Strategic depth across the ages

[Grey Knight]

Much has been said about "spearman vs. tank" etc. Soren commented on this in a chat session off 'poly:

[Soren_Johnson_Firaxis] having said that*, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2. This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X

*"That" was that hitpower simply multiplied the A/D value by the hitpower value, so A=10 and HP=2 was the same as A=20 HP=1

So it would seem that spearmen are meant to kill tanks! Which is poor (in gameplay terms) way to deal with the issue. A better way (which would add depth) would be to have units available in each age which don't require resources which can be used in place of the unit(s) requiring resources. In the ancient and middle ages this is already so. If you don't have iron (swordsmen), you can use archers or horses with spearmen. If you still don't have iron in the middle ages you can use longbows and pikes. While not as cost effective, you can still wage war. Early industrial has such a unit - the rifleman - but once you hit infantry (which can be very quickly, if you beeline for Replaceable Parts, which since it also has artillary, why whouldn't you???) you must have rubber. Once you hit the industrial age, you must have both rubber and oil!

Instead of handicapping modern units, round out the gameplay with useful units!

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[dunk]

Good point, but how can you justify making a "tank" that doesn't require oil? All motor vehicles require oil for both fuel and lubrication. No oil, too bad, you gotta use riflemen... or... trade for oil... build tanks while you have it... then secure a source for yourself.

Riflemen can be used if rubber is not available. Not as effective, but en masse they can stop the AI.

Prop planes can be used if aluminum isn't available. Again, not as effective, but en masse they can get the job done. Sorry, but jets can't be constructed out of anything but aluminum (for a reasonable cost), they'll simply fall apart in flight.

I think in the modern age, resources should be more important than in ancient times.

I have only had one instance where oil was unavailable to me. I was able to use my marines and infantry to secure a source.

I think resources add a very interesting twist on the plot. If you dislike being hamstrung, you can edit them out of the game.

 

[sealman]

Right on. Guess you can call it a Slam Dunk.




Sorry.

 

[costanza]

Interesting proposition, Grey Knight. I had always theorized this solution to the tank v spearman fights, but people rarely listen.

I do believe that's probably the only way to make it right. I don't, however, think that it actually will be changed, though I don't see that it would be really hard to add 10 or so more units to the game.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by costanza
Interesting proposition, Grey Knight. I had always theorized this solution to the tank v spearman fights, but people rarely listen.

I do believe that's probably the only way to make it right. I don't, however, think that it actually will be changed, though I don't see that it would be really hard to add 10 or so more units to the game.

When this debate first raised its head last year, that was along my way of thinking. However, I also took head to so something that the developers put in the beginning of the manual. That their goal with this sequal was not to do the usual thing and further complicate the game, but to add features and keep things simple at the same time.

In which case if a unit was simply supposed to be the indrustrial age equivelent of the swordsman, why put in a new unit? As you know have 2 units that are exactly the same, just for different eras.

I don't exactly agree with their decision. However in terms of keeping things simple, what could easily be done would be to have added age specific graphics to these "base" units. Hence the idea is that in the modern, the swordsman is not some guy running around with a sword, but instead with a gun and maybe some grenades. At the sametime an era modifier could be applied to combat. Say a 50% if the other party is of a lower era, or something more refined.

This way you do not overly penalize someone for not having access to a strategic resource, like they were trying to do. While at the sametime removing the illusion of a swordsman defeating a tank and giving an era bonus for whipping out those middle age civs when you are in the modern era.

 

[john heidle]

Why can't swordsmen and archers upgrade to riflemen?
That's the thing that makes no sense to me.
Riflemen require NO RESOURCES, so an upgrade path from archers and swordsmen groups to riflemen seems to be sensible.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by john heidle
Why can't swordsmen and archers upgrade to riflemen?

If I had to guess, I would say because swordsmen and archers/longbowmen are offensive units and riflemen are defensive.

 

[Creepster]

I have been listening to the tank vs. spearmen complaint for a while now and have wanted to make a comment on it. In theory the speaman can defeat the tank, not just by the numbers either. While the tank does have the advantage over the spearmen, you really cannot rule out someone using a cunning defense to win a battle against a unit, especially if the superior unit is damaged. This is an area that cannot be played in the game, but I feel is balanced by the remote numerical chance that the defending spearmen is given. As an example a few weeks ago a group of Palestinians succefully destroyed one of the Israel tanks. (Please no Politics) This is similar to the same setup of spearmen vs tanks. While it should not happen often, it can be done. I am sure if you look at WWII there were a few rare instances where the almost unarmed defenders destroyed one or two of the advancing Panzer tanks. Again it should not happen often, but it does and can happen.

