Die stinking battleship!I am a caravel!

[papajohns]

geez....the thread is not about the original subject anymore...

come on guys, its a game, it was designed by others to be this way, like it or deal with it....attacking e/other is not gonna make firaxis change the fact..mm..are they even reading this?

one way to minimize these freak wins is what some other guy suggested earlier, just change the unit hit pts, that way you minimize the chance of getting destroyed by an older tech units. you might loose eventually if they throw 5 of em at you, but hey... its something..

one thing though is that it prolongs the fight...and if you fight a lot, thats a lot of time...

 

[Galen Dietenger]

One of the primary problems in Civ3's 'combat engine that make qualitive discussions difficult, in essesence, its extremely simplistic and highly abstracted. Since no one know for certain what a 'unit' represents, ie does a Carrier =1 carrier, A carrier battle group?, a group of carriers?. Same for every other unit icon we have. This makes the discussions around said units just as absract(beyond things we can assert with some finality, ie ironclads should not be sinking N-subs, or Catapults should not not be inflicting 40% damage to Modern Armor, yaa I love that ). If the combat system\terain was subtle and sophistacted enough to convey various units strengths and weakness's AND if the ....Tech levels were more clearly defined and stratifed, we probably would not see quite as many 'rationalizations' from people over the odd combat results we all *know* to be an issue. Can horses defeat tanks? Can caravels or even ironclads defeat contempory BB's and destroyers?, well that really depends on a great many things that civ3 simply cannot factor in. Could cavalry regiments\armies defeat tank units in set piece battles, the answer to that, no matter how many 'just so' scenario's some of you dream up, would be no.

BB DD and Aegis type units could never be sunk much less damaged by cravels frigates galleons and so on. "Just so" stories will never rationalize that away. Odd combat results are not 'rare' or uncommon. There is a word for people that claim unusal results never occur 'fanboy' is the word I believe. Also its not just player vs AI that produces odd results. One instance I will use to illustrate, was a enenmy BB attaked my DD. There BB won yes, but they took 80% damage . I found that as odd as anything else ive seen. So I dont selectively filter results I like and ignore ones I dont. Oddball results cut both ways(Though in all honesty, most do favor the AI. Like the time I sent over 10 modern units to root out a single MI defending a colonly). Ive more or less had my fill of loseing high cost units to primitive tech and rarely build navies much anymore.* Firaxiss has produced one of the best combat systems ive yet seen in TBS's, but not in Civ3. Its in SMAC.

To sumarise, Civ3 combat suffers from
-High Abstraction
-Overly simplified combat engine
-Units Scaleing and techincal specs far too vague-abstract IOW
-Units values a\d\m\ not well thought out in many cases-at least we can edit those to attempt to inroduce a measure of logic, but only to a limited degree.

*The Cole incident is a very bad analogy. The Cole was not damaged by wave after wave of caravels ,galleons or civil war era ironclads. It was attacked useing modern explosives, weapons and 'terrorist sytle' tactics. Theres absolutely no way to draw a parallel to civ3 combat and im suprisred(or maybe not) someone would even try. Also its hard to imagine ironclads, much less carvels 'finishing' of even a heavily damaged BB. That would prehaps call for yet another fanboys 'just so' story to rationize that away.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Dillo:

I had the same problems that you did my first game. It frustrated me to no end. That was on chieftian, however. Since then I have played on nothing lower than regent, and have had no problem. I don't know if you have tried switching difficulty levels or not, but I just thought I'd mention it.

Good luck.

 

[ChickinSht]

Originally posted by Galen Dietenger
Odd combat results are not 'rare' or uncommon. There is a word for people that claim unusal results never occur 'fanboy' is the word I believe.

Point 1: Odd results ARE unusual, Unless you're refering to numbers that are not even. Odd is a synonym for unusual. Normal results cannot be odd, by definition of the word. I don't know how to make this any clearer.
Point 2: Fanboys are fanatical comic book fans. Being a fanboy has nothing to do with computers, unusual results, or anything I have yet to see on this board.

