The return of the killer phalanx

[Sparrowhawk]

I think that combat most definitely needs to be modified to favour advanced units more. Whether it's firepower, or more hitpoints, or "terror" factor, or what, it needs to be changed.

I have noticed that several people have been trying to justify how a spearman unit could kill attacking tanks. I can follow some of their logic: sure, crafty guerrilla fighters have historically done great damage to "modern" armies.

The problem is that these explanations are being limited to a very special case. If the spearmen are so effective against tanks, how should opponents like cavalry have any chance at all? Cavalry don't have big metal vehicles to fight from, and by this "logic" they should be killed easily, all of the time.

And why not extend this "logic" a little further, to attacking units. If spearmen can defend a city against tanks so well, why can't an attacking warrior just sneak up on an enemy city defended by mech inf and behead them all while they sleep?

I think anyone should be able to see how this would be soooo wrong!

Ancient units should not have any chance of killing modern units, except in extreme circumstances. Sure, a spearman can adapt to killing tanks, but a tank can much more easily and effectively adapt to killing spearmen.

 

[Gholam]

I think combat rules are fine... the formula already favors more advanced units without giving them the absolute slaughter power, which is perfect IMO.

Subs, however, need some tweaking. This is how I think they should work (long and boring ).

1) Regular submarines.
1.1) Submarine is normally visible to normal units.
1.2) Submarine is normally attackable by normal units.
1.3) Submarine recieves a "Mission: Torpedo Attack" button.
1.3.1) Mission: Torpedo Attack can be initiated in any square
1.3.2) When Mission: Torpedo Attack is initiated, submarine submerges, becoming invisible to normal units.
1.3.3) While performing Mission: Torpedo Attack, submarine's speed is lowered by 1 (number subject to tweaking).
1.3.4) After submerging, submarine automatically attempts to intercept target and inflict a strong bombardment-type attack on it.
1.3.5) After attack, submarine automatically attempts to get away from any enemy units for as far as it can before it is forced to surface.
1.3.6) Maximum range while submerged is 10 squares (number subject to tweaking)
1.4) Submarine can also engage targets without initiating torpedo attack. In this case, it functions as a surface ship, with attack/defense of 4/4 (number subject to tweaking). This mode is mainly for attacking "soft" targets, like unescorted transports or obsolete ships, and simulates cannon firing instead of launching torpedos.
2) Nuclear submarine.
2.1) Nuclear submarine is in constant, controllable Mission: Torpedo Attack mode.
3) Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW).
3.1) Detecting submerged submarines.
3.1.1) Passive detection.
3.1.1.1) When a submerged submarine moves or attacks within a detection range of a Destroyer or AEGIS Cruiser, it has a chance of being revealed. Chance is cumulative for multiple detecting ships.
3.1.1.2) Destroyer has a detection range of 2 squares, and chance of 10% (numbers subject to tweaking)
3.1.1.3) AEGIS Cruiser has a detection range of 3 squares, and chance of 15% (numbers subject to tweaking)
3.1.2) Active detection.
3.1.2.1) Destroyer and AEGIS Cruiser recieve a Mission: ASW button.
3.1.2.2) When conducting Mission: ASW, ships are unable to move.
3.1.2.3) Mission: ASW raises detection chance 10% (number subject to tweaking).
3.2) Destroying submerging submarines.
3.2.1) Destroyers and AEGIS Cruisers are capable of attacking detected submarines.
3.2.2) While conducting Mission: ASW, they do so automatically.
3.2.3) Aircraft are capable of attacking submerged submarines with Mission: Precision Strike.

I believe this should cover it Basically, submarine becomes a sorta-underwater-bomber, while destroyers and AEGIS cruisers can perform interceptor duties. Attacking a fleet covered with an ASW screen is sorta suicidal, but unescorted battleships and carriers are meat Aircraft hitting subs with precision strike simulates them using air-launched depth charges and torpedoes.

 

[White Raven]

Originally posted by Julian I
One more time, all that the game uses to resolve combat is :

- ADM
- HPs
- Terrain/city size and relevant improvements
- Fortified or not

Anything else DOES NOT EXIST for the game. So pikemen beating tanks is just a pitfall of the combat system... not "pikemen digging pits or opening the hatches to kill the crew".

The reason a tank doesn't have a 300 attack value is because tank simply aren't that effective on the battle field. It's not a pitfall of the combat system, it's realistic. Tech is not all-powerful and neither is a tank or anything else with the possible exception of a nuke.

 

[White Raven]

Originally posted by Daikoku


It seems to me like you're making the hapless pikemen commanded by Che Guevara or something... That's one extreme, while on the other you have Cortez and the Aztecs.

I'm neither splitting hairs nor assuming special circumstances. Tech simply isn't the massive advantage you make it out to be... especially against defending forces and urban settings. It's damn hard to fight what you can't find. It's tough to maintain supplies and moral in hostile territory even if the hostiles only have spears.

 

[The Ripper]

Originally posted by White Raven


It's tough to maintain supplies and moral in hostile territory even if the hostiles only have spears.

