Combat: Odds vs. Strength

[mechadamuramu]

If you haven't seen Sid Meier's hour long keynote presentation at the Game Developers Conference this year then check it out here.

http://gdc.gamespot.com/video/6253529/

To only touch on one subject I'd like to see what other forum goers think of Combat in Civ games. Did you see it as I always did and many of the commenters on gamespot as an overall "strength", or as Sid describes it as relative odds?

I always thought strength, especially with the units and examples given in Civ it makes sense. A defending archer with a strength of 4 should win most of the time against an warrior with a strength of 2. However a Tank with a strength of 20 should hardly ever loose against a medieval knight with a strength of 10. At some point the absolute value of the number should come into play.

What do you think?

[Procylon]

Odds is a poor substitute for obscure tactical victories.

Those times when some unit wins against all odds.

However, I don't believe that should even count when you put a tank vs a spearman.

In Iraq, the tank has proved practically invincible even to insurgents with rpg's and thousand pound IED's.

Most of the tanks lost were disabled(busted track is common) and then destroyed by the crews because they absolutely had to keep moving. 1 tank lost out of a battalion would be like loosing 5% health in Civ terms.

Should a spearman have a snowflake's chance in hell if an RPG wielding insurgent doesn't?

No.

At best, 1 tank dies out of the 20 tank battalion and that is that.

Same for an ironclad vs a ship of the line. How many hours did the Merrimac and Monitor ping cannon balls of each other before they both gave up and went home?

Certain levels of technology should simply be immune to earlier weapons.

But those periods of immunity should be fleeting as arms races happen.

At the same time, each age should linger long enough for wars to happen using each level of technology.

You might also look ahead into the future.

Think about missiles and laser technology. What happens to missiles when lasers can track and destroy a missile in less than 2 seconds, anywhere on the horizon? Missiles become obsolete. Rail guns might substitute.


Where odds should come in, is when 2 spearmen are going at it. Same level of ability, or lets say +/- 50% so you could have an axe vs spear.

When the strength is close enough, and only then, should the odds really affect a victory or not.

One spearman might only loose 1-2 guys, while the other looses 20.

History is filled with battles that went in unexpected directions. Between similar technology.

But not between disparate tech.

Greek fire beats boarding parties.

Spain conquers Maya, easily.

Tanks outright beat anything but tank killing firepower.

Aircraft beat anything that looses air superiority.

Etc.

[mechadamuramu]

I totally agree, disparate techs should be factored into battles as almost the first priority. I was going to say this in original post but you said it more elequently. =p

I always played with single unit graphics to unclutter the screen, so one thing I always forgot about was that each tank or praetorian wasn't one guy, but one "squad" of units. So to go back to my previous example, a tank that starts at 20str may be reduced in strength to 10str, which represents about half of the individual tanks in that "squad" being destroyed or in need of repair.

A tank of 10str should not have 50/50 odds against a knight at full 10 health. That's just not what history has shown us. Now, what realisticly can happen is that with its reduced strength, the tanks would have insufficient numbers to fully rout the knights. Meaning the full strength weaker units may be able to escape or retreat against weakened more technologically advanced units.

I guess it would have to be made very clear to the player what technology level a unit is from. Units of the same tech age should have normal combat rules apply. Units fighting one tech age up or down should have the odds significantly change. With each tech age you seperate two units the odds should change exponentially, in my oppinion. Anyone else agree or disagree?

[Procylon]

Originally Posted by mechadamuramu

I totally agree, disparate techs should be factored into battles as almost the first priority. I was going to say this in original post but you said it more elequently. =p

I always played with single unit graphics to unclutter the screen, so one thing I always forgot about was that each tank or praetorian wasn't one guy, but one "squad" of units. So to go back to my previous example, a tank that starts at 20str may be reduced in strength to 10str, which represents about half of the individual tanks in that "squad" being destroyed or in need of repair.

A tank of 10str should not have 50/50 odds against a knight at full 10 health. That's just not what history has shown us. Now, what realisticly can happen is that with its reduced strength, the tanks would have insufficient numbers to fully rout the knights. Meaning the full strength weaker units may be able to escape or retreat against weakened more technologically advanced units.

I guess it would have to be made very clear to the player what technology level a unit is from. Units of the same tech age should have normal combat rules apply. Units fighting one tech age up or down should have the odds significantly change. With each tech age you seperate two units the odds should change exponentially, in my oppinion. Anyone else agree or disagree?

I think they are going a step even further with Civ 5, with units being more like Divisions and armies all by themselves as opposed to units or battalions.

An armored Division would have 250-350 tanks, whereas a batallion might have 20-30.


Well in the case of a half strength tank vs a full strength knight, I think the tank still obliterates them, but perhaps their chance to flee is double what it would be against a full strength tank.

In that case it might be an event where the low tech unit always flees(or tries). The tank gets 1, maybe 2 shots(or more if it has first strike and multi-strike promotions), and then the knight can run from combat if it survived. It probably wouldn't, but possible.

[McKampela]

Maybe some tech would make the units that use them invincible to certain damage types. Like tank armor would make it always win againts units without gunpowder weapons and then modern tank armor would make the units using it invincible againts units without anti-tank weapons.

I don't want units that are from more advanced age always win. It would be cool if elite medieval swordsmen could beat early rifle infrantry in certain situations, like when fighting inside cultural borders in woods perhaps.

But a knight should never be able to take down combat helicopters.

[thefluffyrocker]

The one big exception i see to for example low techs taking out tanks is in places like forests and particularly cites.