 

[sealman]

What ticks me off is that people whine when their tanks lose to a spearman. Yeah that would upset me a little but then I would realize that I have tanks and they don't.

 

[Grey Knight]

Originally posted by dunk
Good point, but how can you justify making a "tank" that doesn't require oil? All motor vehicles require oil for both fuel and lubrication. No oil, too bad, you gotta use riflemen... or... trade for oil... build tanks while you have it... then secure a source for yourself.

I don't want a tank. If Modern Armor is the modern equivilent of the swordsman, I want a modern equivilent of the archer+spearman combo. I figure an attack of 16 or so, a defense of 10, and a total cost (I assume two units) of about 150.

Riflemen can be used if rubber is not available. Not as effective, but en masse they can stop the AI.

True. Given the current combat model, if you bring along enough bombardment units you can have good odds of winning almost any battle. A 4HP rifleman has a 45% chance of taking out a fortified 1HP Mech Infantry. Using Riflemen in the industrial age is fine currently, however I think a new unit should be available fairly early in the modern age.

Prop planes can be used if aluminum isn't available. Again, not as effective, but en masse they can get the job done. Sorry, but jets can't be constructed out of anything but aluminum (for a reasonable cost), they'll simply fall apart in flight.

This isn't about realism, it's about gameplay. I don't think airpower is out of wack anyway.

I think in the modern age, resources should be more important than in ancient times.

Hmm . . . do you think having units which are less effective and cost more to build cause the resource to be unimportant? As it is, not having oil in the modern age means your simply out of the game.

I have only had one instance where oil was unavailable to me. I was able to use my marines and infantry to secure a source.

Marines and infantry both require rubber. What would you have done if you had to field Riflemen and cannons against Mech Infantry? And what would have happened if you weren't able to take the oil? If the AI could defend (and when we get MP, a human can defend!), you would have been out of luck!

I think resources add a very interesting twist on the plot. If you dislike being hamstrung, you can edit them out of the game.

I love strategic resources. They add another dimension, another pressure on the player. Personally I think resources should be more rare and "worth" more (each resource be worth two - one for you, one you can trade). I hate that the unit A/D values have been constrained so that Firaxis didn't have to come up with an alternative to MA in the modern age.

Any time the game has only one path the strategy is gone. In the modern age, your only choice is to build Modern Armor. That sucks.

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Grey Knight]

Originally posted by Creepster
I have been listening to the tank vs. spearmen complaint for a while now and have wanted to make a comment on it. In theory the speaman can defeat the tank, not just by the numbers either. While the tank does have the advantage over the spearmen, you really cannot rule out someone using a cunning defense to win a battle against a unit, especially if the superior unit is damaged. This is an area that cannot be played in the game, but I feel is balanced by the remote numerical chance that the defending spearmen is given. As an example a few weeks ago a group of Palestinians succefully destroyed one of the Israel tanks. (Please no Politics) This is similar to the same setup of spearmen vs tanks. While it should not happen often, it can be done. I am sure if you look at WWII there were a few rare instances where the almost unarmed defenders destroyed one or two of the advancing Panzer tanks. Again it should not happen often, but it does and can happen.

Yes, a single tank could easily befall tragedy - either accidental (loose a tread, run into a ditch) or clever tactics by the enemy (digging a pit, attacking the tread, etc.), but the abstraction in Civ is each unit you produce equates to a battle group. A squad of tanks (including all their support, both logistical and close combat) versus a squad of spearmen is laughable.

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Creepster]

Yes, a single tank could easily befall tragedy - either accidental (loose a tread, run into a ditch) or clever tactics by the enemy (digging a pit, attacking the tread, etc.), but the abstraction in Civ is each unit you produce equates to a battle group. A squad of tanks (including all their support, both logistical and close combat) versus a squad of spearmen is laughable

I agree, except that the tank squadron you have is down to 1 HP, so it is in pieces. Low on fuel not all running efficently etc. A squadron of spearmen, (who probably have a few more weapons that have been picked up from the enemy) could damage the unit or kill it. Supieror weapons does not always mean a victory. the spearmen (in my mind) have grown with the times and are a bit more than the spearmen of old. They may not have the best weapons, but they do know what the enemy is capable of, and possibly how to hurt them.

I agree with your comments in the begining of the post that it would be better to have units for each age equivilant to what they were in the old. Spearmen should change as the times change, and it should be a no cost option. (we are charged a maintenmance fee every turn) The units in each age though should be somethging less than the new modern ones though. Not fully riflemen, or musketman. The only problem here is that you start to get a potentially large number of units available by the end of the game, that you have to keep track of. It would add a better play to the game.

