Combat in this game broken?

[Farm Boy]

3 just isn't true. People overrate the short-term damage radius of nuclear arms in reality.

This is correct. Realistically the main advantage of a large strategic nuclear deterrent is not in its counter-force(anti-military) capacity but its counter-value(civilian infrastructure) capacity. The goal is not to devastate every square mile of the target, but instead to destroy any major populations centers as well as industrial and agricultural capacity. You would not target 5 random fields in Nebraska with a nuke, but you might hit a large enough grain elevator or a town with a nice hospital. "Bomb them into the stone age" is the active concept. Estimates are regression to approximately the medieval era is more likely.

Hardened military installations are difficult to destroy even with a nuke. Specific counter-force weapons have been developed in an attempt to be capable of destroying entrenched structures(like opposing ICBM silos) by having the warhead burrow into the ground before detonation, but it is kind of a crapshoot. Even if it were effective, contemporary deterrents rely more heavily on mobile platforms for delivery, such as submarines and bombers. It is more cost and fear effective to focus on killing the nation behind the military. Kind of the reverse of cutting the head off the snake.

 

[oldskald]

It is more cost and fear effective to focus on killing the nation behind the military. Kind of the reverse of cutting the head off the snake.

"Cutting the snake off the head." That's a very good way of putting it. Mind if I quote you?

 

[Nick Carpathia]

Considering nukes are great for turning burgeoning 2/1/7 towns into unimproved grassland, it's a pretty good approximation of destroying another nation's economy. I actually like the look, all those cluttered towns turn into nice clean green-orange land.

 

[The7Sins]

I just never had a game where ICBMs seemed to be a useful option - may depend on my playstyle though. In any case you got loads more experience in late-game warfare than I do, so you're probably right.

I had a game recently where I was decalred on by 16 Civs. (Boudica, Genghis, Ham, Monty, Rags, Shaka, Stalin, Toku, Izzy, Julius, Mao, Napoleon, Pacal, Saladin, Bull, and Sury) Now everyone of us were @ least in Industrial and for some like Shaka, myself, Monty, and some others were in the Modern era. (no way I was gonna live from that combined assault) However I knew someone was gonna declare on me (I just though 1 - 3 would not all 16 remaining) because I always have bad diplomacy skills in Civ. Its just something I can't help. So when I reach Modern era I always dedicate my 5 best production cities to making ICBMs. Reason is because if I'm still alive when I reach the Modern era then I know I'm soon gonna be in for a war or 5.

Well to make a long story short I had about 150 ICBMs. I launched them all and the next turn without me even capturing a single city or even leaving my borders all of the above except Rags and Saladin capitulated. Those 2 I wiped off the map with my Modern Armors and even more ICBMs for there insolence.

So yes there are plenty of games ICBMs are very useful for me. And even though some will be shot down by SDIs if I build enough of them they will devastate any who declare on me.

 

[Farm Boy]

"Cutting the snake off the head." That's a very good way of putting it. Mind if I quote you?

Well you reworked it to make it much more quotable, have at it. Skald-like style. I am flattered!

 

[Civvi]

I had a game recently where I was decalred on by 16 Civs. (Boudica, Genghis, Ham, Monty, Rags, Shaka, Stalin, Toku, Izzy, Julius, Mao, Napoleon, Pacal, Saladin, Bull, and Sury) Now everyone of us were @ least in Industrial and for some like Shaka, myself, Monty, and some others were in the Modern era. (no way I was gonna live from that combined assault) However I knew someone was gonna declare on me (I just though 1 - 3 would not all 16 remaining) because I always have bad diplomacy skills in Civ. Its just something I can't help. So when I reach Modern era I always dedicate my 5 best production cities to making ICBMs. Reason is because if I'm still alive when I reach the Modern era then I know I'm soon gonna be in for a war or 5.

Well to make a long story short I had about 150 ICBMs. I launched them all and the next turn without me even capturing a single city or even leaving my borders all of the above except Rags and Saladin capitulated. Those 2 I wiped off the map with my Modern Armors and even more ICBMs for there insolence.

So yes there are plenty of games ICBMs are very useful for me. And even though some will be shot down by SDIs if I build enough of them they will devastate any who declare on me.

This sounds like it should be in the Epic fail civ IV thread.

 

[The7Sins]

This sounds like it should be in the Epic fail civ IV thread.

Except I won by Conquest after capitulating most of them and killing Rags and Saladin. More like an Epic Win to me.

Though most of the time I am not that fortunate. My diplo skills usually piss off many people into declaring on me before I get ICBMs. Basically I have the diplo skills of Sitting Bull complete with poisoning wells of those that anger me. Hell even worse than Bull as all the AIs put there hate of him aside and turn on me even helping him to kill me.

 

[thecaesar]

For a realistic explanation, I consider every "unit" in Civ4 a full-fleded little army. So for example, an Infantry is an infantry company or battalion, consisting of everything from rifle platoons to artillery, supply trucks, and infantry wielding weapons such as SAMs, mortars and anti-tank missile launchers. When antiquated units like spearmen and knights kill modern units, I chalk it down to improvised warfare (like Finns in WWII throwing molotov coctails at Soviet tanks).

