Thread Tools
Old November 12, 2001, 21:37   #91
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
Monoriu: Yeah, all true, good strategy and everything. And utterly irrelevant.

What we're discussing is whether a frigate should be able to sink a battleship. Or if a knight should have more than a snowballs chance in hell of taking out a tank. And the answer is 'No'. In a game called civilization, it is uneqivocally so.
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 21:52   #92
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
Ludwig, I think you still don't understand. I don't need advise on tactics. The reason is I already figured it out, and have used it against the AI's to good effect.

But regardless if the combat flaws help me or hinder me, they are still flaws.
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 21:54   #93
Enigma
Prince
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Midland, MI, USA
Posts: 633
The combat system occaisionally really pisses me off, so I reload the turn =]

But 95% of the time it is fine, I occaisionally lose my elite immortals when fighting regular spearmen, that is why I bring a lot of immortals.

But here is what I think all of you guys have been missing: you have been analyzing WEAPONS out of the context of EMPIRES

What makes an empire great is usually not its weapons, it is its organization.

The Romans didn't really have revolutionary weapons, their tactics were good but they lost sometimes too... what made them unique was their organization.

Now you never see an example of people with swords killing soldiers armed with rifles because of the way *empires* exist, they do not exist in isolation, the technology would eventually be traded.

But lets say that a well trained, well organized force led by intelligent officers encounters a higher technology force, neither is used to each other.

The Roman Legionaires versus some riflemen. The legionnares would be organized enough that their commanders would be able to analyze the situation and tell them how to group together/not group together, and then they would be fairly effective.

The riflemen are not used to seeing knights wearing armor attacking them, they fire but they are spooked and lose in melee combat.

Surely you wouldn't have a problem with this sort of thing happening 10% of the time or so?

We assume that the spearmen in those mountains are much better trained than the barbarians. The barbarians are considered conscripts, and your units can go as high as elite, big difference there. But the few times that a unit that is vastly outpowered wins then that is why it is promoted- we assume that the leaders of that unit showed remarkable ingenuity and killed the enemy.

We don't see Zulu's etc conquering the British in one on one combat because the Zulus not only lack in firepower but in organization/training. I honestly think that if the Roman empire at the height of its power were plopped right next to a country the size of France in the 1600's the Romans would win, they would figure out how to conquer the firearms, and/or adopt them themselves.

Elephants, the reason that kings started using musketeers instead of knights was not based on the resources required to make a fighter, or their effectiveness, but instead it was based on the skill of the fighters and their class. Knights were an elite class, they required a lot of training, and healthy lifestyles in order to be strong enough to use their weaponry and armor. The first musketmen were basically peasants, non proffesionals. Kings had money but they did not like having to rely on knights to fight for them, so they recruited the peasants as musketmen. As far as resources I think firearms win, it requires more technology but overall less resources than a suit of armor, and again a much less trained, less intelligent, weaker individual.
Enigma is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:02   #94
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by VetteroX

BTW, someone said in Civ 2 Knights had an attack of 6, and riflemen were 4. Actuall knights were 4/2/2 1/1 and riflemen were 5/4/1 2/1. They had 2 health, which means compaired to a knight they are like 6 defence. I personally never saw a knight beat a healthy riflemen in any of my 200 or so games of Civ 2.
Pay a little more attention to the details. I said a vet knight has an attack of 6 (4 plus 50%, understood) and that the rifleman has a defense of 4. (which it does) That's what I said, big guy.

If you are talking regular knight vs regular rifleman (or if there are any defender status or terrain bonusses) you ar unlikely to have the knight beat the rifleman. This is because in Civ2, any marginal advantage of one unit over another was hugely magnified. making the game fun only for people that are challenged by the AI. Most deity vets were not and did not like the way a human player could steamroller the AI like a metronome.

And by the way I was talking about your skill level at civ2. Most players around here conquerred deity about 4 years ago and are not challenged by the AI. And we don't whine about losing a unit now and then.
TCO is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:09   #95
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
Enigma, I think this is reflected in the game, in some sense. the developemnt of archers requires not 'bow' or 'ballistics' but 'warrior code', right? There are also mobile warfare, marine warfare etc.

