Longshot Combat

[Motsart]

All in all, this issue has really lead to Civ III being an acquired taste, IMO. I loved the changes in the combat system from Civ I to Civ II, and was thrilled with the refinements made in SMAC…There was something really satisfying in developing a band of elite units that meant something in combat (other than a couple of more HP).

I have had more than a few games in Civ II and SMAC where the only thing that saved me from being overwhelmed by a numerically superior enemy was a well-timed civ advance or (in SMAC) the strategic placement of elite troops. This kind of excitement is missing from my Civ III sessions, and I have more or less reverted to my Civ I strategy of mass attack.

The other parts of Civ III, (culture, new trading options, etc..) have kept me interested and playing, but I share the frustration expressed here about the combat system.

 

[TheNiceOne]

I think most players are content with the current randomness factor, and most complaints come from people who attack with one or two units and then gets angry when their 70% or so chance fails (which it should do 30% of the time).

It takes time to learn to hold your attack until you get a high enough number of attackers. One attack with 10 units have a very much higher success rate than attacking two consecutive turns with 5 units each time.

So instead of complaining about bad luck, quite a few players should think if they're doing something wrong instead. The answer often lays there.

Having said that, I can understand the wish for a bit less randomness, especially in the early stages of the game where there are very few units and each battle is much more important. Modding the HP is a good way of accomplishing this.

However:

Originally posted by alpha wolf 64
I went 4/5/7 and some units with heavy armor get an additional HP, and some very lightly equipped ones get a -1 hp. Altho upsets are still possible, its much more tolerable rate now. I still think the RNG ISN'T random enough. Too often hits come in bunches. Like the rifleman that defended against 3 tanks without losing a HP, but the 4th tank killed the rifleman losing only one HP.

Accusations like this pop up now and then, and has as much weight as people claiming that Elvis is their neighbour. Real random numbers do come in bunches, not neatly spread as you may think. Its like thinking that flipping a coin ten times should come up head-tails-head-tails-head etc - which is very unlikely.
CIV3's random generator provides very good random numbers, something which has been proven by extensive tests.

 

[Kevin_724]

I wish civ 3 gave you a option to fight each battle on a small mini map, where you control each unit like in Masters of magic. I dont think attacking with a single unit at a time is realistic. It would make for a longer game, but a much more fun game in my mind.

 

[slothman]

I don't mind the way it is now. Of course the new things they are mentioning could be good also. I, at least, don't find the "MA lose to spearmen" often. Sometimes it will occur. If you don't like it mod the game to give "better" units like knights more HP or stats. Of course Firaxis could always give you a different mod that comes with it that already has that. But until you fight 100 battles and lose more than 10 of them with a 99% chance of winning don't whine about it. That is all. beep-------

 

[yoshi]

Civ Conquests may include a solution for you.

It's possible that Jeff is referring to a new field new captiont in the Editor that allows players to set the random seed for combat (I think I read something about this in a preview).

It's lovely that some of you think CIV is specific enough to actually justify such a degree of 'randomness' during combat, but the fact is that CIV is a simplified version of reality. Combat MUST be far less random; i.e. 2 Knights SHOULD beat 1 Knight 99% of the time and should ALWAYS be more or less damaged during combat. Having it otherwise creates completely unpredicatble results, as Civ3 proves. No General worth his stars would even think of going into combat where the chances of winning are completely unpredictable. If an enemy is weaker, then you win. The only variables are that you suffer more or less in the process (this is putting unit 'experince' aside). In reality, to think otherwise is to be courtmarshalled for stupidity in combat.
And clearly, the same applies to units on varying terrain.

Yes, I have noticed that 'redlined' units tend to be able to hold out longer than units in the yellow. It's a mistake in the game's combat processor; i.e. it's a glitch --whether Civ3's designers admit it or not.

A way of increasing the chances of vicotry in combat would be to give GLs experience; i.e. a Veteran GL's Army gives the loaded units a combat bonus higher than that of a Regular GL's Army (GL's gain experince like any other unit). This would reproduce, to a degree, the effect of skilled Generals using their troops more wisely than others --while at the same time keeping with Civ3's simplicity.

