Be the defender

[sercer88]

That's an interesting way of looking at war, and a fairly good concept...BUT...

1) That sort of thing already sort of happens (if you bring enough units that could spare some to pillage improvements) although, not the pollution part.

2) Wouldn't that only penalize the nation being attacked? Sure, you would have some units stray into your territory that you have to deal with, but if you are the one starting the war, shouldn't you be ready for any counter-attack in the first place?? At least, that's the way I war...maybe you are different...

 

[BlackFiend]

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.

Sun Tzu teaches that good terrain for attacking is any terrain that denies the defender any advantage or ease of supply.

There should have been flanking in Civ 3. A non fortified force attacked from two sides or directions should get a meaningful penalty on defense.

Regarding the "More is better" strategem...thats just how it is.

"Other conditions being equal, if one force is
hurled against another ten times its size, the result
will be the flight of the former." -Sun Tzu

 

[psweetman1590]

Sun Tzu teaches that good terrain for attacking is any terrain that denies the defender any advantage or ease of supply.

There should have been flanking in Civ 3. A non fortified force attacked from two sides or directions should get a meaningful penalty on defense.

What you post is true of itself, but it does not relate directly to what I was trying to convey. This is how I would want Civ 3 to operate, but as long as a nation's commerce and -especially- it's production are concentrated in cities, it won't work like a true-to-life war. Why should the defense cover the forests? If they do so, the attacker will simply skirt around them and take the city. So, instead of a war that emphasizes position (like Sun Tzu studied) we end up with a war of attrition (I killed more = I win!). This brings up your next point...

Regarding the "More is better" strategem...thats just how it is.

"Other conditions being equal, if one force is
hurled against another ten times its size, the result
will be the flight of the former." -Sun Tzu

Again, true, but it doesn't match what I'm trying to say about the game.

Is more better? In war = yes.
In governmental administration = no.

Certainly, a larger army should win, other things being equal. BUT what I was trying to say is that having a big country should not garauntee you having a larger army. It should not garauntee you being ahead in tech. It should not garauntee anything except for having more land in and of itself. Look at Russia: Huge country, huge population, practically unlimited natural resources.... and they usually ended up getting their arses whooped when they tried to take on European powers (or Japan, for that matter, in the early 1900's). The reason for their backwardness is that they could not afford to govern such a huge territory as efficiently as could the smaller nations around them. Thus, although their army was huge, it was not well equipped, not well supplied, and except in rare cases, not particularly well led. In contrast, Germany (a country that is inferior in every way regarding raw statistics such as population and resources) was goverened very efficiently, had minimal corruption, and it's army was thus extremely well trained, equipped, supplied, and led. And it showed.

In civ3, would there be any hope of Germany overcoming Russia? Of course not! Russia would smother them! And that is what I'm trying to say: Being big is too powerful. The game gives civs all the benefits of becomming larger, with none of the costs associated with doing so.

 

[BlackFiend]

Again, true, but it doesn't match what I'm trying to say about the game.

Is more better? In war = yes.
In governmental administration = no.

Certainly, a larger army should win, other things being equal. BUT what I was trying to say is that having a big country should not garauntee you having a larger army. It should not garauntee you being ahead in tech. It should not garauntee anything except for having more land in and of itself. Look at Russia: Huge country, huge population, practically unlimited natural resources.... and they usually ended up getting their arses whooped when they tried to take on European powers (or Japan, for that matter, in the early 1900's). The reason for their backwardness is that they could not afford to govern such a huge territory as efficiently as could the smaller nations around them.

I understand where you are coming from, however, thats a very simplistic view point. What is huge country? What is a huge population? Its based on available resources, and distribution. The question is not on size, for that is relative...its about efficiency. A large country with greater efficiency can easily outproduce and outmaneuver a similar or larger country with far worse efficency.

Russia was a dominant force that was unstoppable, and had incredible growth in a very short period of time, though its inefficency due to its political system and expansion. Considering the history of countries like England, Prussia, France, and Spain, Russia never came into existence until the 1600s. A very late start if you will, to be such a dominant force. France's forces were first class forces and dominated where they could lay claim. Even with the incredible Napoleon at the helm, they could not successfully invade Russia. To say it was because of winter alone, is a a western euro-centric fallacy. Russian supremacy was one held together under the toughest of environs, against some of the most brutal adversaries of that age. It was they who checked and defeated the Mongols, after all.

Russia's loss against Japan was completely a battle of fighting dog against the big bear. Russia could not simply apply all of its forces against Japan...while Japan, though much smaller, was able to use all of its strength in its thrusts against Russia's far east. Even the vast majority of the Russian navy was incapable of participating in the conflict because they had to travel from the Atlantic and Baltic region, all the way around South Africa, and then journey to the far extreme north towards Japan. At least 10,000 miles of sea. Maybe 20,000 miles!