Furthermore, a lot of the Roman success can be attributed to technology. The Pilum, the superior armor, the use of the shortsword, the use of field fortifications, siege warcraft...

Not to mention the first encounter with Naval warfare, when the Romans realized they were completely behind... And went on a crash course in naval design based on an old shipwreck. (IIRC, they had soldiers sitting on the beach practicing rowing while the ships were being built). All showing how important technology can be in the fight...
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:16   #96
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
GP, the whining isn't about losing a unit now and then. It's about consistently losing battles (or winning, for that matter... Although it tends to happen less often, as the 'intuition' tells us that attacking a fortified spearman with a horseman should be suicide.) that doesn't make historical sense.

Sure, the zulus won that one single fight. and the Souix (?) won the battle of Little Big Horn. But those were pretty much the only fights they won... And if that is the frequency which odd results pop up, fine. (That is pretty much the Civ2 ratio, I believe.)

But if the zulus had won every third fight against the brits, there would not be a nation called South Africa today...
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:18   #97
Blackadar1
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 69
To me, there's a simple solution to this problem. While Calvary may have a shot of beating a tank, warriors (guys with sticks and stones) should have no chance of beating one. None. Zero. Under NO conditions can you make me believe that someone with a stick can beat a tank. But for gameplay options, you just can't eliminate the ability for Calvary to stand a decent chance against a tank because of the resource distribution. If units of a later age were practically invincible against units of an earlier one, then the game would be decided upon the tech race alone.

Here's my suggestion - sorry if it's already been thrown out there, but I'm not reading through all the threads to find out. When units of different eras are fighting, the unit from the later "age" gets a bonus depending on the differential of the ages. There are 4 ages - Ancient, Middle, Industrial and Modern. Therefore there can be a maximum difference of 3 ages - Ancient versus Modern.

How about this?

1 age difference: 10% bonus
2 age differences: 40% bonus
3 age differences: 100% bonus

The bonus isn't 10% to an attack or defense rating. It's a 10% chance that a negative result to the more modern unit will be re-rolled. This is a crucial distinction and it'd work like this.

Swordsman (ancient unit, attack rating of 3) attacks Knight (medival unit, defense rating of 3). For the sake of this discusson, there are no terrain modifiers. On any attack from the swordsman to the knight, if the swordsman was successful, there would be only a 10% chance that this result would be re-rolled. If the roll is still successful, there again is a 10% chance of another re-roll.

Doesn't sound like much of a difference, eh? It's not supposed to when comparing units that are close in eras.

Let's take that same swordsman and put him up against modern armor. Well, now the 100% modifier kicks in. So ANY successful attack would automatically be overturned. Overturned again and again, if necessary, until the tank just wiped out the swordsman.

It's a simple solution to this problem, IMHO. It just adds another check to the combat system based on the eras of the units. Don't like my percentages? Change 'em.

Just a thought.
Blackadar1 is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:19   #98
orc4hire
Settler
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally posted by Enigma
But lets say that a well trained, well organized force led by intelligent officers encounters a higher technology force, neither is used to each other.

The Roman Legionaires versus some riflemen. The legionnares would be organized enough that their commanders would be able to analyze the situation and tell them how to group together/not group together, and then they would be fairly effective.
Actually what happens is that the technologically inferior force is too busy dying all over the place to adapt its tactics... the way cultures adapt to a technologically superior opponent is by adopting the higher techology, not adapting their tactics; witness the way American Indians used rifles, not bows and arrows when they could, or the way the Sikhs adapted western drill and weapons.

Sorry, but that's just the way it works. Technologically inferior military forces don't adapt their tactics to allow for their inferiority, they get their hands on the better weapons.

Last edited by orc4hire; November 12, 2001 at 22:25.
orc4hire is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:30   #99
Karhgath
Chieftain
 
Karhgath's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 82
This is just pointless. Really, no one here(except a few) has any argumentative skills. You take only the parts that you can(or, more accurately, think you can) reply to and ignore the rest. There were a couple of good posts and good parts of posts that either side just ignored. Really pointless. Those saying it's broken don't want to really know if it is or not, they just want to state it, period. Those who think it's not, just want the others to accept what they are saying without a second thought.