BTW, I notice that there aremore posts agreeing with the gen. than there are those disaggreeing, so clearly this is an issue that can't just be overlooked --hopefully the addition Jeff mentioned will deal with this somewhat.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by yoshi
It's lovely that some of you think CIV is specific enough to actually justify such a degree of 'randomness' during combat, but the fact is that CIV is a simplified version of reality. Combat MUST be far less random; i.e. 2 Knights SHOULD beat 1 Knight 99% of the time and should ALWAYS be more or less damaged during combat.

I don't agree with you, at least not fully. The history is full of examples of battles that had a suprising result, where the "weakest" side won, due to luck, surprise, better general or whatever. Removing the randomness would not only make the game more boring, but also less correct as a simulation IMHO. But I do understand the call for toning down the randomness a bit, at least during the ancient age where there are so few units involved...

It's Yes, I have noticed that 'redlined' units tend to be able to hold out longer than units in the yellow. It's a mistake in the game's combat processor; i.e. it's a glitch --whether Civ3's designers admit it or not.

You don't bother to read the facts, do you? As I wrote above, this is nothing but an unfounded rumour that has been proven wrong in several tests. Its only a glitch in some players' imagination - whether they admit it or not Do a search to learn more if you're interested in facts instead of rumours.

A way of increasing the chances of vicotry in combat would be to give GLs experience; i.e. a Veteran GL's Army gives the loaded units a combat bonus higher than that of a Regular GL's Army (GL's gain experince like any other unit). This would reproduce, to a degree, the effect of skilled Generals using their troops more wisely than others --while at the same time keeping with Civ3's simplicity.

This is an interesting idea, but even a regular GL could give its units combat experience...

BTW, I notice that there aremore posts agreeing with the gen. than there are those disaggreeing, so clearly this is an issue that can't just be overlooked --hopefully the addition Jeff mentioned will deal with this somewhat.

But I have noticed that most experienced players and long-time members on the forum are disagreeing, but many get tired of the 10th+ thread where a player either wrongly accusses the combat calculation, or complains about randomness he rather should try to learn how to manage his units.

 

[Bamspeedy]

BTW, I notice that there aremore posts agreeing with the gen. than there are those disaggreeing, so clearly this is an issue that can't just be overlooked --hopefully the addition Jeff mentioned will deal with this somewhat.

Feel free to post a poll on this topic in the general discussions forum. I could have sworn there was such a poll recently, but the search function isn't showing me anything, so maybe I'm imagining things.

Poll:Should the combat system be changed?

Probably include the options of:

1. Weaker units should NEVER win
2. Weaker units should win more often than the current system
3. Weaker units should win less often than the current system
4. No change

 

[yoshi]

...the "weakest" side won, due to luck, surprise, better general or whatever.

That's why I brought up the GL experience factor, as it would create that variation without having to resort to excessive randomizing. Historically, there have ususally been other factors involved that had little to do witht he effectiveness of the troops inthe battle; terrain, or some other defensive enhancement, has accounted for most victories by the weaker side --Civ3 does this, so I don't see what the need for additional randomization in the outcome of combat.

Its only a glitch in some players' imagination - whether they admit it or not

You're right --it's not a glitch (i.e. a design error), thus is all the more infuriating. This IS a game flaw though, otherwise there wouldn't be anywhere near as many complaints as there are (designers can justify pretty much anything, but the fact remains that people aren't happy with the result). This is one of the biggest complaints about CIV I've heard over the years, so it seems reasonable to bring it up.

but even a regular GL could give its units combat experience...

I was referring to regular GLs --only adding an experience factor that modifies the A/D of units loaded into a GLs Army.

But I have noticed that most experienced players and long-time members on the forum are disagreeing...

