I am in a war right now (playing as Rome) with the Egytians. The thing I do not understand is how do Longbows take out Calvary, or how do swordsmen take out Calvary. This has happened several times, several times while my cav was on a mountain? What is up? Also what does it take to get a leader. None of my elite units ever turns into one?
My Cav getting killed by LB's and Swords
- Thread starter chaucer
- Start date
Ok, I went to the combat calculator. Unless I am reading it wrong my elite calv with defence 3 should win 73 % of the time against thier elite lb with attack 4 when I am on a mountain. I just do not see this happening.
Ironikinit
Prince
You seemed to miss the most important tip in Cro's note: take some defensive units with you.
It's a bummer that you lost a cavalry unit, but you're going to see things a lot odder than the better than 1 in 4 odds of a longbow whacking a cav on a mountain coming through if you play long enough.
1 in 4 happens all the time due to the frequency of combat.
It's a bummer that you lost a cavalry unit, but you're going to see things a lot odder than the better than 1 in 4 odds of a longbow whacking a cav on a mountain coming through if you play long enough.
1 in 4 happens all the time due to the frequency of combat.
Goat_Guy
God of my own planet....
There have been MANY topics involving the unrealistic combat in civ3...like tanks dying when attacking spearman(haha,never happened yet to me
) What i did to solve that problem is raise the def. and attack values of EVERYTHING by 33%(rounded up) It makes a great efect, cuase the later units such as cavalry, which would "normaly" never die to pikeman, well.. they just dont anymore
Just a sugestion to try to improve your gameplay
) What i did to solve that problem is raise the def. and attack values of EVERYTHING by 33%(rounded up) It makes a great efect, cuase the later units such as cavalry, which would "normaly" never die to pikeman, well.. they just dont anymore Just a sugestion to try to improve your gameplaysimwiz2
Warlord
"What i did to solve that problem is raise the def. and attack values of EVERYTHING by 33%(rounded up) It makes a great efect, cuase the later units such as cavalry, which would "normaly" never die to pikeman, well.. they just dont anymore Just a sugestion to try to improve your gameplay"
Multiplying the numbers of all the units by the same amount shouldnt change anything if i understand combat correctly. Awhile back i thought it would work too, and it seemed to according to the civcalculator. But this was because the modified defense (defense after fortified, terrain etc) did not change automatically when i multiplied the stats in the civulator, giving me skewed results.
What i did to fix combat was i made musketmen 3/5/1, riflemen 7/9/1, cavalry 7/4/3, infantry 11/17/1, tanks 24/12/2, mech inf 30/48/3, and modern armor 54/30/3, and a few other changes. I doubled unit hps to reduce string results. And i increased terrain and fortified defense bonuses, to make the game harder. No more 1-turn blitzes wiping out an entire AI civ. Now its necessary to bring artillery, and actually fight a real war
.
Note that with ships the 50% increase to industrial and 100% increase to modern units does not really apply. MUCH more of a change is needed to even approach realism. Battleships need to be something like 55/40/5 so that caravels dont beat them anymore!
Multiplying the numbers of all the units by the same amount shouldnt change anything if i understand combat correctly. Awhile back i thought it would work too, and it seemed to according to the civcalculator. But this was because the modified defense (defense after fortified, terrain etc) did not change automatically when i multiplied the stats in the civulator, giving me skewed results.
What i did to fix combat was i made musketmen 3/5/1, riflemen 7/9/1, cavalry 7/4/3, infantry 11/17/1, tanks 24/12/2, mech inf 30/48/3, and modern armor 54/30/3, and a few other changes. I doubled unit hps to reduce string results. And i increased terrain and fortified defense bonuses, to make the game harder. No more 1-turn blitzes wiping out an entire AI civ. Now its necessary to bring artillery, and actually fight a real war
.Note that with ships the 50% increase to industrial and 100% increase to modern units does not really apply. MUCH more of a change is needed to even approach realism. Battleships need to be something like 55/40/5 so that caravels dont beat them anymore!
