unbalanced combat

[schekker]

I simply don't understand this. How can you complain about the combat results of a tank versus a longbowman? You should complain about that encounter in the first place! How is it possible that a country which has access to far more advanced technologies still employs longbowman? It is plainly ridiculous. A one tech level discrepancy, allright, but this? And don't talk about encounters of Western modern units against African tribes. That is more like the barbarian encounters in civ4. But against another civilization? No way.

O wait, this is a game?

 

[TheNiceOne]

Whatever, sounds like most people here assumed I used poor tactics, I'm not going to change your minds so I won't bother with you.

I'm the one who mentiond lack of tactics. I didn't mean to imply that you lack tactical skills (I have no reason to know), but rather that you seem to ignore the tactical dimension of war in cIV. Building the best unit available and constantly attacking with that one, expecting to win each single battle vs older units, isn't tactical warfare.

Building different types of units, preparing the attack with bombardment, using the right unit type for the job, taking time to heal the wounded units etc. is tactical warfare. All of this is lost if cIV simply let the modern unit win each single time.

Let's look at the combat from a more realistic standpoint.

I understand your point, and also agree that it cannot realistically be explained by the arrow going down the tank's barrel etc.


However, I think cIV is a great game on the grand strategic scale. And the game is great on this scale because it prioritzes the grand strategy feel over realism in the details. Take a close look at any single detail in cIV (combat or non-combat), and you'll find that it is horribly unrealistic. No building in cIV works realistically, and the build time is horribly off.

But those unrealistic details isn't there because Firaxis is a bunch of morons, but rather because all those unrealistic details make up a great game on the strategic level. This is true for the city build part, and for the combat part.

Make each single combat result more realistic, and you'll get a war that is fought even less realistic than it already is. No world power would attack enemy cities mostly with tanks or helicopters. If they tried, they would lose even against archers, simply because tanks or helicopters are unable to take out a human army hiding in a city.

 

[Berry]

I still wonder how people do that. Yesterday, while capturing a city full of longbowman I didn't lose a single Rifleman .
Perhaps I'm just very lucky, but I never lost a tank, modern armour or mechanized infantery to a longbowman, axeman, etc..

 

[Uniqueuponhim]

I like the suggestion someone made about obsoleting units from different eras. That to me would solve the issue.

Most of the people here are bending over backwards to justify a highly unlikely situation which tells me that they use those tactics in their own games - massed combat using cheap old troops against the smaller number more expensive modern vehicles.

I also see a lot of hypocritical arguments about how "Civ isn't a combat simulator" but yet argue that "the archer shot an arrow into a critical section of the helicopter" or "the elephant was attacking at night when the tank crew were all sleeping". It isn't going to ruin my day if they don't fix it, I can try to mod it out of the game by obsoleting older units. I feel that classical era units facing a modern army would inevitably turn and run or like the workers do - surrender, which is how the situation should have been handled in the first place in my mind.

The bottom line is that while it may be unrealistic for an archer unit to defeat a tank unit, it is even more unrealistic, and takes away too much from the game to allow a tank to drive through enemy territory without stopping for maintenance, repairs and reinforcements.

The bottom line is that if you allow a tank to be able to kill an infinite number of lesser units without stopping, it takes away any element of challenge from the game the moment you get a tech advantage. It takes away all element of strategy involved in warfare. It takes the fun out of the game. Who wants to play a game with no challenge? This isn't about people "using cheap old troops against the smaller number more expensive modern vehicles" it's about giving the player a more realistic, more challenging battle. And besides, a player using cheap, obsolete weaponry doesn't stand much of a chance, regardless of whether or not he is able to take out a few tanks on the way down.

Furthermore, it IS realistic. In any modern battle involving armor and mech units, you CAN NOT simply push through enemy territory nonstop. You must take time to set up supply lines, send in reinforcements, repair and maintain your equipment. If you do not, the equipment will break down and be useless even without combat. If you try to fight a hundred battles without maintenance or reinforcements, your tanks will become run down, break if from nothing else but lack of maintenance, run out of oil, and run out of ammo - they will be useless. Then, even a spearman unit shouldn't have a hard time taking them. Do you really think a few tanks with no oil, little ammo, and in bad need of repair will be able to stand a rush of thousands of people, regardless of what those people are armed with?

If there was no benefit to researching new weaponry, then nobody would do it.

