unleashing a spoiling attack first. Sometimes both defender and attacker are scattered & it is a question of who can concentrate first (any Market Garden sim, for example). depends on what is being simulated as to how true this is. . . .

 

[psweetman1590]

It is true that eliminating the more=better would solve the unbalance towards attacking even better.
I personally just don't like that concept, it would completely change the game, and it is called civ4.... I hate it when attacking is not worthy at all. It just doesn't have to be so much better then building.

First of all, just so I didn't come across as a cIV fan, this just about the only part of the game that I think got better in 4. I can't stand the bias against the military part of that game, and how it got so minimized and bland. Just so you know.

Second of all, it doesn't make attacking entirely unworthy, it just means you need to think for a second before deciding to level another civ. Wars are (supposedly) expensive, and I don't see this modelled in civ3. Heck, with the influx of new cities, in many cases a war will actually boost one's economy. This is entirely wrong.

I have a friend on another civ site who often refers to the civ3 more-is-better problem as a "paint-spill simulator". Essentially, he points out that the main object is get big (spread the paint), and once you get big, it's really easier to get even bigger (spread the paint still more) until you rule the whole world (the map is painted in your civ color). Again, this isn't how it should be. Your proposed solution doesn't do anything about this problem, either. Because, although wars would suddenly become more difficult, it would still allow you to become bigger, and once you're bigger, it suddenly becomes easier to win yet another war, which makes you bigger and allows you to win yet another war, and so on. Giving the defense a bonus will slow you down, but it will not alter the end outcome one bit.

What i suggested, is not an idea specifically on civ and it's AI. It is a principle for strategy games in general.
By making defence stronger, you will need more attackers to conquer the same amount of land. More investment for the same reward = less efficient and a better in line with the return on making other investments.

I see. But as we're on a civ forum, we're going to apply it to civ, regardless of what other strategy games have done with it. And I still say it won't work. Primarily because of the AI. As I said, we have to apply this to civ, and not strategy games in general.

Many games have defence towers that are multiple times as cost efficient as attackers,

You mean like, radar towers?

I somewhat agree with you on the whole bonuses-helping-the-attacker argument, but really, what causes this is that while wars in history were primarily fought over terrain, in civ, the wars are fought over cities. If you want good terrain to benefit the defenders and not the attackers, you need to have the defense occupy the good terrain themselves. That can't happen in civ, though, because if they move out of the city to do so, then the attacker will simply bypass them and take the city. Not realistic, but that's how it works in civ, as you know. The only way to really solve this problem is to decentralize the city as a site of commerce and production, and that's not going to happen any time this century either.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

yes, it is just a personal preference. I do like the more=better idea, but my idea was to make it so that more doesn't need to be more and more cities, but also bigger and better cities. For this, it would also be nice if the hospital was available much sooner


Yesterday i saw a documentary on discovery channel about how Wellington tactically beat Napolion at waterloo. Nice inspiration for what should be possible in civ
And it doesn't all matter anyway of course, nothing is ever gonna be changed about civ3 unless you can do it in the editor.

 

[Marsden]

I somewhat agree with you on the whole bonuses-helping-the-attacker argument, but really, what causes this is that while wars in history were primarily fought over terrain, in civ, the wars are fought over cities. If you want good terrain to benefit the defenders and not the attackers, you need to have the defense occupy the good terrain themselves. That can't happen in civ, though, because if they move out of the city to do so, then the attacker will simply bypass them and take the city. Not realistic, but that's how it works in civ, as you know. The only way to really solve this problem is to decentralize the city as a site of commerce and production, and that's not going to happen any time this century either.

I was saying something on sort of the same concept when I complained a few years ago that seizing a resource by military means requires taking or founding a city by it. You just can send infantry to the coal and grab it like the French did the Rhur Valley in the 1930s when Germany started violating the Treaty of Versalles and no one else wanted to do anything about it. I don't know how much coal they got out of it but that was captured territory with arms but I can't capture the coal mine in civ without occupying a city of the AI or even worse building enough libraries so that my "culture" expands and grabs it without recorse.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great game, but that's just weird.

 

[BlackFiend]

The solution to making war much more difficult, is not to make defending tougher...its to make holding it together (during and afterwards) difficult.

1. War should cause pollution of territories. If a battle takes place on a square, it should be "polluted" and workers are needed to clean it up and make it productive again.

2. Armies should get a free pillaging action every round, or the option to "pollute". An army on the move is a terrible thing to behold, leaving a trail of waste as it goes. Even modern armies. Where they pass through, farms are scoured and burned, towns are looted, and commerce is victimized.