If you really want to talk about deficiencies though look at the Naval warfare part of the game. It is truly sad and extremely lacking. The movements rates are all wrong and the tactical advantages of the submarines are not even there!!!!!

Even with that said, It is still a great game.

 

[simwiz2]

Originally posted by Creepstar


As an example a few weeks ago a group of Palestinians succefully destroyed one of the Israel tanks. (Please no Politics) This is similar to the same setup of spearmen vs tanks.

Sure, one tank was unlucky and got destroyed by that force, so of course that force could destroy an entire unit of them. And a guerilla force armed with rockets/bazookas/rifles is no more equipped to destroy steel armor than some people with pointed sticks, right?

 

[God]

Well i think they should put the dragoons unit back. Cavalry into the 16th, 17th century didn't used rifles that much. They were too slow and the mounted units were speedy units that needded to kill quickly.
And dragoons would only need horses and could beat musketmen and damage riflemen.

 

[Zouave]

Strategic depth across the ages
Much has been said about "spearman vs. tank" etc. Soren commented on this in a chat session off 'poly:

[Soren_Johnson_Firaxis] having said that*, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2. This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X

Wow.

Unbelievable.

This is the greatest single indictment (and admission) of the game by Firaxis.

Because of the BRAINLESS resource allocation which makes such as coal and iron FAR too rare, Firaxis considered itself forced to give us innacurate and non-historical unit values.

Result? We all have spent hours editing the crappy mod making resources less rare and increasing the strength of post-gunpowder units. (There are far too few units, also).

Thank you, Firaxis, for admitting how you screwed things up. I'll remember it next time you try and sell me a beta product.

 

[Grey Knight]

Originally posted by Zouave

Because of the BRAINLESS resource allocation which makes such as coal and iron FAR too rare, Firaxis considered itself forced to give us innacurate and non-historical unit values.

I disagree Zouave - having plentiful resources reduces their "strategic" value. If anything, they should be more rare, to force trade etc. (similar to luxuries, you can rarely expect to have all of them in your empire and expect to need to trade for them).

Result? We all have spent hours editing the crappy mod making resources less rare and increasing the strength of post-gunpowder units. (There are far too few units, also).

Now this is where I agree completely -- by not filling out the late industrial and modern ages, gameplay falls flat. I have zero interest in playing past infantry. I can handle the "style" change from the ancient and middle ages with their 2-move attack units, to the industrial age "infantry+bombardment" model - I think this makes for a great bit of gameplay to have another style of combat. The Modern Age is simply brute force - he who hath the most Modern Armor wins.

Shawn

 

[royfurr]

Some thoughts on the various comments made in this thread.

Soren says that spearman are able to defeat tanks because they (Firaxis) do not want players without "Resource X" to be in a hopeless position, because they could not build "the newest unit" requiring that resource.

WHAT the heck then is the point of having resources?? The very existence of resources (if they mean anything) is that they must cause limitions by their absence. Otherwise, if their lack does not hurt you, you do not need them. If you do not need them they do not mean anything. Thus the answer to game balance over resources is the CAREFUL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES ON THE MAP (better work on that map generator!), AND, carefully thougnt out and implemented consequences of the lack or resources.

The problem here is the all or nothing nature of resources. A civ lacks iron, therefore it cannot build swordsman. Folks, there is SOME iron located in enough locations to allow just about every civ on the planet to build SOME swordsmen. It just cannot build a LOT of them. A better way to break down the build ability vs. resources available to a civ , yet still allow resources to MEAN something, is what is necessary.

In game terms, this could mean that the lack of resourses DOES NOT FORBID building a given unit, it just limits HOW MANY you can build. SO, you have no Oil, so now you can only build a limited number of Tanks. Well ... this gives you the chance (with the ones you can build) to capture an Oil resoure so then you can build a lot of Tanks. IF you fail, you hit your build limit, and someone else wipes you out. But you had a shot, despite "not having resource X and thus unable to build the newest unit" ... lots of those newfangled Tanks. And you do not have the idiot situation of spearmen destroying a 20-60 ton steel machine.

This situation would result in more real to history outcomes ... for example, resources limited Germany takes a shot at world domination, but fails to capture Oil and rubber, runs out of tanks, and is defeated by civs that DO have those resources. The way the game is currently set up, their lack of oil would mean they couldn't build tanks, but WOULD (perhaps) build Spearman to use instead ... and have a shot at succeeding with ... thanks to the way the game balance is set, to 'not cripple someone lacking resource X for the new game unit requireing X".