Guess what - there is an advantage to researching new weaponry in civ. If there weren't, nobody would do it. If you use them correctly, you will never lose a modern armor or mech infantry to inferior units. If you act stupidly, misusing and abusing your advanced units by not allowing them time to rest up between battles, then you will lose them. It's as simple as that. It's a strategy game. You need to use strategy to win. If you don't, you'll never advance past settler or chieftain level because as soon as you no longer have such a big tech advantage against your enemy, they will stomp you. If you want to continue playing unchallenging games where you don't have to worry at all about strategy, then you can stick to your settler level. Meanwhile, the rest of us will try to improve and take on bigger challenges at higher difficulty levels.

 

[onedreamer]

Let's look at the combat from a more realistic standpoint.

sure thing, let's do it.

So you have a tank platoon with some losses and now you're down to your last unit. Its armed but alone - which is how I interpret a 5/40 situation.

Well, you interpret it bad, IMO. First off, a tank is not a tank platoon. So a 5/40 situation is this, from a realistic standpoint: the tank has all its electronic systems down, it can't be controlled, and it slipped off the road and ended in the small water stream at the side of the path, it's on its flank and the crew has been banged all over the cabin. Most of the crew is now unconscious or lost their life, one man is semi-conscious but quite dizzy, opens the cabin to get out of the tank, tries to stand on his knees but faces an archer that was just there waiting for the evil aliens to come out of the infernal machine. An arrow is cast and the modern age soldier falls dead to the ground.

So you're out on the plains (which is where this happened) and you see a group of elephants coming at you.

Ah, this must be very realistic. A tank (platoon) out in the plains. Elephants ? Wasn't it an archer we were talking about ?

Explain why the tank wouldn't have just opened fire at 2000 yards and then machine gunned the survivors? Its the plains, you can see for miles out there - so don't give me that sneak attack baloney.

First off, if its the plains, yes an elephant can't approach unnoticed, but anything else pre-modern not mounted definitely will, if you are in a tank. Plus remember that the tank has all its electronic systems down.


I don't go on with all the rest. This is a game, not the battlefield. If you want to feel like in the battlefield, play Call of Duty 2. Really a neat game.

 

[magfo]

Whatever, sounds like most people here assumed I used poor tactics, I'm not going to change your minds so I won't bother with you. For the rest of you...

You did a nice job explaining the tank - I think your explanation was bogus, but now explain how an archer could take down a full strength attack chopper?

FFS, now you are showing an extraordinary thick skull or an unwillingness to step down that's unparallelled!

How an archer beats an chopper? EASY. He waits until the pilot needs to take a dump, then shoots him in his behind and wins.

Which happens about as often as you see an archer beat an chopper in Civ4.

Let's look at the combat from a more realistic standpoint.

So you have a tank platoon with some losses and now you're down to your last unit. Its armed but alone - which is how I interpret a 5/40 situation.

Which is totally wrong, and that's your problem. If you have a plutoon of tanks that go into battle and come out of it with 1/8 strength, then you will NOT have 5 brand new tanks that are full with gas and ammo. No, not at all. Go read some military history. You WILL have an unit consiting of half-destroyed units combined with ones that are pretty whole - but short on ammo and fuel.

So you're out on the plains (which is where this happened) and you see a group of elephants coming at you. Explain why the tank wouldn't have just opened fire at 2000 yards and then machine gunned the survivors? Its the plains, you can see for miles out there - so don't give me that sneak attack baloney.

He couldn't, since he was out of ammo. Also, his heat seeking ammo didn't lock onto the elephants.

Or perhaps the elephants attacked at night? Or the tank crews had drunk a lot of alcohol and were sleeping? For gods sake, get some imagination!

Another thing, and this is really where I take issue. Half of modern armament is the different tactics used with the equipment. How a spearman approaches battle is WHOLLY different than how an infantry platoon approaches battle. That alone should be the deciding factor in a battle vs. lower techs. ***If there was no benefit to researching new weaponry, then nobody would do it.*** Period, end of story. Those billions of dollars the US throws into the Defence Department budget serves a very real purpose - it gives the US Army an edge against their opponents in battle. Please look at the Nazi German attacks on Poland and France for evidence. If all it took was a really veteran group of footsoldiers in bronze breastplates carrying shields and spears to take down a tank platoon - no one in the world would have ever researched tanks in the first place.