"Experienced" just means that those players accept the game the way it is and have chosen adapt to its imperfections --some excel at playing so we say they are good at CIV, but that shouldn't give them much more weight than any other strategy gamer. Coincidentally, these same players seem to have little interest in scenarios.
Personally, I was willing to overlook Civ2's imperfecions because of the rich scenario feature. I'm not as willing to overlook certain things in Civ3 that really should be addressed. This is a new game, so it needs to evolve in every area. Random combat is a bit primitive. In my opinion, this does not make the game interesting --it's just an extra irritation to fry your nerves while waiting for the long turns to go by. But don't get me wrong, there should be a little randomness during combat, just not the extremes that are presently the case.

 

[TheNiceOne]

yoshi, I don't know if you're deliberately doing it or are just sloppy, but you have taken my quotes out of context a few times, so that it may seem that I have meant something different than I have. Please make sure that you don't do it again...

To make it clear this time, I'll include the previous discussion:
yoshi wrote

It's Yes, I have noticed that 'redlined' units tend to be able to hold out longer than units in the yellow. It's a mistake in the game's combat processor; i.e. it's a glitch --whether Civ3's designers admit it or not.

I responded:

You don't bother to read the facts, do you? As I wrote above, this is nothing but an unfounded rumour that has been proven wrong in several tests. Its only a glitch in some players' imagination - whether they admit it or not Do a search to learn more if you're interested in facts instead of rumours.

...to which yoshi included one sentence in the middle and answered:

You're right --it's not a glitch (i.e. a design error), thus is all the more infuriating. This IS a game flaw though, otherwise there wouldn't be anywhere near as many complaints as there are (designers can justify pretty much anything, but the fact remains that people aren't happy with the result). This is one of the biggest complaints about CIV I've heard over the years, so it seems reasonable to bring it up.

Here I write that you're completely wrong, and then you try to make it look that I agree with you. Stop that. Read again what I wrote: The rumour that says redlined units are thougher holds no truth at all, and the fact that several people complain about this (always without having tested it though) only shows that if you don't know what you're talking about, then your complaint doesn't mean anything.

"Experienced" just means that those players accept the game the way it is and have chosen adapt to its imperfections --some excel at playing so we say they are good at CIV, but that shouldn't give them much more weight than any other strategy gamer.

You may be a bit right, but only a bit. Experienced also means knowing how stupid it is to expect 100% succes rate when only outnumber the enemy 2-1. IMHO, its a sign of a good game that you need to learn how to master it.

Random combat is a bit primitive. In my opinion, this does not make the game interesting --it's just an extra irritation to fry your nerves while waiting for the long turns to go by. But don't get me wrong, there should be a little randomness during combat, just not the extremes that are presently the case.

I have no problem understanding the wish for less randomness - but I strongly disagree that this is a design error. Its a design choise that many player likes and many player dislikes. I happen to think the randomness is a tad too high during the ancient age, but good for the rest of the game, and I don't see how to change it for one age only, so I prefer the default. The fact that inexperienced players don't know how to master combat yet doesn't prove this a design error though.

 

[yoshi]

The rumour that says redlined units are thougher holds no truth at all, and the fact that several people complain about this (always without having tested it though) only shows that if you don't know what you're talking about, then your complaint doesn't mean anything.

I was referring to what it looks like: a unit will quickely go into the red but then hold out until it beats you. It's not a glitch, but it's an illusion; i.e. due to the nature of the hit point system in Civ3, you can't tell how damaged a unit is once it's in the red --so it looks like it's holding out. This causes players to assume that the unit is almost dead, and they attack it only to lose. Hit points need to be represntative of the units actual health...which they are not. (The random combat doesn't help.)
Sorry about the mix-up. If you think I'm still distoring the facts, well...

I have no problem understanding the wish for less randomness - but I strongly disagree that this is a design error.

The extreme randomness is not a design error (in the sense that it is not design mistake)...it is a fault where game-play is concerned.

The fact that inexperienced players don't know how to master combat yet doesn't prove this a design error though.

There we go again. The moment people question some aspect of the game...out come the insults. The fact that a good number of people "complain" is an indication that there is a problem. Why is it always assumed that they suck, instead of giving them the benfit of the doubt that what they're saying has some legitimacy to it --just because you happen to disagree?

