this combat system has to **GO**

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Arrian


Keep dreamin, pal. That is how the combat system works in CivIII. Either you learn to live with it, or you go play another game. I'm not trying to be nasty, but that's the truth. The combat system will not change, therefore you must accept it in order to play the game. If it ruins the game for you, you are not alone. Others (many of them, repeatedly) have registered the same complaint as you.

-Arrian

Arrian's right. Most people find the combat system annoying to varying degrees. If it doesn't ruin the game for you keep playing, otherwise you might as well stop. For me I found that it did basically ruin the game. I don't mind the occasional fluke or oddity, but I want an general idea of how well my troops will do. That was in Civ2, but it isn't in Civ3 as much, since flukes that cause 5-10 units or more to die can happy far too easily IMHO. Hence, I haven't been visiting the civ3 forums much and rarely ever post even if I do (and I don't plan on getting the expansion). Other people don't mind it as much, and the game is still fine for them (it's good some people enjoy the game).

Anyhow, I'll just wait for MOO3, RoN, and the eventual Civ4. Hopefully Civ4 won't have this problem (there are better solutions to the issue of advanced tech units vs. less advanced tech units, IMO).

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Anyhow, I'll just wait for MOO3, RoN, and the eventual Civ4. Hopefully Civ4 won't have this problem (there are better solutions to the issue of advanced tech units vs. less advanced tech units, IMO).

Please enlighten us.

[vmxa1]

I still don't see why we need a solution. Let the backward civs die, they will anyway.

[Cyclotron]

I can't imagine a game that would be any fun if the only way I could win would be being in first place for the whole game. One of the problems with Civ games in general is the "threshold" at which you know you are more powerful than any other civ... victory is only a matter of time. With Civ2, I knew this as early as the middle ages because no civ stood a chance against any civ that even had slightly more advanced units. At least with Civ3, that is usually staved off until the industrial era or later.

It is key to any good game that people are able to "come from behind" and manage a win. If a game is made by "the rich get richer" principle, it won't be any fun. There needs to be competition, and for competition you need a more level playing field.

You may be saying, "but the field is level... everyone starts the same way." Very well, that's true, but you are essentially ending the game around the middle ages or industrial age... once you're ahead, you're ahead and all you have to do is mop up. You are essentially killing the game after this "critical point."

People talk about eliminating the threshold in Civ games, but the only way that can happen is if winning is a possiblity (even if it is not a great one) for good players who are not quite in the lead. Civ3's combat system is a step in that direction. There have been other threads discussing how to make a win from behind possible (because currently, even with combat system changes, it really isn't). Such a change doesn't have to be "unrealistic," empires have risen and fell throughout history. If the roman empire was being played in Civ... I would quit the game because it would be so boring, being essentially the only viable civ in the world, far surpassing all in power. Why would I even want to play through even to the middle ages?

vmxa1, if the somewhat backward civs (screw the really backward civs) don't have a chance, the game is the worse for it.

[N. Machiavelli]

If they had put more effort/thought into the Diplomatic, Cultural, and Space victories, then they wouldn't need to level the combat system. As is, many people turn one or most of those victory options off because they are either too easy or anti-climactic. Because of that, the game remains very combat-oriented while at the same time, mass-warfare is discouraged due to the 'dumbed-down' combat model.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Please enlighten us.

I assume you were refering to my hope that civ4 would fix the 'problem'. Well, the entire previous paragraph in my original post was devoted to it, and the entire topic of this thread is on it. I refer, of course, to the issue of the (IMHO) poor combat system of Civ3. Quite simply, the results are too given to flukes. I can live with the unreality of the enemy pikemen doing alright against my cavalry, but the enemy Spearmen should be getting their asses kicked. At the very least, I want an general idea of how the battle will turn out if I have 10 cavalry attacking a town defended by spearmen...or what have you. As it is now, you really can't have any comfort in how the battle will turn out, becaue the too often occuring runs of bad luck can eliminate a lot of an attacking force. So, those 10 cav might win without a lose, or you might lose them to the man (with maybe a couple wounded that are left over). And the chance of either happening is far, far too likely, hence battles are like playing craps, and there is no good strategy save massive, massive numbers. Against humans this will be more obvious, since the slower method of bringing artillery with you will simply leave you open to attacks before you get to a city. At least, that's how it looks to me. Anyhow, the pure randomness of battles ruined my interest in the game (as I have said before). I really shouldn't have rambled on so, but you don't seem to read so I repeated myself. (I am not usually so acidic with my statements, oh well).

