What Do You Find Most Irritating? - Page 2

Zachriel · January 28, 2002, 21:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaetus
The most irritating thing is the other Civ sticking its annoying little cities in the worst possible places.

If it irritates you, it must be a good strategy. Do it to them first.

Willem · January 28, 2002, 21:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

If it irritates you, it must be a good strategy. Do it to them first.

I'm trying out something along the lines of your tactics and it's working out well. I'm driving a cultural wedge right into the heartland of the Japanese at the moment. Eventually I should be able to split his empire in half, right down the middle.

Zachriel · January 28, 2002, 22:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
I'm trying out something along the lines of your tactics and it's working out well. I'm driving a cultural wedge right into the heartland of the Japanese at the moment. Eventually I should be able to split his empire in half, right down the middle.

But keep your powder dry, too.

Encomium · January 28, 2002, 22:34

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Maybe it's been asked.
If so, I didn't see it and maybe it's time to ask again.

What about the game are you struggling with the most?
For me, it's Major Wonder building.
In the game I'm playing now, I was 2 turns from completing Hanging Gardens and got beat to it.
No other Wonders available so there goes the production that was spent right out the window.

Is there something I'm not looking at, and should be?

There is a great deal I find irritating about Civ III, and culture flipping borders and cities (with vanishing garrisons) is high on the list, along with a stupid cheating AI. The pitiful use of navies is also annoying such as bombers being unable to sink warships, or privateers and subs being unable to damage an enemy's trade.

Wonders is another pain. You can't hurry them up, you get no warning if another civ is almost finished with one, and you lose all the production. WHY CAN'T YOU TRANSFER THAT PRODUCTION INTO WEALTH?? Why, Sid?

OneInTen · January 28, 2002, 23:34

Quote:

WHY CAN'T YOU TRANSFER THAT PRODUCTION INTO WEALTH??

Because building wonders is supposed to be a gambit. Judge it right and you're richly rewarded. Judge it poorly and you've suffered a bit of a setback.

I consider this a good thing (tm).

OneInTen · January 28, 2002, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Libertarian
Bizarre unit activation sequencing. I stopped playing mainly on account of it.

This is pure speculation, and not really verified, but ...

In the game I was playing over the weekend, unit activation seemed a lot more orderly than I was expecting (I was paying attention to it in light of this complaint I guess).

Now I know it used to be a bit jumpy, but this game, in the turns from 4000BC to somewhere in the 1700ADs that I'm up to now, I saw perhaps half a dozen at most unit activations that I couldn't explain. This is on a huge map with only 5 civs too. Mostly it was a matter of the next unit activated either being one on the same square as the previous one had been, or failing that, the nearest unit to it.

It would activate my workers on each island in turn, never skipping between one island to the next and back again.

In short, pretty predictable.

I was surprised, because I'm sure that when I first started playing the game it didn't work so well, so I'm wondering if the patch did anything to it.

Can anyone think of any other explaination why it'd work nicely this game but not in others?

SanPellegrino · January 29, 2002, 11:06

Quote:

Originally posted by OneInTen

I was surprised, because I'm sure that when I first started playing the game it didn't work so well, so I'm wondering if the patch did anything to it.

I experienced same thing, after the patch unit activation is better. stacks are activated in order, it doesn't flip continents every unit anymore.

Bilas · January 29, 2002, 13:47

Here are my 3 most irritating things in CIV3.

1 Not being able to stack your units together (except for the army thing) but I wish we could stack anytime.

2 the whole Naval warefare and aircraft warefare thing!

3 poor AI

There are more things that bother me there are also things that I like. I hope that in the next patch they listen to "us" and fix these things.

Peace -- Out

ShuShu · January 29, 2002, 14:45

1) We need group movement and Automatic relocation to the front (like MOO I). Clicking on 100 units to conduct an assault is the best reason to give peace a chance I can think of.

2) People complaining about the lack of multiplayer and then complaining about AI strategies that I would be employing against them If I were playing them in multi-player.

Willem · January 29, 2002, 14:58

Quote:

Originally posted by ShuShu
1) We need group movement and Automatic relocation to the front (like MOO I). Clicking on 100 units to conduct an assault is the best reason to give peace a chance I can think of.

