Do you like the way combat is changing

[NP300]

Well, I hope that arillery system gets changed, since as it is, it is impossible to get losses in artillery exempt if enemy units capture your position. You could not even bombard enemy artillery.

SMAC did this part well.
When you bombard tile with enemy artillery, then it's resolved as "regular" unit combat.

I think they should make artillery give diminishing returns. That is, you may have a 1/2 chance of scoring a hit on the first try, on the second try a 1/4 in chance, on the third a 1/8 chance and so forth. It is unrealistic and unfun how the human players use artillery to redline all the enemy defenders and then just waltz in. In real-life artillery and bombardment give diminishng returns. There was a case in a WWI battle where the Allies lobbed more artillery shells per area of terrirotry than ever in history (before or since), and yet, when the Allies came in the Germans were still there fiercely defending the territory. They certainly weren't "redlined".

 

[Philips beard]

Nobody said it will be predestined to lose.

Do you really think they hardwired which units are not allowed to win?

It sounds like some fans will make it impossible for certain units to win vs a tank, for instance! They are yelling all the time because they once experienced a spearman beating a tank! Redicilous, can't they see that this is a balancing factor?

 

[Brain]

It sounds like some fans will make it impossible for certain units to win vs a tank, for instance! They are yelling all the time because they once experienced a spearman beating a tank! Redicilous, can't they see that this is a balancing factor?

Please tell me how a spearman wins against a tank in real life.

If a civ still has spearmen while another has tanks it's their fault and they DESERVE to be wiped out. The europeans didn't have tanks when they first came to america and they wiped out the mezo-american civs very easily. I don't see why it should be any different in this game.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Please tell me how a spearman wins against a tank in real life.

If a civ still has spearmen while another has tanks it's their fault and they DESERVE to be wiped out. The europeans didn't have tanks when they first came to america and they wiped out the mezo-american civs very easily. I don't see why it should be any different in this game.

Exactly. The only realistic way to model this is to have mere contact with another civ, and seeing its military forces, provide that civ with some innovative ideas for its own military. You can't simply ignore the fact that new and "forbidden" weapons have always been traded to backward civs by less than scrupulous traders. To my knowledge, the American Indians never built a single rifle manufacturing plant, or a powder works, but they sure had plenty of guns after awhile. Try explaining to Custer why he didn't get the chance to mow down spearmen and archers, instead of rifle armed light cavalry, using the civ3 model. Of course, you'll have to dig him up first.

A more realistic model might be this: The Americans, with riflemen, contact the Iroquois, who have spearmen, horsemen, and archers. However, after 10-20 turns, some of their units - not all, just a few, turn into light rifle cavalry and musketmen spontaneously, and as time goes on, a few more units convert also. This could apply all the way up the tech tree, giving the more backward civ a better chance, even though without the actual techs, they cannot hope to build an army to match that of their more advanced rival.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm just saying, they probably balanced it better so spearmen beating tanks is less common. They didn't implement it so it's "spearman versus tank should automatically result in the spearman losing".

I bet it's still possible for a fully healed, experienced, lucky spearman to beat an inexperienced, unlucky, drastically damaged tank.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think they should make artillery give diminishing returns. That is, you may have a 1/2 chance of scoring a hit on the first try, on the second try a 1/4 in chance, on the third a 1/8 chance and so forth. It is unrealistic and unfun how the human players use artillery to redline all the enemy defenders and then just waltz in. In real-life artillery and bombardment give diminishng returns. There was a case in a WWI battle where the Allies lobbed more artillery shells per area of terrirotry than ever in history (before or since), and yet, when the Allies came in the Germans were still there fiercely defending the territory. They certainly weren't "redlined".

You also have to appreciate the real value of artillery is in pinning or slowing down troops, not necessarily taking out fortifications. Artillery should be able to 'support' combat, i.e. is tied to a unit/battlegroup while it attacks/defends. The artillery would contribute to the effectiveness of the attack/defence.

 

[GoodGame]

It will all dependend upon what the bonuses are and how they're laid out.

If the bonuses are more than just terrain issues, but cover qualitatitve uses of tactics and technology, they might still be a better abstraction than CIV 3. If they're just terrain issues, it'll probably make combat uninteresting.

 

[Gogf]

From what I know: yes. It sounds much more realistic, and fun.

 

[searcheagle]

I must be honest. I was disappointed by them taking out attack and defense values. I expected them to remain. The bonuses have me conviced that the attack and attack values will remain at least in practice. I was glad to hear about the bonsuses. I will be anxious to see what they do.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, though I was disappointed at first, I actually like the idea of having a single combat stat, and I am hoping that having this single combat value represents a complete revamping of the manner in which combats are run-moving away from the 'martial arts movie' style of 'lets queue up and fight this guy one at a time' to an 'all-in melee' style where all units in a stack fight at once. One can dream !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Roman Legion]

I don't know I just can't see this happening, I really don't know where to stand on this.

 

[searcheagle]

Somehere I got the idea that all the units in a square would fight together (I checked-it wasn't in CivRUles thread.). Has anyone else heard anything about that? If it was incorporated, that would be an indication that the simulataneous combat system so many of us want, will actually be incorporated.

 

[Killer_Klein]

First off:

A spearman so could kill a tank. All he has to do is through his spear into the barrel of the gun and the whole tank will explode!!

As for the new combat, I like it and dislike it.

