LauriL
prince
Does anyone know where this article is? We need some information how this new combat system actually works.DaLagga said:
Spearman Vs Tanks part 2: Longbowman vs Helicopter gunship
- Thread starter Kenric af Grashen
- Start date
TheNiceOne
Emperor
On a very general scale, yes. Like more food increasing growth, or better military units increasing the chance to win a battle. If you look any more detailed that that, you'll see that the realism fades off.LauriL said:
No. If I send a warrior out behind competing civs, before their expansion totally cuts him off from my land, the warrior still survives for thousands of years, even though it has no contact with my civ.
And even if you're correct, then that's still horribly unrealistic, as no major power of the world have had a standing army thousands of years where they only replace the men, but never upgrade their weapons. That simply doesn't happen in the real world, so such a batlle is unrealistic in itself regardless of outcome.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
Which means that you will lose 1% of the time.DaLagga said:
Even if it's a 99.9% win chance, you will statistically lose 1 out of 1000 such battles. With so many civ players waging war, there are probably much more than 1000 such battles occuring each day, so it is not surprising that some of the players who lose against such odds will come here and complain. A 0.1% chance of losing each battle becomes quite big when there are thousands of battles. Statistically, it's supposed to happen now and then.
LauriL
prince
Yes, you're right. Basically, civ games are quite realistic on a large scale, but if we look at the grass roots level, there isn't much realism. However, if we, the players, want to add more realism to this game, why should it be forbidden? IMHO, there should be far less situations where spearmen (or longbowmen) defeats gunship squadron. It's nothing but tweaking a bit more the combat system.TheNiceOne said:
Civ IV is full of realism, like how real-world civilizations and buildings and units and concepts are represented and approximated in the game instead of utterly fictional and imaginary creations. Some representations influence the feel of realism and immersion more than others, such as unit combat.
Realism is not a problem in chess because the gameplay is not immersive in the sense of realistic warfare, but rather in gamey strategy. Civ IV, however, has the terrain and the units that allow us to associate them with their real-life counterparts, so there are more expectations of how things should work.
Just because we accept a lot of abstracted and unrealistic elements (of course, it's a game!) doesn't mean that certain aspects shouldn't be criticized when they can possibly be tweaked to enhance the realism factor.
Realism is critically important in a game like Civ, or the developers wouldn't waste their time researching history and developing ways to model various real-life concepts. The question is how to balance realism with fun gameplay.
Realism is not a problem in chess because the gameplay is not immersive in the sense of realistic warfare, but rather in gamey strategy. Civ IV, however, has the terrain and the units that allow us to associate them with their real-life counterparts, so there are more expectations of how things should work.
Just because we accept a lot of abstracted and unrealistic elements (of course, it's a game!) doesn't mean that certain aspects shouldn't be criticized when they can possibly be tweaked to enhance the realism factor.
Realism is critically important in a game like Civ, or the developers wouldn't waste their time researching history and developing ways to model various real-life concepts. The question is how to balance realism with fun gameplay.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
I do of course think it's perfectly fine and valid that you or others mod the combat so that newer units automatically win over the older.LauriL said:
The reason I spoke up was to point out that there are many players who think combat is more fun when you don't simply roll over the enemy. In case Firaxis is listening, that is. I though the combat resolution was fine in CIV3 in this regard - the few times my tanks lost against pikemen or so, only made the game a bit more interesting, but only a little bit since I easily would win the war anyway with such a technology lead.
I had this happen too. The funny part was the crossbow bolt graphic intersected the gunship right at the windshield as it crashed. "So THAT'S how they do it!" I was laughing, and then I just artillery/tanked the town mercilessly over and over.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
Those buildings, units and concepts don't work very realistically except in a very general way though. Or can you name one wonder that really has the same effect in real life as in cIV?dyinhere said:
I agree with this, at least to some degree.
And I fully agree that you're entitled to criticize it. But I also think it's important to argue against you when I believe your reasoning is incorrect, at least for me.
It's just that I think that you may well increase the realism factor of that single battle, but it has important negative effects:
1) The game is less fun when I don't need to plan the war just because I have a tech lead.
2) The game actually becomes less realistic. Yes, I really mean that:
If you can point me to one single war throughout the history of the world, where one of the 8 main powers of the world had such a big technology advantage over one of the other 8 main powers, that his army was invulnerable, then you have a small point. (Small, since the remaining wars in history has no such military invulnerability - although I seriously doubt you find even one such war.)