 

[Galen Dietenger]

Point 1: Odd results ARE unusual, Unless you're refering to numbers that are not even. Odd is a synonym for unusual. Normal results cannot be odd, by definition of the word. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

What this (above)is supposed to mean is anyones guess. If you want to play the semantics game, ok here we go. English is heavily dependant upon context to give it meaning. Therefore (most) anyone should have no dificuluty distingushing what context 'odd' falls under here. Hint: we are not referring to odd in a mathematical way here. Why you chose this to pick is as puzzling as your whole ahh argument if it could be called that . If it helps your limited understanding 'odd results' in this context refers to "highly unlikey or improbable events occureing in combats vs vastly inferior tech's". Which is incidentely the main focus of this topic. If you wish engage in semantics, start your own thread on the topic and watch it vanish to page 20 in about 2 hours.

Its is also considered downright rude as well as intellectualy bankrupt to snip quote and use it try to score meaningless points. Its a common tactic of trolls and hit-and-run posters, such as yourself.

Your second point is as irellevant as your 'Point 1'

Unlike you, I DO know how to make this clear.

 

[ChickinSht]

What the hell are you talking about? I think his argument is rather incompetent, so I pointed it out. As for my second point, I thought it in rather poor taste to personally attack certain peoples on the board, especially with a slur that has no application to anyone here. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand that seeing as how you randomly attack me out of nowhere. I really just don't see how calling me a hit-and-run poster supports your argument that my comments were useless and uncalled for. I post what I want to, when I want to. What, I have to stick to this board 24/7, reloading the page constantly to see if someone replied to my post in order to have any kind of credibility? And as to your reply, how can I be both a troll and a hit-and-run poster? I just don't get it.

The point of the matter I am getting at is that something cannot be odd and usual. Along with most of the rest of the post, it's self-contradictory. I was simply looking for some clarification as to what you were getting at. Well, I hope this had made you somewhat content in that I've made two posts in a row.

 

[homer]

Im one of those folks who dont have major problems with the combat system. Yes, I get the occasional warrior holdingout against a tank, but the majorityof the time, if Im the only one with tanks... Im kicking ass all over the map.. and if some enemy calvary or hoplite take out a few of my tanks.. Ims till killing them 4or5 -1 ratio at least.

Personally.. I like when the Impis take out a few of my calvary.. gives a real Zulu Dawn feeling.. but in the end.. my calvary and muskets will win the day over the hoards of Zulus.

Just remember.. ITS A GAME!!!!

Doh!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by homer
Im one of those folks who dont have major problems with the combat system. . . .

Personally.. I like when the Impis take out a few of my calvary.. gives a real Zulu Dawn feeling.. but in the end.. my calvary and muskets will win the day over the hoards of Zulus.

Just remember.. ITS A GAME!!!!

Doh!

"Doh!" is right. Well said, Homer.

I just fought a bloody infantry war, and believe me no phalanx in their right mind would have been in the middle of all that lead flying around. And yes, it is possible for a unit to be killed by a phalanx, but very rare, and usually due to poor tactics by the local commander. Didn't bombard, hit the enemy where they were strongest, didn't take the enemy unit seriously, the "it's just a phalanx" mistake, etc.

Another of thousands of examples posted on this site: friendly fire. In Afghanistan, we hit our own guys due to a misdirected smart bomb. We may have been aiming at a phalanx or a nuke, it doesn't matter, we still got a bloody nose. Doh!

 

[Gruntboy]

Is there some consensus forming here about the reality of the situation/game?

Taking the carrier as an example:

What the heck kind of game are you playing if you've got carriers and the other civs don't? Sure, you're trashing them on chieftain, its 300AD or something. What fun. But it leads to the next point...

If you're that clever and advanced, why is the carrier out on its own and unsupported? Why didn't your escort vessels intercept the enemy wood ships? Do you even need a carrier or are you just having fun building a super empire whilst the rest of the world plays with its sticks and stones at your feet?

And if your doing it just for fun, why are you letting the game upset you over a daft combat result. Thats the kind of thing that makes me laugh my @$$ off.

For tanks:

Jut why is your tank army taking on the peaceful home towns of the tribal society? What, just the one tank, oh dear. You do realise tanks weren't designed for figting in urban areas, don't you?

 

[Witchfinder]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Is there some consensus forming here about the reality of the situation/game?

Taking the carrier as an example:

What the heck kind of game are you playing if you've got carriers and the other civs don't? Sure, you're trashing them on chieftain, its 300AD or something. What fun. But it leads to the next point...

--- snip ---

Jut why is your tank army taking on the peaceful home towns of the tribal society? What, just the one tank, oh dear. You do realise tanks weren't designed for figting in urban areas, don't you?

