Who hates Civ3's combat system?

[Capt Buttkick]

I think it's an excellent system.

Another great example from a movie is "The Last Samurai", which is also based on historical events. I won't spoil it to those that haven't seen it, but it illustrates how "ill equipped" units can defeat more modern units.

 

[Gengis Khan]

Civs combat system is excellent.

War is choatic, random, and impossible to predict. I think the RNG reflects this very well, superier troops gives you an advangtage but by no means guarentees victory. Otherwise the tech leader gets to wipe out everyone as soon as they get a new unit, once they take some cities noone would EVER catch them & they'd win........ every time. Games wouldn't be won with strategy and planning(especially MP games), they'd be won as soon as the map was generated. "I have 4 rivers surrounding my capitol........ I win! Wanna rematch?"

Originally posted by arthurfear
But in Civ, horseman are nothing more than fast archers, and Swordsman only the smallest bit better. Knights should have much higher attack values - around 10 or 12, and should be way more expensive than they are. And so on. Usually I give knights 12 attack, horsemen 7, cavalry 18, tanks 28 etc. And of course, the correspending defensive units I make much better too.

This system is so flawed it's rediculous. Not even getting into the the tech leader wins every time that I already mentioned, the balance is horrible. Warriors have a 1 attack and horsement have a 7?? What?!? Cav have an 18, but tanks only have a 28? Tanks can just run over a horse, why not make it a 38....... or a 98?

The game is based on percentages, if you double the attack and defense of every unit you've changed nothing. If you want to make combat more predicatable give every every unit more a bunch more HPs.......... except this makes vets and elites less powerful & pointless except for leaders.

The system is very well balanced as it is. You can tell this, by the way Firaxis people have polled the MP community to get feedback on units, and have changed stats or cost of quite a few UUs in Conquests. Is the system and balance perfect? No. Is it as good as it can possibly get for a game? I think so. Any changes that a person makes throws the balance outa wack, and handicaps an already struggling AI.

 

[Ekmek]

I think the major flaw is that its always one on one unit combat. You cant have a combined arms synchronized attack ever. And I always lose more HP when my army attacks than individual units too.

I dont think the values are off because 5 spearman units should wipe out one rifleman. Unfortunately in Civ the 5 cant attack at once so you have to do individual melee until it does. i guess thats why the values are watered down so the spearman could win.

They need to deal with stacks and different units better...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Gengis Khan
Civs combat system is excellent.
The game is based on percentages, if you double the attack and defense of every unit you've changed nothing. If you want to make combat more predicatable give every every unit more a bunch more HPs.......... except this makes vets and elites less powerful & pointless except for leaders.

Are you assuming that all levels get the same amount extra HP?

A popular idea otherwise is simply doubling HP across the board - four for Conscripts, six for Regulars, eight for Veterans, ten for Elites. Makes combat more predictible (and slower!), but keeps the balance between unit experience levels much the same.

Another scheme that's been seen in several scenarios is 2-4-6-8 (ACW uses 3-4-6-8, but also has plenty of HP bonuses and penalties). This makes combat more predictible, and increases the value of Veterans and Elites. Indeed, Elites become very valuable with this system.

 

[IglooDame]

*sigh* I feel sorta left out, I've never seen a spearman successfully defend against a tank in one of my games.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Wellcome to the club, IglooDude.

 

[afrorouge]

The effect of stacks of units is perfectly well represented. If you attack one spearman with 5 rifles and you still lose to the spearman, that's just tough luck. It's not very likely to happen, though. Superior numbers are rewarded by multiple attacks and a large overall hp total.

I think it's a mistake to translate units in Civ to real life organizations, i.e. divisions. The game is a simulation of broader trends in the course of a history, but scale-wise it's a mixed bag. I think the combat system is actually much smaller scale, even though it's played over an apparently large scale.

I do agree that spearmen etc need to change as eras change, if for no other reason than flavor. Once a country has gunpowder, at least, they should change to militia or something (with the same stats - at least they'll look right).

 

[Sark6354201]

These are some excellent points made, which I'm glad. Most people don't agree with me that the system is flawed which is fine, because I can see your side of it as well.

Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with you

On the subject of losing 2 or 3 tanks in an attack and saying you should of been better prepared I give you this example:

The way I look at it, each health point is supposed to represent skill or number of men still at full health. You could say 20,000 men are in a division, and if the units in civ represent one division a regular unit might loose 7 or 8 thousand men per hitpoint lost while the veteran unit, with its better experience would only lose 5000. A Tank division might have any number of tanks or other motorized vehicles but for the sake of simplicity let's say 250 Tanks or otherwise.