It also helped considerably that Japan had a mutual protection pact with Britian at the time. No one would come to Russia's logistical or military aide, while Britian was very free to give great logistical help to Japan. It took many precious months for the Russian army to travel from west to east via their railroad.

In CIV3, can this be reproduced? Can a country the size of Germany take on a force the like and size of Russia and defeat them? Yes.

Can a country like Japan take on and defeat all of Russia? I have to say no.

 

[psweetman1590]

[/quote]I understand where you are coming from, however, thats a very simplistic view point. What is huge country? What is a huge population? Its based on available resources, and distribution. The question is not on size, for that is relative...its about efficiency. A large country with greater efficiency can easily outproduce and outmaneuver a similar or larger country with far worse efficency.
[/quote]
My point exactly.

Russia was a dominant force that was unstoppable, and had incredible growth in a very short period of time, though its inefficency due to its political system and expansion. Considering the history of countries like England, Prussia, France, and Spain, Russia never came into existence until the 1600s. A very late start if you will, to be such a dominant force. France's forces were first class forces and dominated where they could lay claim. Even with the incredible Napoleon at the helm, they could not successfully invade Russia. To say it was because of winter alone, is a a western euro-centric fallacy. Russian supremacy was one held together under the toughest of environs, against some of the most brutal adversaries of that age. It was they who checked and defeated the Mongols, after all.

I'm sorry to say, most of that does not strike me as accurate at all. Russia was not a dominant force against anyone, except perhaps the various tribes that periodically invaded and raided the outskirts along the Volga river and Black Sea. For most of it's history, those nomads and raiders were the greatest threat to Russian stability. As for Napoleon not being beaten off simply by winter? Rubbish. The Russian General knew he didn't stand a chance against the Grand Armee in a straight battle, and so never committed himself to one until ordered to by the Tsar (who needed some sort of battle for appearance's sake). Were it not for winter and the fact that the French had not brought enough supplies with them, Russia would have lost. It was only after the decision was made to retreat that the Russian forces truly bled the French, and even then it was through raiding attacks, not an all out battle. And then there are the Mongols. Check and defeated them, you say? Well, that's a rather misleading statement. The Mongols conquered them easily, as they did everyone else at that time, and Russia became the Golden Horde. It was only much later that Ivan III gathered up an army to oppose them, and by then, the Mongols were hardly the near-invincible force they once were. So yes, they beat them, but you make it sound like they stopped them cold in their romp across Asia. That's far from the truth.

Russia's loss against Japan was completely a battle of fighting dog against the big bear. Russia could not simply apply all of its forces against Japan...while Japan, though much smaller, was able to use all of its strength in its thrusts against Russia's far east. Even the vast majority of the Russian navy was incapable of participating in the conflict because they had to travel from the Atlantic and Baltic region, all the way around South Africa, and then journey to the far extreme north towards Japan. At least 10,000 miles of sea. Maybe 20,000 miles!

I can agree to that. Cheers!

In CIV3, can this be reproduced? Can a country the size of Germany take on a force the like and size of Russia and defeat them? Yes.

I've yet to see it. Unless, of course, you're talking about cheiftain or warlord level.

And I still stand by this statement:

The game gives civs all the benefits of becomming larger, with none of the costs associated with doing so.

 

[Hasdrubal Barca]

Everyone talks about China as the new super-power nowadyas but dont forget Russia is now under major development, not only did it preserve an impressive military power but they also still have many brilliant minds and educated citizenship.

A country so vast and by far one of the most important energy suppliers to europe, if they want they just pull the plug and half the european countries start pannicking.

Their economical problems are now a typical young capitalism state with a still present autocratian leadership and corrupted political system where the russian mafia and the militaries play the most important role and gig oil/gas tycoon own some of the world biggest wealths while the rest of the population live in poverty or middle grounds.

They are the biggest country in the world but with low population, only 150 million compared to 300 million of US or 450 million for EU, that may be explained by the first and second world war where almost 29 million soviets were killed (17 civilian and 12 military) severe cripling the growth of the country in the 20th and 21th century.

Russia´s true history is only beginning, if there is peace of course.

 

[Snarkhunter]

I'm sorry to say, most of that does not strike me as accurate at all. Russia was not a dominant force against anyone, except perhaps the various tribes that periodically invaded and raided the outskirts along the Volga river and Black Sea. For most of it's history, those nomads and raiders were the greatest threat to Russian stability. As for Napoleon not being beaten off simply by winter? Rubbish. The Russian General knew he didn't stand a chance against the Grand Armee in a straight battle, and so never committed himself to one until ordered to by the Tsar (who needed some sort of battle for appearance's sake). Were it not for winter and the fact that the French had not brought enough supplies with them, Russia would have lost. It was only after the decision was made to retreat that the Russian forces truly bled the French, and even then it was through raiding attacks, not an all out battle.