[Cyclotron]

Actually, I was asking what exactly the "better solutions" you speak of are. I'm pretty sure I already understand what you are complaining about... I'm just wondering if it's just complaining, or if you actually have any kind of suggestion.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Blue Moose


I assume you were refering to my hope that civ4 would fix the 'problem'. Well, the entire previous paragraph in my original post was devoted to it, and the entire topic of this thread is on it. I refer, of course, to the issue of the (IMHO) poor combat system of Civ3. Quite simply, the results are too given to flukes. I can live with the unreality of the enemy pikemen doing alright against my cavalry, but the enemy Spearmen should be getting their asses kicked. At the very least, I want an general idea of how the battle will turn out if I have 10 cavalry attacking a town defended by spearmen...or what have you. As it is now, you really can't have any comfort in how the battle will turn out, becaue the too often occuring runs of bad luck can eliminate a lot of an attacking force. So, those 10 cav might win without a lose, or you might lose them to the man (with maybe a couple wounded that are left over). And the chance of either happening is far, far too likely, hence battles are like playing craps, and there is no good strategy save massive, massive numbers. Against humans this will be more obvious, since the slower method of bringing artillery with you will simply leave you open to attacks before you get to a city. At least, that's how it looks to me. Anyhow, the pure randomness of battles ruined my interest in the game (as I have said before). I really shouldn't have rambled on so, but you don't seem to read so I repeated myself. (I am not usually so acidic with my statements, oh well).

I *completly* agree. I'm willing to tolerate EVERY fault Civ3 has....except this. This very one simply ruined the game for me. I can't go to higher difficulty levels because teh AI mongers war too much (and it gets bonuses/i get handicaps, so.....) and staying too low is easy.

Your encouraged to go a peaceful route but again the AI on higher difficulties declares war way too often, and then the combat system is screwed (I've had too many scens where primitive units defeat my Modern Armour and dont even get me started on bombard) but the ONLY way to get high points and to defend yourself is to use war, so......Its so screwed up. I was getting so tired of all these really weird battles (ahh!! my panzer was poked to death!) that....I just didnt see any need. I eventually was able to sell it (Civ3) to some sucker for 50 bucks.

[self biased]

tass, where's your sig from?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by self biased
tass, where's your sig from?

....The taiwanese national anthem

[vondrack]

I am quite happy with the combat system as it is. I cannot say I would be suffering from unlucky dice rolls very often... and I strongly disagree with the opinion that the only way to win wars is by sheer numbers. I seldom have the numerical superiority and yet I almost always win... The key is to maximize the odds... Odds of 1:1 suck for me... that is really too much of a risk. But terrain and fortification bonuses, bombarding, mobility, and experience of your units may significantly improve the odds in your favour... 2:1, even 3:1...

There is one thing I would love to see in a future patch or version of Civ: the ATTACK bonuses. Currently, there are only defense bonuses. I guess that, say, Knights should deserve an attack bonus on the grassland, as they are able to manoeuvre more easily...

Oh well, just an idea...

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
vmxa1, if the somewhat backward civs (screw the really backward civs) don't have a chance, the game is the worse for it.

I don't see how. If I am playing with 8 or civs, some will wither, not a prolem. I like Monarch and above and I do worry about the AI being way behind, that does not happen early. The idea that a low level unit needs to be able to be competitive with later ones for the backward civs, is just silly. If you are playing Regent or below, and know how to beat Deity, then the AI will be way behind, but if that is the game that player wants I don't mind.