Pointless once again. (apologies to those few good posters)

And, also, just to answer one question "could a frigate kill a battleship", well, just look at the USS Cole. Take that frigate and use it to ram the battleship, or fill it with explosive, and there you go, easy =)

How could technology not win against lower tech? Well, look what they did with those nice planes on NY, and the fact that the US still hasn't had any real victory yet in afghanistan. Tech means nothing if you are bright enough to use what is available at its fullest.(Not that I condone any of those example above, just facts here)

Not that it has any impact on Civ3(it's a game), but yes, a frigate could(if they REALLY REALLY want) destroy a battleship.

Those saying they expected a more historically accurate game because it's called Civilization, well, wake up, it's the third iteration and nothing shows it has ever been any kind of historically accurate game, and never was close to be. It's a stupid game. They want it more like Civ2, but they want it to be accurate, realistic and historical. So, which want you really want, like Civ2, or realistic? Those 2 are pretty different you know.

And beside, those that think it's broken are those playing(and having tons of fun) civ2 at deity and 'cheating' by using all the flaws in Civ2 to win(and there are TONS of them). Using game flaws are some of the only way to win in Deity at Civ2, and I expect the same thing here. Those flaws are just different.

You know, people are just like that, they never know what they really want.

For me, I like it, some big and small flaws/bugs, but overall, I'm having a blast winning(and loosing) at Civ3, and it has been a pretty good game. If they could only fix the bugs soon and actually make a real scenario editor, I would be in heaven, hehe.
__________________
-Karhgath
Karhgath is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:39   #100
Blackadar1
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 69
The USS Cole is a destroyer and it wasn't blown up, even with a sneak attack. Plus, the frigate would have needed the advance of explosives.
Blackadar1 is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:39   #101
Karhgath
Chieftain
 
Karhgath's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 82
Quote:
warriors (guys with sticks and stones) should have no chance of beating one. None. Zero. Under NO conditions can you make me believe that someone with a stick can beat a tank.
Ok, here we go. Give me a crowbar(or baseball bat, or a staff, etc.), and take a tank, a nice little abraham! You can't have nothing beside the tank(and munition for the canon), and I can't have anything beside a crowbar(or whatever blunt weapons you give me). Now, try to kill me =)

Tanks are pretty useless against any kind of infantry(thats why they have those machinegunners on them, and must be escorted by infantry anyway). So, under certain circumstances, yes, it could happen, if they are alone in the open(even more so in difficult terrain)

Again, that doesn't prove anything about the Civ3 system, just that it can happen in real life. Don't think a battle is all about each side standing on a side of the battlefield and flinging rocks and shooting at each others. It depends on the tactics, so I'm pretty sure warriors wouldn't stand on the other side of the field and fling rocks at the tanks advancing if they actually won that battle, they did something clever.

Anyway... who cares by now?
__________________
-Karhgath
Karhgath is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:40   #102
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
I really don't see the problem of a 3-2-1 unit attacking a 6-3-3 unit and winning 50% of the time. In game terms, we happen to call it swordmen and cavalry, but their stats should tell you that its very possible to happen.

This is a game, not a simluation, I said so in my past post in this thread. So we adopt to the rules of the game, and my experience tells me that is very possible and easy to win combat in this game unless your strategy is bad.

Think about these situations:

1. You don't have oil, and nobody sells it. Does it mean the end of the game for you? If riflemen have a chance to defeat tanks, at least you have a chance.

2. You just got cavalry, and the AI is 8 turns behind you in tech. Does it mean you can produce 4 cavalry units, and these are invinciable until the AI catches up?


If you play the game, you gotta play within its rules, and I have shown that its very possible if you know what you are doing.

If you can accept that the government can always decide what tech to research, that pyramids somehow are related to granaries, that all the people do exactly what the government tells them to do, that you can predict exactly when you'll get a tech, then you'll also have to accept that a frigate can occastionally sink a battleship. This is civ 3, its a good design decision, and it can be overcome.
Monoriu is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:41   #103
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
Folks just want predictability, to know that they can win each and every time. With success against an AI not being a challenge, might as well not play. I mean, if you are going up against a far inferior civ, what's the point then?

