unbalanced combat
- Thread starter Eigenvector
- Start date
"Yes I know city defences give an advantage, blah blah blah, but come on - since when is an archer going to phase the advance of a mechanized infantry platoon?"
Seriously, haven't you see or read "Robin Hood"? Longbowmen are incredible for ambushes.
"Ho, what do we have 'ere? Guy Gisborne, would you be so kind and exit that APC slowly? And while at it, put your M16 on the ground together with the grenades... slowly. That's more like it! Everyone maintain radio silence - remember, my men have twitchy fingers and armor-piercing arrows..."
Seriously, haven't you see or read "Robin Hood"? Longbowmen are incredible for ambushes.
"Ho, what do we have 'ere? Guy Gisborne, would you be so kind and exit that APC slowly? And while at it, put your M16 on the ground together with the grenades... slowly. That's more like it! Everyone maintain radio silence - remember, my men have twitchy fingers and armor-piercing arrows..."
·Imhotep·
Legendary Builder
Well, I would not like an automatic graphic upgrade for obsolete units. Just leave it as it is - now you see at first glance what comes upon you, then you would have to check the stats of every single unit. Not very handy. It's no bad thing that superior units can lose to inferior ones - it just needs adjusting your strategy and gameplay. And yes, it adds a little bit of challenge and thrill if your tank is not gonna cruise through enemy cities with a 1/28 strength all the way...
I agree in some ways with the OP. Under no conditions, EVER should an archer, knight, or whatever be able to beat a full str gunship, or any modern unit. These assumptions like out of fuel, caught sleeping etc are lame. There are some things that are unseen but get done, such as supply lines, food, fuel ammo etc getting to your troops. (BTW in dangerous times guys sleep inside the tank, and in shifts)
Now, you can't have the first player to infantry just go around totaly mopping the floor with player with riflemen. However, If you have Longbow men vs Gunships and Tanks, you deserve to lose, utterly.
My suggestion is this: as well as having gunpower, mounted, armored etc classification, units are classifed as Ancient, Ren, Industrial, Modern. So, a bowman would be Ancient, archery. Knight Ren, Mounted. Gunship Modern, Helicopter, etc.
To end this problem, Industrial age units could get a 50% bonus vs ancient, and modern could get a 100% bonus. This way, even if you Modern armor was down to 5/40 it would actually be 10 vs 8 of an elephant, etc.
Civ4 has done a far better job then Civ3 on balance. However, 2 last points. They really should do something, my suggestion or another, that modern armies should totaly plow ancient ones, no matter what thier bonuses.
Second point is, you shouldnt be playing on a difficulty where you have modern armor and the AI has longbow men and elephants in the first place, so such a fight should never happen
Now, you can't have the first player to infantry just go around totaly mopping the floor with player with riflemen. However, If you have Longbow men vs Gunships and Tanks, you deserve to lose, utterly.
My suggestion is this: as well as having gunpower, mounted, armored etc classification, units are classifed as Ancient, Ren, Industrial, Modern. So, a bowman would be Ancient, archery. Knight Ren, Mounted. Gunship Modern, Helicopter, etc.
To end this problem, Industrial age units could get a 50% bonus vs ancient, and modern could get a 100% bonus. This way, even if you Modern armor was down to 5/40 it would actually be 10 vs 8 of an elephant, etc.
Civ4 has done a far better job then Civ3 on balance. However, 2 last points. They really should do something, my suggestion or another, that modern armies should totaly plow ancient ones, no matter what thier bonuses.
Second point is, you shouldnt be playing on a difficulty where you have modern armor and the AI has longbow men and elephants in the first place, so such a fight should never happen
Zombie69
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,902
Forget it TheNiceOne. If meisen is a Great Person, he's certainly a Great Prophet, and not a Great Scientist. Faith over empirical data. There's nothing you can do with those kinds of people, except laugh or shrug. Let them live in their dream world, it's for the best.
Perhaps it's because I been an avid strategy gamer (computer as well as boardgames) for more than 20 years now but I only see the units as an abstract number of my military.
If you want this game to be realistical just don't look at the combat. A game that last for 6000 years can in no way be realistic. The movement of the units is for exampel ridiculies if you look at the time line. The economy and resaerch system is pretty f****d up as well if you want it to be realistical. Why shouldn't the combat system be ridiculies as well?
This game is just about an abstract history of the world and to be honest I think Firaxis has made a hell of a work not just designing the game but also balancing it. If you want a more realistic game about history then look for the Paradox games. They are abstracted as well in many ways but are far more realistic than Civ 4.
