Modern versus Ancient Garbage

[zeeter]

I'm totally sick of these threads about how ironclads can take out battleships, Pikemen who stand up to armor, and all these other scenarios. So, ignoring the fact that I'm so sick of them that I started one myself, can we all just get past this? It ain't gonna change.
Its been this way since the original CIV. We complained so much that he put in the hitpoints thingy, which helped, but we still complain. This is a game. Why does everyone take it so seriously?
And looking at it objectively, are you suggesting that a modern army fighting an ancient army should take no casualties at all? Is this a resonable assumption given today's world?
Why can't we just realize that in life some things will stay the same. Chariots beating tanks is a way of life. Lets stop complaining about it.
The fact is that the game doesn't know what kind of unit it is. It just knows that a 5 rated offensive unit is going up against a two rated defensive unit. Five to two is five to two whether they are in steel ships or wooden ones. Whether they're on horses or tanks. And don't give me this crock about giving modern units a bye against ancient ones. How fair is that? Get stuck an age or two down and you have no change whatsoever.

 

[WarlordMatt]

To prevent what you're talking about all you've got to do is fidget around with the unit A/D/M stats in the editor, say, crank up a tank's defense to 17 so Cavalry can't kill them.

 

[Moonsinger]

Actually, these problem can be easily solved. Since all units are divided into classes: stone age, middle age, industrial age, modern age. All the programmers have to do is to put a restriction on a unit so that it will always die against a unit of an upper class. For example, a spearman (stone age class) will stand no chance against a tank (industrial class). Sure, they still do some damage points, but the upper class unit will always survive.

 

[God]

Why not just take the loss and accept it.

Why does everybody post their spearman beat tanks, but then don't have their save or had turned off auto save. If you don't have any evidence nobody will believe you. We aren't personal friends who know each other and know that they can trust a person.

 

[friedmad]

anyone forgetting Vietnam vs. U.S.A., or Afghanistan vs. U.S.S.R.?

the 2 most modern armies in the world, and they lose thousands of soldiers to stone-age units (essentially)

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by God
Why not just take the loss and accept it.

Actually, I'm perfectly happy with the way it is. For example, if my spearman could dig a moat deep enough, a tank may get trapped and sunk to the bottom of the moat.

Since it could happen like that in the real world, I have no complain what so ever when an archer kill my tank. Of course, that archer could be Robin Hood (Prince of Thief). And when Robin goes against tank, he will always win. How? Very easily, he just jump down on top of the enemy tank, open the cockpit door and fire arrow recklesly into the defendless crew. No problem at all.

 

[Beam]

Look at it this way: my finest hour in Civ1 was when my regular Trireme took out a veteran Battleship. Whouaaaaah! Can you imagine those guys rowing like hell and striking midships with pantzer crunching power?

 

[Zouave]

"It's not going to change"??

Well, I changed the stupid, moronic, non-historical values of military units, especially the post-gunpowder bunch, in December.

Anyone playing with Firaxis' values is as goofy as they are.

Firaxis already admitted they kept the values of post-gunpowder units ARTIFICIALLY low because of the extreme rarity of resources. Firaxis wanted to give players without those resources "a chance".

So Edit up your military values, and your resource availability. There are plenty of mods posted on the other forum that do this, if you don't know military history.

Problem solved.

 

[Midnight Rider]

Originally posted by friedmad
anyone forgetting Vietnam vs. U.S.A., or Afghanistan vs. U.S.S.R.?

the 2 most modern armies in the world, and they lose thousands of soldiers to stone-age units (essentially)

These "stone age" units had bazookas and M-16's. WE supplied them with these weapons and the training to use them.

It's not like they marched naked into soviet tanks screaming, "OOGA BOOGA!"

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by friedmad
anyone forgetting Vietnam vs. U.S.A., or Afghanistan vs. U.S.S.R.?

the 2 most modern armies in the world, and they lose thousands of soldiers to stone-age units (essentially)

Oh, brother.

Public education, God help us.


(They had the most modern weapons, people, including Stinger missiles, RPG's, and T-62 tanks in the case of the Vietnamese army).

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Zouave




Oh, brother.

Public education, God help us.


(They had the most modern weapons, people, including Stinger missiles, RPG's, and T-62 tanks in the case of the Vietnamese army).

Do you mean to say that when that American on the boat got killed by a spearman from the woods that wasn't a historically accurate scene in Apocalypse Now!!!???? My faith in Hollywood has suffered a mortal blow....

Seriously, though, a lot of Americans got hurt by low-tech weapons (traps etc.) in Vietnam. The human body is quite vulnerable.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Zouave
"It's not going to change"??

Well, I changed the stupid, moronic, non-historical values of military units, especially the post-gunpowder bunch, in December.

Anyone playing with Firaxis' values is as goofy as they are.

Hi Zouave, thanks for setting the record straight, since I think the game is better with the original combat resolution, and don't have exactly the same taste as you, then I must be goofy.
Something like different, but still valid opinions don't exist in your world, does it.

I do however agree that the values of the military units are not historical, but neither is regularly seeing battles between tanks and spearmen - nor most of the other aspects of the game.