2) People complaining about the lack of multiplayer and then complaining about AI strategies that I would be employing against them If I were playing them in multi-player.

Yes, if you borrow some of the AI tactics, they can turn out to be very effective.

I have to wonder whether some people are just getting frustrated because they can no longer play the same way they did in Civ II. Old tactics sometimes die hard.

Snorklis · January 31, 2002, 13:30

The most annoying thing about the game is that it seems to lack what you can call luck or combatdice in combats. If you reload the same battle and do exactly the same attacks each time, you will get the exact same result each time! Why is it so? Lets say you do another battle before the one you reloaded 35 times, and then do that battle in the same turn, it will not be the result you got 35 times! It seems like each battle is dependent on the battles done before, and I really really reaaaallly would like to know why and what I can do do prevent it!
It feels like I could win a battle if just placing that particular battle in the right order. Ofcourse I tested it... And I was right!

This is what happend...
Walk down to a city with >10 units and loosing every one of them big time. Fine. It could happen, right? Reload. Loosing again, and the battles take the same hitpoints to eachother. Reload. The same. Reload. Still the same... okey. Make another battle on a different city just using one unit. Lost. Okey.. Now its time for the 10 unit battle again. This time I won the city and kept 6 of my units!!!! WHYYYYY??????!!!!!
Im getting really annoyed by this, that I really consider to give up playing an otherwise fine and addictive game.

******* Please explain why this is happening???!!

Tarbox · January 31, 2002, 14:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

No, the attacker should have at least a 3:1 advantage! But that includes strength in power.

Completely ignoring your actual point, I guess this means attackers are getting stronger through the ages. Sun Tzu says if the odds are 10:1, attack, 5:1, surround, 1:1, maneuver. He's got rules for 1:5 and 1:10, as well. I think they're retreat and surrender, but I'm not sure. This being the internet, I could look it up, but then you wouldn't.

Jaybe · January 31, 2002, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Snorklis
... If you reload the same battle and do exactly the same attacks each time, you will get the exact same result each time! ...

Snorklis, thank you for not starting a new thread for this, since it has been rehashed dozens of times before.

The random number generator is seeded* when you start the program, not when you load your saved game or when you do the combat. This was a design decision on Firaxis' part, to prevent this "trick" players had to "fix" their results by reloading the game any time they couldn't stand the results. Consider it part of the challenge.

*In case you didn't know, it goes roughly like this: there is a list of 'random' numbers (e.g., 12527839945612379128005451...). The 'seeding' determines where in the list to have the first number picked. Subsequent picks continue from that point. (When there is a long string of '0's, it may mean that your modern armor is defeated by the knight).

Zachriel · January 31, 2002, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Tarbox
Completely ignoring your actual point, I guess this means attackers are getting stronger through the ages. Sun Tzu says if the odds are 10:1, attack, 5:1, surround, 1:1, maneuver. He's got rules for 1:5 and 1:10, as well. I think they're retreat and surrender, but I'm not sure. This being the internet, I could look it up, but then you wouldn't.

Generally in warfare: If ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, divide them; if equal, be able to fight them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them. Therefore, a smaller army that is inflexible will be captured by a larger one.

http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html

Provost Harrison · January 31, 2002, 15:30

What I find most irritating. There is one thing that constantly sticks out in my mind above all others: techs on rails. I love the rate that the cost of each tech is relative, that you can start work on one and pause it and the increments in time to acquire a tech is not dependent on how many you have discovered but the level of the tech. A great idea...except for one thing that pisses me off.

YOU CANNOT RESEARCH A TECHNOLOGY IN LESS THAN 4 TURNS OR MORE THAN 40 TURNS. Make techs more expensive? Yes, no problem! But to put this artificial constraint into the game is beyond me. REMOVE IT!

I think this one thing alone is enough to start dragging the game down. It makes the industrial and modern era drag on for far longer than is necessary, eliminates the possibility of a tech race because no one can beat 4 turns. Come on, get rid of it, it stagnates the game!