Forget this cross-the-Ages stuff then, wait for the scenarios.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:45   #104
Karhgath
Chieftain
 
Karhgath's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 82
Quote:
The USS Cole is a destroyer and it wasn't blown up, even with a sneak attack. Plus, the frigate would have needed the advance of explosives.
So what if it is a destroyer? Same thing(I know the diff between the different ship classes, but ofr the current example, it makes no difference). And, sure, it wasn't blown up, but in WW2, did they hacked the tank into tiny pieces until it is only dust, or just disabled them?
__________________
-Karhgath
Karhgath is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 22:51   #105
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Rifles? We don't need no stinking rifles!
Quote:
Originally posted by Blackadar1

How about this?

1 age difference: 10% bonus
2 age differences: 40% bonus
3 age differences: 100% bonus
Maybe a little too Draconian, I have recommended in another thread a +1 point bonus per age difference between the units. Hence, musketeers fighting warriors would receive +2 to whichever stat was needed, attack or defence.

Frankly, simply adding FIREPOWER and making the current system work properly does the same thing. In Civ2, musketeers were the first unit to get 2 firepower - and it gave the unit the expected combat advantages over previous units. It was far from perfect, but a fortified musketeer didn't lose to a freaking archer either...

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:09   #106
Steve Clark
King
 
Steve Clark's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,555
But Venger, even if the odds we increased to 100:1, someone will still complain about the 1%, esp. if it comes up. This cry towards to more predictability will soon lead a chorus of folks saying that the AI is too easy and beatable.
Steve Clark is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:11   #107
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
Kargath, I don't want civ3 to be the same as Civ2. But the combat system was actually better in civ 2 than civ 3... Is it then so wrong of me to at least wish for the better of the two?

Or course, I'd rather have a good, functioning system...
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:19   #108
Tauklon
Settler
 
Local Time: 08:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3
What "SNS" means is that instead of a warrior starting with an attack/defence of 10/10 it has a 1/1. With such small number you can't allow for as much diversity between the units statistics.

I was thinking the same thing. By having a larger range of numbers you could add small civilization advancements. For example change the basic tank from 16.10.2 to 50.30.2. Have the small wonder "Military Academy" add +2 to attack and defense rating. Researching Synthetic fibers could add +2 defense. These small increases help civizilations who are farther advaced technically. There are many tanks in todays world but they vary quite a bit based on the technology of the country building them. Add in the age difference bonus suggested by Blackadar1 and we should have a much better combat system.

IMHO: I've been playing about a week and think Civ3 is very good but has two flaws, corruption and the combat system. "Fix" those and you'll have another greatest game of all time candidate.
Tauklon is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:24   #109
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
Steve, Civ2's odds were good in that respect...

And I don't think the AI needs breaks in the 'old units defeating new ones'. Have you tried deity yet? The level of AI cheating is immense... So the odds of you leading in tech are pretty slim.
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:26   #110
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
Oh, Kargath, there a few million Palestinians eager to learn your crowbar vs. tank tactics... There's a real market for you...
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:26   #111
N. Machiavelli
Prince
 
N. Machiavelli's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Prince
Posts: 359
For all it's game-play flaws and balance issues, I found the CtP 2 combat system most enjoyable and prepaired me best for Civ3-style combat. For one thing, it forced you to attack as an army, simply not as a few units. Most combat was done between armies of 5-10 units; this way it seemed more believable that your army of 3 tanks could be destroyed by 12 cavalrymen in a single battle. In the usual Civ system, it was always unit versus unit, or many units versus one unit, each at a time. Outside of the Gladiator pits, what real-world combats between two forces ever fought soldier vs soldier?

But perhaps the best feature was the requirments for combined arms. Your army of 10 cavalry would most likely be mopped up by his combined army of 5 pikemen, 3 archers, and 2 catapults. Both equal in number, but the industrial-aged units (cavalry) would probably be defeated by his middle-aged army that incorporated even primitave artillery and ranged units. This also led to 'specialized' armies. One army would be nothing but cavalry and light-artillery; you wouldn't assault a fortified city with this, but to mop-up smaller, retreating armies. One would, conversely have an army consisting of infantry and a great deal of artillery to assault the cities and hold onto them.