[Ethelred]

Its not for the AI. Its for the player in case they are short a strategic resource. Its not much help someone that is way behind on tech but if someone is short on resources they can try to use numerical superiority instead with the present combat system. I went through that once myself were I was missing BOTH iron and saltpeter. I am managed to survive long enough to win the game.

[Theseus]

THANK GOD for that!!

AU 107 on Emperor is, hmmm, difficult. I have come to a point where numerical superiority is my only chance for relative strength... SMOTHER THEM!!

We'll see how it works out, but I welcome the possible toehold afforded by uncertainty.

[vmxa1]

Ethelred, that option is fine and is still available to them, althought I doubt the AI will pull it off. You can use strategy to overcome any postional short comings. The combat system does not need to be the means. Anyway I have said all along that the tweak that I am interested in would only affect a very small number of battles and not really impact the game. It is meant to remove some of the silliness and annoyances, not really impact the outcome. It is just entertaing to discus as nothing is going to be done.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Actually, I was asking what exactly the "better solutions" you speak of are. I'm pretty sure I already understand what you are complaining about... I'm just wondering if it's just complaining, or if you actually have any kind of suggestion.

Well, I think any unit should be able to easily wipe another unit that is more primitive by two ages, in all circumstances. Also, the current system of A/D is far to primitive to stay. Hoplites were an important attacking force in the time of the Greeks, but in a Civ3 system, that can't be duplicated. Combat results should be more based on the terrain and wether the defender is fortified (and wether it can gain benefits of fortification), than who initiates the battle (the terrain the battle is on would be the defender's terrain). Combat results would then be determined by some sort of army combat system, so that combinations of troops would be important (sure, those pikes might be good against knights, but not if they are fired upon by archers or circled around). It's time to cast off this antiquidated combat model, it was good for its time, but now it just looks silly. Of course, much more primitive troops could win over more modern ones, if in sufficient numbers.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Blue Moose


Well, I think any unit should be able to easily wipe another unit that is more primitive by two ages, in all circumstances. Also, the current system of A/D is far to primitive to stay. Hoplites were an important attacking force in the time of the Greeks, but in a Civ3 system, that can't be duplicated. Combat results should be more based on the terrain and wether the defender is fortified (and wether it can gain benefits of fortification), than who initiates the battle (the terrain the battle is on would be the defender's terrain). Combat results would then be determined by some sort of army combat system, so that combinations of troops would be important (sure, those pikes might be good against knights, but not if they are fired upon by archers or circled around). It's time to cast off this antiquidated combat model, it was good for its time, but now it just looks silly. Of course, much more primitive troops could win over more modern ones, if in sufficient numbers.

Seems you ask for a combat Model such as in Call To Power, where you could bring your units together in Armies in which different Unit Types also played different Roles in Combat (for example if you had an army consisting of Speramen and Archers, the Archers would first fire Volleys of Arrows, after which the Speramen would engage in Hand to Hand Combat. The Archers wouldn´t engage in Hand to Hand combat unless the enemy would kill the Spearmen first )

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


Seems you ask for a combat Model such as in Call To Power, where you could bring your units together in Armies in which different Unit Types also played different Roles in Combat (for example if you had an army consisting of Speramen and Archers, the Archers would first fire Volleys of Arrows, after which the Speramen would engage in Hand to Hand Combat. The Archers wouldn´t engage in Hand to Hand combat unless the enemy would kill the Spearmen first )

The CTP combat system is superior to the Civ1/2/3 systems, I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree about that. It isn't really that much more complicated either. I am not sure of all the specifics of how it works though, so perhaps a similar sysem with some tweaks would be better.

[self biased]

tass, it sounded like something off of a soulfly album... **grin** thanks...

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Well, I think any unit should be able to easily wipe another unit that is more primitive by two ages, in all circumstances.