IMHO, its a sign of a good game that you need to learn how to master it.

I would be more inclined to say that ONE of the things that makes a successful and good game is the fact that anyone can learn to play it within a short period of time while at the same time maintaining a higher level of complexity. You could say that CIV does that. Calculating randomness during combat has nothing to do with it --most players aren't willing to waste their time finding out why their favourite game plays like it does, they just want it to play well and randomness does not seem to be having that effect.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by yoshi
I was referring to what it looks like: a unit will quickely go into the red but then hold out until it beats you. It's not a glitch, but it's an illusion; i.e. due to the nature of the hit point system in Civ3, you can't tell how damaged a unit is once it's in the red --so it looks like it's holding out. This causes players to assume that the unit is almost dead, and they attack it only to lose. Hit points need to be represntative of the units actual health...which they are not. (The random combat doesn't help.)

Now you really make me confused. You have either misunderstood the CIV3 combat mechanics, or I totally fail to understand what you write.
But I'll try to answer:
In CIV3, you can tell exactly how damaged a unit is at all times. If a unit has two HP left, it means exactly that: If it looses two more battle rounds, it will be defeated. If it has only one HP left, it will be defeated if loosing one more battle round. So it is representative of the unit's actual healt. What information do you miss?
The only complain I can imagine here (aside the scale of randomness), is that a 1 HP unit has exactly the same chance of winning the next battle round as a 5 HP unit, i.e. its actual defense stays the same. This isn't too realistic, but has been the nature of all turn-based games I know, and don't understand if that's your problem...

The extreme randomness is not a design error (in the sense that it is not design mistake)...it is a fault where game-play is concerned.

You say so, but I disagree.

There we go again. The moment people question some aspect of the game...out come the insults. The fact that a good number of people "complain" is an indication that there is a problem. Why is it always assumed that they suck, instead of giving them the benfit of the doubt that what they're saying has some legitimacy to it --just because you happen to disagree?

I'm sorry that I come out too harsh some times. But I still believe that its way too easy to complain about something you don't know. This thread started with someone complaining about needing three knights to kill one enemy knight, and he had misunderstood what the correct chances were. I think you need to know how something works before you can critizise it for working bad.

I would be more inclined to say that ONE of the things that makes a successful and good game is the fact that anyone can learn to play it within a short period of time while at the same time maintaining a higher level of complexity. You could say that CIV does that.

Yes, I agree and this is not opposite to what I said. But I think its a big difference from learning how to play it in a shot period of time, and learning how to master it. Learning how to master it should take a long time - if not, the game is too shallow.

 

[Commander Bello]

First of all, just accept my apologies for not being a native English speaker, so it might be a little bit hard for you to read...
Anyway, I have to agree that the CIV combat system is weak. Why?
Let's assume that you have amassed your troops at a location you are willing to conquer (this is, what most people would call an army - although the term "Army" describes something different in Civ3. Nevertheless, I will call this an army in this course....). This location is defended by one unit. Now, chances are high, that - by the one-to-one nature of combat - your "Army" will loose some units. Especially, since the defender might get to a higher level through the course of the battle. At the end, you will have conquered the location, but with the next location, the same thing might go on.
The consequence is that you are not able to perform quick, deep invasions into enemy territory.
The combat system just purely ignores that a combination of units "should" equal an army consisting of divisions, battalions and so on, which would (in real life) encircle the one defending unit, by that weakening it (by interruption of support) and all this kind of things. I'm not going to write a military handbook right now, being pretty sure that you got the idea....
For me, it's one of the major weaknesses of CIV3, that they didn't copy the combat system of a CTP for instance.
For those armies, the Great Leader then could have modified the internal chances because it could be seen as an extra-ordinary general, as has been Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte or others.....

 

[Bamspeedy]

Commander Bello,
Your english is just fine, I understood everything you said perfectly.