If you want this game to be realistical just don't look at the combat. A game that last for 6000 years can in no way be realistic. The movement of the units is for exampel ridiculies if you look at the time line. The economy and resaerch system is pretty f****d up as well if you want it to be realistical. Why shouldn't the combat system be ridiculies as well?
This game is just about an abstract history of the world and to be honest I think Firaxis has made a hell of a work not just designing the game but also balancing it. If you want a more realistic game about history then look for the Paradox games. They are abstracted as well in many ways but are far more realistic than Civ 4.
meisen said:
huh, he asks for proof, is given proof, then is asked for his own proof and responds like this. classy.
As for a spearman or archerer beating a gunship? Keep in mind that each turn is a *minimum* of one year long. How many random events can occur in a year? A lot! That's what any random factor simulates. In an out right combat with no randomidity, yes the archaic units will loose every time. Life, however, doesn't allow this. I think they did a wonderful job trying to simulate this.
snepp
King
Yes, dad. 
Eigenvector
Molekh has nothing on me!
This thread hasn't gone anywhere, and it isn't a big deal other than it's aggrevating how easy the problem could have been solved and yet how resistant to change the players are.
I've heard a lot of good suggestions on how this could have been a non-issue
1) Have those obsolete units surrender
2) Upgrade the obsolete units to a modern equivalent (partisans or something)
3) Give the obsolete units a substantial penalty above and beyond the normal ones - 100% against modern, 50% against gunpowder units, something to that effect
To me those were no brainers and Firaxis should have incorporated something like this in the first place.
I've heard plenty of counter arguments,
1) If you want realism, play "Call to Duty"
Oh yeah, there's a realistic scenario - I mean *VIDEO GAME*
2) "It could happen, remember the Ewoks against the Stormtroopers in SW3?"
Another shining example of realism - a movie no less, that is entirely scripted to come out that way
3) "Its just a game and this stuff happens"
Okay, I can buy that. I'm not happy about it, but I can live with this rationale
4) "The spearmen threw their spears in the tank treads/air cleaners/gun barrel/dug huge tank trap ditches/killed them when the soldiers had to take a dump/the phalanx managed to singlehandedly destroy the supply train of a modern army"
I almost don't want to acknowledge such inane commentary. This goes back to solution #2, because if a spearman has the knowledge to dig a tank trap then it's probably advanced to the level of partisan or guerrilla soldier. Because last time I checked phalanx units didn't dig tank traps and they certainly don't fight using guerrilla tactics - partisans do however.
So I say, we turn them into partisans as soon as the new eras are reached, have it so that civs that are behind the curve can't build anything but partisans until they catch up, and have it so that the partisans keep the highest rating of the unit currently allowed by their tech - that is if a civ only has axemen, then the partisan has that rating, while if a second civ has knight, then those partisans have that rating - horse and all. I would argue that a partisan would get NO attack bonuses. I personally think that would reflect the reality of today's wars. Other countries don't necessarily have excellent tanks and combined arm tactics, but they can improvise using what they know and have learned from other countries. Evidence for this is shown in Iraq, Afghanistan (during Soviet and US occupation), Vietnam, heck even horrible places like the Sudan. Ragtag troops entering combat against superior foes using borrowed, stolen, or improvised weapons that work well when used in hit and run situations but don't help at all when forced to fight in the open - Iraq is a good example of this. In Desert Storm the US crushed the Iraqis, but we seem to be having problems taking over cities in this latest debacle.
I've heard a lot of good suggestions on how this could have been a non-issue
1) Have those obsolete units surrender
2) Upgrade the obsolete units to a modern equivalent (partisans or something)
3) Give the obsolete units a substantial penalty above and beyond the normal ones - 100% against modern, 50% against gunpowder units, something to that effect
To me those were no brainers and Firaxis should have incorporated something like this in the first place.
I've heard plenty of counter arguments,
1) If you want realism, play "Call to Duty"
Oh yeah, there's a realistic scenario - I mean *VIDEO GAME*
2) "It could happen, remember the Ewoks against the Stormtroopers in SW3?"
