So...war seems to suck.

[KillerCardinal]

Well, I've already stated my position on whether this stuff's suggested. Suffice to say I disagree that the cultural bonus and defense bonus suggests all those things occurring.

Out of curiosity, what DOES the cultural defense bonus suggest to you?
I'm not trying to be combatative here, I'm seriously interested in your take on it.

 

[Yzen Danek]

Possible? Yes. Unlikely? Very. Especially if the tank is backed up with infantry, the hatch is closed and locked, or the tank crew has sidearms (which most do). I can come up with all manner of ridiculous but possible events that'd lead to [insert high tech unit] being defeated by [insert low tech unit], but the game isn't really showing those. To the extent that it is, it should be a really really miniscule chance.

There's just a lot that you are taking too literally, not just the representation of the numbers of men involved in these conflicts.

The units are symbolic, not literal. A tank being beaten by a spearman is not an armored division against men with pointed sticks standing in a phalanx formation. It is an armored division against a poorly-equipped group of infantry. In the modern era, even an formally-unarmed military group is going to be in possession of small arms, simple explosives (molotovs), etc., and have basic tools at their disposal to set traps.

And such a group of people could undoubtedly defeat a tank under just the right conditions. That is what the combat odds represent; the entire spectrum of conditions. If a 'spearman' has a 2% chance to beat a tank, that is because of a set of conditions that plays out extremely poorly for the tank. It may be bound in mud, its cannon may misfire, it may have mechanical failure. These things happen in warfare. The 'spearman' being in home territory rightfully increases their chance at producing such a condition.

 

[Yzen Danek]

How about even suggested. The "hiding behind the trees" thing is suggested by the +50% forest bonus. NOTHING in the game suggests the situations anyone's described here (mechanical breakdown, killing the crews on the ground, lucky shot, hopping on the tank and stabbing the crew after prying the hatch open, hordes of angry pygmies attacking, etc.). In fact, what you're saying is what I'm ASKING for -- put something in the game that might suggest how exactly these things occur.

Except that an elegant game needs simplicity. What you want is to bog down what is supposed to be an abstraction simulating both history and combat into something where no imagination is needed, where everything is explicit, where every eventually is spelled out for you perfectly because you refuse to accept the abstraction. The mechanics of the game work perfectly and allow for all sorts of possibilities. You seem to be the only one here that has a problem with that abstraction.

How does a mere pawn beat an armored knight in Chess? Are you disappointed with the game of chess for this clear absurdity?

It seems like what you need more than a change to the game is something as simple as a paragraph in the game manual explaining that this is what they had in mind.

Machines break down. Guns misfire. Civilians set traps. Weather kills troops. None of these things happen explicitly in the game of Civilization. But all of these things are in there, implicit to the combat odds. It's all elegantly rolled in there. You just won't accept it.

 

[Solo4114]

My sense of the cultural bonus is that it stands for the developed nature of the city perhaps with a little extra psychological impetus to defend your homeland. The more "connected" you are with you culture, the more you'll want to defend it. More than that, though, I think it's how developed the city is.

IE: it's a lot easier to defend a city that hasn't been reduced to rubble because of bombardment.

As far as the "spearmen in the modern age would have small arms", I disagree with this. I don't think anything in the game points to this, and in fact, the game actually seems to point away from that (to me anyway). It's one thing if you're discussing a civilization that actually HAS entered the modern era, and simply hasn't upgraded its military infrastructure. In that case, I'd be a lot more willing to accept the argument that there's some irregular equipment among the soldiers, but that officially they haven't received proper modern weaponry.

On the other hand, it's a totally different scenario when you're dealing with a civilization that's still in the medieval era, or perhaps the renaissance era. In those situations, why WOULD they have access to such equipment? If it's through trade with other civs, great, but something should show that.

It's because of this -- the notion that a medieval-era civilization would be fielding units that could actually stand up to a unit of tanks -- that I take issue with the cultural and terrain bonuses as applied currently. The 2% chance of defeat by the tank I'm willing to accept and chalk up to mechanical failure or whatever (though I'd prefer that the game actually model something like this). But from what was explained to me earlier in the thread here, a longbow unit can be boosted by promotions and cultural defense up to the level of a tank with no bonuses itself (or thereabouts).