Yea, the better equipped army will win - most of the time. And that's what you get in war. And that's what you get in Civ4. MOST of the time.

What about all the war movies that picture the "heroes" that made it, despite the odds? There's LOADS of examples of small, underequipped, forces that have defeated larger foes. TONS of them. The bigger, meaner, guy will win most of the time. But there's those times where the coin actually stands on its side. That's when the elephant will kill the tank.


As for your american supremacy feeling, do you know the doctrine that you guys use? What's the ratio needed in order to initiate an attack?

3:1 numerical odds. Why's that, if the technology is so important and all-deciding?

I should not have to micromanage the tactics my troop use in combat, I can deploy them but not fight for them. When I send 4 mechanized infantry units into battle against a city full of 2 archers, 1 axemen, and 1 spearmen I don't expect to get routed. Certainly not after using stealth bombers and jet fighters against them. Is it difficult taking cities in real life - yes just look at the US's efforts in Iraq. Is it possible that a bunch of rag tag men carrying axes could take out a mechanized infantry platoon - possibly but then this isn't a combat simulation I'm playing its Civilization.

Have you so far actually lost such a battle? I think not. If you send 4 mech inf against that setup, you WILL win. And win and win and win. I'd say you'd win 200 out of 201 attempts. Perhaps more. Which is exactly as it is in real life. I'd say a bunch of guys with spears stand a better chance than that!

Eventually the mech-inf need to step out of their tanks and start a house to house search. Then they'll die as much from a spear in the back as from a bullet. It's be a hard battle to win, but surely they'll be able to kill quite a lot of guys if it gets close and dirty.

Yea, look at Iraq. Look at Vietnam. Look at Afghanistan. A bunch of ragtags that are ill organized and VERY poorly equipped. Against 100k+ american "elite" troops. Yet they hold their ground, or at least, the americans can't win. So what does that tell you?

(Draw the parallell to the first Iraqui war! There, out in the open, the inferiorly equipped and outnumbered Iraquis didn't stand a chance! But change the setting and you just might lose! Soviet in Afghanistan is another such example!!)

Am I pissed that I got whittled down - absolutely. Is it a big deal to me in the end - no. I'm gonna win anyway so I don't really care about some minor setbacks but it tells me that Firaxis didn't fix the battle simulation after all.

Or that some consumer of their software has problems with imagination?

 

[magfo]

I simply don't understand this. How can you complain about the combat results of a tank versus a longbowman? You should complain about that encounter in the first place! How is it possible that a country which has access to far more advanced technologies still employs longbowman? It is plainly ridiculous. A one tech level discrepancy, allright, but this? And don't talk about encounters of Western modern units against African tribes. That is more like the barbarian encounters in civ4. But against another civilization? No way.

O wait, this is a game?

THIS is a valid point though. I lack some kind of "auto-update" on the troops. You shouldn't be able to still have a warrior in your army along with the tanks! It ought to be forced to be updated or else be done so automaticly! Kinda like the workers get updated, so should the obsolete units!

Not updated to the newest and best, but instead to some kind of cheap modern equivalent! Perhaps the warrior turns into "militia" by the time you enter modern age, and it gets a attack of 4 instead of 2. And the archer turns into "gunmen" and retains its 6, or perhaps get a 10 as power. That would solve this problem with people without imagination going into crazyness when they can't understand the rules.

 

[haard]

THIS is a valid point though. I lack some kind of "auto-update" on the troops. You shouldn't be able to still have a warrior in your army along with the tanks! It ought to be forced to be updated or else be done so automaticly! Kinda like the workers get updated, so should the obsolete units!

Not updated to the newest and best, but instead to some kind of cheap modern equivalent! Perhaps the warrior turns into "militia" by the time you enter modern age, and it gets a attack of 4 instead of 2. And the archer turns into "gunmen" and retains its 6, or perhaps get a 10 as power. That would solve this problem with people without imagination going into crazyness when they can't understand the rules.

THIS is exactly what I have been thinking. I think a simple graphics upgrade would do it, actually. For each age you reach, update obsolete units to a militia of the age before - but with unchanged stats.

 

[Dairuka]

The most annoying realism thing, is that super-heros never use the bathroom.

Why is that?

 

[Dairuka]

They're full of happy faces?

 

[TheNiceOne]

What I wrote is exactly what I have observed. I'm sorry if that upsets your little world, but it is what I saw and your words wont change that fact.

