"Hidden" combat odds in Civ III - Thoughts?

[AspiringScholar]

Hello Civ III community! Though my favorite and by far most played title remains Civ IV, I started the series with this game, and so it will always have a pleasant draw and a nostalgic allure to me (the soundtrack remains a favorite I return to when working, and the general tone and aesthetic of the game is simply nice). A few days ago, I fired up the World War II in the Pacific scenario and just played casually for a few turns before going to bed with absolutely no intention of seriously approaching it, and one key difference that stood out to me in comparison to the fourth title which isn't oft-discussed to my awareness was the fact that the combat odds are "hidden," or at least "opaque" and relatively inconspicuous (though I suppose you can somewhat easily enough calculate them based on the attack and defense values at play and the other basic modifiers applied to them), whereas in the latter title, you have a laser-accurate tooltip prediction detailing the odds of how the combat will unfold before committing your forces. Being myself one who only occasionally returns to the game to dabble and having had only a child's understanding of it initially (but also in time became a seasoned and fairly decent Civ IV player) I wasn't really sure how my individual combats would unfold, but had a basic idea of what would be suicidal and what had a fighting chance of success, and... I think this actually made it fun. Not knowing with reasonable certainty or even just solid plausibility that each individual combat was likely to be a victory before engaging the enemy gave me more of a feel of the smoke and heat of battle, and the gamble of it made victories more exciting and defeats less immediately disappointing.

Granted, I'm sure this has more to do with my relative unfamiliarity with the gritty calculations which its dedicated community has by second nature, but it prompted me to ask you all what you think: would you prefer it if Civ III showed you the combat odds under the hood before committing a unit to fight as a quality of life improvement for the UI which simply didn't gracefully age with the game (as with the generally desired map zooming which became a feature in all later titles), or does a second-nature understanding of combat relationships render this point nearly moot since you're effectively aware of this anyway? How do you feel about Civ IV showing this with such clarity?

Looking forward to reading your thoughts. Cheers!

 

[Buttercup]

There's only one rule of thumb for combat predicting in CivIII, and this applies whether you can see the odds or not.

The rule: What's the worst that could happen? It probably will.

Take my last game, for example:

I mistakenly leave just one Knight fortified in a small town on a Hill. I'm at the stage where the enemy AI has nothing left in terms of army, I feel over-confidently safe. It sends out one Archer and parks it next to my Knight. It's still on it's own territory on a Hill, so if my Knight attacks it, it leaves the town empty and in range of an enemy horse unit that might be built in the interturn or being kept in reserve. So, I think, meh, that Archer will never defeat the Knight fortified on the Hill in the small town, the odds would be... oh dear, the Archer completely obliterates the Knight.

I gave the AI even the slightest opportunity, no matter how remote, and, as if by magic, it took it.

Similarly, a bit later, I was once again mopping up the final couple of towns of an enemy AI, so I sent my stack of Tanks and Cavalry without the slow Artillery and I get the classic

Prior to this, while defending against the main onslaught of the enemy horsemen, ones with an attack of 3, my fortified in a city Infantry were being battered to death and I was lucky enough to have about 6 of them, otherwise those 6 or 7 horsemen would have smashed into my War Weariness even harder.

So I always go by the odds of Murphy's Law. And that the odds relate more to how much War Weariness the AI thinks I require. Is it about time it made my cities a bit more grumpier? Then that's the time a Unit dies or a town is taken. Does the human player need slowing up a bit? That kind of thing.

After playing for a long time, over hundreds of games, you get a feel for this and, while it's mostly mitigatable, when it does happen it's no longer a rage moment but, instead, it becomes a "yeah, ok, you finally got me" thing, usually followed by a good knowing laugh with hands raised.

These AI Murphy's Law tactics are at least memorable. I still remember an Elite Gallic Swordsman who died valiantly attacking the last Barbarian in a hut one time many years ago.