And if that applies to a medieval-era civilization, I take issue with it. That's why I suggested the game take this kind of thing into account. You can say that the tech of the units is so disparate that the usual bonuses don't apply to the old-tech unit. Or you can apply that calculation based on what era the civilization is in. IE: Modern era romans who still have an "honor guard" of praetorians could conceivably have irregular weaponry among that honor guard when the city is invaded. They just haven't been outfitted fully with modern weaponry by the government, but they're still capable of fighting using modern tactics, and with some limited modern weaponry. On the other hand, when the civ in question is actually still stuck in the medieval or classical or whatever era, you calculate the difference between the eras of the attacking and defending civs. If it's past a certain point, you either apply a new bonus, or don't apply what bonuses would normally apply if they were of the same era -- even if the units themselves are of different eras.

 

[Solo4114]

Except that an elegant game needs simplicity. What you want is to bog down what is supposed to be an abstraction simulating both history and combat into something where no imagination is needed, where everything is explicit, where every eventually is spelled out for you perfectly because you refuse to accept the abstraction. The mechanics of the game work perfectly and allow for all sorts of possibilities. You seem to be the only one here that has a problem with that abstraction.

How does a mere pawn beat an armored knight in Chess? Are you disappointed with the game of chess for this clear absurdity?

It seems like what you need more than a change to the game is something as simple as a paragraph in the game manual explaining that this is what they had in mind.

Machines break down. Guns misfire. Civilians set traps. Weather kills troops. None of these things happen explicitly in the game of Civilization. But all of these things are in there, implicit to the combat odds. It's all elegantly rolled in there. You just won't accept it.

You're right I won't accept that that's what's going on because it strikes me as a cop-out response -- especially when they ARE adding in plenty of other explicit things LIKE the forest bonus. And maybe I am the only one who feels this way, but frankly, so what? Just because you're the lone dissenter doesn't mean the dissent is wrong. I happen to think I'm right and that this is something that should -- and could relatively easily -- be addressed. I don't see how it'd bog down the game by "not requiring any more imagination."

Look, we went from Civ 1 where it was simple win/loss calculations to Civ 4 where you now have unit health, promotions, terrain bonuses and penalties, etc. What I still don't get is why people are resistant to adding in factors that calculate tech disparity or era disparity. I'm not saying add in every single one of the "one in a million" scenarios people suggested. I'm saying if they want them in, they can be added. But there IS a more simple and elegant way to do this and it's a basic check on what level the techs are at and how far apart they are. Or you can break things down a bit further and add in something like "immune to melee" for tanks and gunships or "Requires gunpowder unit to kill" or somesuch.

My point has not been that I want every single thing I've suggested added in. I'm saying that you CAN add it in if people want to say "Oh THIS is why it happened. Alternatively, you can just say "When your technology is 2 eras ahead of the other civilization's technology, bonuses no longer apply to combat." Or "When the unit is two eras ahead, bonuses do not apply." Once you do that, you pretty much eliminate the stuff I have a problem with.

If folks want to add the other stuff in too, great. I'm for it. I think it adds complexity and depth to the game. Supply lines, mechanical breakdown, friendly fire, etc. would all make warfare more complex and -- to me -- more interesting. They're not NEEDED, really, but they could be cool to add. You could even include them as variations. I seem to recall Civ 2 or 3 allowed you to fight under "old rules" where combat was either/or or to fight under "new rules" where you had unit health as part of the calculus. You could do the same with this kind of stuff.

 

[Mr. Nice]

What I still don't get is why people are resistant to adding in factors that calculate tech disparity or era disparity.

Because that is already factored in by the inherently higher strength of higher tech units. Gunpowder and later units also already ignore the defence bonus from city walls/castle, and the odds of pre gunpowder units against tanks is still at most only a couple of percent at best (assuming full health).

