Unit matchups???

[Barbs]

Hi All,

Just made the step up from the lowest level (I played the lowest level a lot because it was easy) to the next lowest level (Monarch I think it is).

I am going pretty well. There are 5 civs on a standard size map and I have the largest if not the equal largets civ. I have tech about 2-3 steps ahead of the AI at around Steam Engine in about 1100AD.

Here's my problem. Me (Egypt) and Zulu are the two biggest civs. Next tear are France and Rome, with Babylon struglling after a war with the Zulus. I am closely positioned on a continent with Rome and I'm now at war with them when they decided they couldn't expand anymore because I was in the way. The romans are attacking me with Knights, swordsman and now they have just developed cavalry. I am defending with Cavalry and musketmen wherever I can from elevated positions (there's a mountain range between rome and me. But it seems that either the AI are getting an attack bonus or my units are just crap. They don't seem to follow any realistic rules.

Example: Roman swordsman (guys on foot carrying swords) standing on grassland attacks Egyptian Cavalry (guys on horses carrying guns) standing on a hill and swordsmen win more often than not. Or....Egyptian Cavalry on a hill attacks Roman Swordsman from elevated position and lose more often than not.

What am I doing wrong. Should I abandon all realistic military tactics and just fight the war with numbers (like C&C) or go play Total War?

 

[zagnut]

It sometimes seems that the AI is getting an unfair advantage in the unit battles. However, the game has no feeling. It is only governed by mathematics. If you have trouble calculating the odds you should download one of the combat calculators from the Creation and Customization Forum. It will clearly tell you the odds. However, they are just odds. Sometimes the Spearman will win when attacked by the Cavalry. Don't take it personally. We all feel as you do sometimes, but there is no cure for it but to keep playing the odds.

I don't like to lose units. Therefore, my wars are not fought with the idea that I will lose many units to gain my objective. I always play the odds and usually they work out, but not always.

 

[Arturo]

Also, remember that the weapons they carry do not determine their strength. So while it looks unbelievable when a guy on a horse with a gun is killed by a guy on foot with a sword, it is all determined by their stats.
The swordsman has an attack rating of 3
Cavalry has a defence rating of 3
So they are evenly matched. The things that effect winning/losing in this situation is based on terrain and status (regular/vet./elite). After that it's all up to the RNG.

 

[JustBen]

All terrain provides at least some defensive bonus (10% on Grasslands; look it up). So 3 on 3 is never really even. But addressing the more annoying question:

This used to drive me nuts. I'm still not exactly sure why they decided to scrap that wonderful firepower/hitpoints system they used back in Civ 2. What you have to respect is that the units are not designed so that a tech advantage gives you a combat advantage in an individual fight. What it does is to give you an advantage in the war. You're not fighting battles in this game -- you're fighting wars. You're not going to win every time you take a Cavalry against a Spearman. Accept it. But if you take 30 Cavalry against 30 Spearman, you're going to come out of it a lot better off than if you take 30 Cavalry against 30 Mechanized Infrantry. And yes -- you will kill a few Mechanized Infantry in the process.

Sometimes the high-tech army has a bad fight, but over the long haul it's going to have an advantage. This happens in history. Ask the British Empire about the Zulu. Ask the Gringos about the Vietnamese. Ask the Yankees about the Conferderates.

Is it still obnoxious to bomb Pikemen for 5 turns and then watch them offing your Tanks? Yes. Very much so. But wait till you start playing on Deity (yes, it'll happen eventually). The first time you start a fight with your Pikemen and Ansar Warriors and end the war trying to stave off Cavalry rushes, you'll appreciate how the system works a lot more.

And if it really bugs you that much, I think you can buy Civ 2 for abuot $15 these days.

 

[Puzzlinon]

The first time you start a fight with your Pikemen and Ansar Warriors and end the war trying to stave off Cavalry rushes, you'll appreciate how the system works a lot more.

Hear, hear!
Going banzai with antiquated maniac hordes to carve your way back up out of a technical deficit is one of the great pleasures of the game.

 

[Barbs]

Okay,

I guess I just need to play along. I guess what I can't believe is that this game solely relies upon the stats. Maybe I should go visit a wishlist somewhere (is there one here?) and ask fior some bonus vs certain units. For example, pikemen and should be good against mounted units and mounted units good against ranged and infantry units.

back to the slaughter.

 

[Brewster]

Waging war with inferrior units can be difficult at best. My first attempt at Monarch ended up being an exercise in frustration. I (Spain) was stuck on an island which was connected to a smaller island by a one tile land bridge. My island had NO strategic resources while the other island had everything I desired. Unfortunately it was occupied by the Greeks and their nasty Hoplites.