The problem I have is when you fight a huge battle for a city or much worse out in the open and loose many units in the process and you're up against one last lonely outdated unit (like a musketman). You've used up all but your last tank unit who is a regular, you attack the musketman and loose! Is it impossible that the musketmen might kill a few tanks using clever trickery? Yes. But a whole tank division goes up in smoke? No, that would never happen.

Remember, I'm not so much referring to the stats which I know were balanced and why (My WWII mod has 109 units... that was a headache to balance and I can see why they came up with the numbers they did). But like I said in my first post the actual engine who determines the results seems to be out of wack even when you should win.

 

[sealman]

Originally posted by IglooDude
*sigh* I feel sorta left out, I've never seen a spearman successfully defend against a tank in one of my games.

You are not in the minority. I think even some of the people who claim it happens to them alot rarely, if ever see it, or it is something like what happened in one of my games were I sent my damaged tank against a lone fortified across a river on a hill elite spearman and lost. I am not complaining because I knew it was a possibility.

Back onto topic. I think the combat system is fine the way it is.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Sark6354201
The problem I have is when you fight a huge battle for a city or much worse out in the open and loose many units in the process and you're up against one last lonely outdated unit (like a musketman). You've used up all but your last tank unit who is a regular, you attack the musketman and loose! Is it impossible that the musketmen might kill a few tanks using clever trickery? Yes. But a whole tank division goes up in smoke? No, that would never happen.

You're thinking of this epic battle as a series of duels between individual divisions? If you imagine that it was really only one great slugout between all units, you a) get a non-ridiculous view of the whole thing, b) don't have accept that a buncha musketmen on their own destroyed an armoured division, only that the presence of a few outdated troops was the straw that broke the back of your attack.

That said, if you've only got one last Tank left to deal with that last Musketman, you've either got screwed in the earlier stages of the battle, or failed to provide sufficient extra force to be able to absorb a few snafus. In neither case is the Musketman the real cause of your defeat.

 

[The Quirk]

I look at it this way:

S*** Happens

Occasionally, that spearman is gonna pull that Cavalry officer off his mount and stab him. The group of riflemen is gonna ambush your tanks in an alley with molotovs. That swordsman is gonna whip himself into enough of a frenzy that he is gonna climb into that shiny box of yours and make like a blender.

How often does it happen? Not often. Giggle when it does and then stomp even harder.

 

[bru]

I like the system. Like most I have had the spearman take out a tank, but I have also been saved by a spearman against much greater opponents. It does not happen that often, and for those who believe in realism, I don't think this is too much of a stretch!!

 

[The Last Conformist]

I doubt there is a majority of people who've seen the Spearman-defeat-Tank trick. At least if we're speaking of full HP Tanks. And if there is one, too many players are playing on Chieftain.

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Chieftess
The one thing you can't do in Civ3 is micromanage battles, atleast not down to the individual soldier and generals. You could call a spear vs. infantry win a "heroic defense". Even in real life, a weaker unit can sometimes, or almost defeat a stronger one. Look at the movie "Zulu". The Zulu troops (impis in the civ equivalent) were up against riflemen in a plains fort, and nearly won. Now, if there were more and more impis, the riflemen unit probably would've lost. Probably not the best analogy, but sometimes weaker units will get lucky. Think of it as the more advanced unit underestimating the other unit.

Chieftess,

exactly that movie shows that a rifleman shouldn't loose to the impi (as it would do with some frequency in Civ3), especially as it tells the story of a true battle (of course with some adoptions to the inherent laws of the movie business).
In the given movie, the British were outnumbered like hell and were exposed (for a certain time) to demoralizing effects (the Preacher). They were frightened and had to face an enemy of almost their own military discipline (normally, that was one of the main advantages of the European military forces compared to the ones of other nations).
Nevertheless, they did survive (as military unit, not every individual soldier of course). This mainly was caused due to the fact that they made correct use of their weaponry, thus inflicting so much damage upon their enemy that he finally withdrew from the battle.

As this discussion comes up again and again, we all know about the various arguments given.
"think of it as the one in a million effect", "there have been examples in history, when a weaker unit successfully has fought the stronger one", "if a stronger unit will win, the tech-leader will automatically win the game".
The opposition claims: "it is incredible that a spear will win against a tank", "gun powder made knights obsolete", "for what should I do military research, then?"