Well, in the example I quoted, the Zulus did have all the technologies I had, they just hadn't bothered upgrading their units. The point of upgrading is that you expend resources in exchange for increased combat effectiveness. Less advanced units should be suffering, because this game is as much about resource management as strategy.

There are many historical examples of more advanced armies steamrollering less advanced armies, for whatever reason. I enjoy rolling Panzers over Pikemen - it serves the bloody French right for building Wonders when they should have been building infantry.

 

[Mike C]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Is there some consensus forming here about the reality of the situation/game?

Taking the carrier as an example:

What the heck kind of game are you playing if you've got carriers and the other civs don't? Sure, you're trashing them on chieftain, its 300AD or something. What fun. But it leads to the next point...

Then I purpose we do not need to reserach technology anymore and the game will automatically dole out the techs when the "time is right".

Originally posted by Gruntboy
If you're that clever and advanced, why is the carrier out on its own and unsupported? Why didn't your escort vessels intercept the enemy wood ships? Do you even need a carrier or are you just having fun building a super empire whilst the rest of the world plays with its sticks and stones at your feet?

Because it is cost prohibitive in the game to have enough ships to escort your carrier on the stack (and then by no means is it certain to be safe from wooden ships or even galleys) AND have enough to actively patrol for their navy.

Originally posted by Gruntboy
And if your doing it just for fun, why are you letting the game upset you over a daft combat result. Thats the kind of thing that makes me laugh my @$$ off.

As as your statements on many occasions.

Originally posted by Gruntboy
For tanks:

Jut why is your tank army taking on the peaceful home towns of the tribal society? What, just the one tank, oh dear. You do realise tanks weren't designed for figting in urban areas, don't you?

Tanks have been utilized in Urban warfare as mobile artillery pieces to great effect. While their greatest strength of mobility is compromised in the urban environment, it doesn't negate the fact that they possess superior firepower. Normally, you have your tank supporting infantry, but unfortunatly, this game does not allow for such things so once again, if your going to make arguments, do so without making references to your pusedo-historical "facts".

 

[Baccus]

Originally posted by Dillo
more like a stalemate. And there is no modern war that has any comparison to spearmen. All wars fought since like the 1950's have included small arms. Spearmen have only pointy sticks they could be a million, They would still retreat from 500 tanks. You cant do anything with a spear to a tank.Period. We have specialized rounds to take out tanks because sticks dont work.We have a plane A-10 desighned to take out tanks because sticks dont work. We have a flame round that lands on a tank and burns through to the inside, Its so intense you cant even look at it. Because stiscks dont work. I would at best give you a stale mate.Why havent I encountered stalemates in civ 3? Its either do or die!

You can use stuff like the British vs. the Zulus in 1878 (forget the name of the battle). 1500 British soldiers vs. 20000 Zulu warriors - Zulu warriors won. This was a total freak, with any number of factors acting against the British. However, it is probably a 1 in 10,000 chance, if not even more unlikely. To see it in a game should be a event, not happening frequently. I haven't got Civ III, but I've recently had a caravel beaten by a trireme in Civ II and it really got me revved. The answer was - the computer was cheating. Could it be that the same is happening in Civ III?

 

[Hurricane]

Thought I´d post some numbers to cool this flame-war down.



I opened a savegame where my glorious Greek army attacks the evil Babylonians. I attack three different Metropolis-sized cities with Infantry in them with my Armour. Two attacks are against Infantry in mountains. Depending on terrain and whether the defenders are fortified or not I have about 39-44% chance of winning each "die roll". This is the actual die rolls, all in a long sequence. W=my unit gets 1 hit, H=enemy gets 1 hit, S=enemy bombardment hits me, F=enemy bombardment fails.

ACTUAL STREAK:
SWWWHHWHHHWHHHWHHHSHHWHWWHHWWWWWWWHHFWWHHWHHH

That´s 23 Hits, 19 W:s and 3 other. Not 100% statistically corrent (should more like the other way around), but it´s close enough for such a small sample.

But what about the streaks? We have
1 7-W streak
1 3-W streak
4 3-H streaks
2 2-W streaks
5 2-H streaks
5 1-W streaks
1 1-H streak

So, there is one streak of 7 lost rounds in a row. Bad luck, yes. On the other hand, there are four streaks of 3 hits in a row and five streaks of 2 hits in a row. Good luck, yes. And, according to rules of probability, the shorter streaks are more common than longer streaks.