Pretty much the only difficulty I have with Civ4 combat is the Submarine, which seems to be best countered by the Battleship (which didn't carry depth charges or advanced sub detection equipment). The ultimate Sub hunter of the era, the Destroyer, seems to be more of a 50-50 deal. Ridiculous.

Or like the Zulu defeating the invading English riflemen armies with spears on occasion? (They lost, but it was still impressive tactics)

And THANK YOU, the subs should get +100% when attacking battleships, finally someone who feels my annoyance!!!

 

[nfw]

How much casualty did the Zulus suffer, how much did the English? According to Wikipedia, it was over 10 to 1.

 

[s.bernbaum]

How much casualty did the Zulus suffer, how much did the English? According to Wikipedia, it was over 10 to 1.

The Zulu chief/king when the victory was reported to him something to the effect of: "If we win any more victories like this we will be destroyed". I've got the exact quote around here somewhere but not where I can put my hand on it at once.

There is also the little detail that some genius in the British army supply department decided to put the ammo crates together with screws instead of the previously used nails and did not include any screw drivers in the supply carts. On top of that the troops in some of the units involved were using new rifles with a different caliber ammo from the old ones, while some were still using the old ones. The previously mentioned genius did not bother labeling the ammo crates with the caliber, so in the heat of battle, the troops were struggling to open the crates and then ended up with ammo they could not use half the time.

 

[thecaesar]

How much casualty did the Zulus suffer, how much did the English? According to Wikipedia, it was over 10 to 1.

Well I can't say that I knew that, all I remember was that I always researched Civs I knew nothing about so I knew something about their history, and I read (I beleive on Wikipedia) something along the lines of: "The Zulu fought hard, even astonishing everyone by slaughtering a British rifle regiment on one occasion"

That's all I remembered, and also that the reason was that they had battle tactics that were formed to defeat neighboring tribes, most of which used throwing spears, so those tactics were also well suited to fighting the British (supposedly).

 

[kossmikman]

There's also the fact that the AI attacks at lower winning odds than humans tend to do. This adds to the perception that humans lose at higher odds.

 

[Ataxerxes]

The Zulu chief/king when the victory was reported to him something to the effect of: "If we win any more victories like this we will be destroyed". I've got the exact quote around here somewhere but not where I can put my hand on it at once.

There is also the little detail that some genius in the British army supply department decided to put the ammo crates together with screws instead of the previously used nails and did not include any screw drivers in the supply carts. On top of that the troops in some of the units involved were using new rifles with a different caliber ammo from the old ones, while some were still using the old ones. The previously mentioned genius did not bother labeling the ammo crates with the caliber, so in the heat of battle, the troops were struggling to open the crates and then ended up with ammo they could not use half the time.

The first one sounds suspiciously like the Phyrric victory comment.

Second detail is an interesting tidbit. Unfortunately, that seems to happen a lot. I heard that at Pearl Harbor a lot of the ammo supplies were inaccessible. Ridiculous when you've been put on alert 3 times in 2 weeks. And the story about stacking the airplanes at Pearl Harbor is well known.

 

[oldskald]

There's also the fact that the AI attacks at lower winning odds than humans tend to do. This adds to the perception that humans lose at higher odds.

Of course, this is the real key. How often in history have soldiers attacked at what they perceived to be 10% odds of winning? Extremely rarely. The first time they might attack out of ignorance of what awaits them. After that you either need fanatics, or the internal security police with massed machine guns behind them to make them go forward in such situations. Otherwise most commanders don't even bother to try, as certain death almost always means certain desertion. For game mechanics, however, it's probably only fair that the AI couldn't care less about the lives of it's soldiers. It gives the AI a fairer chance against the more flexible human mind, and the exploits that we humans use.

 

[oldskald]

The first one sounds suspiciously like the Phyrric victory comment..

It's completely a Phyrric comment if the Greek historians are to be believed.

 

[Ataxerxes]

It's completely a Phyrric comment if the Greek historians are to be believed.

That's what I meant. It sounds like attributing a well-known quote to someone else. Sort of like Lincoln's supposed comment about Grant, "Find out what brand he drinks, so I can send it to my other generals!" Seward said it would be funnier if it were true. Lincoln said he didn't say it, but that it was an old joke, "a hardy perennial" Lincoln believed it was from an earlier comment that one of the British generals was made, and the reponse was, "Well then, I wish he'd bite some of the other generals!"

 

[Ataxerxes]

It's completely a Phyrric comment if the Greek historians are to be believed.

That's what I meant, but didn't express properly. It sounds like attributing a well-known quote to someone else. Sort of like Lincoln's supposed comment about Grant, "Find out what brand he drinks, so I can send it to my other generals!" Seward said it would be funnier if it were true. Lincoln said he didn't say it, but that it was an old joke, "a hardy perennial" Lincoln believed it was from an earlier comment that one of the British generals was made, and the reponse was, "Well then, I wish he'd bite some of the other generals!"

 

[jagdtigerciv]

Heh, interesting. One day we have threads about how the AI is so stupid, another, we have threads about how they're too difficult.

What do?

 

[Civvi]

Heh, interesting. One day we have threads about how the AI is so stupid, another, we have threads about how they're too difficult.

What do?

LOL we should just make a mega AI thread about how bad/good the AI is.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

More how humans have crippling cognitive biases that they are too arrogant to recognise.