1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

unrealistic battle results

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by mjd260, Feb 16, 2007.

  1. mjd260

    mjd260 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    PA
    I'm a Civ veteran who's playing just his second Civ IV game. I'm playing at chieftain to get my bearings. It's 1730 AD, and I'm way ahead technologically, militarily and culturally than the AI civs. But I'm getting pissed off that my superior military units are getting blasted by primitive crap from the AIs. Last night my battleship (strength 40) attacked a caravel (strength 3) in the open water and came away with a strength of 33.3. How does it lose more strength than the other freaking unit had?????

    I'm the only civ to have tanks, and I've seen several go down to crossbowmen and longbowmen. Last night I used a tank to attacked a Japanese city that had a 60 percent defense bonus and was defended by a stupid catapult, strength 5 I believe. My tank, strength 28, came was damaged down to a 12.8 -- it still won, don't get me wrong, but the bangings my units are taking seem to be unrealistic. I don't expect to pound through unscathed, but I expect modern units to fare pretty well against crap from the stone age or medieval times.

    How does the game figure out how much to zap your unit when attacking the AI? I figure there must be a 1000% bonus for being the AI, which it assigns randomly.

    Can I change the XML to add a modern-age bonus for modern military units??? I'm thinking like 50 percent at least.
     
  2. bardolph

    bardolph King

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    Messages:
    739
    That's just an artifact from the combat system. The point is, your stronger units won, and will continue to win against inferior techs until they are BADLY damaged, at which point you'll just have to spend a few turns healing.

    The reason why your battleship lost so much strength is because it had so much strength to begin with. Damage is figured in "hit points" not "strength points," so a 25hp blow to a battleship (STR 40) reduces 25% or 10 STR, while a 25hp blow to a caravel (STR 4) only reduces 1 STR. Believe me, your battleship can defeat MANY more caravels before ever needing to heal!

    As for your tanks dying to longbowmen, I can only assume that you were attacking with badly wounded tanks. STR 28 tanks should be able to defeat STR 6 longbowmen almost always, even when those longbowmen have large defensive bonuses.

    Also, the Warlords expansion addresses this issue in exactly the way you suggest, by halving the strength penalty given to wounded units.
     
  3. None_Existant

    None_Existant Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39
    Im not a modder of anysort so I cant say about the XML (I think my XML folder is empty and I dunno how to access the code >.>), but once again you're thinking to realistically. Whats going on is simply a program that compares the two scores, adds on any % bonuses and spits out an answer. It just compares numbers, ex. The battle ship is 40 and the Carvel is 3. Its a comparison of 40 and 3, not really a battleship and a carvel. You probably can assign a bonus though. 'shrug'
     
  4. None_Existant

    None_Existant Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39
    I think hes talking aobut how quickly they were damaged before dying in his reference. In a game I was messing around iwht, I dropped navy seals in my medival age enemy (bout 2 per city). After taking about 3 citys, all my seals were badly wounded and 2 had died. Like I said, this isnt about the fact that in rl seals have machiene guns, rocket launchers and w.e, this is about comparing numbers.

    I dont understand the first part. Care to clarify?
     
  5. mjd260

    mjd260 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    PA
    The tanks that died had strengths of probably 12 or so. A maceman attacked one of my injured tanks, strength 8, and won.

    I don't have the Warlords expansion unfortunatly... that'd be nice to have.
    Another question: I was attacking a Japanese city with a tank but only got one move/chance to attack, which struck me as odd. The city had walls if that takes away your times to attack by the same unit. And, I was right next to the city, so I should have had two turns to attack, right? Of course, my tank unrealistically lost about 16 hit points in the battle. So does losing hit points take away one of the moves?
     
  6. None_Existant

    None_Existant Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2007
    Messages:
    39
    No, did you move the tank already? A unit with blitz can attack as many times as it has moves left (obviously)...

    Compare 12 v 8. 8 is 33% less than 12, 100%-33%=66%. While I know thats probably not how dmg is calculated, the odds weren't overhelmingly infavor of your tank
     
  7. mjd260

    mjd260 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    PA
    Nope... I began the turn on a hill facing Kagoshima... I had two tanks there and the city was defended with three units, so I thought I could destroy it in that turn. The first tank won, but only got to attack once. The next tank got two chances to attack and won both, and I subsequently razed the city.