So, please show me some evidence that the combat system is broken.

 

[costanza]

My claim isn't that the combat system is broken; I say it's flawed.

Statistically, yes, short streaks should occur a whole lot more often than long ones. The whole graph should look like a big fat bell curve and 95% of your results should lie within two standard deviations of the mean. Great.

I'm not looking at hit point streaks though. I'm looking at individual battle results. This does get harder sometimes because armor can attack more than once in a turn. When I theorize that the mean *should* produce a bell curve with the majority of modern armor winning over lesser units as the normal outcome (the mean, or close to it). And the lesser units being closer to that middle part; say 65% of the lesser units coming right in there and the other 30% (units closer in ability) coming a little further out. And there is still 5% for flukes.

What I see tending to happen, though, is that the curve is flatter and the outcomes that should be happening *most of* the time are happening *some* of the time. And the stuff that should be happening *some* of the time happen a *lot more often*. I don't think that curve is skewed as a whole to one side showing a lesser advantage *all the time* to the modern units; I think the curve is flattened making all possiblities more likely than they should be.

I don't dispute that a tank could win against modern armor sometimes. I don't dispute that a bunch of marines could win against some armor sometimes. But would I would suggest is that the modern units should probably take damage when a closely-related unit attacks them, but not take full damage (die) as often as it happens.

And don't wonder why I use nukes to solve these problems. If a caravel went up agaist a battleship, you could steam up and hit the ship with your own and sink it. But no, in Civ3, the caravel somehow poisons the meatloaf and the battleship loses a little too often.

About everyone's facts.....some people are just using the wrong examples for things. And some of you just make vague statements to attack someone else's facts. Like what facts do we have for a claim that tanks have been used for urban artillery? Did you see Saving Private Ryan? You must have learned about combat from the movies, huh?

 

[Mike C]

Originally posted by costanza
My claim isn't that the combat system is broken; I say it's flawed.

Statistically, yes, short streaks should occur a whole lot more often than long ones. The whole graph should look like a big fat bell curve and 95% of your results should lie within two standard deviations of the mean. Great.

I'm not looking at hit point streaks though. I'm looking at individual battle results. This does get harder sometimes because armor can attack more than once in a turn. When I theorize that the mean *should* produce a bell curve with the majority of modern armor winning over lesser units as the normal outcome (the mean, or close to it). And the lesser units being closer to that middle part; say 65% of the lesser units coming right in there and the other 30% (units closer in ability) coming a little further out. And there is still 5% for flukes.

What I see tending to happen, though, is that the curve is flatter and the outcomes that should be happening *most of* the time are happening *some* of the time. And the stuff that should be happening *some* of the time happen a *lot more often*. I don't think that curve is skewed as a whole to one side showing a lesser advantage *all the time* to the modern units; I think the curve is flattened making all possiblities more likely than they should be.

I don't dispute that a tank could win against modern armor sometimes. I don't dispute that a bunch of marines could win against some armor sometimes. But would I would suggest is that the modern units should probably take damage when a closely-related unit attacks them, but not take full damage (die) as often as it happens.

Agree with most of what is said.

Originally posted by costanza
And don't wonder why I use nukes to solve these problems. If a caravel went up agaist a battleship, you could steam up and hit the ship with your own and sink it. But no, in Civ3, the caravel somehow poisons the meatloaf and the battleship loses a little too often.

Maybe the smell of the poisonous meatloaf being cooked set of the magazine

Originally posted by costanza
Like what facts do we have for a claim that tanks have been used for urban artillery? Did you see Saving Private Ryan? You must have learned about combat from the movies, huh?

The Germans repeatedly broke down their panzer divisions to support their infantry in city fighting. The best documented one being in Stalingrad. There is a vast amount of literature available. While the operational use of the tanks in the cities were flawed, at the tactical level, they excelled in the task of supporting the infantry advance by leveling bunkers and strong points held by the Russians.

 

[Gruntboy]

Mike C, use your open mind and take it to PM if you don't like it.

You criticise and flame and never provide evidence of your own. Hypocrites are the worst.

Again, I was talking about the game, you have devolved it to your misguided opinions on "history". What historical opinions were there in my post?

Were you ever in the army? Are you trying to make up for getting lots of people killed? You can talk to me.