 

[Solo4114]

That's not the story I've heard in here, at least if you factor in city culture bonuses. From what I've heard -- which seems to jive with what I've seen -- units in a +80% culture city get their terrain and culture bonuses, plus their city defense bonuses or whatever, to the point where they can be up to par with a tank (or whatever unit you're talking about). Never mind the fact that the units in question are using medieval weapons and/or are from a medieval civ. Sure the tank may win, but it'll take some decent damage in the process. So while gunpowder units ignore castles and walls, they're still not as powerful -- when up against pre-gunpowder units -- as I think they should be.

At this point, though, I think continuing to debate the rightness or wrongness of this is pointless. It's obvious that I disagree with many people here and view the game as flawed. They view it as just fine and nothing either of us says to the other is -- at this point -- going to sway us one way or the other.

I'm happy to discuss why one mechanism would work better than another if something was to be changed, but I think I'm about done with the whole "I think it should change somehow" vs. "NO! We think it should stay exactly like it is!" debate.

 

[naterator]

I agree, this is a stupid thread. Until you can prove that a well trained unit of ancient spearman couldnt kill a unit of tanks on the very odd occasion (i.e. go invent a time machine) then I think the game works fine, without being too complicated to play and develop. This isnt after all a war game.

you can't prove a negative. at least to the point of absolute certainty. it would be better to ask someone to prove a spearman could defeat a tank, and as solo has repeatedly said, except in the case of overwhelming numbers (which isn't the case in question), they really don't stand a chance. if spearmen carried sidearms, they wouldn't call them spearmen anymore, nor would they continue to carry that heavy spear. i like the idea of the cultural defense implying an underground resistance, i think of it like that myself, but he's right, it's all in our heads... it's a side story we've come up with to fill in the gaps, at least i've seen no mention of it in the game or manual. i'm ok with the vagueness, even if it told you exactly what happened, after about 2 times, you wouldn't even bother to read the message that read "your tank sunk in the swamp" or whatever, it's just another red "you lose" that pops up in the left.

 

[Darkhrse]

Just want to say that I accept and agree with Solo4114's assessment that the game is flawed where its simulation of war is concerned. But I want to go on and say: what war game isn't? Or further than that, simply say: what game isn't flawed in any way?

Civ IV, to me, is first and foremost a strategy game. There is another thread I've just seen where people were discussing the various odds in which they've won or lost a round. To me this clearly says: you can't send a lone tank against a troop of longbowmen--it's suicide. But that's strategy, or more specifically, being tactical.

The point of the game, however, is to have fun and I do have fun playing the game. And I suspect, despite his arguments, Solo4114 continues to have fun with Civ IV.

 

[wylergnu]

you can't prove a negative. at least to the point of absolute certainty. it would be better to ask someone to prove a spearman could defeat a tank...........

Woops, you're right. Thanks for the vocabulary lesson!

 

[cabert]

you can't prove a negative. at least to the point of absolute certainty.

Proving that something is never true is strictly equivalent to proving that the positive is always true.
In this case proving a spear can never beat a tank is exactly the same than proving the tank always beats the spear.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Selous]

i would like to continue on the line that darkhrse was taking .... i think the issue of the spearman v tank issue (personally i am cool with it) is serious and i can see solos point .... in a realistic view of the units, a unit of tanks is going to wipe out a unit of archers or spearmen .... always, without damage, ever ...... how boring is that ... and if you were to add a era bonus or penalty (whatever or even both) then it would be VERY easy to be outclassed on the battlefeild and i beleive make the military tecks way more valuable than they are at the mo ..... and long story short i dont beleive as much fun, it would take out the other opportunities for other victories

anyway that is my take on the disgussion

 

[naterator]

Proving that something is never true is strictly equivalent to proving that the positive is always true.
In this case proving a spear can never beat a tank is exactly the same than proving the tank always beats the spear

sorry, it's more semantics than anything else, but isn't this whole thread? my point is no matter how many spearmen get stuck in the tank treads, the example given of the 1 that invented the time machine (or other event of equal improbability) COULD, in theory, still beat that tank. talk to one of those palestinians throwing rocks at apache helicopters. you could argue tech disparity all day, you won't convince him he can't take it down with that one miracle rock.