    That's not the first time the computer has taken away a move when I've had a tank.
     
  8. Blaarg

    Blaarg Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    519
    If you're a civ veteran then you should be well aware that this is the most realistic civ combat system, in terms of technological superior units rarely losing, to date.

    In civ 1, Stealth Bombers and Battleships would sometimes lose against spearman.
     
  9. mjd260

    mjd260 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    PA
    I have been playing the Civ series for quite some time. So when you say "most realistic civ combat system," it really doesn't say much to me, but I definitely applaud the experience level system, such as what they started in Civ 3 if I remember correctly.

    And i've seen my fair share of superior units losing... I remember in Civ 1 quitting a game b/c my armor lost to a militia. Armor had such a hard time defeating impis in Civ 2 that I'll never like the Zulus for it.
     
  10. Mehmed100

    Mehmed100 Hunger is Distasteful

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    319
    Location:
    I'm waking the others...
    Speaking of unrealistic combat odds. I was goofing around with the world builder and I added a barbarian tank, trying to replicate the spearman versus tank joke. I gave myself 20 or so spearmen. I attacked the tank. i had odds of 0.01%. I won!!! :confused: :spear: :rotfl: I couldn't believe it. :eek: I don't have any screenies though. :( It would have made a wonderful post. I thought they'ed have fixed that sort of thing by now.
     
  11. kelvSYC

    kelvSYC Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    34
    But that was a barbarian tank, right? I thought barbarians were severely handicapped beyond the +40% you get in Settler...

    I'd like to see how many spearmen it takes to take down an MA in Civ4 and compare it to Civ3...
     
  12. ZeepZeep

    ZeepZeep Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    29
    Blame your soldiers. If they are stupid enough to let the door of the tank unlocked, they deserve to get killed.
     
  13. oranges4ever

    oranges4ever Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    I'm very happy with Civ IV combat results.
    For a few months I played without using the combat odds calculator and was sometimes dissappointed with what I thought were reasonable attacks.

    Once I started using the combat calculator I've had virtually no screwy results and if anything I feel overall I am doing slightly better than the odds suggest. Sorry, no spearman beats tank for this little black duck.
     
  14. feldmarshall

    feldmarshall Dictator

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    Messages:
    387
    i once had my marine unit destroyed by 3 catapults. If you imagine in real life 3 catapults squad are killing a marine unit, thats great
     
  15. bardolph

    bardolph King

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    Messages:
    739
    If the city was on a hill, then the movement cost of attacking the hill would have eaten up both movement points of the tank.

    12 vs 8 should still highly favor the tank. The odds are much better than 3:2 (I think they're about 9:1), but it would still be possible for the maceman to win occasionally, and even if the tank won, it would have been pretty badly damaged.

    Again, if you were playing Warlords, your tank would have been at 21 instead of 12 (halve the wounded penalty), so it's nearly impossible for macemen to beat tanks, except with tremendous numerical advantage, and even then the maces have to be very, very lucky.

    EDIT: Never friggin mind. I just ran some tests, in Warlords.

    Macemen vs Tank: the 9th maceman defeated the tank.
    Spearman vs (Barbarian) Tank: Spearman won on 1st try (with NO damage!!!!!!!)
    Spearman vs (Barbarian) Tank: AGAIN, Spearman won on 1st try with no damage (this must be a bug)!
    Spearman vs (Barbarian) Tank: 10th spearman defeated the tank.
    Spearman (with Combat II + Ambush) vs Barbarian Tank: 13th spearman defeated the tank.
    Spearman (with Combat II + Ambush) vs Barbarian Tank: 11th spearman defeated the tank.

    I forgot that Warlords no longer allows melee units to purchase Ambush (but these are HIGHLY TRAINED anti-tank spearmen!!)