I see what you are saying about using 'stacks' of units vs. other 'stacks'. (CTP's battle system). Where if you send some archers and some warriors against an enemy 'army', the archers are in the back lobbing their arrows against the enemy while your warriors are battling the enemy. Catapults and tanks work the same way in that they are usually in the back bombarding the enemy. Only when the units (infantry-like units) in the front got killed, then the tanks, archers, etc. would be moved to the 'front line' and be susceptible to attack. CTP's battle system was awfully unbalancing, though in that all you needed was an 'army' of tanks and the game was over. Yes, it promoted the use of combined arms, but very strongly favored the units with the tech advantage, if I remember correctly. Plus, I don't think it's realistic that your archers/catapults would bombard the enemy WHILE your own units are battling the enemy. You would too easily hit your own soldiers (example of this is in the movie Braveheart). The catapults could bombard the back lines of the enemy, but not the front line, they should bombard the front line BEFORE your own front line meets them.

 

[Commander Bello]

Bamspeedy,
I totally agree with your analysis of the CTP combat system and it's flaws in regards to be a mirror of a "real-life" combat.
Furthermore, as far as I remember, in that combat system the human player had a "built-in" advantage due to his/her ability of planning and analysing the pre-combat situation and the prognosis of the most probable outcome. Especially, when making the AI to "hunt down" a small army, while the human main forces then made their significant blow against it's lines. But this is another story.

On the other hand, in Civ for me it seems to be even more unrealistic...
You as the human general have put effort and time into stockpiling your forces and then you have prepared the decisive 5 to 1 situation.... In "real life", then you would concentrate your forces and smack this poor, lonely, hopeless AI-unit with just a combined strike of all your 5 units, thus minimizing your losses, while AI afterwards just would have to inform the relatives...

But in Civ, as I have described above, your troops virtually just have to queue up and wait.... And for (in the worst scenario) all 5 it will be "the good old" fight one to one....
For me, this is really annoying... Especially, since due to this repeated one to one situation, all the weaknesses of an RNG based outcome of the individual battles may take place...
To minimize at least the last mentioned effects, I have taken the effort to "fine-tune" the combat values of the units in my games... Guess, that might be called the first step to a mod, although there still is lot of work to do.

To be honest, when I played Civ3 for the first time, I really was frustrated, not to say I was shocked by the impression, that there hardly could have been (in my eyes) any deeper testing of the individual combat values. As far as I see it, they are *all* much too low!
By this all these randomly but nevertheless shocking single battle results appear, which have been stated earlier in this thread. In my early games, there oftenly was this "infamous" one Spearman, which blocked, stopped and (yuk....) finally destroyed my small piles of Swordmen...
I just regard it as being "unrealistic" for a single unit of Spearmen, even if entrenched in a hilly region, to withstand the combined attack of three Swordmen - only, since in Civ3 this just isn't a combined attack.

I really would prefer to have the chance to "combine" the power of my stockpiled troops - for Workers, it does it, so why not for military units?

 

[yoshi]

There is something about the CTP combat system you have not mentioned. During battles, 'foot' units still attack on a one-to one basis; i.e. each unit will atack one enemy unit. If they outnumber the enemy, the extra units will not attack units already being attacked. Only units with the 'Flanker' flag (i.e. Cavalry, Tanks) can attack a unit that is already being attacked. If one of your units is destroyed, then the exrtra unit takes over. Civ3's units behave sort of like this when attacking in an Army; i.e. when the first attacker goes into the red, the next one in line takes over and only when they are ll in the red will they begi to be destroyed (as opposed to attacking without an Army which means the attacker must either win or lose --the other units will not take over.

It's just so delightful when you create an Army (of 3-4 units) and have it destroyed by one defending unit. Why does this happen? Well, as explained above, in Civ3 the units attacking in an Army still attack one by one, it's just that they don't face destruction until all are in the red --kind of like a tag-team ring match.