 

[Yzen Danek]

You're right I won't accept that that's what's going on because it strikes me as a cop-out response -- especially when they ARE adding in plenty of other explicit things LIKE the forest bonus. And maybe I am the only one who feels this way, but frankly, so what? Just because you're the lone dissenter doesn't mean the dissent is wrong. I happen to think I'm right and that this is something that should -- and could relatively easily -- be addressed. I don't see how it'd bog down the game by "not requiring any more imagination."

Look, we went from Civ 1 where it was simple win/loss calculations to Civ 4 where you now have unit health, promotions, terrain bonuses and penalties, etc. What I still don't get is why people are resistant to adding in factors that calculate tech disparity or era disparity. I'm not saying add in every single one of the "one in a million" scenarios people suggested. I'm saying if they want them in, they can be added. But there IS a more simple and elegant way to do this and it's a basic check on what level the techs are at and how far apart they are. Or you can break things down a bit further and add in something like "immune to melee" for tanks and gunships or "Requires gunpowder unit to kill" or somesuch.

My point has not been that I want every single thing I've suggested added in. I'm saying that you CAN add it in if people want to say "Oh THIS is why it happened. Alternatively, you can just say "When your technology is 2 eras ahead of the other civilization's technology, bonuses no longer apply to combat." Or "When the unit is two eras ahead, bonuses do not apply." Once you do that, you pretty much eliminate the stuff I have a problem with.

If folks want to add the other stuff in too, great. I'm for it. I think it adds complexity and depth to the game. Supply lines, mechanical breakdown, friendly fire, etc. would all make warfare more complex and -- to me -- more interesting. They're not NEEDED, really, but they could be cool to add. You could even include them as variations. I seem to recall Civ 2 or 3 allowed you to fight under "old rules" where combat was either/or or to fight under "new rules" where you had unit health as part of the calculus. You could do the same with this kind of stuff.

Again, what you're after would take an elegant game that has a couple of simple mechanisms that already factor in everything that constitutes the 'friction of war,' and bog it down into something cumbersome and ridiculous, all in the name of realism.

We could say the same for the system of economy: afterall, look at all of the commodities traded throughout history that aren't included in the game! Why can't I trade in salt, or olive oil, or video games?

Why must my commerce decisions be made in increments so large, and why are non-integers truncated? Couldn't the Science slider and beaker and production counts use non-integers to the hundreths?

Why can't I practice Zoroastrianism? Or worship the Greek, Roman, or Nordic pantheons?

Maybe it's because trying to add every single one of those things would be excessive, when the items that are in fact in the game are not meant to be literal, but symbolic.

The Civilization series is and always has been a well-designed computer game first, and a history/combat simulation only second. If you want simulations, a myriad of better simulations are out there. Ask yourself why none of those simulations have ever come close to the popularity of the Civilization series, and then try to restate your argument.

 

[Solo4114]

Just want to say that I accept and agree with Solo4114's assessment that the game is flawed where its simulation of war is concerned. But I want to go on and say: what war game isn't? Or further than that, simply say: what game isn't flawed in any way?

Civ IV, to me, is first and foremost a strategy game. There is another thread I've just seen where people were discussing the various odds in which they've won or lost a round. To me this clearly says: you can't send a lone tank against a troop of longbowmen--it's suicide. But that's strategy, or more specifically, being tactical.

The point of the game, however, is to have fun and I do have fun playing the game. And I suspect, despite his arguments, Solo4114 continues to have fun with Civ IV.

Exactly. The game's still fun to me, and having used the odds calculator now, I run into the problem of "medieval unit beats high tech unit" a lot less often, but I still see a lot of this as a flawed representation which, if fixed, would make the game MORE fun.

Some folks disagree and that's where we end up at loggerheads. When my sense of "fun" and your sense of "fun" simply don't match, well, of course we'll disagree. And that's ok by me.

But I've had this type of debate with people in the past in other games. Sometimes it was "they should add this" and sometimes it was "They should get rid of this and not allow it." To my way of thinking, the simple solution to this is to add OPTIONS to the game.

You can add in all the various minutia and intricate calculations like era differences or mechanical failures or whatever you like as an option. You can add in this or that feature that makes the game more concrete and less abstract, and simply have it as a checkbox in the options menu. If the issue becomes either (a) that it's impossible to code effectively, or (b) adding this or that feature wouldn't be worth it for the amount of manhours it'd take, hey, I can accept that. Making computer games is a business and time is money. If you can't justify the cost, then much as you might want to add a given feature, it's not worth it.