But the fact is that a power has never had so much better military units than another of the world's main powers as is already possible in cIV. So cIV is already unrealistic in this regard. Yes, you may increase the realism of one single battle, at the cost of further decreasing the realism of the war.
I agree with this of course, but as said above, it is highly unrealistic that one power can automatically win a war against another main power, without heavy losses, and what you suggest will only increase this lack of realism.
BTW, please don't bring in the U.S. vs Somalia or whatever backwards country. CIV is, and has always been about the main powers of the world. And if you pit the U.S. against power no. 8 in the real world (whatever that might be), you'll find that any U.S. helicopter would be highly vulnerable in a war. I'm picking the number 8, since that's a pretty average number of civs in a game...
When the early jet propeled aircraft came in service they litteraly oblitirated the propelor counter parts nailing 28 taking 0 casualties.
Its possible for a fighter to take down a yet fighter sure, but with such a small chance and then this is juz a step if 1 unit upgrade.
Longbowman vs Gunship is an 800 years jump in weapons technology. If in real life a little step from propelor to jet engine fighter has created such an enormous advantage then why on earth should a gunship to longbowman be such a little one?
Perhaps i need to learn how to code this stuff and fix some of these odds. Give modern units a (hidden) bonuss to melee, archers and cavalry since there are no modern units with such stats. Give a tank a +200% vs melee units, byebye spearman beat tank. Well its still possible, but the chances for the spearman are so significanlty decreased that its practicly a 1 out of a 100
Or give curtain units a bonuss to specific units, like the Grenadier who has +100% specificly against Rifleman. If that works, then it should work by giving a Gunship +200% vs Longbowman.
Its possible for a fighter to take down a yet fighter sure, but with such a small chance and then this is juz a step if 1 unit upgrade.
Longbowman vs Gunship is an 800 years jump in weapons technology. If in real life a little step from propelor to jet engine fighter has created such an enormous advantage then why on earth should a gunship to longbowman be such a little one?
Perhaps i need to learn how to code this stuff and fix some of these odds. Give modern units a (hidden) bonuss to melee, archers and cavalry since there are no modern units with such stats. Give a tank a +200% vs melee units, byebye spearman beat tank. Well its still possible, but the chances for the spearman are so significanlty decreased that its practicly a 1 out of a 100
Or give curtain units a bonuss to specific units, like the Grenadier who has +100% specificly against Rifleman. If that works, then it should work by giving a Gunship +200% vs Longbowman.
evil_linus
Chieftain
Rambo is the law. Actually I think that "Rambo" should be US UU. And Sylvester Stallone one of the leaders (and Arnold the second, of course). Ehrr.. yeah. that's about it.iammanh said:What's hard to believe is that an arrow can take down helicopter. But if you guys watched rambo movie, you would see he uses "special explosive" arrows.
eldar
ChiefTank
Give helicopters +100% vs. Archery, Melee, and Mounted units. +50% vs. Gunpowder units (unfortunately includes muskets, which would be terribly ineffective against a 'copter, but rifles can be).
The problem with having early-age units be completely unable to fight later-age units is that a technologically inferior opponent will be a complete pushover. The game will be ALL about tech instead of mostly about tech. The point behind it is that even if you do fall behind a little, you can still defend yourself and catch up with sufficient reinforcements. The game would be less interesting if all it took was to throttle your opponent enough to slow his tech so that you could defeat his entire empire with three marines and a tank.
Madryoch
Chieftain
I'm sure that if you were the one with the longbowman who had just defeated a helicopter that was trying to soften up your city for the arrival of enemy infantry you'd be pretty chuffed, eh. 
MerakSpielman
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 217
Tell that to the Ewoks!LauriL said:
Raggamuffin
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 244
Actually the Gunship is severly underpowered. Personally I'd like to see it somewhere between the tank and the modern tank.
jpowers
Emperor
Didn't Rambo take down a helicopter with a bow and arrow? He had the Woodsman II promotion and it wasn't exactly a 'gunship' but if Stallone can do it single-handed, I guess a gang of healthy longbowmen could take down a damaged helicopter...
Colonel Kraken
Deity
warpstorm said:
'Cept in real life.
To TheNiceOne:
First of all, there's no denying that the game strives for realism, which obviously must work within the constraints of a fun and strategic game. Archers are better city defenders than spearmen because it's more realistic. Hills give a defensive bonus over grasslands because it's more realistic. Where realism fits within the goals of the game designers and adds fun and strategy, it is incorporated to the chosen degree.