    Well, I'm disappointed with the results of my tests. I was hoping the tanks would fare better. HOWEVER, I think in actual game play, I don't see any civ actually winning a war with spears vs tanks. The occasional battle? Maybe. Unrealistic, yes, but I do admit it's fun to see a determined enough horde of spearmen taking out a single tank.
     
  16. Jastrow

    Jastrow Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,685
    Location:
    Germany
    Sounds to me like you did the test on a relatively low difficulty level. Given that you used barbarians, this invalidates the test... For starters, the first one or 2 (depending on level) battles against barbs are garanteed wins (explaining your first two results, and after that, the barbs get additional penalties on low levels.
     
  17. Blaarg

    Blaarg Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    519
    Apparently you don't understand. In Civ 1 it was just one dice roll per combat. Your Stealth Bomber had a 24 strenth vs a Phalanx with a 2 strenth behind city walls (+200%) 24:6 is reduced to 4:1. The spearman would win 1 out of every 5 battles. :eek:

    In Civ 2 they added Firepower and Hitpoints. Firepower(FP) was how much damage the unit did when it won a round of combat, Hitpoints(HP) was how much damage it took to kill said unit.

    Pre-Gunpowder units had FP of 1 and HP of 1, meaning if it was Pre-Gunpowder vs Pre-Gunpowder the combat was identical to the combat system in civ1. Musketmen/Riflemen/Infantry/Etc had FP of 2 and HP of 2 meaning that the pre-Gunpower units had to win the combat roll twice to beat the post Gunpower units. Tanks and simliar units had FP/HP of 3 I think only Battleships had FP/HP of 4.

    Civ 3 made the hitpoints dependent on Unit experience. Most units were 'Regular' meaning they had 3 hitpoints. Barracks units were 'Veteran' meaning they had 4 Hitpoints. Conscripted units were 'Green' meaning they had 2 hitpoints. When units won battles they had a chance to gain an Experience level, and maybe even get to Elite which gave the unit 5 Hitpoints (and increased it's movement IIRC) Firepower was changed as well, think only units like Artillary and Tanks had 2 firepower, everything else only had 1. This evened the battles out so much more. However, this system still created the occasial battle where spearmen could beat modern armor.

    Going through this, it becomes obvious that Civ 4's combat system is easily the least chaotic, meaning the results are much more often within a single Standard Deviation than Civ1/2/3. So while it's still possible to have outrageous results, it is much less likely.
     
  18. Blaarg

    Blaarg Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    519
    Oh and if you're getting upset by Tanks vs Longbowmen or Battleships vs Caravels not winning often enough, then just up the Difficulty level a few notches and you won't have those kind of match ups nearly as often, if ever.
     
  19. mjd260

    mjd260 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    38
    Location:
    PA
    Apparently you didn't understand when I said this is the second game I've played of Civ 4, having just received it as a Christmas gift. I'll play at higher difficulties after I win the one I'm playing now.
     
  20. bardolph

    bardolph King

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    Messages:
    739
    OK, but I don't think that invalidates the test. I will accept that the first 2 battles are "free," so I'll throw those out. With the remaining tanks, the spearmen get a +10% against barbarians (the difficulty level was Noble). So the STR 28 tank becomes STR 25.2, and 10-13 spearmen are able to take it out. With macemen, it's more like 8-10.

    While I might find that unrealistic, I think it's totally playable within the context of the game. First of all, the chances of the FIRST spearman winning are almost nonexistent, since it is only with the cumulative wounding of the tank that victory becomes even remotely possible. Send 10-13 spearmen out 1:1 against 10-13 tanks, and the spearmen have no chance. It's only with intense numerical superiority that primitive units get any chance at all. Secondly, even a small escort of infantry or even another tank makes it even harder for the spearmen to get through, since when the first tank gets wounded, the other one steps in to defend, and vice versa.

    What this means is that a single tank can't roll over a whole civilization without stopping a few times to heal.

    I think that's reasonable.

    Plus, I think it's fun to know that HUGE numbers of primitive units can overwhelm a single unprotected modern unit, if given the chance.

    All in all, I think the combat system is a good one, and gives reasonable results the vast majority of the time.

    The moral of the story is: don't send badly wounded units into battle.

    Makes sense to me.
     

Share This Page