If it CAN be added, though, I see no reason to add it as an option. This way everyone's happy. The folks who want more realism and detail can have it, and the folks who don't can turn it off (or on, depending on the default position). What I don't get is people who don't even want options added to the game, however (assuming that doing so is feasible and economical for development time).

I'll give you an example. I've played Steel Panthers: World at War (actually I started playing the original Steel Panthers and then downloaded WaW years later). This is a fun game that tries to recreate in turn-based manner tactical battles in WWII. You control small armies which are made up of individual tanks grouped in platoons, and platoons of troops grouped into squads. The game has PLENTY of flaws in it, such as order of battle issues (IE: what gear was used in this historical point, what kind of availability was there for that particular item). People debate this stuff on message boards and come up with new OOBs to use. All well and good. The game's still fun either way, though, it's just some people want to play it one way and others want to play it another way. The game is flexible enough to allow this, though (much like Civ 4 allows XML editing). Also good.

One thing that really makes the game enjoyable, though, is the fact that it's got a ton of options for realism addicts and for people who just don't want to deal with hyper realism. For example, you can turn on command & control variables which make it so that you can only issue so many orders in a given turn. Realistically, a general can't give orders to EVERY SINGLE unit in a particular timeframe (say, 15 minutes). The C&C stuff manages this and recreates it in sort of an abstract way. You can also check a box for "mechanical failures" if you want, so that tanks literally CAN lose a tread, have a gun jam, have turret optics go screwy, have an engine breakdown, etc. There's other options like this.

I tend to play with some turned on and some turned off because that's how I like to play. Others are more hard-line about it and play with everything on or everything off. The beauty of it is that you can play how you like.

That's basically what I'm advocating for here. I think Civ 5 (or a future expansion pack) can take this game and make it a ton more realistic, detailed, and complex than it is without (I think) requiring a ton of recoding. I think you can set these things up as options for players to check on or off, and thereby give folks real flexibility in their gaming. So, if you want tech era disparities, great. If you want mechanical breakdowns or just general "supply lines" for warfare, no prob. Just check the box. If you'd rather not deal with it, leave the box unchecked and have at it. If you're running a multiplayer game, establish the rules ahead of time and check what boxes you like.

Civ 2 did this and I thought it was a nice touch. I'm sure there were at least a FEW people who chose the "old civ" approach to combat, just because they liked it better. I think this kind of stuff would be added, and that it'd remove what I perceive as flaws, but still have the option for other people who think the game is perfect as it is to play it as it is right now.

 

[JerichoHill]

The problem that I see with your elegant solution is that it would destroy the game balance. Once one civ got a tech lead, there would be no stopping that civ from steamrolling.

I don't mind abstracting.

For your case, all you would need is a new graphic for ALL units to be displayed whenever YOU the human player entered the next age.

However, I think you're making the game much too complex than it needs to be. Its already an insanely complex game

 

[Solo4114]

Not really. You just have a "behind the scenes" bonus when you're 2 eras ahead or so.

And there's still culture and diplomacy as options for protecting yourself. Make nice with a big tough neighbor if the AI has the ability to steamroll you. Unless, of course, it's Monty, Toku, or Alex. Then you're toast.

 

[JerichoHill]

but then the tech race becomes a race to jump eras, thereby breaking the game balance currently in place with the tech tree.

the CS slingshot becomes HIGHLY overpowered.

 

[Solo4114]

What's CS?

As for the tech race being a race to jump eras, can you jump an era without getting all the techs from that era? I'd think in some ways this would actually slow down tech advancement.

I don't think this would screw up balance, I just think it would change balance or require people to readjust their strategies to take this into account. You wouldn't be able to ignore technology for fear that your opponent would jump too far ahead. Or if they did, you'd have to strongly supplement yourself with diplomacy and/or culture.

REgardless, add it as an option anyway. If people want to turn it off, go for it. If not, let 'em try it.

 

[wylergnu]

I always like to see an underdog win, and I actually sometimes enjoy it when my tank goes down to hardcore unit of longbowmen.