Some aspects of the game have to be completely abstracted to simulate real-world dynamics on some level or to bolster game mechanics, but that doesn't negate the need and perception of realism in other aspects. For example, it would be perfectly valid to criticize the presence of dinosaurs in the game from 4000BC, even though furs don't give cities +1 happiness in real life.
I am simply disagreeing with your assertion that because the game is unrealistic by whatever measure, then any criticism on the basis of realism is pointless or unjustified.
You made a good point about how you feel about the impact of a strengthened gunship on overall gameplay, and that's what the argument should focus on. I think that a gunship should indeed dominate ancient era units, because if a civ is so backward as to still be fielding longbows, then you should be able to walk all over them with gunships. As it stands, losing a few gunships to longbows won't matter in the grand scheme of your domination, but it does diminish combat realism. And if the whole world is well behind you in tech, then it might be time to play at a higher difficulty level.
A war with gunships vs longbows in Civ IV would simulate the USA attacking a tribe somewhere in real life, so it is realistic in the sense that gunships would slaughter the tribesmen, if not realistic in the sense that the USA would go to war with a tribe in the first place. However, the second kind of realism is irrelevant, because the premise of Civ IV is that history and the timeline is variable. The fact that Russia is 800 years behind you in military tech doesn't make Civ IV unrealistic, as anything can happen regarding the relative growth and power of each civilization. The rules and mechanics should be as realistic as possible, not necessarily the events and outcomes as compared to real history.
There's no need for me to cite a world power that has had a huge technological advantage over the rest of the world comparable to what can happen in Civ IV, because like I said, that kind of realism is irrelevant. If you play the game on settler difficulty, then you will dominate the world like no real civ ever has. If you play at a very high difficulty, then your gunships will not be facing vastly inferior competition. If you play against humans, the situation will also be very different.
First of all, there's no denying that the game strives for realism, which obviously must work within the constraints of a fun and strategic game. Archers are better city defenders than spearmen because it's more realistic. Hills give a defensive bonus over grasslands because it's more realistic. Where realism fits within the goals of the game designers and adds fun and strategy, it is incorporated to the chosen degree.
Some aspects of the game have to be completely abstracted to simulate real-world dynamics on some level or to bolster game mechanics, but that doesn't negate the need and perception of realism in other aspects. For example, it would be perfectly valid to criticize the presence of dinosaurs in the game from 4000BC, even though furs don't give cities +1 happiness in real life.
I am simply disagreeing with your assertion that because the game is unrealistic by whatever measure, then any criticism on the basis of realism is pointless or unjustified.
You made a good point about how you feel about the impact of a strengthened gunship on overall gameplay, and that's what the argument should focus on. I think that a gunship should indeed dominate ancient era units, because if a civ is so backward as to still be fielding longbows, then you should be able to walk all over them with gunships. As it stands, losing a few gunships to longbows won't matter in the grand scheme of your domination, but it does diminish combat realism. And if the whole world is well behind you in tech, then it might be time to play at a higher difficulty level.
A war with gunships vs longbows in Civ IV would simulate the USA attacking a tribe somewhere in real life, so it is realistic in the sense that gunships would slaughter the tribesmen, if not realistic in the sense that the USA would go to war with a tribe in the first place. However, the second kind of realism is irrelevant, because the premise of Civ IV is that history and the timeline is variable. The fact that Russia is 800 years behind you in military tech doesn't make Civ IV unrealistic, as anything can happen regarding the relative growth and power of each civilization. The rules and mechanics should be as realistic as possible, not necessarily the events and outcomes as compared to real history.
There's no need for me to cite a world power that has had a huge technological advantage over the rest of the world comparable to what can happen in Civ IV, because like I said, that kind of realism is irrelevant. If you play the game on settler difficulty, then you will dominate the world like no real civ ever has. If you play at a very high difficulty, then your gunships will not be facing vastly inferior competition. If you play against humans, the situation will also be very different.
Philips beard
Prince
TheNiceOne said:
Good job! I agree in every singel word you've said in this thread, TheNiceOne! I just can't stand these whining spearman vs tank people! I have never seen it as a problem! Making some units totally impossible to kill or damage would kill the fun and realism of CIV!
My experience is that you will almost never lose to ancient units if you plan well, and are good organized. It's just like in the real world, planning is everything, much more important then the lead in technology! I think the whining people in this thread lack organization and the use of combined arms in their wars......