Zouave
Crusader
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,603
As a rule of thumb I would say that. . .
1. Musketman. fortified, should stop Mounted Warriors and even knights MOST of the time. Adjust their defense factor accordingly.
2. Knights should be 5.2.2. (4.3 is way too strong on defense).
3. Cavalry (with rifles) should be 6.4.3,
4. Riflemen, fortified, should stop cavalry MOST of the time.
5. Longbowmen attacking riflemen should have almost no chance.
6. Frigates should almost always sink caravels and galleys.
And so on.
The LWC mod on Completed Mods forum has some good unit values. Worth a look.
1. Musketman. fortified, should stop Mounted Warriors and even knights MOST of the time. Adjust their defense factor accordingly.
2. Knights should be 5.2.2. (4.3 is way too strong on defense).
3. Cavalry (with rifles) should be 6.4.3,
4. Riflemen, fortified, should stop cavalry MOST of the time.
5. Longbowmen attacking riflemen should have almost no chance.
6. Frigates should almost always sink caravels and galleys.
And so on.
The LWC mod on Completed Mods forum has some good unit values. Worth a look.
Fanny Brice
Prince
I rarely have these types of problems.
Look at your tactics first instead of making the game easier to play. A lot of people make the claim of "historical"... bah! It is play balance. Historically, you will never face a tank vs. spearman situation. Just consider the spearman a very poorly equiped ground unit. And what fun would it be to have near 100% certainty that your advanced unit would beat the unadvanced unit? I've never lost a tank to a spearman... or experienced anything else that outlandish. Tactics!
Your problem with LB vs. Cav has been identified... you need to change your tactics and bring some defensive units with you. Some bombardment units would help too. You can even pack some workers and create your own fortifications in enemy territory.
-- --
I've seen the figures on getting a great leader somewhere. I think your elite unit has something like a 1 in 16 chance of creating a leader. To better your chance... attack first with Vet units and save your elites to knock of the guys "in the red" with only 1 hit point left. Over a few turns (if you are winning) you'll end up with a few more elite units and get more cracks at getting a leader. Build the Heroic Epic if available, too.
Look at your tactics first instead of making the game easier to play. A lot of people make the claim of "historical"... bah! It is play balance. Historically, you will never face a tank vs. spearman situation. Just consider the spearman a very poorly equiped ground unit. And what fun would it be to have near 100% certainty that your advanced unit would beat the unadvanced unit? I've never lost a tank to a spearman... or experienced anything else that outlandish. Tactics!
Your problem with LB vs. Cav has been identified... you need to change your tactics and bring some defensive units with you. Some bombardment units would help too. You can even pack some workers and create your own fortifications in enemy territory.
-- --
I've seen the figures on getting a great leader somewhere. I think your elite unit has something like a 1 in 16 chance of creating a leader. To better your chance... attack first with Vet units and save your elites to knock of the guys "in the red" with only 1 hit point left. Over a few turns (if you are winning) you'll end up with a few more elite units and get more cracks at getting a leader. Build the Heroic Epic if available, too.
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
but Riflmen attacking Longbowmen should get seriously hurt each time at least! a 1 defence for LB is ridiculous - after all they can fire and fire and fire while the other guy has to close..... remeber the Civil War - Longbows have in the hands of trained bowmen a greater effective range than early rifles since they are more accurate and an arrow at long distance has more penetrating power than the old bullets.....
so what we`d actually need is a higher defence bonus for Archer of any kind in open terrain + high ground where they can see attacker from far away, and a defence reduction in forests and so on....
Maleficence
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2002
- Messages
- 45
I was always annoyed by this since the first civ game, I just couldn't fathom a lil phalanx sinking my great battleship. I dunno maybe they lodged a rock in its nuclear reactor or something. 