In that sense, there were no dominant forces in Europe until Napoleon. Certainly, the Russians were major players in the 18th century; they occupied Berlin in 1760, after all. As for Napoleon/Russia, he had already lost 80% of the Grande Armee by the time he occupied Moscow, & in contrast to his earlier opponents, the Russians showed no signs of giving in. Nor did he have any realistic chance of forcing them to, no matter what the weather was; his available technology just wasn't up to the task of conquering so vast an area in one chunk. It's true the remnants of the Grande Armee suffered terribly in the retreat without being brought to a battle like Borodino, but then, there was no need to do so: out of about 100,000 effectives at the start of the retreat from Moscow, only 10,000 made it to east Prussia. Russia had no difficulty in 1813 and 1814 putting together large forces to continue striking at Napoleon--and occupying Paris (whence cometh the word "bistro": from the Cossacks shouting at waiters "Bistra! Bistra!" (Faster! Faster!)).

As for the Russo-Japanese war, any European power would have had difficulty fighting a war so far away from its main sources of supply with an opponent such as the Japanese, especially as the war proved to be a dress rehearsal for WWI--which none of the major powers understood how to fight for several years after it started.

Which doesn't really have much to do with CivIII, but I thought I would throw it in, since the conversation had turned historical.

 

[BlackFiend]

I'm sorry to say, most of that does not strike me as accurate at all. Russia was not a dominant force against anyone, except perhaps the various tribes that periodically invaded and raided the outskirts along the Volga river and Black Sea. For most of it's history, those nomads and raiders were the greatest threat to Russian stability. As for Napoleon not being beaten off simply by winter? Rubbish. The Russian General knew he didn't stand a chance against the Grand Armee in a straight battle, and so never committed himself to one until ordered to by the Tsar (who needed some sort of battle for appearance's sake). Were it not for winter and the fact that the French had not brought enough supplies with them, Russia would have lost. It was only after the decision was made to retreat that the Russian forces truly bled the French, and even then it was through raiding attacks, not an all out battle. And then there are the Mongols. Check and defeated them, you say? Well, that's a rather misleading statement. The Mongols conquered them easily, as they did everyone else at that time, and Russia became the Golden Horde. It was only much later that Ivan III gathered up an army to oppose them, and by then, the Mongols were hardly the near-invincible force they once were. So yes, they beat them, but you make it sound like they stopped them cold in their romp across Asia. That's far from the truth.

Don't accept everything you are taught at face value. The method that Russia used was incredible, whether done by plan or circumstance. Napoleon grand force was allowed to travel fast and far into the Russian theater. When it reached its objective, it was given no quarter, no provision. It claimed a city, and had nothing to show for it, and no supplies to sustain itself. It was forced to leave with nothing to show for it. A classic pyrric victory! It consumed itself and was forced to retreat empty handed and starved of resources. That is when the bear pounced on them...not in decisive victories, but in waves of raids and denials.

Napoleon's army retreated with complete disaster. Its cavalry killed off or slaughtered for horse meat, supply wagons and cannons abandoned completely in their retreat. Thousands of wagons and cannons. Their soldiers weakened and dying off in the hundreds each day. The winter took its small toll, but it wasn't the winter itself that killed so many. It was starvation, lack of water, and disease.

I remember reading that in the end, ultimately, Napoleons coalition lost 4 to 1 against the russians. Not in "glorious" (tm) open battle, but in strategem and war.

War are not won by victories, but by the surrender and defeat of the enemy. The russians, though they took heavy losses, were never defeated by the French.

Its important for military leadership to know the heavens and the earth. To have an understanding of weather, seasons, and timing, and to understand the ground theater and limitations. Napoleon ignored these, and went with "Bigger is better". He failed because he ignored it. The Russians knew the theater, and knew their timing and seasons. They were bred on it. Napoleon paid an exorbitant price in human life for it.

As for the Tsar forcing his military to fight...that was ignorance on the part of the Tsar. He did not know war....he wanted symbolism of glory on the battlefield. If he had followed his commander's move, and knew the theater as his commander did, Russian's losses would have been even less. His commander understood that all he needed to do was wage a war of denial against such a hungry starving beast of an army. The Tsar suffered from westernized visions of glory.

Its the same reason that we have no reason to fear the Chinese army. They couldn't mobilize anywhere near what the U.S can with a far less numerous army. The supply chain for a chinese army would be so extensive, so vulnerable, so labor intensive, it would collapse under its own weight.

As my favorite general once said:
"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. You win a war by making the other dumb bastard die for his country."
- General George S. Patton

As for the Mongols...I'm sure its a grand simplification, but it was a young upstart Russian prince who first defeated the mongols and expanded his territory. A hundred years later, through a series of deft political, cultural, and military moves by many Russian rulers, Moscow was stronger than the now splintered Mongolians, and annexed most of the Mongol groups in turn.

