Combat system sux!

[The Balrog]

I think that it is totally BS that ONE legionary can beat a Army of elite Cavalry(And the cavalry was attacking)!!!!!!!!! Or what about a warrior beating a Elite Rifleman.

This is some of the stuff that makes me hate the game!

 

[EvanCiv]

Originally posted by SpaceCow
I think that it is totally BS that ONE legionary can beat a Army of elite Cavalry(And the cavalry was attacking)!!!!!!!!!

That depends on the situation. You give no details.

If it were a legionary fortified in a fortress on a mountain and the calvary were attacking across a river, the legionary would actually have the advantage (a defense of 9 vs. and attack of 6).

Or, a less extreme example, a legionary fortified in a metropolis (no river) has a defense 6.3 - still an advantage.

Your example is not quite the cakewalk you seem to think it is.

Originally posted by SpaceCow
Or what about a warrior beating a Elite Rifleman.!

Rifleman has an attack of 4, a warrior fortified in a city has a defense of 1.85 (assuming city (pop 6 -12) on grassland). Again, not quite the cakewalk you imply (actual odds of warrior winning in this scenerio (assuming an regular warrior and attacker NOT crossing river) is 18.6%.

Rifleman actually aren't very good attackers - they are much more suited for defense.

QUOTE]Originally posted by SpaceCow

This is some of the stuff that makes me hate the game! [/QUOTE]

Just like in real life, there is always a chance the superior force will lose. If you think the more advanced unit should ALWAYS win, Civ 3 is not for you. Maybe Rock, Paper, Scissors would be more your speed - but I guess that would just be Rock, Paper.

 

[The Balrog]

Let me clear it up, Lets start with the warrior: My Rifleman was in a city with citywalls and the warrior was on grasslands.
Also the Cavalry was on grassland against the legionary on grasslands!

 

[Endureth]

Hey, you think you're pissed, how do you think Gen Custer felt. He had horses and rifles while the enemy had bows. Sometimes a weaker army overcomes inadversity.

Hell, even David beat Goliath.

The Americans beat the mighty England (mighty in their day). That one started with one of the earliest forms of a trade embargo (tea party).

Here's an even wierder one . . .

At a kids vs. parents baseball game at a local grade school, the KIDS won!

Somethings are just so unfair.

Endureth

 

[Achinz]

Originally posted by Endureth
Hey, you think you're pissed, how do you think Gen Custer felt. He had horses and rifles while the enemy had bows. Sometimes a weaker army overcomes inadversity.

Some important factors besides technological superiority may have accounted for Custer's defeat:

1. Numerical superiority
2. Surprise and terrain familiarity
3. Overconfidence and the underestimation of the enemy

However I would empathize with the original sentiment about the illogicality of the outcomes of the Civ3 battles based on the details given. So much for an improved AI?

 

[Rhandom]

Don't let the fanboyz piss you off more - there is definately a bug in the combat system that leads to chains of numbers being generated that lead to ridiculous results. If you track the combats, almost half are resolved without one side taking damage, which statistically should occur only 1/4 of the time with 3 wound units, 1/8 with 4 wound, and 1/16 with 5 wound.

It would be really great if people would stop making excuses for Firaxis - I think that may even be more annoying than watching an offensive collapse because the enemy spearman held off 4 knights with more training.

 

[EvanCiv]

Originally posted by Rhandom
Don't let the fanboyz piss you off more - there is definately a bug in the combat system that leads to chains of numbers being generated that lead to ridiculous results. If you track the combats, almost half are resolved without one side taking damage, which statistically should occur only 1/4 of the time with 3 wound units, 1/8 with 4 wound, and 1/16 with 5 wound.

It would be really great if people would stop making excuses for Firaxis - I think that may even be more annoying than watching an offensive collapse because the enemy spearman held off 4 knights with more training.

I don't buy the numbers - those are nowhere near the results I have seen over the course of many games.

You do know it is reproducible - the save game file saves the random number seed (to cut down on reload "cheat") - if you do combat in the same order - it will happen the same every time. Send a saved game file where you had those kind of whacked numbers so we all can see.

 

[Interlude]

I'd have to agree... some of the results I've seen are just plain stupid. A caravel, for example, beating a nuclear sub is just plain ridiculous. Sure, it's conceivable, and stranger things have happened in history, but it should not happen perhaps more than once or twice per game. I've seen things like that happen plenty of times, especially when attacking. I really don't care how fortified spearmen are, or whether I'm attacking across a river - there is no realistic way they could hold off an attack from modern artillery and tanks.

My advice is to play with the editor... I've tweaked attack and defense numbers a bit and come out with much more realistic encounters than the default settings.

 

[EvanCiv]

Originally posted by Interlude
I really don't care how fortified spearmen are, or whether I'm attacking across a river - there is no realistic way they could hold off an attack from modern artillery and tanks.

In real life, during a combat assault, regardless of who they are attacking, sometimes units are lost due to accidents, friendly fire and/or catastrophic mechanical failure.

During the Gulf War, depending on which source you want to believe, some, most or nearly all US losses were due to these types of things.

Heck, even more recent, a rubber dinghy nearly sank the USS Cole.

Tanks are lost during TRAINING when using dummy ammo to these kinds of things. Combat is a dangerous place regardless of what the enemy is using for a weapon.

Having the more advanced unit win 100% of the time would be even more unrealistic.

In your example, (a tank attackinga fortified spearman across a river) with Civ 3's combat system, a tank will will 99.1% of the time. And you think that's too low? What do you want? Guarenteed wins? Now THAT would be unbelievable.

 

[D.Shaffer]

..Whenever someone pipes up disagreeing with a perceived 'flaw' in the game concepts, they automatically get labeled with the title 'buttkisser', 'fanboy', or (as happened once in another game) shill? Is it a great crime to actually like/be happy with the way things are that you feel the need to be insulting about it? If you want to change it, nothing wrong with that, everyone has opinions, but what ever happened to being civil and respecting others opinions?