The use of armies and combined arms is how real war is fought, regardless of age or technology. The problem with Civ3 is that it kept with the old Civ style of single-unit combat, while requiring you to use combined arms to accomplish anything decent. Some of the more veteren players made the jump fairly easily, while others did not. This is nothing to be ashamed of, nor does it reflect your ability as a player; jeeze, the game has been out for less then 2 weeks, give folks time to adapt.

Like I said, it's not that the Civ3 system is broken per se, it's more like incomplete. If they were to attempt to force you to attack that fortified pikemen on the mountain with combined arms, they should have allowed you to actually attack with combined arms. You should be able to hit that one darn guy with the entire army of knights AND catapults instead of each of your five knights dieing one by one after a futile attempt at bombardment.

That's how combat works. Sending one man from an army to hit one man in an another army is a losing strategy. They neutralize technology advantages is Civ3 for the most part (that is, unless it's grossly lop-sided i.e. modern tanks vs spearmen) since they do not allow you to take full advantage of it very easily. Sure, an army of dug-in Impi SHOULD take out a few tanks if the tank commander was dumb enough to send them into the hills alone. However, if those tanks were guarded by a few infantrymen with machine guns well......that's alot of dead Impi. All I'm saying is that the Civ3 system makes it very difficult to use such combined arms effectively for most to get. They switched from a macro-warfare system to a micro-warfare system without an easy way to deal with it. Perhaps if Leaders and Armies were more numerous, or they allowed all units within the armies to attack en masse instead of one at a time.

Personally, I think CtP2 sucked overall, but Civ3 should take a page in concept from them in regards to combat and making combined armies more available.

Sorry for the lengthy post, I had to kinda get that out.
N. Machiavelli is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:26   #112
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
If you dropped dead in a forest, would you make a sound?
Quote:
Originally posted by Karhgath

And, also, just to answer one question "could a frigate kill a battleship", well, just look at the USS Cole. Take that frigate and use it to ram the battleship, or fill it with explosive, and there you go, easy =)
The only thing analgous in Civ to the USS Cole incident is the use of a spy to sabotage a unit. Do you really think that a rubber dingy deserves your side in this discussion?

Quote:
How could technology not win against lower tech? Well, look what they did with those nice planes on NY, and the fact that the US still hasn't had any real victory yet in afghanistan.
The United States didn't have any real military victories until the battle of Coral Sea in 1942. Give us a chance to get it going here Mac...

Quote:
Tech means nothing if you are bright enough to use what is available at its fullest.(Not that I condone any of those example above, just facts here)
What fact? How do you consider terrorist acts as military combat for model use in Civ?

Quote:
Not that it has any impact on Civ3(it's a game), but yes, a frigate could(if they REALLY REALLY want) destroy a battleship.
No, they REALLY REALLY couldn't. If you fill it full of explosives and blow it up next to the Missouri, it wouldn't sink, but even if it did, it's not functioning as a frigate but as a giant bomb. Maybe you should create a giant floating bomb unit in your Civ3 editor...

Quote:
Those saying they expected a more historically accurate game because it's called Civilization, well, wake up, it's the third iteration and nothing shows it has ever been any kind of historically accurate game, and never was close to be. It's a stupid game. They want it more like Civ2, but they want it to be accurate, realistic and historical. So, which want you really want, like Civ2, or realistic? Those 2 are pretty different you know.
No, it's not. Civ2 had it's flaws, which to some point have been addressed. But at it's core it's pure combat model was pretty sound actually. And Civilization IS designed to be a historical game - ask anyone on the Firaxis team if they've not attempted to incorporate real history into the experience. Why do you build The Pentagon instead of the Octagon?

