The return of the killer Phalanx

[Sevorak]

Therefore, we need a Killer Phalanx Watch. For those of us with the game, might I suggest that we post in this thread or in a new one whenever we get "Killer Phalanxed" (used as a general term for any silly thing like Swordsmen defeating a Panzer). If we get enough examples of a Killer Phalanx situation, Firaxis just has to listen, right?

-Sev

 

[jc011]

once, i had a phalanx defending a city with a costal fortress. It actually defended off a cruiser!!

 

[strollen]

I like the idea of documenting the killer phalanx. It may not be a big problem (one review said it was less common than earlier civs, I think that is true of Civ3 vs Civ1 but I doubit it is true about Civ3 vs Civ2).

My rule of thumb would be that that 95% of the time a full strength modern unit should beat an ancient unit. So try and keep a mental note of the cases where modern units beat the old ones also.

 

[joespaniel]

As you probably already know, the naval units "bombard" ground units in Civ3. There is no return fire, so the phalanx cannot kill cruisers anymore!

Someone who has the game should try the tank vs. phalanx thing and post here. Would be f@ckin hysterical if it did kill the tank!

 

[Sodak]

Several points to make:

First, go to the War Academy and read the CivII COMBAT GUIDE!!! Yes, we are talking about Civ3, but you will see that the math is not so simple. The two games use a very similar model, as far as we know. For example, if hit points are not single values, but represent tens, your panic is unwarranted - a phalanx would almost never beat a tank.

Second, the math I see here is too simplified. 16 vs 7.5 will not lead to a 16/23.5 odds per round. There is more going on here. I'd bet a 65% chance per round means 98% chance of victory for the stronger unit.

Lastly, quoting the manual or website might be misleading. In my research for the CivII guide, I found that almost nothing the manual said about combat was accurate. It was all simplified for the purpose of explanation, but not at all accurate for actual calculations.

In other words, DON'T PANIC! I don't think Firaxis would scrap a very effective combat model for one that doesn't work.

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by Sodak
In other words, DON'T PANIC! I don't think Firaxis would scrap a very effective combat model for one that doesn't work.

Hmm... the more reports I read make me think this was a bit premature! Apparently the addition of bombardment may make these fears accurate. Granted, that forces the player to adopt some new strategies, so it isn't all bad. I wish I had the game to test it myself... Let's hope it actually works out in the end!

 

[D_L_26]

Has anyone suffered Killer Phalanx Syndrome yet?????????

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by Craterus22
There should be no need to send a million dollar missle in to defeat a $20 bronze shield.

Well if that bronze shield has been around for 2k+ years then I think it might be worth well more than a missile to some collector.

Ok, I have aquestion. I am looking in the Game Manual and I don't see an indepth explaination of attacking and defending. Is there such an explaination in the Official Tip Book? If there is I just might go out and buy it as I want to know with out having to make a scenario to play around and see how often a tank will win vs shield.

 

[donsig]

I've heard that you can't make scenarios with Civ III yet. Maps can be made but you can't place cities or units, etc. Of course with all the patches, mods and hacking going on maybe it is possible now.:crazyeyes

I'm still on my first Civ III game (on the easiest level) and I've only fought barbarians with warriors and archers. No combat surprises yet...

 

[Stormreaver]

Having played the game some now (30-40hrs at least, probably more but don't want to think about it, should have been studying/sleeping all those hrs)...

Sadly enough, there happens a lot of this (impossible kills) in Civ3. I regularly have Tanks (16/8) succumb to defending Pikemen(1/3). Longbowmen (4/1) even more regularly kick Tank ass when attacking them.

Seldom does the modern unit escape unharmed from a combat like this, so it then has to surrender a turn or a few to repairs...

The reactor/firepower concept from Alpha Centauri and Civ2 was great, too bad it was removed.

/ Stormreaver

 

[Craterus22]

When I get some time (and if the editor allows it) I am going to go through every unit and change the att/def/mv values...

For example (something along the lines of)

warrior 1/1/1 (same)
Spear 2/4/1
rifleman 10/10/2
Tank 50/30/5

 

[Julian I]

Yes, chalk up another one. I've been Phalanxed so many times is not even funny anymore.

I've had :

- Tanks losing to pikemen (this is gonna be the new classic, I think)
- Tanks losing to longbowmen
- Elite swordsmen losing to regular warriors
- Galleons, frigates and ironclads losing to galleys
- Elite cavalries losing to damaged regular archers

Strangely enough, after I attack :

- My pikemen only know the underside of tanks
- My longbowmen...I'd ask them but there's a smoking crater where they were.
- My regular warriors are crucified all along the way the enemy swordsmen went
- My galleys are sleeping with the fishes and the lawyers
- My archers' dead bodies have hoof marks all over them

The game favors the defender so much it's unfair. I just don't bother with combat anymore.

