Getting sick of the AI's inaccurate unit strengths

[Windwalker]

Originally posted by Redneck Jedi
is the 1.16 ver better than 1.17 ? and why? as a new player to the game one of the things that bothers me the most is the way archers can kill off my riflemen and even if it were the reverse my archers killing their riflemen, its still not right and very unlikely. why bother pushing my R&D people so hard to discover gunpowder,tanks,aircraft if a group of archers can shoot down my Messerschmit fighters? (is this possible? havent got aircraft yet, that would hella-suck!) another thing that bugs me is that the years pass by way to fast it seems. its 2030 and i dont have a modern army, still using riflemen and cavalry units mostly. or am i just that damn slow. are you sure the next patch will include a better ballance for the combat units like HP doubling? that would be a great thing IMHO. hope it comes out soon.

The thing is that more advanced units have a higher probability of winning, but there is NEVER a CERTAINTY of winning. This is for gameplay reasons, I suspect. In real life, a tank may never lose to a pikeman, but that's beside the point. The makers of the game intentionally left a possibility for the pikeman to triumph over the tank, and this is indeed a low possibility, but it does happen. What possible gameplay reason could be the rational for this? Probably so that a new tech advance won't be the be-all and end-all for warfare; they gave the tech-inferior units a higher than realistic chance of winning a combat against superior units in order to make sure that the game is not just one big tech-race.

So, the way I way look at it is that Civ III is a game, and the "units" are just numbers with associated probablities of winning against other "units" (or numbers). When I'm playing, I get more subjective and tend to view them as more real units (yeah, run'em over, my faithful cav legions!), and so I do get disappointed when an axe-wielding warrior cracks one of my rifled cavalry. However, in the back of my mind, the intellectual me knows that they are numbers, and we should treat them as such.

Would gameplay work if tech-superior units always won out over their tech-inferior counterparts? Maybe, but I would think that would stifle gameplay, turning it into who can get military tradition first (or something similar)...

- Windwalker

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Windwalker
Would gameplay work if tech-superior units always won out over their tech-inferior counterparts? Maybe, but I would think that would stifle gameplay, turning it into who can get military tradition first (or something similar)...

Doesn't make it any less frustrating.

I think the game underemphasized the HUGE role in history technological superiority has made. The rule, with few exceptions, is that technology wins. I'm okay with a few exceptions, but consistantly having a swordman kill a musketman is just historically ridiculous.
But that is for me to fix in my own game, I suppose if everyone else is having fun I wouldn't want firaxis to patch in and rain on their parade.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Greadius
Doesn't make it any less frustrating.

I think the game underemphasized the HUGE role in history technological superiority has made. The rule, with few exceptions, is that technology wins. I'm okay with a few exceptions, but consistantly having a swordman kill a musketman is just historically ridiculous.
But that is for me to fix in my own game, I suppose if everyone else is having fun I wouldn't want firaxis to patch in and rain on their parade.

Good point. And here is where the game is very flawed.

The unit strengths are too close together: a musketman should not just be a few points stronger than a spearman, for example.
Why do cavalry units with rifles have a '3' defense rating when knights (who never heard of gunpowder) also have a '3' on defense?? These are just a few examples.

A simple solution is to change the unit strengths. Musketmen should defeat a spearman unit almost every time. Ironclads should defeat frigates anywhere from 80-90% of the time, which is not how it is with the basic game.

Give musketmen a few extra points (a defense factor of '6'), and riflemen several points more in attack and defense. Ironclads could get a few more, and destroyers several more. And so on. That way the weirdness of units from an obsolete Age beating a modern unit will occur much less often. Works for me.

I also think knights should be a 5.2.2.

BTW, by increasing the strengths of the above foot soldiers it makes it less likely cavalry can defeat them - historically correct.
The historically correct solution is to increase the bombardment strengths of catapults/cannon, and to create an Engineer unit that can weaken enemy walls and fortifications before an attack.
The latter would need to be patched in.

 

[Redneck Jedi]

Originally posted by Greadius
Doesn't make it any less frustrating.

I think the game underemphasized the HUGE role in history technological superiority has made. The rule, with few exceptions, is that technology wins. I'm okay with a few exceptions, but consistantly having a swordman kill a musketman is just historically ridiculous.
But that is for me to fix in my own game, I suppose if everyone else is having fun I wouldn't want firaxis to patch in and rain on their parade.

DUDE! you nailed it there. i realize its just a game and not reality. but i see it as a history of civilization sim i guess or something like that. i think maybe a little less "Randomness" would help the combat bigtime. cuz i after reading these posts i feel certain im going to see my f-16`s get shot down by muskets or archers and then im gonna be so pissed i wont like this game anymore. i realize you cant please everyone all the time and i must sound like a whiner here to the people at firaxis so i guess ill just cross my fingers and hope they come up with a brilliant sollution to the whole mess.

ok thats my 2 cents worth and then some

RJ

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Greadius
The rule, with few exceptions, is that technology wins. I'm okay with a few exceptions, but consistantly having a swordman kill a musketman is just historically ridiculous.
But that is for me to fix in my own game, I suppose if everyone else is having fun I wouldn't want firaxis to patch in and rain on their parade.