I must have spent at least 100 turns trying to get the resources I so coveted but ended up wasting well over 100 units in the process. The Greek city with the iron was build on a hill and fortified with 3 Hoplites. On three separate occasions I sent stacks of horsemen (25+) at this city only to see them get killed off one by one promoting the defenders.

I did eventually get the resources and control of both islands but had fallen so far behind in tech that I was a sitting duck for the next greedy civ (Carthage). They whupped my butt with far superior units.

 

[Tony595]

Originally posted by Barbs
Okay,

I guess I just need to play along. I guess what I can't believe is that this game solely relies upon the stats. Maybe I should go visit a wishlist somewhere (is there one here?) and ask fior some bonus vs certain units. For example, pikemen and should be good against mounted units and mounted units good against ranged and infantry units.

back to the slaughter.

in civ2 for example pikemen do have defensex2 against mounted units, i used to think this was the case in civ3 and wouldn't attack pikemen until i had tanks.. i agree with you there should be certain bonuses

 

[SinisterDeath]

The best is when 1 spearman in a size 1 city without walls kills 4 cavalry and gets promoted from REG all the way to ELITE.

 

[The Last Conformist]

SinisterDeath: Your sigline goes wonderfully with what you wrote immediately above ...

I'm actually happy that they removed the HP/FP system from Civ2 - it makes comparing different units that much easier. One could wish for greater differences in ADM ratings and rebalancings of particular unit combinations*, but the Civ3 system is overall sleeker and nicer than the Civ2 one. If you think there's to much randomness in combat, increasing HP across the board is the solution (simply doubling it to 4, 6, 8, 10 keeps the balance between experience levels, too).

* One that particularly annoys me is that Musketmen have a lower attack factor than Swordsmen. FTW?!? If this annoys you too, you might want to take a look at Karhgath's Conquer the Earth mod, in which the first gunpowder unit is the 4.3.1 Arquebusier.

Edit: Spelling

 

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Barbs
Should I abandon all realistic military tactics and just fight the war with numbers

Don't abandon military tactics, but you are using them in the wrong way. Remember that the civ world is governed by computer code. If all the units were one-foot cube robots that sprayed water at each other, they would still be as powerful as their stats. And remember the law of large numbers. It doesn't necessarily say your luck will balance out totally, but that the more samples (battles) you have, the closer to average outcome you will have.

Another thing. It is important to remember that Civ is not primarily a military combat game. Many other computer games have that focus and have done it much better than Civ. It is true that civ could have made certain battles more realistic, such as giving long range units (musketmen) a "free shot" over close range units (swordsmen), but small changes like that would make the game far too difficult. There already was a thread discussing the obstacles to learning the game; would a newcomer need to digest all this too?

 

[MooFreaky]

SolarFlare makes a good point. To make the game realistic you would have to sacrifice too much of the gameplay. For example in the ancient age all the way up to more modern warefare the combat would have to be very different to be realistic. As combat back then was fought very differently. In those times armies lined up against eachother and waited to engage together so musketmen, swordsmen, hoplites etc would all have one value, because one side is not really attacking the other, they are marching into eachother. Archers would be able to attack an army without being touched, much like the bombardment value of cannon/catapults.

IMHO tactics are very important, but people seem to misplace them. Holding ground is good, but years of StarCraft taught me you can defend all you want, and you may have a kill ratio 4:1 even 10:1 but still watch your cities burn. You have to attack properly. I strongly recommend looking at Sun Tsu's art of war (obviously not the original... hehe) but even what may seem basic is in there and it does change the way you play games like Civ. Well it did for me...

On a complete tangent, how cool would it be to be able to do a Genghis Kahn and march captured enemies into battle as fodder. HeHe.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Originally posted by Brewster
I must have spent at least 100 turns trying to get the resources I so coveted but ended up wasting well over 100 units in the process. The Greek city with the iron was build on a hill and fortified with 3 Hoplites. On three separate occasions I sent stacks of horsemen (25+) at this city only to see them get killed off one by one promoting the defenders.

It would have been more succesful to trade for Iron with other civs to build knights and swordsmen and attack the Greek with them. Perhaps using Catapults and canons could have done the trick for you as well.

And 100 units in 100 turns ? That is not a lot.

 

[SinisterDeath]

Yes, I agree, trade and then smash. Offer them luxuries for the iron, and then do a mass military build 2/3rds offensive 1/3 defensive, and go take it from them.