Why? If it can happen in real life, even if it is unlikely, why impose arbitrary limits? Besides, you will end up creatin the same ridiculousness you are trying to avoid... one rifleman unit standing up to 100 swordsmen units? One thousand? And with no damage at all?

Also, the current system of A/D is far to primitive to stay. Hoplites were an important attacking force in the time of the Greeks, but in a Civ3 system, that can't be duplicated.

Except by adding additional attack points.

Combat results should be more based on the terrain and wether the defender is fortified (and wether it can gain benefits of fortification), than who initiates the battle (the terrain the battle is on would be the defender's terrain).

Don't know what to say here. Except that terrain and fortification already give bonuses, and very important ones that must be taken into consideration in battle. In fact, most of the people railing against the combat system are talking about how unfair it is that terrain is weighted so much that ancient units have a much better chance on a mountain, and may actually prove trouble for a cav or tank, etc.

The CTP combat system is superior to the Civ1/2/3 systems, I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree about that. It isn't really that much more complicated either. I am not sure of all the specifics of how it works though, so perhaps a similar sysem with some tweaks would be better.

I have CTP. I loathe its combat system. First of all, the "randomness" you experienced is expanded 10-fold... I had an abolitionist, a 0/0 unit, sink one of my men-o-war and damage another. By herself. So please, before you vouch for the virtues of the CTP system over the Civ3 one, do a little more research.

Randomness is not the only reason it's bad. I can only stack 9 units in one tile, for obvious gameplay reasons. First of all, I have a hard time suspending disbelief that 10 units of musketmen, or anything else, can't "fit" in a tile (which is many, many square miles). Second, It actually interferes with the movement of troops, so I can't do things like, say, moving a stack of my units through a road occupied by another without un-fortifying, moving all stacks, etc... very tedious.

And the big question, why? What is it that a line of cannons behind the front lines in CTP can do that bombarding cannons in Civ3 can't? What would adding other variables to combat actually add to the system? Would it make the game a challenge, or would it be a regression to the cake walk days of Civ2?

[CiverDan]

Here's my two cents. I have no complaints about tanks having trouble attacking cities. Historically tanks aren't very good in cities (this has been brought up in threads before). The spears could have snuck behind it from inside a building and stuck the spears in the treads etc. etc.

Artillery is handled much better in civ3. Nothing more realistic than beating a larger civ in one turn with only Howitzers

[vmxa1]

Well fire power rating could be used to smooth out a few anomalities.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Why? If it can happen in real life, even if it is unlikely, why impose arbitrary limits? Besides, you will end up creatin the same ridiculousness you are trying to avoid... one rifleman unit standing up to 100 swordsmen units? One thousand? And with no damage at all?

If you read the whole paragraph, you would have noticed it ended with "Of course, much more primitive troops could win over more modern ones, if in sufficient numbers." This statement was meant more of in the sense of a 1-1 situation.

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Except by adding additional attack points.

But the combat system in Civ3 can't handle giving hoplites/phalanxes more attack points to account for their attack uses in primitives times, because of how the combat system works, surely you realize that. Otherwise you'd make bowmen worthless or some other unit worthless....the system is simply too primitive to allow a more realistic portrayal of units and combinations of units. There's little reason to use bowmen with your army of swordsmen...if you had a choice between one unit or the other, you go with swordsmen, because they have a higher attack and defensive power. But historically you'd want both in an army. Ranged attacks had importance.

Originally posted by cyclotron7 Don't know what to say here. Except that terrain and fortification already give bonuses, and very important ones that must be taken into consideration in battle. In fact, most of the people railing against the combat system are talking about how unfair it is that terrain is weighted so much that ancient units have a much better chance on a mountain, and may actually prove trouble for a cav or tank, etc.