With the tank example in particular, without proper infantry support a tank is extremely vulnerable. You may not be able to destroy it but you can disable it...remove it's tracks, block it's view ports etc and once you do that the tank is effectively destroyed in terms of combat effectiveness, and this is where i always found it odd in iv in particular where tanks were the ultimate city attackers, even getting city attack bonus's instead of infantry, when tanks are extremely vulnerable and to a great degree almost useless when used in cities or any confined battlefield.

In the open field the tank is king and everyone else fears it but in confined battlefields the tank is at the bottom of the food chain and what was once an impossible killing machine may aswell blow itself up for the chance it has of doing anything.

Even if you do do the spearman vs tank scenario in a city, it is unrealistic to expect a spear in the age of the tank to not use basic common sense and figure out how to make even basic explosives, and even the most basic explosives can disable a tank in very close quarters.
So while it may seem ad first glance a bit unrealistic, in some circumstances it could still be allowed, just only in really extreme circumstances

[mechadamuramu]

In the open field the tank is king and everyone else fears it but in confined battlefields the tank is at the bottom of the food chain and what was once an impossible killing machine may aswell blow itself up for the chance it has of doing anything.

I disagree. Tanks should never be used in back alleys without room to maneuver, but as heavily armored vehicles they're great in wide city streets or city squares. They are invinsible to most small arms fire and provide necessary mobile cover for infantry fighting in those situations. Before the invention of RPGs (think WWI and WWII here) tanks were great even inside the cities.

Now I would say tanks are still great assaulting cities, but maybe not so great in tight urban battles. Tanks have long range artillery, destroying buildings, bridges, manufacturing plants, etc.

Nit picky I know but good point man.

[Procylon]

Originally Posted by thefluffyrocker

The one big exception i see to for example low techs taking out tanks is in places like forests and particularly cites.

With the tank example in particular, without proper infantry support a tank is extremely vulnerable. You may not be able to destroy it but you can disable it...remove it's tracks, block it's view ports etc and once you do that the tank is effectively destroyed in terms of combat effectiveness, and this is where i always found it odd in iv in particular where tanks were the ultimate city attackers, even getting city attack bonus's instead of infantry, when tanks are extremely vulnerable and to a great degree almost useless when used in cities or any confined battlefield.

In the open field the tank is king and everyone else fears it but in confined battlefields the tank is at the bottom of the food chain and what was once an impossible killing machine may aswell blow itself up for the chance it has of doing anything.

Even if you do do the spearman vs tank scenario in a city, it is unrealistic to expect a spear in the age of the tank to not use basic common sense and figure out how to make even basic explosives, and even the most basic explosives can disable a tank in very close quarters.
So while it may seem ad first glance a bit unrealistic, in some circumstances it could still be allowed, just only in really extreme circumstances

You should read up on how the tanks have fared in Iraq, it is pretty interesting.

Even with explosives,the insurgents find it hard as hell to even disable a tank. Including inside cities. They have been blowing up IED's in Iraq for 7 years now. Very few tanks have even been disabled to such weapons.

1100+ tanks in Iraq. 80-150 have been disabled, most of which were simply sent back to the US for repairs. So, in Civ 4 terms, we have as many as 5-20 tank units in a territory(depending on how many tanks in a civ 4 unit), and the enemy manages to knock a few of them down 5-10% health every so often, which is then quickly healed.

Modern insurgents, with the best explosives money can buy, have only been able to disable a handful.

Obviously if you have an equal foe with anti-tank weapons, having a tank in the city is going to be rough.

But anything short of personal anti-tank weapons(javelins for modern, perhaps RPGs for WW2 and early tanks), and a tank is pretty much invincible inside a city, or outside.

Obviously Early tanks and WW2 tanks had less of an advantage than modern tanks, but it is the same.

Early and WW2 tanks would still own everything short of say a machine gunner unit in any situation.

And then modern tanks would own anything short of a modern infantry unit(that comes with weapons heavier than RPGs and bazookas, like Javelins).


Anyway, as the Iraq example shows, tanks are super tough. Invincible to anything short of high explosives, and even then, only vulnerable to anti-tank weaponry.

You are talking about a spearman actually killing a tank? If an insurgent with all the high explosives in the world can only take a tank down 5-10%, how is a spearman supposed to completely kill one unit representing 20-30 tanks(civ 4), or 200-300 tanks(civ 5)? Even if he somehow manages to make explosives?

[Andrej]

Strength should be dominant, but odds should also play some role. I think Civ4 system worked just fine. The problem was more in balancing units. E.g. knight was to strong in comparison to cavalry. I hope that in Civ5 units will give benefits according to terrain they are suitable for. Mounted units should be stronger in open terrain (plain), infantry in rough terrain (wood, hill).

[thefluffyrocker]

You should read up on how the tanks have fared in Iraq, it is pretty interesting.

But going back to what i mentioned, they go in with close infantry support on the whole. The infantry does the attacking and the tanks bascially act as mobile pillboxes and cover when the infantry is under heavy fire.

There was the case of a British take that got isolated from it's infantry and was disabled in minutes. They blew off a track so it couldn't move and then proceeded to attck it's vision slits with small explosives so it was blind. The crew inside were perfectly safe untill help arrived but the tank as a weapon was effectively destroyed as it couldn't do anything.

The main point of what i was trying to say though is that tanks in the last 2 games have been the main endgame attackers even though in many situations they are very weak and are relegated to a support role for the infantry.

Open country.
Tank is the main attack force and infantry tag along to support the tanks.

Closed country.
Infantry is the main attack force and tanks tag along to support the infantry.

Tanks are portrayed as the be all and end all where as they should be more combined arms orientated and in certain circumstances should be vulnerable to infantry attacks, even low tech ones.