 

[Marsden]

I have a little to add. Very little. But still....

The French used tin for their trouser buttons, which was fine in the French and and surrounding environs, but in the much colder nights in Russia they became brittle and broke. (Tin has a phase change around -10C so in the day it would be in one phase, then change at night, then repeat next day, over and over again causes micro cracks that made the metal collapse) Try marching and fighting with your pants around your ankles. And there was no Wal-mart to get saftey pins either. Sounds funny but this is a real problem which goes with along with the whole keeping your army supplied problem.

When you play a game you never ask yourself "will my units have warm socks?" "Will they run out of arrows/bullets?" "Will I be able to count on that 5000 year old spearman to stop that tank?" To do so would make it much more realistic and a lot less fun.


One last thing. I liked to annoy my friend because if you've ever seen Star Wars, the good guy blew up this huge space station (Death Star) in the end of the movie. Later it comes out how many millions of people were supposed to be in the thing. If you just keep to the good guy-bad guy thing the good guy does no wrong and you don't think of the thousands of guys on the station that were carpenters, machinists, quartermasters, and so on. Those people far outnumber the "bad-guys" that actually do the bad things. Are we to think the person that sewed Stalins socks was terribly evil because they provided his feet with socks while he ordered the deaths of millions? Back to Star Wars, and to finish this rambling, I would say things like "I wonder how many socks they had on the Death Star?" So it does relate to the conversation but also shows that no one really wants to deal with that in a game or movie or anywhere else.

 

[JDAllison]

This is a fascinating thread. Unfortunately, like psweet said, Civ III warfare rests on the understanding that more=better. Every game I have ever played was like that.(EDIT: Every game in Civ I have ever played.) "The rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer", and all that.

There have been multiple times when I would gift all my techs and some resources to a minor civ (like the Germans, for instance) to try to offset a third (say, the Chinese), the net effect being that I had to conquer China just as quickly as if I hadn't even touched Germany. And yes, I know that when the AI has 3-5 cities and is in the MA when every one else has 45-50 cities and in the IA that there is no hope for them to ever challenge the big guys, no matter what I give or don't give. My point is that unless a civ, particularly the human, gets a good headstart on expansion early, they are going to have a hard row to hoe.

History is full of instances of larger empires smothering smaller ones (USSR vs. Germany, 1941-1945 or Germany vs. Poland, 1939), and smaller countries sending larger countries packing (America vs. Great Britain, 1775-1783 or Great Britain vs. Germany, 1940-1945). Add in alliances, trade embargoes, etc, and it gets even messier. Weaponry, patriotism, supply and logistics, the relative strengths/weaknesses of the warring nations' economies, diplomacy, and terrain and weather all factor in to the outcome.

I agree that a better representation of war would be out in the fields, forests, and hills as opposed to warring over cites. I don't know a good solution, though. Cities have been, since the Industrial Revolution, the centers of production. Before then, most societies were agrarian, and lived in small villages and towns surrounded by farms. For that profound a change to occur, in a computer game, is a fantastically complex programming issue.

This thread has been really great reading. Keep up the good work, guys. I love learned arguments, i.e., arguments that are supported by facts and historical references.

 

[psweetman1590]

Don't accept everything you are taught at face value.

I don't. Please don't start a subtle troll/flame fest as so often happens in the off-topic sections. Kindly stick to my arguments and points, and avoid having me list the books I've read and the qualifications of the professors who taught me.

The method that Russia used was incredible, whether done by plan or circumstance. Napoleon grand force was allowed to travel fast and far into the Russian theater. When it reached its objective, it was given no quarter, no provision. It claimed a city, and had nothing to show for it, and no supplies to sustain itself. It was forced to leave with nothing to show for it. A classic pyrric victory! It consumed itself and was forced to retreat empty handed and starved of resources. That is when the bear pounced on them...not in decisive victories, but in waves of raids and denials.

Napoleon's army retreated with complete disaster. Its cavalry killed off or slaughtered for horse meat, supply wagons and cannons abandoned completely in their retreat. Thousands of wagons and cannons. Their soldiers weakened and dying off in the hundreds each day. The winter took its small toll, but it wasn't the winter itself that killed so many. It was starvation, lack of water, and disease.

I remember reading that in the end, ultimately, Napoleons coalition lost 4 to 1 against the russians. Not in "glorious" (tm) open battle, but in strategem and war.

War are not won by victories, but by the surrender and defeat of the enemy. The russians, though they took heavy losses, were never defeated by the French.