So anyways, I also went into the editor and did the following:
I divided the units into rough eras. The warriors were on an era all of their own, then the next up: spearmen, chariots were giving a point boost in def and atk respectively.
Next on, were swordmen and horsemen. These I also increased one point each in attack and defense, if I'm not mistaken.
What this does is make it advantageous to upgrade units and it gives them a bit of an edge over the much cheaper and less impressive warrior unit.
The next step was taking into account the spearman and swordman as the standard combat units I started basing all my calculations for the next units on their stats. Basically, for every new warfare era I multiplied the previous era's stats by 2. So a pikeman has 6 defense instead of 3. Likewise the next defensive unit in the chain has 12 defense, and so forth, until the mech inf has some 40 something defense (don't have the editor open at the moment so I can't check the stats atm) BUT, I also increase the attack and defense of other units in that same era commesurately.
What this does is very simple it makes the odds between units in the same era roughly the same. So, a swordman's chances versus a spearman are about the same as a knight's chances versus a pikeman. (roughly) But a swordman's chances versus a pikeman are severely dimished due to the x2 era multiplier, almost halving it's chance of succeding. This trend continues until the lowest units have about a .168% chance of killing a tank or other modern unit. Which is well within acceptable limits.
The one exception to this rule I made was with infantry and tanks. I consider them as half step, as they're quickly followed by the modern armor and mech inf. So the mech inf and modern armor are only 50% stronger than these units, instead of the usual 100% increase.
Simple put you're creating a warfare pyramid, where units fighting within the same level have fair odds versus eachother, but units attack from different levels suffer big penalties.
Hope this might give people some ideas or suggestions if they decide to tinker with the units. It's fairly straightforward and easy to do, you just multiply the units given by your era multiplier and put those new numbers into the editor
So anyways, I also went into the editor and did the following:
I divided the units into rough eras. The warriors were on an era all of their own, then the next up: spearmen, chariots were giving a point boost in def and atk respectively.
Next on, were swordmen and horsemen. These I also increased one point each in attack and defense, if I'm not mistaken.
What this does is make it advantageous to upgrade units and it gives them a bit of an edge over the much cheaper and less impressive warrior unit.
The next step was taking into account the spearman and swordman as the standard combat units I started basing all my calculations for the next units on their stats. Basically, for every new warfare era I multiplied the previous era's stats by 2. So a pikeman has 6 defense instead of 3. Likewise the next defensive unit in the chain has 12 defense, and so forth, until the mech inf has some 40 something defense (don't have the editor open at the moment so I can't check the stats atm) BUT, I also increase the attack and defense of other units in that same era commesurately.
What this does is very simple it makes the odds between units in the same era roughly the same. So, a swordman's chances versus a spearman are about the same as a knight's chances versus a pikeman. (roughly) But a swordman's chances versus a pikeman are severely dimished due to the x2 era multiplier, almost halving it's chance of succeding. This trend continues until the lowest units have about a .168% chance of killing a tank or other modern unit. Which is well within acceptable limits.
The one exception to this rule I made was with infantry and tanks. I consider them as half step, as they're quickly followed by the modern armor and mech inf. So the mech inf and modern armor are only 50% stronger than these units, instead of the usual 100% increase.
Simple put you're creating a warfare pyramid, where units fighting within the same level have fair odds versus eachother, but units attack from different levels suffer big penalties.
Hope this might give people some ideas or suggestions if they decide to tinker with the units. It's fairly straightforward and easy to do, you just multiply the units given by your era multiplier and put those new numbers into the editor
simwiz2
Warlord
"Look at your tactics first instead of making the game easier to play"
It's not about easier or harder. Its about strategy vs luck. And it isnt right that swordsmen commonly take out cavalry, or that frigates can cost-effectively beat a battleship (this is in my experience before i modded my copy, dont come on here and say "post a savegame" or "stop whining thats an exaggeration")
Maybe I misinterpreted your post but are you saying that anyone who doesnt like the current combat system must be bad at civ3? Because there is a big difference between "whaaa! the AI just beat me and conquered my cities" AND "WHY can these ancient swords kill these people with civil war rifles?"