Quote:
And beside, those that think it's broken are those playing(and having tons of fun) civ2 at deity and 'cheating' by using all the flaws in Civ2 to win(and there are TONS of them). Using game flaws are some of the only way to win in Deity at Civ2, and I expect the same thing here. Those flaws are just different.
No, I'm still playing my first game on regent and am noticing the gameplay as it occurs, using strategies devised based on the information the game presents.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:26   #113
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
Tauklon, not a bad idea... I quite like it
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:31   #114
CyberGnu
King
 
CyberGnu's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of the Virtual Serengeti
Posts: 1,826
Machi, I agree wholeheartedly. Not using the stack concept after it was demonstrated by CTP is quite sad. As I said in a different thread, it's like using chopsticks when there is a fork available... The only possible reason you would use an inferior instrument is pride...
__________________
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the Machine
CyberGnu is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:32   #115
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by CyberGnu
GP, would you stop the patronizing? I beat the computer on Deity blalbla bla

First of the math is screded up here. A warrior with attack 1 has a 14% chance of killing a defending rifleman with defense 6. But this is only for one hitpoint, right? So the chance of a regular warrior to kill a regular rifleman is only 2.3%.

While that is a fairly low probability, it is still way to high. Consider historically. How many battles have there been between nomadic warriors and riflemen? How many have the warriors won? Way less than 2%... As the now almost extinct natie americans can attest.

blablabla
1. I don't mean anything patronizing against, you fellow chemist.

2. You are complaining about 2% losses of units??? WTF? Does that affect your game that much? Are you riding that close to the edge.

3. I do buy your argument in terms of "historical acuracy" that battleships should always beat phalanxes (although we could argue about how a phalanx would ever coexist with a battleship...or we could think of the phalax as a guy in a sampan putting a mine in the water). But fine you win the historical accuracy debate.

4. I just think that in Civ2, it was too easy to steamroll over other units. I like a system with more evenly matched units and one with more chance. I think that such a system brings out the better generals.
TCO is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:32   #116
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Wacky unit comabt hijinks!
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve Clark
But Venger, even if the odds we increased to 100:1, someone will still complain about the 1%, esp. if it comes up. This cry towards to more predictability will soon lead a chorus of folks saying that the AI is too easy and beatable.
Then it'd only occur rarely and would be noteworthy but rare. But this crap is happening ALL THE TIME.

You must have a combat system that makes sense - and the current one is simply broken.

It reminds me of a problem with Steel Panthers:WAW. Many people were reporting that infantry versus tanks was too effective. But oh boy were there the defenders saying that's just the way it was, that it was perfectly accurate, that we were just complainers or whiners.

Turns out there was a flaw in the algorithm causing the chances to be improved several times over. But people defended it, because it was "in the game".

I, for one, expect a game I buy to make some sense...

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:38   #117
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Monoriu
I really don't see the problem of a 3-2-1 unit attacking a 6-3-3 unit and winning 50% of the time. In game terms, we happen to call it swordmen and cavalry, but their stats should tell you that its very possible to happen.

This is a game, not a simluation, I said so in my past post in this thread. So we adopt to the rules of the game, and my experience tells me that is very possible and easy to win combat in this game unless your strategy is bad.

Think about these situations:

1. You don't have oil, and nobody sells it. Does it mean the end of the game for you? If riflemen have a chance to defeat tanks, at least you have a chance.

2. You just got cavalry, and the AI is 8 turns behind you in tech. Does it mean you can produce 4 cavalry units, and these are invinciable until the AI catches up?


If you play the game, you gotta play within its rules, and I have shown that its very possible if you know what you are doing.

If you can accept that the government can always decide what tech to research, that pyramids somehow are related to granaries, that all the people do exactly what the government tells them to do, that you can predict exactly when you'll get a tech, then you'll also have to accept that a frigate can occastionally sink a battleship. This is civ 3, its a good design decision, and it can be overcome.
Stunning post!!!
TCO is offline  
Old November 12, 2001, 23:49   #118
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Quote:
Originally posted by Monoriu
I really don't see the problem of a 3-2-1 unit attacking a 6-3-3 unit and winning 50% of the time. In game terms, we happen to call it swordmen and cavalry, but their stats should tell you that its very possible to happen.
And I'm telling you that shouldn't happen - think about it, why should a unit from 1875 be defeated by a unit from 1100? And we're not talking about a case of massive outnumbering, we're talking about a game that has these numbers BY DESIGN.