Interesting that you picked muskets and swords, as the Three Musketeers are best known for their swordplay, not their muskets.

(Glad you think its ok to have fun, though. )

 

[Zouave]

Redneck Jedi,

True.

Take a look at the unit strengths of the LWC mod on the Completed Mods forum. They make a lot more sense than what Firaxis slapped together.

Of course some people don't mind an underdeveloped product (such as Civ III). In the gaming world those people are knows as suckers.

BTW, musketeers in the novel and movies engaged in fighting with foils and epees for dramatic effect - it works better than having them use single shot muskets with a primitive slow match ignition system (no flintlocks) and then clubbing each other with them. On the battlefield they used muskets.

And that's another problem with combat in Civ III. Musketeers and pikemen were, in hisotry, designed to fight TOGETHER on the battlefield. One without the other was too vulnerable, either to cavalry or to muskeets and cannon. This Combined Arms usage is not reflected in the game.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave
Of course some people don't mind an underdeveloped product (such as Civ III). In the gaming world those people are knows as suckers.

Is that really necessary?

BTW, musketeers in the novel and movies engaged in fighting with foils and epees for dramatic effect - it works better than having them use single shot muskets with a primitive slow match ignition system (no flintlocks) and then clubbing each other with them. On the battlefield they used muskets.

Britannica:
The changes in warfare associated with the introduction of firearms did not eliminate the sword but rather proliferated its types. The discarding of body armour made it necessary for the swordsman to be able to parry with his weapon, and the thrust-and-parry rapier came into use. . . .

The introduction of repeating firearms virtually ended the value of the sword as a military weapon, though isolated instances of its use continued in 20th-century wars.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The introduction of repeating firearms virtually ended the value of the sword as a military weapon, though isolated instances of its use continued in 20th-century wars.

The Three Muskateers are so famous BECAUSE of their success. All the other schmucks who brought a sword to a gunfight were buried & forgotten.
I don't have a problem with ISOLATED instances, but it was happening over and over again... my fortified musketmen lost to swordsman, then archers, then riders, then women & children... theirs guns must have been broken! It was pathetic.

Then I have another war in the same game against Germany. I'm outnumbered and I anhialate them. My Knights marched down fortified GERMAN musketmen. My conclusion: it wasn't my bad luck, musketmen just SUCK!

 

[Gavrilo Princip]

Whaddya mean a horseman can't defeat a tank? Didn't anyone see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Greadius
The Three Muskateers are so famous BECAUSE of their success. All the other schmucks who brought a sword to a gunfight were buried & forgotten.
I don't have a problem with ISOLATED instances, but it was happening over and over again... my fortified musketmen lost to swordsman, then archers, then riders, then women & children... theirs guns must have been broken! It was pathetic.

Then I have another war in the same game against Germany. I'm outnumbered and I anhialate them. My Knights marched down fortified GERMAN musketmen. My conclusion: it wasn't my bad luck, musketmen just SUCK!

You highlighted the word "isolated" out of context, which in the Britannica article referred only to the 20th century.

Swordsmen were effective weapons throughout the age of muskets. Indeed, most musketmen carried swords for the very good reason that muskets were slow and inaccurate. As late as the American Revolution, muskets were usually not fired more than once in a battle. It just took too long to reload.

In Civ3, it is much simpler as we don't have to deal with morale, supply, weather, etc. These are represented by the randomizer. There is a nice battle calculator here: http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

Sword 3/2
Knight 4/3
Musket 2/4

Try using bombard to even the odds. Don't let those swordsmen approach your cities without taking damage, and you will find that the battles will break in your favor much more often.

 

[Redneck Jedi]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Try using bombard to even the odds. Don't let those swordsmen approach your cities without taking damage, and you will find that the battles will break in your favor much more often.

im glad you mentioned bombard.. i have a question about that. ive noticed that if i have a cannon, or catapult in a fortified city (with walls or coastal fort) that if the cannon is fortified inside the town enemy units will get within range and attack but the guns sometimes wont fire , why is this? ok im not for sure that evertime it happened the town had walls. maybe one time there were no walls. does that have anything to do with it? should i not fortify the cannons or catapults when they are in the city or something? anyone have this problem?

 

[Ironikinit]

You have to wake up your bombard units to attack enemy units that are just standing in range. They will attack (once per defending bombard unit) automatically enemy units assaulting the stack they're in.

 

[Windwalker]

Originally posted by Greadius
Doesn't make it any less frustrating.

I think the game underemphasized the HUGE role in history technological superiority has made. The rule, with few exceptions, is that technology wins. I'm okay with a few exceptions, but consistantly having a swordman kill a musketman is just historically ridiculous.
But that is for me to fix in my own game, I suppose if everyone else is having fun I wouldn't want firaxis to patch in and rain on their parade.