You don't understand what I am saying. I am talking about THROWING AWAY the current combat model and using a different one. There is a big difference between a warrior initiating an attack against horseman in the plains than the horseman initiated an attack against a warrior in the plain. Given the size of a square, it shouldn't make a difference. The horseman is still going to have plenty of time and room to maneuver, so it should have an advantage in either case. That's the sort of chance I am talking about...having either of the above situations the same. With modifications then for wether units are fortified or not. This is quite different from the current A/D model (though a new model might use attack/defend values, both attack and defense values would be used in any combat they were in, perhaps defense indicating resitance to taking damage, and attack indicating ability to deal damage, but even this would be a bit too simplistic, you need something that takes into account that archers attack at range and the like).

Originally posted by cyclotron7 I have CTP. I loathe its combat system. First of all, the "randomness" you experienced is expanded 10-fold... I had an abolitionist, a 0/0 unit, sink one of my men-o-war and damage another. By herself. So please, before you vouch for the virtues of the CTP system over the Civ3 one, do a little more research.

My mistake. Let me than say that the basic premise behind that combat system in CTP is much, much better than the combat system in Civ3. A few tweaks to allow more units in one tile, give some benefits for flanking attacks (presence of units in adjacent squares), and balance tweaks to eliminate oddities with combat between a very advanced army and a primitive one, and then you'd have a much, much better system than in Civ3. The basic idea of the CTP system is still better though. Groups of units form armies that attack as a group, and having various units in those armies is a good idea.

Originally posted by cyclotron7 And the big question, why? What is it that a line of cannons behind the front lines in CTP can do that bombarding cannons in Civ3 can't? What would adding other variables to combat actually add to the system? Would it make the game a challenge, or would it be a regression to the cake walk days of Civ2?

I am talking about scrapping the current system and replacing it with one that looks, acts, and feels more realistic, not just "adding other variables to combat." Artillery units could be much better. Bombardment against cities needs work, especially against cities with walls. Bombers and artillery should be able to destroy certain units, such as tanks, but then again, if those tanks also have artillery support, then their artillery should be able to fire back. Hence armies of mixed units makes the most sense, and is the best solution. It makes less sense and is less intuitive to have to move each unit type around and use them individually. It makes more sense to establish armies, because anyone familiar with history knows that armies were composed of multiple unit types. The results could also be much, much more realistic feeling, while still balanced from a gameplay perspective. Sure, you'd still need to manage your air power seperately, but overall the basic feel would be much better (no more dealing with moving loads of troops, or stupid 'stacks', instead you have a few army units that you move in an invasion...so it is cleaner that way as well).

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
If you read the whole paragraph, you would have noticed it ended with "Of course, much more primitive troops could win over more modern ones, if in sufficient numbers." This statement was meant more of in the sense of a 1-1 situation.

I did read it. I ignored it because it was incongruous with your previous statement of "automatic win" for units 2 eras better or more.

But the combat system in Civ3 can't handle giving hoplites/phalanxes more attack points to account for their attack uses in primitives times, because of how the combat system works, surely you realize that. Otherwise you'd make bowmen worthless or some other unit worthless....the system is simply too primitive to allow a more realistic portrayal of units and combinations of units.

I think you are confused between the combat system itself and the way firaxis has decided to use it. When your base unit is 1/1, it is true that there is very little variation possible. But if a warrior was 5/5, you could have a whole range of units, using many more possible combinations of ADM numbers. The fact that Firaxis didn't do this doesn't invalidate the system.

You don't understand what I am saying. I am talking about THROWING AWAY the current combat model and using a different one. There is a big difference between a warrior initiating an attack against horseman in the plains than the horseman initiated an attack against a warrior in the plain. Given the size of a square, it shouldn't make a difference. The horseman is still going to have plenty of time and room to maneuver, so it should have an advantage in either case.

The problem with this is that there is a difference in who attacks apart from simply where the attack takes place. Defending means holding a position, often from a fortress, something cavalry are ill equipped to deal with. Cavalry won't do as well in a great stone fortress as they will when facing the enemy in a field, and when they are fighting in a field they are fighting by charging... which is an attack. They aren't holding ground or even advancing/retreating slowly. A strategic defense is different from a tactical defense. Besides, making the attack and defense values the same would make combat extremely one-sided because all units would be either better than or worse than one another as far as combat stats are concerned.