I've always found strange that a unit could resist for several turns completely surrounded by a inferior enemy,while the supply concept was implemented by the manteinance cost of the unit paid by his mothercity..(no fuel,no ammos,no replacements..I want those fu**ing spears!!)

Another point:modern military forces use what in the game are considered armies,-a tank division is more than a unit I think-
and the role of any kind of arty to soften defences is undoubted
Fortifications and entrenchment do the difference,and it's not so difficult to stop tanks,if you can get your territory ready...
Anyway I think that against a army and after two or three bombardments by units with fire rate 3....

PS:subs should have bombardment attack:the torpedo idea is
great

 

[Dearmad]

I don't have problems with the combat system but what I find odd is that my Warrior unit can stay in the desert indefinately, remain stranded on a 3 tile island for 6000 years subsisting on rocks and sand, can snowball fight in the tundra forever, can heal wounds and numbers thousands of miles from home, AND *STILL* KILL A TANK AT THE END OF A DAY! bwahahahaaaaaa... :crazyeyes

That LAST part was added solely for the enjoyement of all the wanks who lose tanks to primitive units (somethng I've STILL not seen in any of my 12+ games now!)

 

[Julian I]

So, when you say 'wanks'.... are you calling us 'liars' or simply 'unlucky'? I really can't tell...

Peace...

 

[Setsuna]

I'm not sure what his problem is. Maybe he's just trolling because he knows it annoys people who have issues with the game?

 

[Dearmad]

Are you two tied at the hips or just potato sack racing through the boards with your little agenda.

So silly.

Love Julian's latest thread. He doesn't bother quoting his OWN stories (just as ridiculous) about why modern should ALWAYS defeat older units... -er- -ahem- in a GAME.

 

[Julian I]

Are you two tied at the hips or just potato sack racing through the boards with your little agenda.

Great minds think alike... what can I say?

Love Julian's latest thread. He doesn't bother quoting his OWN stories (just as ridiculous) about why modern should ALWAYS defeat older units... -er- -ahem- in a GAME.

I have no idea what 'stories' you're referring to. I've never posted any story or detailed recollection about any of my games. If you're talking about that dubiously humourous short thing I posted in that other thread, jeez man... you still can't get over it?

But anyway, since I aim to please and now there's a popular request (namely you), here's a story of my own for you :

I played. I won some, and I lost some. Sometimes I ate the bear and sometimes the bear ate me. Life's a *****... and then your tank gets speared.

Did you like that one? It's not spectacular and I'm sure I can do better than that, so if you need something more just let me know. I also have poems and songs, in case you're into that too.

All this fuzz for a couple of threads? Man, thank god I didn't post here the 'T-Shirts' thread(*) I posted somewhere else... I would've had the headhunters on my trail in no time.

Peace...

(*): I can repost it here if you want. I was worried about the hounds and the headhunters, but now I got me a spear to defend myself...so it's all good. I'm invincible.

 

[DrD]

Originally posted by White Raven
Here’s how I explain the phenomena. It hinges on the fact that turns are long periods of time and that a tile is a lot of territory. A turn of attack is not a single engagement along a limited front of battle, it’s an entire campaign or maybe we could call it a siege...

White Raven

Actually, this is what I've always thought about the Civ games. Remember a turn is at least a year, so combat is very abstracted. Pikeman beating a tank doesn't necessarily mean what you might think, it just means that in the course of a year the tank unit failed to eliminate the pikemen and was rendered combat ineffective. This could happen in all sorts of ways. Cechyna, Somalia, and Afghanistan (in the 80's) are examples in real life of similar phenomena. Also, in real life there's rarely such a technologic disparity between Civs except during some relatively brief periods. To make the game more realistic one would have to allow for alot more diffusion of technology i.e. arms dealers etc.

The bottom line I think is that the game has to be fun and balanced more than "realistic." I mean if you want to talk realism, there's a bunch of stuff that doesn't make sense (you all I'm sure can think of many examples.)

Just my opinion.

 

[donsig]

Still on my first game. I don't have any tanks yet so I haven't had any troouble with the spear guys.

I did plant a few cities on a foreighn continent and ended up at war with the 4 AI civs. I'm down to one of these cities. The cities were not very well defended (one rifleman each) and the AI sent hordes of elephants and archers. It did take two civs to get the cities. The Indian elephants took turns hitting the riflemen then running away. Then the Japanese came in with archers and such and finished off the garrison. My last city there has 3 infantry and I'm sending over some artillery. That should help fend off the attackers until I get some tanks over there.

It was tough seeing my riflemen fall to archers but they inflicted appropriate damage before they died. This ain't Civ II where you can build a bunch of howitzers and take over everything. Gotta use combined arms.

 

[Dearmad]

donsig: I agree. It's one of the most fun ingredients added to Civ3 that was missing in Civ2. I'm glad it works this way.

 

[joespaniel]

You can take cities with elite units, sometimes, but I have lost elite knights to regular spearmen with one hit point left.