It's not about easier or harder. Its about strategy vs luck. And it isnt right that swordsmen commonly take out cavalry, or that frigates can cost-effectively beat a battleship (this is in my experience before i modded my copy, dont come on here and say "post a savegame" or "stop whining thats an exaggeration")
Maybe I misinterpreted your post but are you saying that anyone who doesnt like the current combat system must be bad at civ3? Because there is a big difference between "whaaa! the AI just beat me and conquered my cities" AND "WHY can these ancient swords kill these people with civil war rifles?"
Originally posted by Maleficence
I was always annoyed by this since the first civ game, I just couldn't fathom a lil phalanx sinking my great battleship. I dunno maybe they lodged a rock in its nuclear reactor or something.
NO! NO! NO! Battleships do NOT have nuclear reactors!
The battleships have always used steam in the modern era(sail before that).
The ONLY ships that have Nuclear propulsion are Subs, Aircraft carriers and a few cruisers (most of which have been decommisioned).
Vern
Goat_Guy
God of my own planet....
Since it IS noncense that a frigate can sink a battleship, Plutark made the LONG WINDED CHANGES mod to fix that. A battlehip is now 95\87\7!! And a little galleon is only 4\4\3....that should fix that problem!!
AND- a SUPER battleship..which is a new upgrade from the battle ship is now 110\100\8
AND- a SUPER battleship..which is a new upgrade from the battle ship is now 110\100\8
Maleficence
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2002
- Messages
- 45
Vern,
I know they dont' have nuclear reactors
It was just a joke type thing... you know, totally on the silly side!
Battleships are from an era before nuclear power was used in naval vessels and most of them were decommissioned once that power source came into use. But my idea was basically, some strange random event had to happen for my battleship to be sunk by a little phalanx
I know they dont' have nuclear reactors
It was just a joke type thing... you know, totally on the silly side! Battleships are from an era before nuclear power was used in naval vessels and most of them were decommissioned once that power source came into use. But my idea was basically, some strange random event had to happen for my battleship to be sunk by a little phalanx
One thing you can do as well is give the Archer a bombard strength, range 0. This will give it a free shot against any unit attacking it. It's only good for 1 hit point of damage, but that might just be all you need. Adding ZoC would help as well.
Ironikinit
Prince
Longbows and archers' numbers are obviously attempts to encourage combined arms. Missle troops are good on D irl but in the game they made them with a weak D so that a player can't just crank them out exclusively. As it is, the AI makes good use of them from my experience, but I hardly bother. Horsemen have the same A as the archer and knights have the same A as the longbow, so they become a unit either not built at all or built only when resources are lacking.
Further, they can't upgrade, and only one civ uses that line for the UU. A bit useless.
Further, they can't upgrade, and only one civ uses that line for the UU. A bit useless.
Lt. 'Killer' M.
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2001
- Messages
- 7,475
I`ve refrained from modding until now, wanted to see if I could live with the unchanged values. But last night I had such incredibly bad luck that I`ll now tripple HP - and while I`m at it I`ll change a/d values, too. So thanx for the tip!
Carbon_Copy
Elemental
I think that's what they're there for. What are you going to do for offense if the map you've drawn has no iron, horses, and/or saltpeter in your territory? That's what those longbows are for, to give the resource-less civ some bare bones tools to acquire what they need through war in the ancient and middle ages.
It's also somewhat the same reasoning behind why the rifleman doesn't require resources, so if a civ gets knocked off their resource tiles when they're losing a war they don't revert to building spearmen in the Industrial age (at which point they might as well give up...with the ability to build artillery and riflemen, you have a chance to fight back and retake that rubber or oil or saltpeter...if you can only build pikes or spears vs. tanks or infantry, what's the point?).
