?????????????????????????????????????????
Unrealistic combat results taking cities?
- Thread starter pat1968
- Start date
Theryman
King
I think he means that fortifying is different that fortification... and he is right. A fortification is a structure built by a worker action, and of course anyone who ever played Civ 3 knows what fortifying is.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
Thanks for clearing that up, Theryman.
timerover51
Deity
Actually, give the combat ratings of the ships, that is not that impossible, at least in the game. In reality, if you assume that the English Man-of-War is equivalent to a 74-gun Ship of the Line, two of those, with a good maneuvering wind could destroy a galley fleet fairly readily. In a calm, a different story, but still a Ship of the Line should not be beaten by an ancient galley. The size and crew differential are too great.
The naval combat rating system is much worse than the land system when it comes to not near enough disparity between ancient, medieval, industrial, and modern units. If an ancient bireme galley broke 100 tons displacement, I would be surprised. A modern carrier goes 85,000 tons. I keep playing around with it, but given the game limitations, it is not easy. Be easier to do if the game allowed for more hitpoints or used a different way of computing combat results, or plugged in a technology differential. I am used to naval miniature games where you can plug in all sorts of stuff. I keep cranking the attack and defense factors up, but given the limited hit points, you are still going to get some odd results.
Ah, OK. "fortification is different than fortification"...Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
ChaosArbiter
King
Yes, it's 6 - why would it be higher? Infantry is primarily defensive, and a defense of 6 is still as powerful as the previous Attacker (Cavalry).
Snarkhunter
Prince
It would be higher because the infantry is using superior weapons and more of them. . . except that's not the way the designers gamed it. The defense is actually 10, not 6; the defense in this period generally had it over the offense.
Arguably, the difference should be more; infantry vs cav is only 2-1 whereas cav vs inf is 3-5. But I suspect the designers painted themselves into a numbers game corner hard to get out of. You get the flavor of the period, in any case.
kk
ChaosArbiter
King
*Facepalm*
That should say "offense of 6," not defense of 6. I meant to say that the attack of the Age's primary defender is as strong as the best Attacker of the previous age, so why would it change. I suspect I wasn't paying attention to what I was saying.
ChaosArbiter
King
And Infantry successfully attacked into other Infantry in the timeframe of 1890-1950 when?
The thing is, even if they're 8.10.1 or 8.11.1, attackers will still be at a disadvantage, yet they'll have a chance.
TheOverseer714
Overseer
During the time when infantry was pre-eminent, almost the only way an attack was successful is if it followed a blistering artillery barrage. In the game, this is modelled pretty well. Try redlining those enemy infantry, then attacking.
They could have introduced something like the R:TW-style of battles. They could use the very same terrain graphics, and just do some storyboarding to make m-units. It wouldn't be too hard... not if you pay those people. I wish civ 4 had gone that way. Civ III is okay the way it is (actually, I think it's better than civ4), but they could have improved greatly upon it with Civ 4, instead of makinf all that cheesy stuff.
Civ III + tactical battles = gaming heaven.
Civ III + tactical battles = gaming heaven.
Snarkhunter
Prince
I'd have to disagree, depending on what you think a "blistering" barrage would be. The most successful attacks historically were those that emphasized infiltration, bypassing strongpoints, reinforcing success, & equipping the infantry platoons & squads with good organic firepower. Artillery was important, but not the 5-30+ day barrages so common in WWI. Eventually, folks realized that a 30 minute barrage was just as effective, especially if it was a true time-on-target salvo. WWII bombardments longer than a few hours are relatively rare.
In game terms, though, you are absolutely correct: redline the target, then take it out. There's no real way to do Stosstruppen tactics in the game mechanics.
kk
timerover51
Deity
Civilization 3 is a strategic to grand strategic game. If you want to go to a tactical level game, you are talking about adding another entire game to the setup. That would include a another combat results system, new terrain graphics, probably new unit graphics and animations, and have a game similar to say, Rise of Nations or Age of Empire 2 or 3. Plus, you would need some sort of interface between the town games to shift from one to the other, and have the results from the tactical game transferred to the strategic game. This would mean that each unit in Civilization 3 strategic game would have to be scaled properly for the tactical game to work. You can do that in a campaign game using miniatures, if you don't mind a lot of work and have someone willing to do it.
I will not even begin to get into my views of the Civ4 combat system as a miniature war gamer since 1970.
Similar threads