One hit point that a well placed cannon could have shaved off before hand, I might add.

 

[zaph]

the first thing is that its not that easy to see anything outside a tank through the small holes they r looking out through... soldiers can hide quite easily. I dont know if anyone here has seen the german WWII movie Stalingrad (quite dark depressing movie that is far better then Enemy at the gates which I thought was terrible... it shows the stalingrad battle in a more realistic way). The germans r lying i pits on a snowy plain when the russian tanks approach... without seeing the german soldiers that is. The germans only have rifles... antipersonel mines (I think it is)... and molotovcocktails. They stop the tank by placing the mine on top of the track... then the mine follows the track and falls down in front of the track destroying it wich make the tank immobile... then the threw the molotovcocktails at it... putting it on fire... they take some losses when they get crushed by russian tracks...with this I just want to point out that tanks can be destroyed without LAWs... Carl Gustaf... A-10s an so on...

I hope u understand what i mean... from sweden... can be hard to make oneself understood


rob

 

[Gray]

well, the age old gripe about ancient units defeating modern ones... it was going to come up sooner or later.

does it suck? yes. is it always fair? no. does it ruin the game? IMHO no it does not. in this arguement (which has been around since civ and probably be around as long as there are computer games) there are several things to consider.

One important thing, what level do you play the game at? I have only played full games at the bottom three levels so far, but especially at Chieftian and Warlord there was not much I could or would @#$%^ about. Yes, it was annoying for my vet privateers to lose to regular and vet galleys. yes, I was mad after a swarm of Zulu warriors, impis, and archers destoryed my army of vet and elite knights, and sacked the city they defended (which also had two musketmen, one longbowman, and one Immortal-all vet or elite). But heck, I was on their island and I was outnumbered 10 to 1.

On chieftan or warlord I did not have many instances where ancient units beat my modern ones, even when they did-they were defending cities mostly. On Prince and above the result change a little bit. Heck, above Prince the game cheats against the player. The AI builds faster, hits harder, and between the AI and raging barbs it is pretty difficult at times...

you also have to consider the situation. Infantry has an attack of 6, pikemen have a defense of 4. Personally, I believe that any good unit of modern mudmarching riflemen from WWI or WWII could wipe out even an elite unit of pikeman (even if they were Swiss) from say the 1400's. However, in Civ3 I would not use an Infantry unit to attack pikeman who were foritied in a fortress on a mountain, because I know that more times than not they would lose. Attack 6 vs def (4 + 4(terrain) + 2(fortified)=10) . However, using artillery to soften them up results in taking the position with minimal loses.

Yes, it is absurd that a spearman or a piker could beat a tank. Yes, I believe that galleys should get wiped out by any other sea units. But, their are ways to ensure that your modern units always win. Unlike civ2 you can't just blitz with tanks and expect to always win---I think this is actually realistic. During the German biltz attack in WWII the Panzer divisions were supported and agumented in their attacks by infantry, artillery, and air support. Modern units do not always defeat older units either. In 39 Polish Calvary charged German Panzer MkI and MkII's and they lost. In 1943, on the Russian plains, while the German Panzer MkIV and Mk V's were frozen in the ice-Russian calvary charged and did extreme damage... Tribesman with spears, arrows, and numbers have wiped out companies of rifleman supported by machine guns-ask the Brits about trying to hold on to parts of eastern Africa when the Zulu started rebelling. Granted, these types of results do not happen often, but they happen.

If you want your modern units to always (or at least most of the time) win, then play the lower levels. Or at any level, just builld the War academy and the pentagon and build armies with 4 vet/elite tanks and role over every enemy unit in front of you. Or, use the alternative that the game has given you ways to overcome some of the imbalances... A stack with 2 artillery, 2 tanks and 4 infantry is much more realistic than 6 tanks anyway--- at least when it comes to taking a city.

Just my 2 cents...

 

[bstripp]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
I think that combat most definitely needs to be modified to favour advanced units more. Whether it's firepower, or more hitpoints, or "terror" factor, or what, it needs to be changed.

I have noticed that several people have been trying to justify how a spearman unit could kill attacking tanks. I can follow some of their logic: sure, crafty guerrilla fighters have historically done great damage to "modern" armies.

Ancient units should not have any chance of killing modern units, except in extreme circumstances. Sure, a spearman can adapt to killing tanks, but a tank can much more easily and effectively adapt to killing spearmen.

It has happened in more than one occasion. Ethiopia vs. Italy, the Ethopians, with spears managed to hold and defeat the Italians (using tanks) on a number of occasions until the Italians started using Chemical warfare.

The Zulu's vs. the British is a classic case of spearmen defeating riflemen. (Yes, the riflemen are outnumbered usually 100-1, but who's to say that this scale isn't the same used in the game.)

However, all of that pales in comparison to the fact that this is a game. If you get behind in tech, you should still have a chance to win the game. It's not a sim, it's not reality. If you are looking for that type of realism and grit, then there are several excellent Avalon Hill games out there for you.

However, for a rules light fun game, Civ3 is pretty good.