(though a new model might use attack/defend values, both attack and defense values would be used in any combat they were in, perhaps defense indicating resitance to taking damage, [/quote]

Functionally, that's the same as hp

and attack indicating ability to deal damage

And that is the same as attack/defense rating.

A few tweaks to allow more units in one tile, give some benefits for flanking attacks (presence of units in adjacent squares), and balance tweaks to eliminate oddities with combat between a very advanced army and a primitive one, and then you'd have a much, much better system than in Civ3.

Well...
- A finite limit on units in a stack is arbitrary and annoying, but making the limit ridiculously high or infinite creates the possiblity of "uber-stacks," the exact thing that CTP designers were trying to avoid by putting the limit in place in the first place. There is a fundamental problem with the system that cannot be solved by merely tweaking numbers.
- Flanking attacks is a lot farther than CTP ever got. Essentially all that CTP did was give ranged units a chance to shoot first and be protected by "melee" units, which is essentially the same thing as Civ3.
- That's just it. How would you balance tweaks to eliminate oddities? What is your definition of an oddity? The scenario of 1 rifleman beating 1000 swordsmen with no damage is obviously absurd, so there must be some chance given to primitive units... how much is reasonable? How much is too much? These are things that have not been addressed by opponents of the combat system and need to be to make any kind of valid point.

The basic idea of the CTP system is still better though. Groups of units form armies that attack as a group, and having various units in those armies is a good idea.

It's pretty hard to vouch for which basic idea is better than another. I could believe that the CTP "idea" was better than the Civ3 "idea," but as you can see that doesn't stop the CTP idea from bring worse when the details are implemented. You'll have to go further than a basic idea to convince me.

I am talking about scrapping the current system and replacing it with one that looks, acts, and feels more realistic, not just "adding other variables to combat."

Well, I'm one for realism only when it detracts nothing from gameplay. Adding other values can quickly start destroying gameplay. Once again, its all in the details.

Artillery units could be much better. Bombardment against cities needs work, especially against cities with walls. Bombers and artillery should be able to destroy certain units, such as tanks,

Why is that? How is every last tank destroyed? Is that very realistic?

but then again, if those tanks also have artillery support, then their artillery should be able to fire back.

That's why its a TBS. You can fire back on your next turn. I mean, I don't see a reason for tons of instantaneous stuff if the basic premise of the game is that it is turn based.

Hence armies of mixed units makes the most sense, and is the best solution. It makes less sense and is less intuitive to have to move each unit type around and use them individually. It makes more sense to establish armies, because anyone familiar with history knows that armies were composed of multiple unit types. The results could also be much, much more realistic feeling, while still balanced from a gameplay perspective. Sure, you'd still need to manage your air power seperately, but overall the basic feel would be much better (no more dealing with moving loads of troops, or stupid 'stacks', instead you have a few army units that you move in an invasion...so it is cleaner that way as well).

Hmm... I find myself using a very mixed army in Civ3, to defend the attackers, bombard, and attack. That's a far cry from Civ2, where I could conquer an entire nation with howitzers alone. I can already group similar units together in Civ3 and move them... but of course, now you are talking convenience rather than a combat system change. I can think of many ways to decrease inconvenience in Civ3, but that has nothing to do with the combat system.

[faded glory]

I hate this games combat and SP. I warned you all it would suck the big one. But you all just laughed and called me a troll, homo, and a loser. I was right. aha. The game held my attention for about 6 hours. Until I realized my Fighter jets couldnt shoot down bombers and AI Zulu's were killing my tanks.

MP will be cool I hope.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by faded glory
I hate this games combat and SP. I warned you all it would suck the big one.

So you were wrong. Perhaps you should just admit it.

But you all just laughed and called me a troll, homo, and a loser. I was right. aha.

You often ARE a troll. Your reference to sucking the big could be the reason for the other remarks.