One way introducing the 'strength in numbers' concept to the Civ3 combat system is to have ALL the units in the Army attack/defend simultaneously. For example: as Civ3 presently is, three Warriors (1/1/1) loaded into an Army attacking one Warrior means that the first Warrior in the Army will attack, and if he doesn't destroy the defender before he goes into the red the next Warrior will take over and so on. This means that an Army will not loose units until the entire Army is destroyed (the HP of each unit reaches zero). So, placing units in an Army will give you an advantage in combat but it is still not really representative of the combined strength of all three Warriors in the Army.
What I suggest, is to have Armies attack with the strength of all the units within it; i.e. three Warriors means the Army has an A/D/M of 3/3/1 instead of 1/1/1 per unit until the next takes over. The only problem I see with that is that it seems unfair to have ALL the units in the Army attack simultaneously --if one guy goes up against ten will all ten attack at once? I think the best solution would be to limit the effect of Armies to 4 units per unit. If there are more than 4 in the Army, then the additional units would wait to take over (the limit in the core game's Rules is 4, so this would only apply to scenarios). This would kind of be a combinationg of the CTP combat system and the present Civ3 system.

So, to keep with this thread's topic, 2 Kinghts (in an Army) really would probably beat 1 Knight --a large proportion of the time.

Giving GLs experience --and the implied GL in an Army-- would mean that they could give more hitpoints to an Army than just the accumulated ADM and HPs of the units loaded into the Army.

 

[Commander Bello]

Yoshi,

I totally agree with you, as I did with Bamspeedy's analysis.
But I would like to enhance your comment with an upper limit per tile (actually, I already did - but the posting does'nt show up here ???).
By this, it would get a more realistic flair - a town could hold just x defenders - and just the same x would stand for an "army" of attackers.
How often did I have to learn that the town I was attacking was a stronghold with 20+ units in it <yuk>. (But the next town then just was defended by 2....)

 

[Bamspeedy]

What I suggest, is to have Armies attack with the strength of all the units within it; i.e. three Warriors means the Army has an A/D/M of 3/3/1 instead of 1/1/1 per unit until the next takes over.

So a cavalry army would have an attack value of 18?! 18 if there was 3 cavalry in the army and 24 if there was 4 cavalry in the army. That would be way unbalancing. Get 1 army, the game is over. An immortal or knight army would be like attacking with a tank, but with a ton of more hit points.

 

[Commander Bello]

@Bamspeedy:

Yeah, you're right at first glance. But, as I understood, what Yoshi and myself are dreaming about is to have an "army" by stockpiling.
So, your army of 3 knights would almost be egalized by the opponent's army of 3 musketmen. Since musketmen are cheaper, most probably there could be a pile of 4 of them - so?
Adding a GL would just boost that army a little bit more....
And with a maximum number of units per tile, you automatically have an upper limit of units in the "army", thus preventing inflationary tendencies in stockpiling.... (huuuh.. I guess, the last was pretty "german" English?)

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
@Bamspeedy:

Yeah, you're right at first glance. But, as I understood, what Yoshi and myself are dreaming about is to have an "army" by stockpiling.
So, your army of 3 knights would almost be egalized by the opponent's army of 3 musketmen. Since musketmen are cheaper, most probably there could be a pile of 4 of them - so?

So you're wishing for a "fight of the Titans" game, where there are a few units that will crush all other until it meet another "Titan" unit? Well, that would surely throw away all tactic and realism from the game...
And you assume that both sides always has army units. With so powerful army units, I would surely attack as soon as I got such an army unit, before the opponent managed to build one to counter me.

 

[Commander Bello]

@TheNiceOne

Sorry, but I guess you misunderstood....

My idea was to have the chance to combine stockpiled units in an easy way. Simultenaously, this would go hand in hand with an upper limit for units to rest on the same tile.
In other words, I would like to have the chance to put my armies together when attacking from a certain tile. The usual one to one fight is unrealistic as well, as far as I see it.
Even the stockpiling of 20+ units on one tile is most unrealistic.
An upper limit of - let's say - 10 units per tile with the chance to gather them by one klick for the purpose of an attack would be great.
Furthermore, I assume that this would even enhance the strategic depth of the game.
Without doubt, this would give the human player an advantage, but in the upper levels I guess, a human has that many disadvantages, that this would just level the balance a little bit more.