As I've stated often enough, I for my person tend to the later position.
Stronger units should win and military advances should pay off.
If I have to face an opponent with tanks and infantry, I should know, that my knights and pikes are going to loose. This doesn't mean, that I am going to loose the game. May be, I can catch up technically (although this would be almost impossible, if I am on the level of Feudalism, compared with the level of Replacable Parts), or I manage to survive by means of diplomacy.

I feel, that many people survive due to the grace of the RNG. This is something, I don't like in *my* games.
If am outnumbered, I am outnumbered. If I am outclassed, I am outclassed. If I am outnumbered and outclassed, I should loose and learn from that.

In fact, very rarely the weaker army won against the stronger one (all "modifiers" as weapons, tactical situation and so on taken into account).

The random factor is much too high in Civ3 and allows the human player to play around with battles.
This randomness is just the one thing which makes the AI survive military confrontations. This may be good for a given game, but it very bad since it loweres the necessity to improve AI gameplay (frankly, the term "AI" is almost a joke).

All the ingredients to improve the battle system are there, but the responsible company just seems to have no interest in making use of them. It could be done by giving units more hitpoints per experience level and by making use of more sophisticated allocation of combat stats.
And many players (as we learn from the various postings) are making use of it. But even that is thwarted, since with such modifications we are not longer allowed to save our results in the game's hall of fame.

 

[Jaybe]

While the system is okay as is, I would prefer reinstating the civ2 class system, with provision for combat advantages vs. chosen classes, e.g., pikes doubled in defense(/offense??) vs. mounted units.

I would also like terrain to have the same provision (forest defense increased vs. mounted/mechanized units).

 

[The Last Conformist]

No-ones explained to me yet how players are "exploiting" the relatively high degree of uncertainty in CivIII combat.

And being a tech level higher than the opposition already is a big advantage. There is a reason people beeline for techs like Replacable Parts.

On the whole, I think the game overrepresents the advantage of superior technology in the early ages (your infantry becomes three times stronger on the attack just because they get iron swords? Gimme a break!), and underrepresents it in the modern era. To have the game more realistic wrt technological superiority, you'd probably need considerable more generations of units, particularly in the later stages of the game. There's been precious few overnight revolutions wrt battlefield dominance, but that doesn't mean that, given equal leadership and the like, an infantry unit from 1914 would not have crushed on from 1864 easily.

 

[Commander Bello]

Please, would anyone stop to use the term "whining" on people, who are not satisfied with the current combat system?

To discuss the pros and cons is the one thing. Most probably, either side will not be able to convinve the others, as both have tried it often enough.
Nevertheless, making use of deragotary terms doesn't help the discussion and could cause some open words from the other side.

Thanks for your audience.

 

[nihilistvoid]

The problem can so easily be fixed. If a unit with an attack of 2 attacks a unit with defense 1, the attacking unit should nearly always kill the defender but sustain 1 point of damage himself. I dont know why the creators of civ3 decided to apply that to the unit as a whole; what's the point of having hitpoints at all?

The amount of randomness in the game makes those of us who like to plan battles out with detail pointless; there becomes such a huge amount of luck you have to send a whole swarm of units to take out weaker units that should always die. It makes me feel as if all my careful strategizing went to waste.

 

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by nihilistvoid
The problem can so easily be fixed. If a unit with an attack of 2 attacks a unit with defense 1, the attacking unit should nearly always kill the defender but sustain 1 point of damage himself. I dont know why the creators of civ3 decided to apply that to the unit as a whole; what's the point of having hitpoints at all?

The amount of randomness in the game makes those of us who like to plan battles out with detail pointless; there becomes such a huge amount of luck you have to send a whole swarm of units to take out weaker units that should always die. It makes me feel as if all my careful strategizing went to waste.

"No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy."- Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke

Civ3 is explaining to you why Moltke is correct.

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by IglooDude


"No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy."- Field Marshall Helmuth Carl Bernard von Moltke

Civ3 is explaining to you why Moltke is correct.

Absolutely wrong.

Civ3 explains a little bit about the working of a RNG and statistical procedures.

A MP game with good, experienced human players would explain Moltkes point of view.
Moltke knew, that a good, experienced opponent could cross you own plans with even better ones.

You mix this up with the disposing of randomness...