Quote:
This is a game, not a simluation, I said so in my past post in this thread.
And I dismiss it out of hand, it's a feckless argument to justify any damn fool thing the game does. Refuse 100 gold for 10? It's not a simulation. Get your Battleship defeated by a Phalanx? It's not a simulation. What kind of asinine answer is that?

Quote:
So we adopt to the rules of the game, and my experience tells me that is very possible and easy to win combat in this game unless your strategy is bad.
Why should we have to suspend common sense and close our eyes and click our heels for a combat system to make sense? For all it's flaws, the Civ2 combat model was limited by programming, not concept.

Quote:
Think about these situations:

1. You don't have oil, and nobody sells it. Does it mean the end of the game for you? If riflemen have a chance to defeat tanks, at least you have a chance.
So let's screw up the combat model to fix a game design problem. Look, if you don't have oil, you are fuçked in the real world too. The real fix for this is to allow UNITS to be traded, just like the real world. Japan doesn't have any oil, but they seem to have cars, because they trade for it. And if they can't buy it, they have to conquer for it or submit, and that's just the way it is.

Quote:
2. You just got cavalry, and the AI is 8 turns behind you in tech. Does it mean you can produce 4 cavalry units, and these are invinciable until the AI catches up?
Since when are cavalry invincible? Two fortified musketeers ought to be more than a match for cavalry. Even with tanks, there is a way to defend with massed units. However, don't try and sell me on weakening tanks so the game is "balanced", cause that's robbing Peter to pay Paul...

Quote:
If you play the game, you gotta play within its rules, and I have shown that its very possible if you know what you are doing.
This isn't some obtuse rule, this is the basic combat model. Finding it's kinks and quirks isn't fun. I'd rather beat it with strategy and planning than trickery and tom foolery.

Quote:
If you can accept that the government can always decide what tech to research,
I for one think that only certain government types should be able to choose which technology to research (Communism, at a 40% penalty in science rate). But it's not a game breaker for me, because it doesn't really affect the gameplay all that bad, rather it keeps advances coming in general order. SMAC had a more realistic tech model...

Quote:
that pyramids somehow are related to granaries,
Enh, they just needed wonders of the world. Why should half of the wonders do what they do? This part also doesn't bother me much.

Quote:
that all the people do exactly what the government tells them to do,
They don't hence corruption and the requirement to manage happiness...

Quote:
that you can predict exactly when you'll get a tech,
Come up with a better solution. We have.

Quote:
then you'll also have to accept that a frigate can occastionally sink a battleship.
The other things enhance gameplay, this detracts from it.

Venger

Last edited by Venger; November 13, 2001 at 00:16.
Venger is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 00:00   #119
WhiteElephants
King
 
WhiteElephants's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo Ohio
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
Originally posted by GP Stunning post!!!
I second that!
WhiteElephants is offline  
Old November 13, 2001, 00:14   #120
WhiteElephants
King
 
WhiteElephants's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo Ohio
Posts: 1,074
Quote:
And I'm telling you that shouldn't happen - think about it, why should a unit from 1875 be defeated by a unit from 1100? And we're not talking about a case of massive outnumbering, we're talking about a game that has these numbers BY DESIGN.
Damn it man! It's not real. It's not even what it says it is. It's a clever name with a clever graphic so that you'll buy the game. What it really is is a ambiguous mathematical equation that has an attack and defense value, whether it's a tank or not. It's a 6-3-2, or whatever, not a cavalry unit. It's a 10-6-4 not a tank! Call it whatever you want, a dragon, a unicorn, a spaceman from Mars. They just give it a name so that it has some commercial and historical appeal. The unit isn't any more a tank than the boot in monopoly is a land owner. When you build a muskeeter think or it as a 4-4-1, or whatever, and not real life unit that is reflective of history. Its a mathematical representation of nothing that is, or ever will be, real. It's a number pluged into a game in order to make sense. Lord knows the king in chess isn't really representative of a king. The same logic applies here as well. Forget reality. Forget all you know about reality and think of it in terms of the game. If a 6-3-2 attacks and loses 50% of the time to a 1-1-1 then there is probably a problem. Set it up in a scenario and run some tests to let us know your results, otherwise your application of reality to a game futile.
WhiteElephants is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:37.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team