Its important for military leadership to know the heavens and the earth. To have an understanding of weather, seasons, and timing, and to understand the ground theater and limitations. Napoleon ignored these, and went with "Bigger is better". He failed because he ignored it. The Russians knew the theater, and knew their timing and seasons. They were bred on it. Napoleon paid an exorbitant price in human life for it.

I can't argue with most of that. However, Napoleon's defeat was his own fault (as you hint in your last sentance) and that is my main point. Russia won, not because it was it was truly a great power, but because Napoleon made several seriously grave miscalculations. The Russians would not have been able to project the power that allowed them to defeat Napoleon (in other words, the same tactics that they used to defeat Napoleon would not have worked if they had used it to invade Prussia). In light of this, although Russia may have been unconquerable, that does not inherently make them a great power.

The entire point of this debate was to discuss whether Russia was a great power, was it not? Let's keep our goal in mind and not go down side paths.

As for the Tsar forcing his military to fight...that was ignorance on the part of the Tsar. He did not know war....he wanted symbolism of glory on the battlefield. If he had followed his commander's move, and knew the theater as his commander did, Russian's losses would have been even less. His commander understood that all he needed to do was wage a war of denial against such a hungry starving beast of an army. The Tsar suffered from westernized visions of glory.

Many of Russia's Tsar's were like that, sad to say. I'm hard pressed to recall another country that had as many, ah, subpar rulers than Russia has.

As for the Mongols...I'm sure its a grand simplification, but it was a young upstart Russian prince who first defeated the mongols and expanded his territory. A hundred years later, through a series of deft political, cultural, and military moves by many Russian rulers, Moscow was stronger than the now splintered Mongolians, and annexed most of the Mongol groups in turn.

Precisely. The Mongols were splintered. Splintered = not able to project as much power in one location. Again, Russia won not because it was a great power itself, but rather because of the weaknesses of it's enemy. This is the crux of the argument, yes?

 

[BlackFiend]

Again, true, but it doesn't match what I'm trying to say about the game.

Is more better? In war = yes.
In governmental administration = no.

Certainly, a larger army should win, other things being equal. BUT what I was trying to say is that having a big country should not garauntee you having a larger army. It should not garauntee you being ahead in tech. It should not garauntee anything except for having more land in and of itself.

This was your point, correct?

Then you tried to prove it with this?

Look at Russia: Huge country, huge population, practically unlimited natural resources.... and they usually ended up getting their arses whooped when they tried to take on European powers (or Japan, for that matter, in the early 1900's). The reason for their backwardness is that they could not afford to govern such a huge territory as efficiently as could the smaller nations around them. Thus, although their army was huge, it was not well equipped, not well supplied, and except in rare cases, not particularly well led.

And this is where you were proved wrong. Russia never had its ass handed to them in war. Desperate...absolutely. They had to cull out a nation out of one of the most militant corners of our globe. They went from a series of feudal princes to a full nation within the span of just 100 years without the benefit of industrial age technology to bring it all together. Thats impressive as hell! Its also not taught in the U.S., and often, folks discount the great efforts of such nations to do what they achieved.

No European power collapsed or "whooped the ass" of Russia...ever. To think so is a mistake of false bravado, which I and other have happily educated you on, despite what you've been taught. If you HAVE been taught by whatever professors to dismiss the success of the Russian empire...

If that goads you into thinking I am flaming you or trying to flame you, then you are showing the weakness of your own argument.

In fact, its the very vastness and size of Russia that would make it so incredibly tough to conquer. Japan was able to fight a war of attrition and embarass Russia...no doubt.

The dismissing of Russia was a catastrophic failure of the U.S. military. When a certain new line of Soviet MiGs came out, doing things that U.S. and European airplane makers didn't think were possible, it showed how great our fallacy was regarding Russia and its level of sophistication.

As I said, what is a huge population? What is a large army? If the population is huge, but can't produce its own food and shelter itself, then its a disadvantage. But if the population is huge, and they are able to sustain themselves, it promotes more individuals to go beyond merely getting their basic needs met. They can go on to achieve and help the nation prosper through science, industry, commerce or whatever. In such scenarios, size does matter. A larger population allows you to accomplish more.

A larger land mass is equally critical for success. Look at America. If it wasn't for continentalism, we would have been long swept away. Even after our "capital" got crushed and burned by a foreign power, and many of our most important cities occupied, we had enough resources available to fight. I'm not minimizing the effects this had on our ability to make war, but it was important.

If our nation was the size of Hawaii, when Japan came in and crushed our military there, it would have been our effective end. But since we had such vast resources and expertise spread out wide across our nation...when Japan crushed our entire fleet in Hawaii...it just delayed the U.S. involvement by a matter of months, not even years. Within 2 years, almost the entirety of the fleet was reconstituted and expanded upon.

