"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.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Civ4: I remember seeing those odds in Civ4 and enjoying them. It was especially relevant/important when using the "suicide catapult" tactic. Bring a lot of these and blast the enemy stack to inflict collateral damage. It was useful to know (before attacking) how likely they were to die and to queue up more in my cities producing units. It was useful to know the impact of first strikes (say from my crossbow) or whether my elephants had a better shot or my swords/macemen. To sum up, knowing those odds were more important given the way that combat worked in Civ4.

In Civ3, the recommended pattern is a little different. Archers are offense, not defense, most of the time. Bring in siege units and bombard the AI town, whittling them down as much as you can. Then hit the defenders with your highest A(ttack) units first, leading off with the healthiest. Keep an eye out for when the defending unit is redlined, to consider using an elite attacker in hopes of generating a leader. Consider it, because as Buttercup notes, Murphy's Law applies even with redlined defenders.
For later wars, the pattern changes only a little. 1) Bombard with artillery from 2 tiles away. 2) Perform bombing runs with aircraft in range. These can actually *kill* defenders. 3) Attack with ground forces, highest A value, healthiest first.

Since the Civ3 promotion system is greatly simplified compared w/ Civ4, I don't feel like I'm losing a big investment if a veteran unit dies. Not compared with a double- or triple-promoted unit in Civ4.

 

[Lanzelot]

There is a utility tool that calculates the win/lose probability depending on attacking & defending unit, terrain, fortification bonus etc.:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civ-iii-combat-calculator-exe.75765/

I tried it a bit, but I have to say: when I play a game, I usually don't use it. Slows me down too much. I just make sure that when I attack, my units are superior to the defenders, and that my army comes with superior numbers. (Don't know much about Civ4, but I know that in Civ5 and Civ6, units are more valuable than in Civ3, since they can be promoted/leveled up for a long time and become quite powerful. In Civ3 by contrast, units are "disposable". If you lose some, just replace them with fresh ones. You win your wars by superior numbers, not by "quality". Only "elite" units should be heeded, as vorlon_mi noted, as they can spawn Great Leaders, which are very powerful.)