A lot of folks just don't "get" CIV III

Autolicus · March 27, 2002, 16:39

I have watched the boards for a considerable amount of time, noting many of the criticisms that have been made -- some well founded, others not, yet others a matter of personal tastes. But many of the criticisms are not well founded simply for the fact that they are attacking Civ III for being a game that it is not, and has never aspired to be.

For example, take certain combat issues, such as an airplane's ability (or lack thereof) to sink ships, or a spearman's ability to defeat a tank. Some people have decried these as examples of a lack of realism. This strikes me as a bizzare viewpoint, since Civ has never been about realism. It includes some historical references for flavor, but all in all, Civ is as much set in a fantasy world as many other games.

To the extent that Civ does reflect some historical, economical, and military "realities" -- which it does to some degree -- it is very abstracted. For example, in the early stages of the game, if it takes my settler 5 turns to reach its destination, it obviously did not require a hundred years to get there. Rather, it would abstractly represent the slow pace of expansion in early times.

Given this abstract concept, it makes no sense to ask for realism in combat. This is not a war game attempting to accurately depict combat. Indeed, does anyone think it's realistic for an army of tanks to take 5 years to get to its target? Obiously not. But since combat shares the same abstract turn system of the over-all game, that's how it works out, and everyone generally accepts that.

Why then, do so many people bemoan that it's not "realistic" for a knight to kill a tank? If realism was actually included into Civ combat it would (besides making the game an utter catastrophe, since that's not what the game is about) render most of the things players do impossible. To give one example, do you think it's "realistic" that I can send my armies of tanks deep into enemy territory and wreak havoc for years at a time? Of course not. Once my powerful army passed deep into enemy territory, I would be unable to maintain any lines of supplies, and within a couple of days, I would have starving soldiers and out of fuel vehicles.

So, summing up my ramblings, it seems that the pertinent questions on any aspect of Civ III should be: is it fun? does it balance play?, etc. If the answers to such questions are "yes," then to heck with "realism." If the answer is "no," then those are the issues that need to be addressed.

Spec · March 27, 2002, 16:42

Kuciwalker · March 27, 2002, 16:53

Sometimes realism can make it more fun.

notyoueither · March 27, 2002, 17:12

Autolicus. Good post.

I would be one of the guilty when it comes to planes and boats. However, my motives are not realism above all. I believe that a better air naval system will make the game more fun. It would add to the atmosphere. I do not believe that 2 optional switches complete the job, but they are a start.

I imagine that a: lethal interaction between ships and planes, b: increased naval movement values, c: increased Air operational ranges would combine to make the game more balanced and more fun.

What I find hilarious are those who deny that planes should sink boats. They often cite realism. To which I am more than happy to oblige with counter points.

Kaak · March 27, 2002, 17:20

Quote:

But many of the criticisms are not well founded simply for the fact that they are attacking Civ III for being a game that it is not, and has never aspired to be.

I do believe it aspired to a be better strategy game than civ2. It isn't. That is why i have a problem with it.

narmox · March 27, 2002, 17:54

So.. someone's tank gets killed by a spearman. I wonder if these same people would whine if a lone spearman defended successfully against a tank attacking one of their own cities... I know I don't

I celebrate, I shout "wooohooo!!!" heheh

Anyways, from all the games I've played, these occurances are rare. So I don't mind them.

Now, for air combat... I dunno if making them sink ships will make it better - we'll see that with the next patch

What I do know is that hte AI should BOMB CITIES and units, not just improvements. That will make air superiority much more useful, and the AI more dangerous...

Inverse Icarus · March 27, 2002, 18:02

my friend expirenced the classic "phalanx (spearman) killing an armor (tank)" in civ3, and found a seamless explination for it.

"the spearman obviously sneaked behind the tanks, opened the hatch of one of them and stabbed all the occupants with his spear at close range. after that he used his tank to take out the rest of them"

and for my scenario of a longbowman killing a mech inf (longbowman attacking) he designed this scenario.

"the longbowman was hiding behind a cactus on the desert and decided to attack. he lined up his shot and shot right through the hull of the mech infantry with his uranium tipped arrows, and pierced the heart of the driver of one of the mech infs. that much inf then careened out of control and slammed into the other ones, creating a domino effect and killing all the mech infs, with no damage to the longbowman, who is still crouched behind his trusty cactus."

--just thought i'd share those

TechWins · March 27, 2002, 18:13

SpencerH · March 27, 2002, 18:20

I dont think many people expect "realism" (not yet). But I would have liked to see more realism in CIV3. I also think it makes it more fun. War is a big part of CIV3. I dont want to see an abstract concept of unit#1 attacking unit#. After I have carefully directed my civ to allow me to build a knight, I want to see it attack a warrior with reasonable assumptions that I will win if I do so in the correct manner. All to often, our carefully crafted attacks become a game of chance. If you wish to play games of chance, there are lots of free slot machine games. The mechanisms used for deciding combat in CIV3 are faulty in that they are too random. I'll bet that most players who know how to have mod-ed the combat stats or hit points in their games.

I'm glad you're happy with the game as is. I was expecting MUCH more than a variant of CIV2 with unit animations. There are some excellent improvements with CIV3, but overall I'm very disappointed with the effort (or lack of it).

Tarquelne · March 27, 2002, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by SpencerH
I dont think many people expect "realism" (not yet). But I would have liked to see more realism in CIV3.

I think many (most?) don't appreciate just how unrealistic Civ2 combat is.

Autolicus · March 27, 2002, 18:36

I hear you. But combat in Civ III is not a game of chance, it is a game of odds. If a tank takes on a knight, the odds are that it will win, and over the long run, tanks will beat out over knights approximately X times out of a hundred, depending upon the given values. (Of course, this does not factor in terrain, other defensive bonuses, etc.). So, your real beef seems to be that you don't agree with the attack and defense factors that are used, which is a valid viewpoint. But I think it goes too far to say that combat is pure "chance."

Given that the AI is far from perfect (although that can be said for the vast majority of games), it's probably a good thing that the disparity between modern and older units are not more dramatic, since it would -- in most instances -- only serve to further weaken an AI opponent that is already mentally challenged. You know, kind of like playing Civ against the character in "I am Sam."

SpencerH · March 27, 2002, 18:52

I didnt like the combat in CIV2 either. That was at least 7 years and 2GHz of computing power ago. Of course combat in CIV3 is not pure chance and I wouldnt want to see it become a chess match but I do think it is too big of a factor.

I agree that the problem seems to be making the game simple enough to allow the AI to be competitive. The AI in CIV3 is the best so far, but in an era where a computer beat the world chess champion, I was expecting more.

Hopefully we will get a good multiplayer version where we may have more complexity (at least the argument about AI limitations wil be moot). But I wonder if it will leave out the large number of people who dont have broadband access.

ACooper · March 27, 2002, 19:01

Autolicus,

I have a new hero. Very elegantly stated.

ACooper · March 27, 2002, 19:03

"Hopefully we will get a good multiplayer version where we may have more complexity (at least the argument about AI limitations wil be moot). But I wonder if it will leave out the large number of people who dont have broadband access."

I have found in most of the MP games I have played, the humans are as bad or worse than the AI.

Kaak · March 27, 2002, 19:16

Quote:

I have found in most of the MP games I have played, the humans are as bad or worse than the AI.

Care to go a round?

SpencerH · March 27, 2002, 19:23

Quote:

I have found in most of the MP games I have played, the humans are as bad or worse than the AI.

Well I hope not. I just quit another game (I was testing some unit specs). It was interesting early (bad starting position) but I just got the Hoover Dam again with subjugated neighbor civs -game over.