Why the rules whiners are wrong

MrB · November 21, 2001, 01:41

First off, apologies if this has all been said already (what hasn't though?), but I have to get this of my chest and provide a little counterbalance to all the Civ3 is crap threads.

I'm getting really tired of reading threads stating that some game element is useless/overpowered or that unspecific favourite "broken."

Take nukes for example, I've seen quite a few people state that nukes are useless and must be "fixed" in the next patch. Granted, lots of things need fixing in the forthcoming patch but nukes 'aint one of them. Whenever I build a nuke there's a sharp rise on my "power" histogram. Nukes are meant to be terror weapons, the thought of them worse than actual use, and that's how it works. With enough ICBM you can tell even the strongest Civ where to do and they'll take it.

Flight too, loads of people say bombing needs patches. I disagree, with a good number of bombers you can decimate the defences of a city leaving it venerable to ground attack. But a ground attack is what you should have to follow... think combined arms, that's the best way to fight in Civ3.

I could go on and on but I think the point is made. But I'll be most p'ed off if Firaxis neuter their fantastic game just because a number of vocal people don't really know where the designers where coming from with it. I couldn't agree more that Civ3 needs a good patch, but I think patching time would be much better spend squashing bugs than messing about with game rules and spoiling it for all the satisfied people.

Alexander's Horse · November 21, 2001, 01:46

Your point?

MrB · November 21, 2001, 01:49

Point is... this game needs patching, but not a load of rule changes to satisfy a vocal minority who just don't really get it.

Alexander's Horse · November 21, 2001, 01:53

Ah - Well why didn't you say it in one line the first time?

MrB · November 21, 2001, 02:01

'cos if you can't justify an opinion it is hardly valid... try and keep up please.

MidKnight Lament · November 21, 2001, 02:22

Heh, heh.

Fair point, MrB. I think you're valid in explaining yourself. And for the books, I'm on your side. There are a lot of people who think they know better than designers who have spent the last 12 months or so designing and play-balancing the game.

I'm not saying the whiners aren't right in a number of cases, but there are also a lot of people who'd just like things their own way.

CyberGnu · November 21, 2001, 03:16

Hmm, I must have missed the bomber thing... I haven't heard many people complain about bombers not working when bombing cities. Bombers not being able to sink ships, on the other hand, is just plain ridicioulus.

Nukes should be a LOT more powerful thn they are... Just because they are supposed to be terror weapons. Civ2 handled that pretty well... If I nuked someone, I could count on them to do their best to nuke me back... and usually succeeding unless I used my spies to kill them off.

I'd even go so far as to say I'd prefer if large scale combat between to nulcear powers should be prohibited... But maybe that would remove too much of the conquer phase for most players.

Either way, the game has some serious game play issues. Just because the designers spend 12 months working on it doesn't mean they did a good job...

Wrong_shui · November 21, 2001, 12:21

Nukes should be able to utterly decimate a town.

Now if I put "I think" infront of it would that stop making me a whiner and stop u from getting upset about me bashing the game?

greggbert · November 21, 2001, 12:26

Bombers not being able to sink ships is not just plain rediculous. The game would be a lot less fun if they could. This has always been a big balance issue for Alpha Centauri, where ships are much less useful due to the fact that they can be wiped out in droves by tactical fighters

sachmo71 · November 21, 2001, 12:29

Quote:

Originally posted by MrB
First off, apologies if this has all been said already (what hasn't though?), but I have to get this of my chest and provide a little counterbalance to all the Civ3 is crap threads.

I'm getting really tired of reading threads stating that some game element is useless/overpowered or that unspecific favourite "broken."

Take nukes for example, I've seen quite a few people state that nukes are useless and must be "fixed" in the next patch. Granted, lots of things need fixing in the forthcoming patch but nukes 'aint one of them. Whenever I build a nuke there's a sharp rise on my "power" histogram. Nukes are meant to be terror weapons, the thought of them worse than actual use, and that's how it works. With enough ICBM you can tell even the strongest Civ where to do and they'll take it.

Flight too, loads of people say bombing needs patches. I disagree, with a good number of bombers you can decimate the defences of a city leaving it venerable to ground attack. But a ground attack is what you should have to follow... think combined arms, that's the best way to fight in Civ3.