In times of war, for instance, the Napoleonic wars, France was burgeoning with population. Napoleon was able to take a well trained army of 800,000 men, march them to Russia, see it decimated, then within a few short years, raise another 400,000 men. Keep in mind, this is a nation of only 19 or 20 million people. From there, he continued to push militaristically across other parts of Europe and even attempt for the UK, if memory serves me right.

Britain could never do what France was able to do. Why? Because France had a larger population and more territory.

When Germany lost WWI, the allies were at a loss about what to do. The Germans were dangerous and deadly. Hanging the Kaiser was clearly not enough. So. their first and most critical move was to divide them. Shrink both Germany's population AND land mass.

In essence, size does matter when it comes down to it. In matters of war AND governance.

 

[BlackFiend]

The entire point of this debate was to discuss whether Russia was a great power, was it not? Let's keep our goal in mind and not go down side paths.

....Precisely. The Mongols were splintered. Splintered = not able to project as much power in one location. Again, Russia won not because it was a great power itself, but rather because of the weaknesses of it's enemy. This is the crux of the argument, yes?

If you wish to debate for the sake of debating, have at it. I love it. If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it. First you want to discuss Russia, now you want to discuss the Mongols?

I see the connection, so I won harrass you over it. I simplified the entirety of what took place between the Mongols and the Russians. But if you need me to elaborate for you, I'll be happy to.

You dismiss the leadership of Russia. Fine...its because you lack understanding of its history and its leadership. I would happily argue that if Britain had half the leadership of Russia, there would be no United States of America today. None. Under Ivan the Great and Ivan the Terrible, Russia was born by expanding, conquering, and overthrowing the Golden Horde that reigned. Later, the Romanov dynasty did incredible wonders of expansion and war. Over 300 years of it. From them spawned Peter the Great, and of course, Catherine the Great.

While Britain could barely hold on to a colony that depended on them for commerce, and France was cutting off its own head, Russia controlled vast amounts of lands and people over a thousands of miles away by land.

 

[Marsden]

I think you're both debating to different aspects of the same entity.

No doubt the Russia that assimilated the Mongol areas under Peter the Great was a very impressive power.

Also no doubt the Russia that was crumbling under it's own weight and ineptitude that lost to Japan and 2 years later was defeated by Germany was no longer as impressive a power.

All empires have experienced accention and fall, some never recover and are destroyed. Another good example is the Ottoman Empire. At their height they owned from the border of Austria in Europe to Bahgdad. Then they became the "Sick Man" of Europe and were finally destroyed soon after the Russian Empire was. (Russia was not destroyed, but the Emipre, with the Tsar, was.)

Cheers, great debate.

And it probably wouldn't have happened if DrMadd didn't bump a 3 year old thread! Who says Necromancy is all bad? Not me

 

[JDAllison]

Ok, let's apply this discussion to Civ III. What I picked up (and I don't claim to have caught absolutely everything) was that some feel that a large empire is inherently bad because it cannot support itself, especially when there is no real leadership, while some feel that large empires are inherently good because they are better able to withstand attacks by smaller countries. That may be overly simplified, but I think it pretty well summarizes what I was able to pick out.

Unfortunately, as we have already established, the Civ III concept of war seems to be centered around 1) world domination and 2) attacking and capturing cities. This leaves little in the way of "realistic" warfare; i.e. battles that take place away from cities but yet decide the outcome of the war. IIRC, in the late 19th century, European wars were relatively less bloody than most wars from other time periods because most armies tried to outmaneuver the other and cut off supply lines. (Yep, I know that battles were fought and people died, but I'm making a generality here.) This begs the question: how can we take lessons learned from real wars and apply them in Civ?

Since there are no supply lines per se' in Civ, there is no benefit from cutting an AI army off from its homeland, other than to prevent it from escaping. I generally don't try that in defensive wars, because it spreads me too thin at the point of attack. During offensive wars, my units attack anything that might attack me first and basically run the AI back into the cities. Which gets us back to the original question.

I also hesitate to pillage, unless I'm angry, because I want to be able to quickly run roads and/or railroads into the captured cities and begin reinforcing as soon as possible. The majority of attack units have poor defense, and I hate to have to wait for the infantry to crawl slowly to the front lines. By the time a 1 mp unit gets there, the cavs have already captured several more cities. Because I don't pillage, this means I don't use the "scorched earth" policy that the USSR used against Germany in 1941-42 or the US used against the Confederate States of America in 1864-5. Those techniques can be devastating to your opponent, if used correctly, but can also severely hinder yourself.

So, how can we make Civ warfare more realistic, without affecting playability and fun? Excellent question, glad you asked. Unfortunately, I have no real ideas. The only thing I can think of is to spread out stacks over several tiles, forming a line of advance, and try to lure the AI out of the cities. I highly doubt this technique will work against a human, or even the computer on higher levels of gameplay. But I think it would be the closest thing to realism that we have.