Just because it happens in history doesn't mean it has to happen in a game. I would take gameplay over realism any day... If in real life a cavalry would kill a mustketman 99.5% of the time, I definitely wouldn't want that in a game, would you? I would definitely support lowering it to something like 65%, which is close to the actual value. Just because tech usually wins out in real life, doesn't mean it has to be the ULTIMATE GOAL in a game; I like a balanced game with multiple options, real life be danged...

I agree that maybe the unit values are not optimal, but I definitely would not like to see a one or two tech superior unit to win 99.5% of the time, even if it would happen in real life. Maybe different percentages from what there is now (esp for cases like longbowmen attacking tanks, etc). However, I would never want the game to emphasize that a one-two tech lead is an OVERWHELMING advantage (even though it may be in real life). Otherwise, the game would be single-minded, which is not cool...

- Windwalker

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Windwalker
Just because it happens in history doesn't mean it has to happen in a game. I would take gameplay over realism any day... If in real life a cavalry would kill a mustketman 99.5% of the time, I definitely wouldn't want that in a game, would you? I would definitely support lowering it to something like 65%, which is close to the actual value. Just because tech usually wins out in real life, doesn't mean it has to be the ULTIMATE GOAL in a game; I like a balanced game with multiple options, real life be danged...

Which is the exact reason I understand why Firaxis did it. I just finished moding every unit in the game to veto their design

Now my Tanks will be able to roll over a few hundread spearmen without taking damage. I love it!
I'm a technocrat, that is my kind of game.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by Windwalker
I agree that maybe the unit values are not optimal, but I definitely would not like to see a one or two tech superior unit to win 99.5% of the time, even if it would happen in real life. Maybe different percentages from what there is now. . .

I disagree. Cavalry's offensive prowess is way overrated in the game. Recall many successful cavalry charges in the Civil War or World War One? There weren't any, not against riflemen.

Against even musketmen, in the Napoleonic Wars there were very few successful horse attacks against fortified musketmen not softened up by cannon bombardment.

Knights should be 5.2. - making them more potent offensively, but much more vulnerable to counterattack and thus slowing them down as they wait for cheap pikemen to come up in support to hold ground (cannons, also).

No way Cavalry should have the same defense rating as knights; I will settle for a '3'. For playability I will accept the '6' attack rating and assume they attacked dismounted as dragoons after optimizing their tactical position with the speed of their mounts.

Musketmen and riflemen should be increased a bit in offense and a little more than that defensively- making a knight attack against either (when fortified) difficult indeed, as proved by the failure of French cuirassiers (sort of like knights) at Waterloo.

I also increased a point or two catapults and cannon. While increasing the defense factor of longbowmen (also increasing shield cost) and lowering the DF of elephants (and lowering the cost).


No one expects EXACT historical accuracy, but if we are going to attempt to simulate Civilization and use actual designations let's make an attempt to get it mostly right. I do not want to see a longbowman unit destroy cavalry, or other weird results.
But we can let pass the fact that musketeers and pikeman were designed to fight TOGETHER, never separately, lest we get too historical.

Increasing the differences between units of different Ages, especially after gunpowder, will help solve that problem. Same goes for naval units.

 

[Jinglehopper]

I was just arguing a point about the supposed lack of "realism" in Civ3 on another thread. As I read this one, I thought of something. Does level make a difference in the "accuracy" of the RNG?

In my experience, Chieftain level produces the most favorable outcomes for the player. I don't think I ever lost a battle vs. technologically inferior units when I started on that level.

But now, as I face Emperor level, I can't win battle against barbarians like I used to, let alone other civs.

Anyone else noticed this?

And if so, maybe it was Firaxis way of adding challenge to the game. Making it so tech isn't the only thing that wins games but also critical thinking and superior strategy.

 

[NY Hoya]

Jinglehopper, you get an attack bonus against barbarians at all levels other than deity. That bonus decreases from Chieftan to Emperor. The exact values are in the editor

 

[Jinglehopper]

Oh, thanks NY Hoya, I didn't realise there was a bonus vs. barbarians. And I've been playing the game for months.

Do you think there is a similar bonus for other civs or am I just being crazy?



btw. does Hoya refer to Georgetown?

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Jinglehopper
Do you think there is a similar bonus for other civs or am I just being crazy?

I would assume so, but don't know

Originally posted by Jinglehopper
btw. does Hoya refer to Georgetown?

yes

 

[Lord_Vetinari]

I have to go along with the "it's just a game" people here. If we took all realistic aspects into consiceration cavalry and infantry would never be able to conquer a city with city walls with out the aid of seige weapons. Ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Altough Lancelot manages a few stabs at the castle wall I seriously doubt that they would have taken the castle (even if the french hadn't counter attack with the deadly catapult-cow weapon)

Also, I haven't played civ2 for ages, but I seem to recal the manual mentioning something about units with firearms and/or massive steel armour (ships-tanks) gaining significant combat bonuses against other units. Anyone else remembering this? If my memory is working corectly, and if this system existed in civ2, why removing it civ3? Sounds like devolution to me.

just my .02$