I could go on and on but I think the point is made. But I'll be most p'ed off if Firaxis neuter their fantastic game just because a number of vocal people don't really know where the designers where coming from with it. I couldn't agree more that Civ3 needs a good patch, but I think patching time would be much better spend squashing bugs than messing about with game rules and spoiling it for all the satisfied people.

Good points, but I don't think you should worry. No matter how vocal this group is (no comment), in the end what will be patched will be what is easiest and quickest to fix. They will fix the bugs, but only those bugs that they agree are actual deficiencies. Changing game balance or adding things probably won't be very high on their list, and I'm not holding my breath for the "features we would like to see." Just my opinion.

greggbert · November 21, 2001, 12:30

However I must admit that a human being just playing the game twice would reveal almost all of the bugs that people have been complaining about. It is clear that firaxis was going for a go-live date and that their list of bugs was still unresolved before they went gold. I don't think anyone could argue that their beta testing "missed" the coastal fortress, or air superiority, or recon mission, or diplomatic advisor screen bugs.

-Gregg

Wrong_shui · November 21, 2001, 12:31

Quote:

Bombers not being able to sink ships is not just plain rediculous. The game would be a lot less fun if they could. This has always been a big balance issue for Alpha Centauri, where ships are much less useful due to the fact that they can be wiped out in droves by tactical fighters

Yes it is ridiculous
Yes it might be less fun.

Depends if you want realism or not.

zapperio · November 21, 2001, 12:37

**games** should be fun 1st. Realistic, unrealistic, wierd, wacky, cool, pretty, etc 2nd. We are talking about a ***game***!

Zap

Wrong_shui · November 21, 2001, 12:40

For some people realism is fun.

Deathray · November 21, 2001, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by greggbert
However I must admit that a human being just playing the game twice would reveal almost all of the bugs that people have been complaining about. It is clear that firaxis was going for a go-live date and that their list of bugs was still unresolved before they went gold. I don't think anyone could argue that their beta testing "missed" the coastal fortress, or air superiority, or recon mission, or diplomatic advisor screen bugs.

-Gregg

The publisher (Interplay) is usually responsible for Quality Assurance testing.

Freeze · November 21, 2001, 12:46

I guess we'll see who's playing what in a year's time right?

Seems a little silly to make these kind of pronouncements so soon.

Wrong_shui · November 21, 2001, 12:48

You mean infogrames.

zapperio · November 21, 2001, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Wrong_shui
For some people realism is fun.

And there are plenty of wargames and simulators that capitalize on that, but what determines whether those games are fun or not is not how realistic they are but whether the gameplay is balanced and whether the game mechanics are well implemented. There are plenty of ultra-realistic games out there that are plain dull, and plenty of unrealistic games that are considered by most, exceptionally fun (worms anyone).

Realism != fun.

Zap

codemast01 · November 21, 2001, 12:57

Quote:

Originally posted by greggbert
Bombers not being able to sink ships is not just plain rediculous. The game would be a lot less fun if they could. This has always been a big balance issue for Alpha Centauri, where ships are much less useful due to the fact that they can be wiped out in droves by tactical fighters

Based on your arguement, every unit has a "big balance issue." Think about it. Just about any unit can be wiped out by "droves" of another unit. I personally don't see the balance issue as a problem because ships can sometimes take out 4-5 planes before they are sunk. Anyhow, I'd like to see bombers be able to sink ships again.

Evil_Eric_4 · November 21, 2001, 14:23

Quote:

Nukes should be a LOT more powerful thn they are...

I dissagree
using east coast USA as example-you can only reasonably place 4 cities there(for me its Wash.,NY,Atlanta,and Miami.)
so - when you nuke WASH. You destroy only that city not the others that are there. ie:Phila.,Balt.etc.
So many people and buildings remain.
now if you hit it again you should assume that Philly was hit this time.
Make sense?

MrB · November 21, 2001, 14:31

Balance is about not making any one unit or tactic too powerful, and I think they've done this very well indeed in Civ3. Bombing is about as good as it should be IMO.

I like it that there isn't one all powerful unit or silly future techs and stuff like that, it makes games more interesting and generally require a whole lot more cunning on the part of the player.