Jaybe · January 31, 2002, 16:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
... YOU CANNOT RESEARCH A TECHNOLOGY IN LESS THAN 4 TURNS OR MORE THAN 40 TURNS....
I think this one thing alone is enough to start dragging the game down. It makes the industrial and modern era drag on for far longer than is necessary, eliminates the possibility of a tech race because no one can beat 4 turns. Come on, get rid of it, it stagnates the game!

WHAT!? You would have it so that the human be able to consistently outstrip all the AI's because the AI routines don't know any better?? Or make it so the AI clobbers the player SO bad because the player has such a lousy setup (especially early on)??

On the other hand, if there wasn't a 40-turn max maybe people would put more than 10% into science early in the game. It would also be nice if science funding carried over from one tech to the next, so you wouldn't be cutting back on the last turn or two of research all the time.

Snorklis · January 31, 2002, 19:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

Snorklis, thank you for not starting a new thread for this, since it has been rehashed dozens of times before.

The random number generator is seeded* when you start the program, not when you load your saved game or when you do the combat. This was a design decision on Firaxis' part, to prevent this "trick" players had to "fix" their results by reloading the game any time they couldn't stand the results. Consider it part of the challenge.

*In case you didn't know, it goes roughly like this: there is a list of 'random' numbers (e.g., 12527839945612379128005451...). The 'seeding' determines where in the list to have the first number picked. Subsequent picks continue from that point. (When there is a long string of '0's, it may mean that your modern armor is defeated by the knight).

Thanks for your answer. I did not think of this possibility. I tested it naturally direct after I read it and found it NOT to be the case here!! Have you really tested reload the whole game and do the same battle over and over again? I also tested rebooting the machine, but the the same result is coming again and again and again....???!

But ofcourse like before, do another attack on another unit, and the reloaded battles outcome will change.
This is driving me nuts!!!!
Why cant we have a new random seed in each battle, like the battles in Warlords for example? There you can even set the combatdice if you would like it easier or harder to win........

Provost Harrison · January 31, 2002, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

WHAT!? You would have it so that the human be able to consistently outstrip all the AI's because the AI routines don't know any better?? Or make it so the AI clobbers the player SO bad because the player has such a lousy setup (especially early on)??

On the other hand, if there wasn't a 40-turn max maybe people would put more than 10% into science early in the game. It would also be nice if science funding carried over from one tech to the next, so you wouldn't be cutting back on the last turn or two of research all the time.

My issue is a gameplay one. The 4 turn cap makes the latter stages of the game horrendously slow...and this is the major bottleneck in this...

Ironikinit · January 31, 2002, 19:31

I don't know why they made the random seed like they did, but I assume they did it to cut down on people using the reload cheat.

Colonization (an old civ type game) had a similar feature.

Murtin · January 31, 2002, 20:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Snorklis
Thanks for your answer. I did not think of this possibility. I tested it naturally direct after I read it and found it NOT to be the case here!! Have you really tested reload the whole game and do the same battle over and over again? I also tested rebooting the machine, but the the same result is coming again and again and again....???!

I think the way it works out is that when you save your game, the random number seed is saved along with it. That means that it makes no difference if you simply reload the saved game, quit Civ and restart, or even reboot your machine and restart. When you reload your saved game you will also reload the seed, and thus you will be facing the same sequence of numbers that you were facing when you saved the game. So as long as you move your units in the same order, you will still receive the same results.

Snorklis · January 31, 2002, 23:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Murtin

I think the way it works out is that when you save your game, the random number seed is saved along with it. That means that it makes no difference if you simply reload the saved game, quit Civ and restart, or even reboot your machine and restart. When you reload your saved game you will also reload the seed, and thus you will be facing the same sequence of numbers that you were facing when you saved the game. So as long as you move your units in the same order, you will still receive the same results.

Thanks for your answer.
Yes, I was beginning to think the seed is saved also. I think this is really sad, it takes out a lot of fun playing the game knowing that if you maybee attacked another unit before the big very important battle, you could have won and kept half of your army, but now losing it and hardly make any damage to your opponent. Craaaazy!!
Give me.. say 90% on unit strength and other influences, and 10% luck.. That will do the trick!

