Darn the blasted combat system

Andre

Chieftain
Joined
May 14, 2002
Messages
68
Darn the blasted combat system. Darn it. Basically I don't see why civ3 has to rely on such a infuriatingly unpredictable combat system where absolutely no specific values for attack and defense are attached to unit capabilities. Can't it be much more direct and simply straightforward like the combat system in aoe where nothing is left to unforgiving probability? Where all values are specifically stated and such pts are most crystal clear.

But in civ3 here they chose to have something different. That flawed, warped and cracked up combat system where the chance of victory for each battle is roughly the attacker's attack value over the defender's defense value.

Roughly. Maybe even far from that.

It leaves just too darningly much to uncertainty and unpredictability. In the early game spearmen always tend to successfully kill archers, and usually warriors. But on other occasions veteran/elite spearmen or swordsmen, with both Bronze and Iron working researched, can bloodily inexplicably fall to warriors or veteran archers. "What on freakin' earth?"u mutter exasperatedly, only to find out that a couple of turns down the road another elite, competent swordsman has fallen to a regular archer or some lowly unit obviously not worthy of combat against it.....and so on and on it goes......till the point when your city's on the verge of being totally run over

Such sickening imbalance and gross flaw....itz really intolerable.....just like when undeveloped medieval units can sometimes, to your horror, triumph over industial-age units...

Seriously. I've had enough of all this. It's pathetic.
 
Originally posted by JoeM
Why do people post threads without mentioning the topic in the title? I'm sick of that. ;)

Well at least the title shows that its another complaining thread...
 
Andre, they'll probably fix the combat system in one of the XP's, if not you can just tinker with the A/D/M stats in the editor.
 
Originally posted by Andre
Darn the blasted combat system. . . . It leaves just too darningly much to uncertainty and unpredictability. In the early game spearmen always tend to successfully kill archers, and usually warriors. But on other occasions veteran/elite spearmen or swordsmen, with both Bronze and Iron working researched, can bloodily inexplicably fall to warriors or veteran archers.. . . It's pathetic.

Zachriel tries to hold back. He reaches for his history book. He pulls back. He reaches. He sneezes ahchoo , Isandlwana. Stop it, he mutters to himself. He grabs for an allergy tablet ahchoo , John Paul Jones. Too late ahchoo , George Custer, ahchoo , Agincourt, ahchoo , Thermopylae, ahchoo , Vietnam, ahchoo , Teutoburg Forest . . .

Then Zachriel remembers it's just a game. Whew, sneezing fit is over. It's just a game, so too much certainty is not a good thing. Win some, lose some. It was much worse for Xerses, Custer, Charles d'Albret and Lyndon Johnson. "Blast Firaxis," screams Xerses. "Down with Firaxis," yells Varius pointing his thumb to the earth.

Sorry, darn allergies. But anyway, a quick search of Google for any of these events will perhaps remind you of how uncertain life is, and especially how uncertain war is. Better use a larger army next time so that your entire strategy is not dependent on a single combat.

With best regards and deep humility,

ahchoo

Zachriel
Angel with dominion over memory (history).
 
But when all 6 veteran spearmen fall in a row to regular archers....man it really pisses me straight off
 
so it seems that I've gotta lash out aggressively with a sufficiently varied array of military units--archers, spearmen, swordsmen and the occasional barbaric misfit....
 
It's just the extreme unpredictability of military combat that I plainly can't stand.....
 
I suggest that you do a search on this issue in this threads. It has been debated many, many times.

Basically, it has been shown that over time, the results do go the way they "should" go. However, you can get periods of extremely bad luck. Conversely, you can get streaks of extremely good luck.

Download the combat calculator. If you lost 6 regular spearmen to regular archers, were you attacking with them, or defending?




PS - Zachreil - Loved the post!
 
My longbowman attacks and defeats a knight without losing a single hit point. Sure, he was only suppose to weaken the knight so a swordsman standing right there could finish the job, but he did him in effortlessly.

That was cool. Moving right along.

My swordsman gets killed by a fortified spearman in a city. The spearman doesn't lose a hit point, gets promoted and now I will probably not take the city in this turn.

The AI obviously cheats. Not even one hit point lost? What the hell is that? I can't play a game where I don't have a chance. How can you compete with invincible spearmen? Magic spearman who never get hurt - it's crap. This game sucks.

The next swordsman, while getting battered in the process, takes out the invincible spearman.

Cool, got the city. Moving right along.
 
.... Sigh

Originally posted by Jason Fox
My longbowman attacks and defeats a knight without losing a single hit point.

Assuming both regular and knight not fortified, in open, there is a 59% chance that your archer will win, and a 16.5% chance that your archer will take no damage.

My swordsman gets killed by a fortified spearman in a city. The spearman doesn't lose a hit point, gets promoted and now I will probably not take the city in this turn.

Assuming that your swordsman was regular, as was the spearman, there is a 60% chance that the spearman will win. There is a 17% chance that the spearman will take no damage.


Nothing remarkable here. Looks like the odds just evened out.
 
Originally posted by ainwood
[B.

Nothing remarkable here. Looks like the odds just evened out. [/B]

My goal was to point out that it's human nature to dismiss the favorable results and dwell on the negative ones. I attempted to demonstrate that through a humorous recap of a recent experience (though obviously failed.)

The fact that there was nothing remarkable in what happened was sort of the point.
 
Originally posted by Andre
so it seems that I've gotta lash out aggressively with a sufficiently varied array of military units--archers, spearmen, swordsmen and the occasional barbaric misfit....

Yes. Civ3 definitely requires the use of combined military forces, especially in the ancient/middle age eras. If you're using spearmen to attack, that's the cause of your problem.
 
one has to admit that they have taken the "game balance" thingy too far.

have you ever tried to attack the capital in the first turns of a war? my 4 impis and 7 horsemen fell to 4 spearmen in rome.
 
Defend your city with wall, wall are very cheap and it give you a big defensive bonus, you wont loose veteran spearman in a walled town, conterattack with fast unit if you got some, use you walled town like a fort, a.i cant withstand a long siege and there population will beg for peace after a dew turn ,so extort them when they beg for peace.
 
Do you remember your military adviser in civ 2, BUILT CITY WALL:)
 
Top Bottom