I'm not upset, I just wanted to point out that many knowledgeable players have done extensive tests that all proved that the CIV 3 cimbat resolution was completely random and fair. Those tests both involved debugging the CIV3 random generator to check that it was fulfilling all requirements for a good random generator, and also setting up battles with hundreds of units and checking that the actual results conformed to the expected outcomes.

Since you keep saying that you know the facts, then I would be interested in any real tests you've performed, that shows different results than all the old, extensive tests.

Get used to it!

Yes, I'm already very used to people thinking that CIV3 cheats, and that every save game they provide, shows that they were wrong. You haven't even provided a save game yet though...

Obviously you are more interested in making your empty debate points than reading what I wrote. If I wrote there is a different outcome in an attack after the game is reloaded and the attack is then done again, what does that tell you about the random seed setting?

It tells me that you've turned the "save random seed" setting off, and the game will therefore give you a different outcome after having been reloaded. I don't think there's anything else going on though...

 

[snepp]

It is my understanding from reading Apolyton forums, that a modern armor battered down to 4 out of 40 strength, starts the fight with a mere 10 hit points, while the incoming intact war elephant starts with the normal 100 - the elephant probably only has to win one random roll to achieve victory.

Your understanding is wrong.

You're wrong about his understanding being wrong, which is in fact not wrong.

Somehow that sentence felt....wrong.

 

[syneris]

Yes, I'm already very used to people thinking that CIV3 cheats, and that every save game they provide, shows that they were wrong.

I could have sworn I read something from the developers that they wanted Civ4 to have a less cheating but better AI.

 

[TheNiceOne]

I could have sworn I read something from the developers that they wanted Civ4 to have a less cheating but better AI.

That's right. There were some cheats in CIV3 - but none of them involved combat, which was 100% fair.

The CIV3 AI cheats were mostly in the form of giving the AI more info than it should have: It always knew the number and position of resources (including future resources), units, land, cities etc. It also seemed a bit fishy in diplomacy, by being more tolerant with other AI civs than it was with you.

And there was of course the handicaps based on difficulty level, just as in cIV.

There were no other types of cheat than this though, no free settlers during the game, no skewed combat, no faster movement or unsinkable galleys, no free techs, no building of units without the necessary tech, no free movement within your borders etc.


The only cheat I know for a fact that has been removed in cIV, is that the AI no longer knows about future resources when choosing where to settle. I know this from a direct quote by Soren Johnsen himself. They may have removed more of the CIV3 cheats, I just don't know yet - but I'm pretty sure they haven't added any new types of cheats, like in combat.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Hey, since you're obvious the expert here. And since it was you who took exception to my claiming I was seeing odd combat results, and since it was you claiming all the expertise and testing experience here. Then you can show me those tests. So far, all I've seen is your words.

I didn't claim that I did all the testing, but I participated in some of it, and I worked to compile it. You can start by checking out The complete cheat guide

You can also read the following threads:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=264498#post264498
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=171590#post171590
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44046

After having read all this - if you still think there are cheats involved in the CIV3 combat, then I would be more than interested in seeing a test from you.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Some showed they got strange results and others didn't. The results they got seemed to coincide with the view they believed. If they thought there was no cheating going into it, they didn't show any in their posts. Those who thought there was did show anomollies. Nothing I would call a scientific proof one way or another.

There's a difference between them though.

Those who believed there was cheating going on, never provided a test or a savegame, only described occurences they remembered. While those who performed actual testing that others could check, found that there was no cheating at all. A good example of the latter, was etj4Eagle's 1091 combat rounds where the results closely matched the expected outcome.

There were more tests than the few threads I found. You can search for them yourself if you're interested...

Only thing really conclusive there that I could descern was that you were more likely to be unpleasant to converse with than not if the person had a pov different than your's.

If one person provides tests with hundreds of combat rounds, and another provides a description of what he thinks he experienced, without any test or savegame or anything else to support his impresssion, then I'm pretty likely to tell the latter that he should perform some real tests before I believe him, yes.

As for me giving you "proof". Forget it. I don't have the time nor desire to painstakingly document every civ encounter and post them up here for your approval. Also, anyway, I have better things to do than satisfy the demands of someone on a talksite and whom I really don't care for. I'll continue to post my observations of these games as the mood strikes and you will just have to learn to get used to it.