Just my 2g.

 

[psweetman1590]

Blackfiend: I have asked you not to insult me by insinuating that my education is flawed. I have no problem with you refuting my points with your own, but such remarks as

its because you lack understanding of its history and its leadership

And

No European power collapsed or "whooped the ass" of Russia...ever. To think so is a mistake of false bravado, which I and other have happily educated you on, despite what you've been taught. If you HAVE been taught by whatever professors to dismiss the success of the Russian empire...

I find quite aggressive and offensive. Especially as you said them after I politely asked you not to say things of this nature. This is a debate, not a personal argument...

And by the way, I just can't let this one go...

No European power collapsed or "whooped the ass" of Russia...ever.

Just off the top of my head, what do you call the beating Russia took from Germany in WWI?

If you wish to debate for the sake of debating, have at it. I love it. If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it. First you want to discuss Russia, now you want to discuss the Mongols?

Why take that tone? I'm talking about neither, in the purest sense of it. I'm talking about civ, and I merely used Russia as an example. It appears to me that you are the one debating simply for the purpose of debate.

And you seem to be missing the point I'm making. I'm not saying size doesn't matter. I'm saying that size is way too powerful in the game, compared to real life. Does Russia have a real advantage because it's huge? Absolutely! But is does their power follow their size in a linear progression? No! The costs associated with administering such a huge population and territory are immense, and severly sapped Imperial Russia's ability to make changes and project power outside of their own country. Do we see that modelled in civ3? No. Cities and territory are free in civ3, more is ALWAYS BETTER. That is NOT how it is real life. You yourself mentioned Great Britain's colonies that could barely be held on to, because they were dependant on the mother country for financial support. Do we see that in civ3? No. In civ3, Great Britain would be almost unstoppable because of the huge amount of population and resources at their disposal. Can't you see that that's what I'm trying to get at?

And it probably wouldn't have happened if DrMadd didn't bump a 3 year old thread! Who says Necromancy is all bad?

You'll never find me telling off people for bumping threads. I personally don't see what the problem is, unless it's spam.

So, how can we make Civ warfare more realistic, without affecting playability and fun?

If you mean different ways to play the same game, I don't think there is a good way.

If you mean ways to improve the future version of civ, I've got a few ideas.

Firstly, having lines of supply is very important. This would shift the game's war model from attrition to maneuver, as each side tries to cut the supply line to the enemy.

Second, Stacks of death have to go. Make an upper limit of units that can be placed on one tile (ten? maybe with a later tech, raise it to 20?). This will force players to consider their lines of advance carefully, in order to ensure that they can cover their flanks and lines of supply. It will also make consideration of terrain very important, as you'll need that small stack to survive counter attacks long enough to actually reach enemy cities.

And to make the fighting occur in the countryside instead of the cities, I propose that cities do not give any defensive bonuses. Yes, I know this is not realistic, I know that fighting house to house has the ability to absorb massive amounts of troops on both sides. But in truth, it doesn't happen all that often in big cities. From the rennaisance onwards, the battles have been fought in the countryside outside the city. Modern nations recognize that to fight a war inside a city means the destruction of the city, and is thus a last-resort stand to stop a powerful invasion.

So, if there's no incentive to simply sitting in your cities, then it stands to reason that you're better off moving those units into the forests, hills and mountains in order to obtain the bonuses from the terrain. Perhaps, if one was forced to actually defend the city in a large battle, the penalty could be that for every unit attacking, the city loses three population and half of the improvements. Thus, if you're about to lose the city but feel it's only going to be a temporary setback, you don't defend the city because you'll take it back soon, and you'll want it at peak productivity soon after you recapture it.

Oh, and the AI using artillery offensively is a must too.

 

[Aabraxan]

psweetman1590, I like these ideas. If you find a TBS game that has them, let me know.

Firstly, having lines of supply is very important. This would shift the game's war model from attrition to maneuver, as each side tries to cut the supply line to the enemy.

Second, Stacks of death have to go. Make an upper limit of units that can be placed on one tile (ten? maybe with a later tech, raise it to 20?). This will force players to consider their lines of advance carefully, in order to ensure that they can cover their flanks and lines of supply. It will also make consideration of terrain very important, as you'll need that small stack to survive counter attacks long enough to actually reach enemy cities.

I had a similar thought about limiting the number of units per tile. It's been a while since I played SMAC, but IIRC, it discouraged SODs by using a collateral damage rule. If one unit in the stack was destroyed, all units on the same tile could be damaged. You could still use SODs, but you did so at your peril.