If Firaxis wanted to discourage players from playing Aggresive Militaristic, then congratulations...you succeded admirably.

Peace...

 

[dedmonds]

I've found combat between technologically distinct civilizations easily favors the civ with the higher level of technology. Have I had a tank lose to a pikeman? Maybe once or twice. I very very rarely see my tanks lose to riflemen. In my most recent game, I rolled over the Japanese and the Indians as soon as my Chinese developed riders. Just plain wiped them out (when all our civs were about the same size) in the space of 30-40 turns, tops. Fast forward to the modern age, and I walked all over the French (the only competing civ with Uranium deposits) as soon as I developed tanks. I just made sure I had about 6 tanks in the attack force (for a given city), ideally with a few bombers to soften things up. But even when I didn't soften up with the bombers, I don't recall ever losing a tank to the pikemen they had (though it might have happened once or twice), and only rarely to the riflemen (happily, their best defender).

My conclusion? Get a grip. It's not that bad *at all*. Technological superiority still equals easy victory, especially with even a modicum of strategy.

 

[chewcud]

I was just running some fun tests after winning a happy-happy-joy-joy culture victory. I decided to wage a war. All the rest of the world barely had ironclads and rilfemen and I had battleships and tanks, bombers and radar Arties. Totally uncomputed tests, just fling myself out there. The worst for me was naval battles.

I lost THREE battle ships to ironclads! What do those things shoot, like cannon balls! A cannonball every five minutes (fire rate?) versus radar guided missles, 12 big azz guns, and double hulls and all that, and I get waxed. Three times. Wasn't just some anomoly. I lost when I got attacked, and I lost when attacking. Puh. No way. That's gotta change. :crazyeyes

And, I lost two subs. One to a frigate and one to an ironclad.

Come on. A german u-boat with a lawnmower engine and dwarfs at the helm could take out a frigate.

 

[Endureth]

There is a defensive bonus for population also. I think it's 4% for every pop point so if the city was size 13...

3+(100%+50%+52%) = roughly defense 9.

If your tak has and attak of 16 that's 16-9.

Considering the defender was elite you had a slightly better chance of winning or loosing that battle. But you lost. Oh well, throw in another tank.

Endureth

 

[4Lorn]

A few days ago I read a developer forum. A Question was asked along the general lines of your complaint. ie: weak/obsolete unit winning in defence vs a strong/modern unit.

The dev said, I paraphrase broadly, that the combat system was adjusted to allow weaker/obsolete units to maintain some usefulness and prevent more advanced civs from rolling over less advanced civs too easily. Also that this setting was selected for playability by making science and resources or lack of same a little less decisive. This keeps civs, players included, in the game a little longer if they fall behind in advances or are not lucky with resource placement. He offered no logic or rationalization other than playability.

Personnally, generally, I like it. I don't like loosing modern armor to archers and I rant at the result but I come back to the game and troop on. Be aware that sometimes on close examination I have discovered that my unit was attacking across a river I didn't see.

On the rationalization side I would suppose that a 800BC unit of spearmen might keep the same weapons in 1930AD but I question If thier tactics would remain the same. The British were still forming units of pikemen in 1941. Albeit it was because there was a lack of firearms available. The pikes were steel pipes with WW1 bayonets welded on. Each unit was eqiped with molitove cocktails cans of gas, rags, flare pistols and short pieces of railroad track for tanks treads.

Plan was to have firearm eqiped troops, there was a smattering of shotguns, pistols and assorted hunting rifles, delay the infantry. The pikemen would hide in trenches and insert the railroad track into the treads. This shucks the tread. The imobilized tank is then stormed and the molitoves used or gas soaked rags stuffed into vision slots and ventilators and ignited with the flare gun. The pikes would be used if enemy troops got in the trench.

The RRtrack piece in the tread was demonstrated to work IF it could be placed. The plan was, fortunatly, never used in combat. It was a desperate plan for a desperate situation.

 

[chewcud]

ok. I'll give you british pikemen-cum-guerilla warriors. But I would like to see a separate unit for that. Somehow they should show some progress rather than still be a unit of pikement. I think the partisan unit would be a good example. Or, since your pikmen had guns and moltovs, maybe there should be some provision for technological advances in other civs. So...somehow allow for some technology to leak to an opposing civ?? I don't know. My point is that pikemen with guns are not strict CIV III pikemen anymore.