The game held my attention for about 6 hours. Until I realized my Fighter jets couldnt shoot down bombers and AI Zulu's were killing my tanks.

My fighters DO shoot down bombers. Never lost a tank to an Impi. Lost ONE to a speaman since the game came out.

MP will be cool I hope.

Might be. I would not be at all surprised if you complain that Human Zulu's are killing your tanks.

[aneeshm]

The chances of a conscript tank attacking an Elite fortified Spearman on a hill across a river in a metropolis and winning is ONLY 48.o91 % . Sad , isn't it ? Applying the same to modern Armour Vs Elite Musketman , it is 35.117% , while the same Modern armor Vs Elite Rifleman is a disgusting 19% .

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Ethelred


So you were wrong. Perhaps you should just admit it.



You often ARE a troll. Your reference to sucking the big could be the reason for the other remarks.



My fighters DO shoot down bombers. Never lost a tank to an Impi. Lost ONE to a speaman since the game came out.



Might be. I would not be at all surprised if you complain that Human Zulu's are killing your tanks.

Hey budday, don't pick on someone who has the coolest avatar!

[Ethelred]

Hey budday, don't pick on someone who has the coolest avatar!

I thought I had the coolest avatar. My mistake.




I like FG's avatar too. However I am an equal opportunity picker onner and will pick on any, all and sundry. Whether they have a neat avatar or not.

[Lunacy]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
People talk about eliminating the threshold in Civ games, but the only way that can happen is if winning is a possiblity (even if it is not a great one) for good players who are not quite in the lead. Civ3's combat system is a step in that direction. There have been other threads discussing how to make a win from behind possible (because currently, even with combat system changes, it really isn't). Such a change doesn't have to be "unrealistic," empires have risen and fell throughout history...

They have but one thing that Civ3 doesn't account for too well which could help keep a level playing field even while treating technological differences more realistically are the non-military factors which affect a civilization. For instance, other than the controlled revolutions you have control of whenever you research a new government there's really very little internal strife you have to deal with even under despotism. The only cities that ever revolt are those near another empire. In real life, particularly in those Ancient times, strife was everywhere in those big empires as people struggled for control. A great military leader could be a very good thing - or a very bad one if he decided he wanted power for himself. If leaders were configured so that they could obediently do whatever you wanted...OR they could turn, entice some military units to join him and attack YOU that could help keep a civ that's running away with the game in check. You could loose not only those minor cities on the outskirts but some of the major ones with all the improvements to civil war. Great leaders would be a risk under despotism and monarchy just as they were in real life.

The change in governments in general is not handled to well. In real life the leader of a civilization rarely chose when to change government. One way the game could be changed is that instead of having those seven is it turns of anarchy which don't harm you all that much if your population is generally content is to have strife start getting bad AS you approach the change in government and by strife I don't just mean having people angry but have people destroy improvements, have them possibly kill some of the military units or have these kill the population units - perhaps even kill a leader. You would want to research technology as soon as possible but as you approach the new government type you'd be dealing with these internal problems too again keeping you from just totally blowing the competition out of the water.

Also - the game doesn't account very well for natural disasters. If it were possible for a civ to build a huge invasion army, load these on galleons...and then loose them all to a hurricane - again, that might level the playing field as well and approximate some of the things that have happened in real history. In the time it takes for a civ to recuperate, others would be getting stronger. You could be sending a stack of knights through some mountains and a sudden Earthquake and rock slide might kill several. You could have one of your best, largest cities somewhere near a volcano - have that volcano erupt and there goes the city.

If the game included some of these more unpredictable scenarios that great empires always had to deal with it would be hearder for any one civ to get too far ahead so you wouldn't typically get spearmen fighting tanks unless the more backward civ was REALLY backward and then the tanks should appropriately wipe them out. On the other hand - a civ which gets a tech first should have an experience advantage so even though internal strife or some natural disaster kept you occupied long enough for an enemy to get tanks, your tanks would still have a slight advantage because you've been using them longer, know how to build them better and have more experience using them.

Lunacy