Bah.

(Sorry, I have to side with the posters that say, yes ONE tank can be destroyed by poorly armed humans, but not a UNIT of tanks by a unit (group) of poorly armed humans. Yes yes you can have poorly run tank units which leaves themselves vulnerable, but then you have plenty of poorly run human units too ... who get massacered (sorry for the spelling) by the tanks ... all in all the number of times this should happen (destruction of an advanced unit by a primitivly armed opponent), stastically should be much less then in this game. Firaxis has admitted in Sorens post that this probablility has been adjusted for game balance reasons. OK, BUT, there are better ways to do this. See above! DO NOT make resoureses or their lack, an ALL OR NOTHING proposition.)

This would NOT have been that hard to implement. A nested IF then else decision tree would do it. IF no resource R, then IF Tanks = X, no more tanks can be built. IF Tanks < X, can be built. If resource R IS held, then no limit test on # of tanks. This idea also applies to other resources and units. Obvioulsy it would take a little effort to get it right becuase there are a lot of units and a lot or resources to check on, but it is not THAT bad. Plus of course you have to get the value of "X" right that generates game balance ... for a variety of resources and units.

One exception to this might be some units in the modern era and really rare resources. Uranium and the reusulting abilities like atomic weapons and nuclear subs comes to mind in this regard. There really is less uranium in the world then there is oil or iron. Thus perhaps a small number of items might requuire a more "all or nothing" type situation, similar to that currently, where lack of a resource DID limit you pretty much completely.

(Seems to me that Firaxis simply did not follow their logic through completely as it would have taken too much time/work (= money = not getting game out before christmas). Too bad, the ideas they came up with for Civ III like resources and culture, ARE REALLY REALLY GOOD ... IF THEY IMPLEMENTED RIGHT.)

(I will NOT discuss here the concepts of corruption vs. game balance, and any goals Firaxis may have had in terms of limiting the player by having crippling corruption ... seems like they just wanted to prevent world conquest most of the time ... like I said I will not go into that emotional snakepit of a discussion ...)

The debate on modern era "equivalents" of certain other era unit combinations (eg a modern version of bowman/spearman to combat tanks, like bowman/spearman combated swordsman etfc) I leave for a different time, its past my bedtime ...

Sorry for the length herein.

...
In total fear, the poster grabs his fireproof suit and runs screaming from the room, vowing that in the future he will ONLY lurk about, and never post ..

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Zouave

Because of the BRAINLESS resource allocation which makes such as coal and iron FAR too rare, Firaxis considered itself forced to give us innacurate and non-historical unit values.

I disagree. Some of my best CIV3 games have been those where I've been without a necessary resource and have to stage a faraway war to secure it. In my current game, (6 civs), there are only two oil resources, and both were on far away islands held by the hostile russians. Now one of them is mine, but the campaign to conquer it was fun.

Result? We all have spent hours editing the crappy mod making resources less rare and increasing the strength of post-gunpowder units. (There are far too few units, also).

Talk for yourself. I don't think resources should be less rare, and I don't think post-gunpwder units should be strengthened. I agree that it may seem more realistic to strengthen a tank vs a spearman, but I think its a more interesting game when every battle is uncertain (and thus forces you to have a back-up plan).

 

[Grey Knight]

Originally posted by royfurr
Some thoughts on the various comments made in this thread.

Hey now! None of that! THINKING IS NOT ALLOWED!!!

The problem here is the all or nothing nature of resources. A civ lacks iron, therefore it cannot build swordsman. Folks, there is SOME iron located in enough locations to allow just about every civ on the planet to build SOME swordsmen. It just cannot build a LOT of them. A better way to break down the build ability vs. resources available to a civ , yet still allow resources to MEAN something, is what is necessary.

Would fractional, accumulating resources be the answer? I know this idea is very RTS, so I'm not sure how well it will play. Have each source be valued from 1-?. Each turn, you extract that amount from the source. To build a particular unit, you need some amount of that resource i.e. 2 iron to build a swordsman, 5 to build a knight.

If this was extended to buildings (i.e. a factory requires 100 iron) I think this would actually increase the importance of strategic resources. Of course, since each source may not be worth much, there would need to be more sources (making Zuoave happy ), but on average they would be worth "less" than the current sources.

Cheers,
Shawn

 

[Dinorius R.]

Bloody hell, given the flood of comments, if I was Soren, I'd be too afraid to utter another word about Civ3 in public! Anyone would think he was Alan Greenspan or something.
.