TheDarkside · November 21, 2001, 14:48

Quote:

Originally posted by zapperio

And there are plenty of wargames and simulators that capitalize on that, but what determines whether those games are fun or not is not how realistic they are but whether the gameplay is balanced and whether the game mechanics are well implemented. There are plenty of ultra-realistic games out there that are plain dull, and plenty of unrealistic games that are considered by most, exceptionally fun (worms anyone).

Realism != fun.

Zap

IMO If you're going to use familiar, historical objects, let them behave familiarly and historically. You don't expect the bomber to be a ground unit which rolls up to cities and engage in melee combat, right? You don't expect chariots to be naval transport units? So why aren't the air units able to sink ships? Why are submarines visible by every AI naval unit including ancient galleys? And you certainly expect nukes to be extremely devastating. Otherwise, why even name them after those units? I feel realism is an important part of this game, that's why it uses historical units, historical empires, familiar real-world models... that's why I like games like this and not so much the sci-fi counterpart in SMAC.

zapperio · November 21, 2001, 15:50

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDarkside

So why aren't the air units able to sink ships? Why are submarines visible by every AI naval unit including ancient galleys? And you certainly expect nukes to be extremely devastating. that's why I like games like this and not so much the sci-fi counterpart in SMAC.

Balance again, or so Soren says and having played SMAC to death I agree. SMAC air power, practically, made ground units obsolete. Definitely the Naval vessels became completely useless. In my games anyway.

Bombing and bombardment is a very imprecise science so I don't find the new balance, with regards bombing vs ships and units, unrealistic. I mean, why did we need ground troops in Afghanistan, Bosnia and Kuwait? Mainly because bombing is not be-all-end-all, nor should it be. Right now it is perfectly implemented as a method of softening the enemy before engagement, which, in my games adds tremendously to the strategy.

Not being able to sink ships also means that you need to maintain your own navy, and that is realistic and adds an element of fun, I think. You can sink vessels with cruise missiles however, which should placate those who absolutely hate meddling with the navy.

I agree with you about SMAC vs civ. I definitely prefer the setting of civ over SMAC but I would hate to see the game balance sacrificed to make the combat, an element of civ, more ‘realistic’.

Zap

TheDarkside · November 21, 2001, 16:34

Bombing and bombardment is a very imprecise science so I don't find the new balance, with regards bombing vs ships and units, unrealistic

Right, that's why it should be harder to actually hit a naval unit, but if it is already weak, should have a chance to sink it. But not ground units, I side with you in that air campaigns vs. regular ground units is not effective at all.

Not being able to sink ships also means that you need to maintain your own navy, and that is realistic and adds an element of fun, I think.

Well I feel it makes the game unbalanced and unrealistic and adds an element of frustration. If you're an island nation, MUST have naval units to successfully thwart invasions. you can have all the bombers & fighters in the world to bomb their single transport but unless you have at least something as simple as a single ironclad, you cant sink it. Island nations with air power are supposed to be hard to invade. that's hisorically realistic, and I don't see how it makes the game unbalanced. And so what if you don't build a navy and only rely on air power? In that case you're isolating yourself to your island, so you only hurt in the long run.

And about cruise missiles, IIRC they can only sink ships if their hitpoints > 1 and the cruise missile does sufficient damage, otherwise you're not allowed to bombard a unit with 1 hit point. Isn't that how it works??

zapperio · November 21, 2001, 17:24

Quote:

Originally posted by TheDarkside
Well I feel it makes the game unbalanced and unrealistic and adds an element of frustration. If you're an island nation, MUST have naval units to successfully thwart invasions. you can have all the bombers & fighters in the world to bomb their single transport but unless you have at least something as simple as a single ironclad, you cant sink it. Island nations with air power are supposed to be hard to invade. that's hisorically realistic, and I don't see how it makes the game unbalanced. And so what if you don't build a navy and only rely on air power? In that case you're isolating yourself to your island, so you only hurt in the long run.

And about cruise missiles, IIRC they can only sink ships if their hitpoints > 1 and the cruise missile does sufficient damage, otherwise you're not allowed to bombard a unit with 1 hit point. Isn't that how it works??