In the old system I liked the fact that you had to build defensive units and offensive units to survive. Depending on what these new abilities are, the one score might eliminate this.

I like the concept of gain new abilities as they fight, but I hope that certain units are limited to certain abilities. This will require people to build more diverse armies.

And I like that certain units might get bonuses against others. Pikeman/Spearman should get a bonus against charging horse-backed riders. And in turn Knights should a get a bonus when on their first attack to represent their intial devasting impact. This is a very cool concept, but I can see it losing effectiveness in later stages of the game.

 

[sir_schwick]

A spearman so could kill a tank. All he has to do is through his spear into the barrel of the gun and the whole tank will explode!!

Yeah, but as Private Griff put it: "You may be tough and all, but I don't see how you were going to stop hundreds of armour piercing bullets with your face."

In the old system I liked the fact that you had to build defensive units and offensive units to survive. Depending on what these new abilities are, the one score might eliminate this.

I like the concept of gain new abilities as they fight, but I hope that certain units are limited to certain abilities. This will require people to build more diverse armies.

I think the new bonuses are designed to diversify the armies. I am guessing Combat STrength is not more of a technology/time placeholder for comparing units of different tech levels. This means you still only have a spear against some Infantry, but bonuses matter more when the c s is about the same.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The more I think about it, the better I think it is that there is no distinction between wholly defensive and offensive units-as this is not how units are designated in real life. That said, though, I accept that some units may perform better on the field when defending against attack, but that doesn't make them poor at attack. As someone mentioned previously, the current system discourages a player from taking infantry or pikemen into the field of combat-instead leaving them behind to defend your cities, wheras we know that-historically-all of these 'defensive' units were actually used in the 'thick of things'. I have to say that combat is the one part of the game I am feeling MOST confident about-assuming that we have simultaneous stack combat!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[ainwood]

Maybe to 'solve' the tank vs spear issue, why not have obsolete units auto-disband or auto-upgrade when they're two 'upgrades' behind? Eg. In a Civ3 sense, when you got to musketmen, all spears would magically upgrade to pikes. When you got to riflemen, all pikes would upgrade to muskets etc. The 'idea' behind riflemen not needing saltpetre is that it would be 'common'. Why not make the obsolete units resourceless as well?

 

[Philips beard]

Please tell me how a spearman wins against a tank in real life.

If a civ still has spearmen while another has tanks it's their fault and they DESERVE to be wiped out. The europeans didn't have tanks when they first came to america and they wiped out the mezo-american civs very easily. I don't see why it should be any different in this game.

Well, a nation with a spearman army will be wiped out vs a modern army, no doubt about that, but they still should have a chance taking out a tank, or two! We can't make war riskless in CIV, because war never is, and it would be totally unbalanced!

 

[gunkulator]

According to the Civ3 Combat Calculator Tanks win vs. Spearmen 99.8% of the time. And in all the games I've played, I have never ever seen a Tank vs. Spearman battle. Can we please finally put this one to bed?

I agree with Philips_beard that there has to be some chance for older units to defeat newer ones. Civ2 had way too predictable combat. The game was reduced to who could get the good units the fastest. Get Dragoons or Cavalry or Howitzers = always win every battle.

If there really are a bunch of new bonuses, then I am cautiously optimistic about the new combat system.

 

[Philips beard]

According to the Civ3 Combat Calculator Tanks win vs. Spearmen 99.8% of the time. And in all the games I've played, I have never ever seen a Tank vs. Spearman battle. Can we please finally put this one to bed?

I agree with Philips_beard that there has to be some chance for older units to defeat newer ones. Civ2 had way too predictable combat. The game was reduced to who could get the good units the fastest. Get Dragoons or Cavalry or Howitzers = always win every battle.

If there really are a bunch of new bonuses, then I am cautiously optimistic about the new combat system.

I agree in every word of it!

 

[searcheagle]

According to the Civ3 Combat Calculator Tanks win vs. Spearmen 99.8% of the time. And in all the games I've played, I have never ever seen a Tank vs. Spearman battle. Can we please finally put this one to bed?

I agree with Philips_beard that there has to be some chance for older units to defeat newer ones. Civ2 had way too predictable combat. The game was reduced to who could get the good units the fastest. Get Dragoons or Cavalry or Howitzers = always win every battle.

If there really are a bunch of new bonuses, then I am cautiously optimistic about the new combat system.

I'm shocked that you have never seen a combat battle like that. It has been my experience, that once you start ripping up an AI civ you discover many ancient units. Any experienced player should have volumes of encouters with ancient units, and lossing to them.

Sure, there are those people who are upset by the loss of one their important units in a close battle. But I have been in many circumstances where I should have won and ended up lossing. And Not once, but several contiguous turns.

Playing around with the calculator you posted, I came up with many diffenrent results for the Spear V. Tank Battle you proposed. The Worst odds for the attacking Tank were 32.5% Chance of victory, which means that the Spearman had a 67.2% chance of victory. On the other end, Tank's best odds of victory were 99.9% chance of victory.

The problem comes that some of the standard applications of battle, you have a regular tank coming up against an elite spearman (because they've gained experience against other units since the begining of time) and in a highly defensive zone. The chance of victory of a Spearman is 87.4%.
It becomes even worse when it comes to city fighting because of the in-city bonuses such as City Defense, which doubles the defensive ability of units.