 

[BlackFiend]

And you seem to be missing the point I'm making. I'm not saying size doesn't matter. I'm saying that size is way too powerful in the game, compared to real life. Does Russia have a real advantage because it's huge? Absolutely! But is does their power follow their size in a linear progression? No! The costs associated with administering such a huge population and territory are immense, and severly sapped Imperial Russia's ability to make changes and project power outside of their own country. Do we see that modelled in civ3? No. Cities and territory are free in civ3, more is ALWAYS BETTER. That is NOT how it is real life. You yourself mentioned Great Britain's colonies that could barely be held on to, because they were dependant on the mother country for financial support. Do we see that in civ3? No. In civ3, Great Britain would be almost unstoppable because of the huge amount of population and resources at their disposal. Can't you see that that's what I'm trying to get at?

Umm...ok...whatever.

You are saying size doesn't matter in real life. OK? Is that the bouncing ball now? If it is, then I'll say it again...you are incorrect. The size of the nation, and the nature of how they build empire has everything to do with their success in reality. Keep something in mind...in all of human history, the concept of a U.N. trying to maintain peace between nations regardless of size is less than a blip on the time chart. In all of human history, the size of a nation, its numerousness, have mattered...and greatly.

Only scattered examples of anomalies have taken place. Anomalies of a smaller nation categorically defeating a far larger nation.

If you wish to discuss it, fine. I made my points. Try to share a single instance when, in reality, size did not matter, when it came to one nation dealing with and conquering another nation...and why. Help me to see what you see.

For instance, If I were you, I might point out the conquering of much of Africa. A large vast continent were conquered by far smaller countries. Granted, Africa was never a single concerted nation, and the largest, the Zulus, gave one impressive fight for those so lacking technologically. But I digress.

I'll do a post tomorrow regarding applying the above to Civ. I argue that there are supply lines in Civ 3. Its called trade. Supply lines for troops is paid for with city support or hard currency. Cut off a civs money, wreck its economy, and it can't afford to sustain its troops. There are supply lines. I'm not saying its a virtual representation of reality, or that the model is a very good one...but it is a head nod to the concept.

 

[JDAllison]

If you mean ways to improve the future version of civ, I've got a few ideas.

Firstly, having lines of supply is very important. This would shift the game's war model from attrition to maneuver, as each side tries to cut the supply line to the enemy.

Second, Stacks of death have to go. Make an upper limit of units that can be placed on one tile (ten? maybe with a later tech, raise it to 20?). This will force players to consider their lines of advance carefully, in order to ensure that they can cover their flanks and lines of supply. It will also make consideration of terrain very important, as you'll need that small stack to survive counter attacks long enough to actually reach enemy cities.

And to make the fighting occur in the countryside instead of the cities, I propose that cities do not give any defensive bonuses. Yes, I know this is not realistic, I know that fighting house to house has the ability to absorb massive amounts of troops on both sides. But in truth, it doesn't happen all that often in big cities. From the rennaissance onwards, the battles have been fought in the countryside outside the city. Modern nations recognize that to fight a war inside a city means the destruction of the city, and is thus a last-resort stand to stop a powerful invasion.

So, if there's no incentive to simply sitting in your cities, then it stands to reason that you're better off moving those units into the forests, hills and mountains in order to obtain the bonuses from the terrain. Perhaps, if one was forced to actually defend the city in a large battle, the penalty could be that for every unit attacking, the city loses three population and half of the improvements. Thus, if you're about to lose the city but feel it's only going to be a temporary setback, you don't defend the city because you'll take it back soon, and you'll want it at peak productivity soon after you recapture it.

Oh, and the AI using artillery offensively is a must too.

I love your ideas. In Civ II, especially after the AI got nukes, you were pretty well forced to spread your army out over several tiles, lest you lose most of your army. In that game, if one unit lost a defensive combat, the whole entire stack was lost as well (unless stationed in a fort or city). So, you learned to spread out and take lots of defensive units when invading.

Move to Civ III. Defensive combat is different, in that each unit in a stack must be defeated before the stack is gone. This changes the status quo, since SODs are now much more feasible.

I really like the idea of penalties for fighting inside cities. I also would like some type of supply line that must be defended. Even armies that are "living off the land" must have some type of reinforcement/resupply line (for bullets, if nothing else), and that must be defended.

But, at the end of the day, we come back to Civ III, which has limitations. Even with the glaring lack of realism in warfare, it is still the most enjoyable game I've ever played. Here's to Sid Meyer!

 

[Marsden]

I think a good real life example would be USSR vs. Afganistan. Gee, did the USSR get stopped by the Afgani armies? No. They conquered the nation. In Civ Kabul would be a specialist farm and USSR would be getting an extra 1 gpt plus a bunch of specialist beakers and another 6 free unit support. In real life it was a drain on resources that never justified the expense until they just decided to cut further losses.

You could probably say something like that about the USA vs Iraq. Baghdad is not producing anything of value for the USA but it's costing a lot of money and units. So there's two examples of more isn't always better. I don't think they are exceptions either.