Umm, not discounting your point, but an island nation without a navy? Wouldn't that be rather odd and strategically unsound?

I think that those of us who are happy to push navies around and make amphibious assaults think that it would make things a bit more unbalanced if our precious ships were sunk by stinking airplanes.

But the comments I've been hearing in support of that have been pointing out that with planes vs ships, planes will not get all the ships. But that is just a silly argument. More to the point is what Soren said in responce to the critisism

"
Congestion> Here's another one: What was the resoning behind deciding not to let aircraft be able to sink ships?
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> Congestion: game balance. We felt that air units were too powerful in the previous
SMAC/Civ games, so know you need at least some sort of a navy in order to sink other naval ships. I should
note, that naval ships can't fire back, which evens it out somewhat. "

In other words, Soren thought it would affect game balance. Needless to say, we navalphiles, are happy.

Honestly, I've not been lucky enough to test out the cruise missiles against ships so I couldn't tell you. Someone somewhere in some thread did talk about it though.

Zap

TheDarkside · November 21, 2001, 17:36

Very true, an island nation without a navy is odd, let's assume the navy is currently in another theatre of war

And to clear things up, I don't mean for a single aircraft unit to sink a single naval unit 100% of the time, it would require many aircraft units to sink a single naval unit, when you take into account misses, and that you dont sink it automatically, it must be weakened. Call me dense but I don't see how this makes the game unbalanced...

I would never agree to 5 planes sinking 5 naval units, maybe 5 planes can sink 1 ship. (but, in case of navies, they can aim for a particular ship) so you can sink the escorted transport without bothering with the battleship, but in case an AEGIS cruiser is in the stack, she has a free shot. Something like that. It's just that they went from one extreme to almost the other is what bothers me.

Capt Dizle · November 21, 2001, 18:05

Can aircraft sink transports? Should be able to. Even combat ships should be sinkable but I would like to see this be available only with multiple attacks.

I would like fortresses beefed up. Give them a ZOC and some artillery value and a minimal def rating...like 1,2, 3, 4 for each age. Have to upgrade them to get the improved bonus. They should not have to be occupied for these defense bonuses.

Ships should be faster accross the board. Subs, since the AI can see them per many reports, should not be able to be attacked the same turn they are spotted unless they attacked on their turn, giving their position away. This would give a nice feel to it, a sub hunt, get it before it slips away.

Subs should be able to carry lots of missles, cruise, tacticals, ICBMS.

ICBMS should be adjusted somewhat to make them less expensive and slightly more effective.

Leaders should be easier to get across the board. We should have spies back. Should be able to transform terrain, albeit at great expense.

Corruption should be lessened. Courthouses should be more effective.

There should be some way to gauge the odds of city flipping. I suggest an overlay map like you might see in Simcity showing the density of a culture's effect with some indicator of which cities might flip. This could be a "study" that you would have to commission.

These are just opinions.

greggbert · November 21, 2001, 18:12

Quote:

Based on your arguement, every unit has a "big balance issue." Think about it. Just about any unit can be wiped out by "droves" of another unit.

Codemaster I said that my ships in alpha centauri are wiped out IN droves by tactical fighters. Just a few tactical fighters can wipe out a whole fleet of ships, which makes them not worth building after you get air power.
--Gregg

Velociryx · November 21, 2001, 18:27

The problem is tho, that's not how it has been in the Civ Series.....AirCraft was the End-All....a single squadron of jets (or a single chopper in SMAC) could LAY WASTE to your entire fleet and barely get a scratch.

Did they go too far the other way in outright *preventing* planes from destroying navy? If history is a guide, then certainly....and it seems that all those complaints about Air Units ('specially choppers) being overpowered and pretty much defining and controlling the game in SMAC were heard and listened to....a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps?

-=Vel=-

Akka · November 21, 2001, 18:50

Personnal opinion : I would like to have the bombing of any unit able to sink any ship. But to soften this, the ship should be able to ripost to any artillery fire (artillery duel then, much like a normal fight but with just one/two rounds), and has a chance to shot down the planes that are trying to bomb it.
The submarine should be impossible to target for a bombing (if it's not already the case, never tried to bombard a submarine), and AEGIS cruiser should have a big boost against air attack (missile and planes, much like in Civ2).