The Germans went around the cities with their tanks. In Stalingrad, the main armour elements were stripped and sent south. Are you really using this dumb example after all you've said to me? Sure, Konrad the Infantry support tanker used his short 75mm to help out but Hitler got bogged down in Stalingrad instead of by-passing it.

Good crack about the literature though. Funny

You watch too much of the Hitler Channel (sorry History Channel).

 

[Mike C]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Mike C, use your open mind and take it to PM if you don't like it.

You criticise and flame and never provide evidence of your own. Hypocrites are the worst.

Again, I was talking about the game, you have devolved it to your misguided opinions on "history". What historical opinions were there in my post?

"You do realise tanks weren't designed for figting in urban areas, don't you?"

The tank was originally concieved as an infantry support vehicle. Your notion of tanks is the concept developed by the Germans. This has unfortuantly created the image that tanks are not suitable for urban warfare. That is not the case. They are a tool to be used supported with other branches of the army. Just like Infantry and artillery.

Edit Oopps, this line is supposed to be included in the next quote block

"Were you ever in the army? Are you trying to make up for getting lots of people killed? You can talk to me."

Originally posted by Gruntboy
The Germans went around the cities with their tanks. In Stalingrad, the main armour elements were stripped and sent south. Are you really using this dumb example after all you've said to me? Sure, Konrad the Infantry support tanker used his short 75mm to help out but Hitler got bogged down in Stalingrad instead of by-passing it.

Good crack about the literature though. Funny

You watch too much of the Hitler Channel (sorry History Channel).

Then would you explain the presense of the 14th, 16th and 24th Panzer divisions inside Stalingrad? They accounted ~200 German tanks and armored vehicles. All but a fragment of the 14th got encircled during the Russian encriclement.

The fact that the Hoth's 4th Panzer Army got assigned to sweep towards the Caucasses does not in any way invalidate my point that the Germans used the tanks in urban fighting to supprot the infantry. Paulus's 6th Army had panzer divisions of its own.

No, I do not watch the History Channel. Though I suspect you do since you only have a vague notion of what actually occured during Blau.

 

[XPav]

Originally posted by Mike C


Then would you explain the presense of the 14th, 16th and 24th Panzer divisions inside Stalingrad? They accounted ~200 German tanks and armored vehicles. All but a fragment of the 14th got encircled during the Russian encriclement.

I'm going to point out here that the Russians encircled much more than just the city of Stalingrad itself, and that the German tanks, while surrounded, weren't fighting in urban conditions exclusively.

http://users.compaqnet.be/cn002816/trappedmap.html

14th Panzer, was deployed (according to the map), 30km to the west of the Volga.

 

[YECoyote]

People who cry about losing 1 battleship to a caravel probably didn't tell the whole story. As someone posted previously. He lost his battleship because he had 1 hp left.

I had an allied Russian constantly incurred into my territory. after repeated request to back off, they kept coming. So, my Panzers, Riflemen, Bombers, and artilleries wiped out all 73 of his units in 1 round. My loss? 2 conscript riflemen. He had 3 riflemen, the rest were useless stone-age hunter-gatherers.

I had my battleship sunk too, but my about 6 Frigates. first 3 or 4 bombed me down to 1 HP. the last few killed it off. I thought that was a great way to kill a superior unit. Sure, we can say Frigate shells don't have the penetrative power to kill Battleships, but who cares. it's a game. You want to wipe everything clean off the map? play as Chieftan.

so, excuse me while I piss on your whine.

 

[Moulton]

Maybe it helps to think how a random number generator works. Run one sometime and watch the sequence of numbers. If your base for success is 5, for example, you rarely get alternating 5+ and 5-. Expect to find streaks of hits or misses. The probababilities of hir or miss seem to me to be correct. I think it is something to do with the number of hit points. Hitting a lightly armored warrior with a tank round should do rather severe damage. Of course, it is not a single warrior, so some run and survive. I think it would solve the problem is armor had more hit points to lose. So it would take more hits than three to kill it.

And I have had seemingly senseless losses... eg. One last city, village of 3, one spearman defending. 7 catapults failed to damage him. three knights took severe damage and retreated. they did damage him, but he went up a grade, and healed. three musket men failed to damagehim, and died. Finally, two swordsmen dealt damage, but died. then a pikeman stormed him. Pretty heavy losses for one city.
But, hey, that is one out of several thousand battles. It still hurts, and I do wish there were some way not to increase the attack numbers or defense, but the hit points of better armored units.