Another shining example of realism - a movie no less, that is entirely scripted to come out that way
3) "Its just a game and this stuff happens"
Okay, I can buy that. I'm not happy about it, but I can live with this rationale
4) "The spearmen threw their spears in the tank treads/air cleaners/gun barrel/dug huge tank trap ditches/killed them when the soldiers had to take a dump/the phalanx managed to singlehandedly destroy the supply train of a modern army"
I almost don't want to acknowledge such inane commentary. This goes back to solution #2, because if a spearman has the knowledge to dig a tank trap then it's probably advanced to the level of partisan or guerrilla soldier. Because last time I checked phalanx units didn't dig tank traps and they certainly don't fight using guerrilla tactics - partisans do however.
So I say, we turn them into partisans as soon as the new eras are reached, have it so that civs that are behind the curve can't build anything but partisans until they catch up, and have it so that the partisans keep the highest rating of the unit currently allowed by their tech - that is if a civ only has axemen, then the partisan has that rating, while if a second civ has knight, then those partisans have that rating - horse and all. I would argue that a partisan would get NO attack bonuses. I personally think that would reflect the reality of today's wars. Other countries don't necessarily have excellent tanks and combined arm tactics, but they can improvise using what they know and have learned from other countries. Evidence for this is shown in Iraq, Afghanistan (during Soviet and US occupation), Vietnam, heck even horrible places like the Sudan. Ragtag troops entering combat against superior foes using borrowed, stolen, or improvised weapons that work well when used in hit and run situations but don't help at all when forced to fight in the open - Iraq is a good example of this. In Desert Storm the US crushed the Iraqis, but we seem to be having problems taking over cities in this latest debacle.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
Saying that it is resistance to change that makes me and others disagree with you, is simply wrong. It's about as correct as saying that you want the change because you don't handle proper combat tactics - which I'm sure is not the case...Eigenvector said:
And yet they did not. Maybe they had a good reason for not doing that...
But you have overlooked mine (and a few others):
We think the game is more realistic and interesting when you actually have to employ combined arms, bombardment, waiting for reinforcement etc. even when you have abig technology lead. I neither think it's fun nor realistic that one major power can overrun another without use of combat tactics and still do so withouth casualties.
I also think that it's important for the game as a whole not to make tech leads too important. If you had "realistic" combat results, then being the first to discover certain military techs would skew the balance of the game.
This may not be important to you, just as the detailed realism of a spearman vs tank is not important to me, and neither of us are wrong, since this is pretty subjective. But Firaxis has chosen the current balance for a reason, and I guess their reasons are similar to mine.
TopDog
Prince
Look at it this way; the gunships were devastated by a freak hurricane.
Anyone else realises how wrong this thread title is?
Combat in cIV is not unbalanced, it's just "unrealistic".
If a strength 8 elephant had no chance vs a modern armor which is down to 5 strength (like the thread starter wants it to be), combat would be unbalanced. So you would just need a certain tech (ie indutrialism) to be able to crush every opposition with zero casualties. Fun? I don't think so.
balance > realism
If you want "realistic" combat, go edit some xml files. But I bet most of us would rather stick with balanced combat.
Combat in cIV is not unbalanced, it's just "unrealistic".
If a strength 8 elephant had no chance vs a modern armor which is down to 5 strength (like the thread starter wants it to be), combat would be unbalanced. So you would just need a certain tech (ie indutrialism) to be able to crush every opposition with zero casualties. Fun? I don't think so.
balance > realism
If you want "realistic" combat, go edit some xml files. But I bet most of us would rather stick with balanced combat.
onedreamer
Dragon
Eigenvector said:
I wrote realistic battlefield. It's typical of people like you when they have no arguments to debate to missquote everything to their own advantage making it appear ridiculous. Well done... try again.
TheNiceOne
Emperor
That same thought occured to me. Those who dislike that older units have a chance against new, doesn't want balanced combat, but rather some form of realism.Draconian said:
I understand the idea that a spearman beating a tank is unrealistic, but I still think that the overall war is portrayed more realistically (and of course much more balanced) when even older units can do some damage.
...and welcome to the forum Draconian.
Eigenvector
Molekh has nothing on me!
TheNiceOne said:
How would turning those units into partisans affect game balance? Basically all you're doing is changing the unit graphic.
This appears to be a fundamental philosophical difference in how each person views the game. Frankly I'm amazed this thing is still going, I haven't been to this board for a long time as my actual occupation has taken priority. The arguments have been laid down a long time ago and while some sniping has been going on the basic viewpoints have been established. I only really put in a comment because I knew it would raise the hackles of the immatures that inhabit this forum. Trolling? Probably, but no more so than those who respond to it with their own inflammitory comments. Anyway, close this out will you moderator?
BTW: Can I close my own thread or does the moderator have to do that for me?
Similar threads