Somehow I'm not surprised at all. Your impression goes against all tests that are made, and just like everyone else who think they've encountered combat cheats, you cannot or will not provide any tests to prove your case. I am used to it, and actually think it's kind of cute.

 

[·Imhotep·]

If you read this forum, it seems you can blame Firaxis for a lot of things. But not for an unbalanced combat system ! In my opinion the combat system in Civ IV is excellent. I can't understand why the author of the 1st post is complaining about losing a unit due to a combat with an inferior unit. This is not the experience I made when playing Civ IV. A friend of mine and myself recently tagged up for a MP game, continental big map, 6 civs total, Noble difficulty. Combined we achieved a pretty tech lead over the AI. Coming in with Mech Infs and Combat tanks we conquered 2/3 of the map within 20 turns (about 25 cities) and ended the realms of Peter and Tokugawa. We lost only two heavily wounded Mech Infs at the conquer of Tokio, they fell to War Elephants. Having experienced combat in Civilization - Call to Power (where your fusion tank could get killed by a warrior unit even on full strength !) I can only love the combat system in Civ IV. It's perfect and just. If one uses his units properly he'll get the victory. I daresay that you only need 3 units to conquer a city full of inferior units: You need just one combat tank with some first strike promotions, one artillery and one stealth bomber. The inferior units won't stand a chance. This fact my friend experienced too, when (in another SP game) lovely Isabella rushed in with tanks and bombers and unfortunately he had no aluminium resources. He got routed despite having a load of inferior units. The fact that warfare is connected to resources and combat is connected to unit health shows that the game is what it should be - strategic ! And believe me, it's no fun to defend desperately against an opponent who comes with superior high-tech units. On the other hand, it's quite fun to rout your opponent with these. In the MP game, Peter had some oil resources, but unfortunately no aluminium resources. His cities were defended by riflemen and machine guns - he didn't stand a chance. So don't try telling us the combat system is unbalanced - it's just strategic. It's no worth complaing about losing a heavily wounded unit when you still conquer the whole map because you have superior high tech units. Try capturing a city guarded by riflemen and machine guns with riflemen and cannons - you'll lose more units and it is still likely you won't get the city.

Combat in Civ IV - I love it, as well as the whole game.

 

[jeremiahrounds]

My question is if my praetorians are in a stack with my modern armor are they still the same praetorians as i had in the 0 AD? I know in civ they are. But you "this is silly folks".

I just view it as evolving. The unit exist and i have modern armor. I have one of the greatest technologies in the world so clearly my preatorians arnt ignorant of my own tech! They evolve to a strength 8 relative to 40~ Where as before they were strength 8 relative to 6 in the ancient age. You want them to be strength 1 to 40. Maybe a praetorian with a handgun~

 

[haard]

My question is if my praetorians are in a stack with my modern armor are they still the same praetorians as i had in the 0 AD? I know in civ they are. But you "this is silly folks".

I just view it as evolving. The unit exist and i have modern armor. I have one of the greatest technologies in the world so clearly my preatorians arnt ignorant of my own tech! They evolve to a strength 8 relative to 40~ Where as before they were strength 8 relative to 6 in the ancient age. You want them to be strength 1 to 40. Maybe a praetorian with a handgun~

...which brings us back to "upgrade the graphics of obsolete units".
Is there anyone who does not want that solution? I'd like to hear the cons before I scream for a patch/mod

 

[TheNiceOne]

...which brings us back to "upgrade the graphics of obsolete units".
Is there anyone who does not want that solution? I'd like to hear the cons before I scream for a patch/mod

I think this is a good idea too. But there is a downside that at must be addressed, but that I cannot remember to have seen discussed:

In the modern age, there will be quite a number of different obsolete units: warriors, spearmen, axemen, etc., etc. Today, we know what kind of unit it is by looking at it, but if everyone is to have upgraded graphis, there will be a lot of different unit graphics, that will make it hard to distinguish the units.

Also, remember that you will not only need a set for the modern age, but also a depiction of the obsolete warrior during earlier ages.


One could of course simplify this a bit by saying that all ancient age melee units have the same graphics, all ancient mounted units have another etc. This way, you have to view the stats for an enemy unit before you know its actual strength. This may not be so bad in cIV, since two warriors may have vastly different stats already due to the different possible promotions.


Anyway, if someone made such a mod, and managed to make the graphics good looking (and make sense), then I would use it.