To me, it is more realistic that even the weakest army has some (very slim) chance to beat off the best, and it certainly makes for a better game to me, just overrunning the enemy without any tension when I have a tech lead. But what do I know who's so goofy that I don't agree with you?
[/B][/QUOTE]

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne

Hi Zouave, thanks for setting the record straight, since I think the game is better with the original combat resolution, and don't have exactly the same taste as you, then I must be goofy.
Something like different, but still valid opinions don't exist in your world, does it.

I do however agree that the values of the military units are not historical, but neither is regularly seeing battles between tanks and spearmen - nor most of the other aspects of the game.

To me, it is more realistic that even the weakest army has some (very slim) chance to beat off the best, and it certainly makes for a better game to me, just overrunning the enemy without any tension when I have a tech lead. But what do I know who's so goofy that I don't agree with you?

That's my feeling on the values as well. I look at the names as only labels describing the what the unit was when it first became available to build. Also remember that spearman unit isn't the same unit it was when it was originally created. There have been generations of fighters in that unit, since it has been around for millenia and you are telling me that the new soldiers who have joined the unit haven't upgraded their techniques and weaponary at least somewhat with the times?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by friedmad
anyone forgetting Vietnam vs. U.S.A., or Afghanistan vs. U.S.S.R.?

the 2 most modern armies in the world, and they lose thousands of soldiers to stone-age units (essentially)

if you compare civ3 to that, you have to take a civ game where you try something like put troops next to enemies border, never attack, do not fortify. You`d loose a lot more then.
The US never tried to win Vietnam in a conventinal way, and Russia vs Afgha is the guerilla thing which civ3 simply doesn`t have.....

 

[zeeter]

Zouave wrote:
-------------------------------------------------
Well, I changed the stupid, moronic, non-historical values of military units, especially the post-gunpowder bunch, in December.
-------------------------------------------------


So then basically.......you cheat?

 

[DaSilva]

He isnt cheating cause all the other civs get to use the same modified units as well. (I dont know if your post was tounge in cheek but there didnt appear to be any smilies )

He has just modded the game mechanics so it plays better in the modern era when up against backward civilisations.

 

[zeeter]

The lack of smiles was intentional.

Who playtested this method? Did he modify the source-code for the AI so that civs would know that they need to have modern technology by the modern age or they lose?

Here's my best analogy. The Americans vs. the Native Americans. Americans being any european settlement for the purpose of this argument. The Americans were modern, if not enlightened, while the Native Americans were very enlightened, but not modern. Yet it took almost four hundred years before Americans could sleep without fear of attack somewhere in the country or its territories.

According to the rules presented in this thread, the English should have simply landed and whenever they encountered Native Americans, the NA's would simply disapear.

Well, to go along with these rules, the Native Americans would have to know well in advance that they should ignore enlightenment and concentrate on technologies that will keep them in line militarily.

It is doubtful that Firaxis put any logic in the game which says, if the user changes the stats of modern weapons for a game so that they can wipe out any ancient civ, change the goals of civs that would be ancient so that they concentrate on military technology.

Look, someone can play the game whatever way they want, but if you've changed the rules then you're not playing by the rules.

 

[Beam]

Originally posted by DaSilva
He isnt cheating cause all the other civs get to use the same modified units as well. (I dont know if your post was tounge in cheek but there didnt appear to be any smilies )

He has just modded the game mechanics so it plays better in the modern era when up against backward civilisations.

One more reason Zouave isn't cheating: the whole CFC community is aware of it

 

[sealman]

Put it this way... who cares?
If you are getting upset that your modern units are getting beat by ancient units on a regular basis, then something is wrong. You are playing on a too easy level. Period... end of story...

Next topic please.

 

[roadwarrior]

Originally posted by zeeter


Here's my best analogy. The Americans vs. the Native Americans. Americans being any european settlement for the purpose of this argument. The Americans were modern, if not enlightened, while the Native Americans were very enlightened, but not modern. Yet it took almost four hundred years before Americans could sleep without fear of attack somewhere in the country or its territories.

I live in Massachusetts, very close to Plymouth, as in Plymouth Rock, as in the Mayflower, as in 1620. And I am fairly certain that in 2020 people in my town will not be petrified of being scalped by rampaging bands of Iroquois. I am not particularly concerned at the moment. In the late 19th century, there were still instances of Indian(Native American) attacks, although they were not nearly as common as you appear to believe. But that is still not 400 years after the first settlement. (Jamestown, 1607) Also, the Native Americans were largely confined to reservations, by the, surprise, US Army. So superior military technology was definitely a key factor in that conflict.

And if you persist in believing that primitive technology can stand up to and beat superior weaponry, then I invite you to look at the wave of Imperialism in the late 1800's. In a very VERY short period of time the European powers completely subjugated much of Asia and Africa with their superior weaponry. The massacres of European armies are very much the exception rather than the rule.

Getting back on topic...
Well, quite frankly some of the values in Civ3 are ridiculous. I am tempted to scream at my computer or rip out my CD-ROM whevever my modern army gets held up by two pikemen or something along those lines. I don't really mind the occasional losses, but sometimes it does get on my nerves. This problem did not seem to crop up nearly as often in Civ2...