I agree with many of the Dev's points about playability, but I also think a little more realism should be in place.

but what about navy? I could see an argument where an ironclad could sneak up on a battleship and blow itself up suicide style. But then after that one encounter, I would think all battleships would be wise to that, at least all in the same civ.

I enjoy the game, but there are some issues that need resolution. I am sorry, but if my civilization is behind, and someone else decides to roll over me with tanks and cruise missles, I would expect my pikemen to become chicken on a stick. That to me is a chalenge for my next game. Allowing unaltered ancient units to win (defensive) battles consistently tells me to play a defensive game, spend little money on units and go for culture or what have you. Which isn't bad...but.

Is there any word about a patch, or any mod that addresses some of these issues to any degree?

 

[Zachriel]

480BC - Thirty thousand Persians confronted 300 Spartans warriors at Thermopylae. Xerses, King of the Persians, sent wave after wave of his best troops only to see them thrown back. Eventually, they killed the 300 brave Spartans, but the delay gave the Greeks time to prepare a successful defense. Xerses called down the wrath of the Gods on Firaxis.

1879 - In Isandlwana, South Africa, Zulu warriors armed with pointy sticks wiped out crack British gunpowder infantry. A senior British military specialist blamed poor planning on the part of Firaxis.

1943 - With only 23 repeating firearms (mostly rifles), the Jewish inmates of the Warsaw Ghetto held off two crack German Divisions for 28 days: They started out with only one puny revolver and a few rounds of ammunition, but the intrepid and precision use of that one firearm resulted in the acquisition of 22 long arms. The German high command blamed Jewish elements in Firaxis bent on domination of the German people.

2000 - A pair of terrorists steered a small boat loaded with explosives alongside a U.S. Navy destroyer in Yemen and stood at attention as the small boat blew up, U.S. officials said. The explosion opened a large hole in the hull, nearly sinking the technologically advanced USS Cole. The U.S. said that it wasn't really fair, and that Firaxis should change their combat system.

How come no one playing Civ3 is complaining that their own phalanx successfully defended an enemy attack by a more technologically advanced AI civilization?

 

[Dillo]

Oh no.. dont worry you can see any Galleon take down a Battleship or Carrier. It happened to me tons. I was Fighting the romans once in my territorry as I was under attack, My vet Carriers and Destroers and battleships were sinking left and right. So never fear.

tO zACHRIEAL ,,, These are but far and few instances. I think most of us understand that it can and will happen, WHat we are complaining about is that its the norm in civ 3, There is really not much reason to devlop anything past Galleon because they have pretty much the same power, same capeabilaties, and same chance of winning VS modern Vessles as the Modern vessles do against old Galleons. The motivation to Dev passed Galleons and Pikeman is not there since they are just as powerfull as any modern unit. TRhis is the complaint. Of course in some cases they should win, but that shouyl be less than 10% of the time.

 

[costanza]

I understand when fluke things happen through history. I mean what are the chances Colorado and Texas will play the Big XII championship game and CU will win? Huh?

But....your list of military upsets could read more like this in Civ3:

1940 AD: my modern armor gets whacked by an archer
1941 AD: my modern armor gets whacked by an archer
1942 AD: my battleship gets whacked by a galleon
1943 AD: my modern armor gets whacked by an archer
1944 AD: my modern armor gets whacked by an archer
1945 AD: my battleship gets whacked by a galleon
1946 AD: my modern armor gets whacked by an archer
1947 AD: my modern armor gets whacked by an archer
1948 AD: my battleship gets whacked by a galleon

Use your imagionation. Don't pull out the one in a million shots to try to prove that it *could* happen and therefore *should* happen very often, which it does.

Does anyone wonder why there are nuclear weapons in the game? Use them!! It will cut down on the confusion over which units win a battle.

But wait.....I'll bet that an ancient warrior *could* find a nuclear missle silo. *Maybe* he could push a rock over a ventilation shaft and cut off the oxygen to the personnel below. And *possibly* catch everyone asleep and axe them all to death. Ahh....justification enough for it to happen 80% of the time. I swear one day I will see a warrior succesfully defend against an ICBM.

I would like my modern armor to blow stuff to smithereens, and not succumb to some fantasy hypothetical where the tracks get thrown and a force of neanderthals with knives go through armor that should take uranium-tipped rounds to penetrate normally.

I don't mind an occasional "what the hell was that?" when I play computer games. But when it becomes normal to believe in the unbelievable, I'll have to rant just a little.