FIRAXIS!
Please remove this "feature"... :-)

...and really... why stop people from reloading a battle the dont feel are just? Is it my problem or Firaxis problem?...

Encomium · January 31, 2002, 23:40

Nothing is more irritating than the way Wonders are dealt with in Civ III.

We can no longer stockpile caravans or use caravans from another city to expedite the Wonder's production.

We can't use gold from the treasury to hurry production.

If another civ completes a Wonder we can't keep producing that Wonder and wait for a new tech advance and then switch to a new Wonder.

We get no warning if another civ is about to complete a Wonder. Not that it would help much as all we can do is sell expensive improvements for very few shields.

Not one shield of Wonder production can go into Wealth if another civ finishes that Wonder.

Yes, Wonder production. One of the many irritating things about Civ III.

Encomium · February 1, 2002, 00:36

Here's another reason for irritation AND monotony. . .

I am playing the Marla World Map downloaded from another site. Six civs besides mine.

It is only 1000 AD - and it already takes 3 1/2 minutes between turns!! I can just imagine how long it will take when we get to 1900.

No thanks.

Deathwalker · February 1, 2002, 06:59

What I am most frustarated about is the inability to sink sinks

Ironikinit · February 1, 2002, 07:50

Didja try, oh, I dunno... sinking them with ships?

Murtin · February 1, 2002, 08:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Snorklis

Give me.. say 90% on unit strength and other influences, and 10% luck.. That will do the trick!

Seriously, I think the game could still be fun if combat was completely deterministic. Would give battles a more "chess-like" nature. However, such a combat system would require a lot of tactical consideration in planning the moves, and that would probably be very bad news for the AI.

Quote:

why stop people from reloading a battle the dont feel are just?

Because the system IS just. On average, luck will cancel out. What wouldn't be fair is avoiding negative outcomes altogether by reloading the game upon suffering a military disaster. The way it works now you will occasionally be dealt a particularly bad sequence by the random number generator and you have to deal with it. Granted, you can still reload the game and "choose your losses" by letting less important units take the bad breaks in less important battles, but you can't avoid that bad sequence completely. Which is A Good Thing, in my opinion.

Murtin · February 1, 2002, 08:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathwalker

What I am most frustarated about is the inability to sink sinks

Yeah, that one really bugs me too. I've even tried drilling holes in the sink to sink it, but it only makes the water leak out of the sink. And then my shoes get wet.

Zachriel · February 1, 2002, 09:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Encomium
It is only 1000 AD - and it already takes 3 1/2 minutes between turns!! I can just imagine how long it will take when we get to 1900.

No thanks.

Play a smaller map, or get a faster computer. I usually play 12-16 civs on a standard map, animations off of course, and the game runs quite nicely.

Tarbox · February 1, 2002, 09:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Generally in warfare: If ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, divide them; if equal, be able to fight them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them. Therefore, a smaller army that is inflexible will be captured by a larger one.

http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html

Drat...I totally messed it up. Gotta go study some more.

*hang head in shame*

I'm so embarrassed...no wonder I've been losing my wars.

Azrikam · February 1, 2002, 10:48

Quote:

We can no longer stockpile caravans or use caravans from another city to expedite the Wonder's production.

Quote:

We can't use gold from the treasury to hurry production.

Quote:

If another civ completes a Wonder we can't keep producing that Wonder and wait for a new tech advance and then switch to a new Wonder.

Quote:

We get no warning if another civ is about to complete a Wonder. Not that it would help much as all we can do is sell expensive improvements for very few shields.

Quote:

Not one shield of Wonder production can go into Wealth if another civ finishes that Wonder.

You're probably about to get hit with a reply that tells you that you need to come up with new strategies to win CivIII, and you're not a very good player. Just thought I'd warn you ahead of time.

Seriously, it seems as the majority of the work that was done on this game was a concerted effort to make the AI more competitive, and make the game harder for those of us who had "mastered" the strategies of Civ II; the limitations on wonder building is just one example. Whether or not this made the game unplayable or "no fun" didn't seem to enter their minds during development.

Even after all that work, I guarantee that Civ III players will have new strategies (if they don't have them already), that will make mincemeat of the AI. So, their development time would have been better spent making a better game.