this combat system has to **GO** - Page 7

Tiberius · October 30, 2002, 08:14

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm
I'll have to agree with Tiberius on this one. Resources are my favorite addition to Civ. The give a reason and justification for the wars to happen.

Only on this one?

My favourite addition is the culture system, but resources are in my top 3. They added more strategic depth to almost every apect of civ: diplomacy, trade, wars, etc.

Gunter · October 30, 2002, 08:55

I have understood from my experience and from your posts that the AI to fill the gap between human skill and its skills is forced to cheat sometimes.

Well,soren said battles are not cheated,and I trust him,but I believe AI has developed an own skill ,independent from programmers,that teached it to use some cheat,in battles too.

Gunter

Jaybe · October 30, 2002, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Gunter
... but I believe AI has developed an own skill ,independent from programmers,that teached it to use some cheat,in battles too.

Gunter

It's all in how we perceive it!

Now the AI has genuinely achieved artificial intelligence. It is quite gracious of it to allow us to win, but give us grief about it.

Cyclotron · October 30, 2002, 19:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Og
The only thing Firaxis had to do was to add armies (like in CTP) and work on the solutions for making the game harder to win like adding increasing unit support, making it harder to keep conquered cities etc.

Nothing here does anything to make the game more difficult. Armies don't change anything about difficulty, and making cities harder to take (which, incidentally, Firaxis did by culture flip) doesn't count for jack when the AI might as well have cardboard units if it is a few techs behind. You have addressed nothing that actually changes the ease with which the game is beaten. In Civ2, the only reason the AI was so handiy beaten was because it essentially became a joke if it fell a few techs behind... Civ3 fixed this.

Sir Og · October 31, 2002, 05:06

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Nothing here does anything to make the game more difficult. Armies don't change anything about difficulty, and making cities harder to take (which, incidentally, Firaxis did by culture flip) doesn't count for jack when the AI might as well have cardboard units if it is a few techs behind. You have addressed nothing that actually changes the ease with which the game is beaten.

I didn’t say that armies would make the game more difficult, I just said that that’s what was missing in civ2 combat system.
In every civ game so far the support for units was the same no matter if they are in your cities or 10 000 km away. But if you have to pay more to support your armies/units that you have sent to war it will be a lot harder to wage constant war. If it’s also harder to keep captured winning by military conquest becomes a lot harder.

Quote:

In Civ2, the only reason the AI was so handiy beaten was because it essentially became a joke if it fell a few techs behind... Civ3 fixed this.

An advantage of few techs was not enough to easily beat the AI. But if the AI was a whole age behind than it deserved to be annihilated.

Sir Og · October 31, 2002, 05:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius

What's your problem with the resource system? It is one of the best addition to the Civ series.

I don’t like the idea that you need resources to produce your units. In the real world resources are abundant. Even the smallest countries have almost all the resources they need and the ones they don’t have they can easily acquire by trade.
I think that resources should be in the game and they should be worth fighting for but not by being a prerequisite for unit production. They should only change the “price” of the units. That is if a civ has a lot of resources it will have higher productivity and will produce more units than a country with fewer resources.

DanaLea · October 31, 2002, 05:53

first a disclaimer: I did not read all 10 pages of this thread. I read the first two and a half and the last - hope I'm not repeating anything already in this thread.

here's my idea on how to re-do the combat system. you know, for that make-believe world where Fraxis comes to me and asks me how to make it better. keep the A/D as it is, but add one element. give each unit a number. the low warrior would be one, spearmen two, and so on, so no number is duplicated and each unit's number corresponds (roughly) with where it is in the progression of weak to strong. now, when two units face each other, their numbers are compared. if they are within a given range (say plus or minus 4) then combat ensues as normal. if the numbers are outside the range, then the unit with the small number is simply destroyed. perhaps with a small chance of the unit surrendering and being captured. this will prevent a spearmen from beating a tank, but won't affect a pikeman/tank battle (assuming their numbers are close enough)

what do y'all think of this?

-dana

why isn't there a spell checker in these forums?!?

Messer Niccolò · October 31, 2002, 05:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Ethelred

Why not? Those are single shot rifles. Come out of the woods from behind and you have dead rifleman. The odds are a bit unrealistic though.

I'm not ranting about the combat system but, come on, if you have cavalry you put it into the woods???
Never heard of mobility?

aaglo · October 31, 2002, 06:00

Nice Idea, DanaLea. It could work, on civ4.

And about your final statement. Yes there is a spell checker in these forums. You'll just have to post via the 'post reply' button - not via the 'post quick reply' window in the bottom of the thread.

in the post reply form there is a spell check button. use that. (I don't know if it works though - I've never used it)

aaglo · October 31, 2002, 06:01

Messer Niccolo

between grasslands and plains there can be forests. And moving between these open areas, you have to enter these forests...

DanaLea · October 31, 2002, 06:41

Quote:

Originally posted by aaglo
And about your final statement. Yes there is a spell checker in these forums. You'll just have to post via the 'post reply' button - not via the 'post quick reply' window in the bottom of the thread.

I've looked and looked. either it's not there, or is right in front of my face. either way I can't see it.

btw, I've always used the post button, never saw the quick reply area until a few minutes ago. too cool.

-dana

Messer Niccolò · October 31, 2002, 06:47

Quote:

Originally posted by aaglo
Messer Niccolo

between grasslands and plains there can be forests. And moving between these open areas, you have to enter these forests...

Of course but should you be a commander of a cavalry squad, would you accept combat in woods against infantry?

aaglo · October 31, 2002, 06:48

In the lower area there are four buttons:
Submit Reply
Submit Reply (return to forum)
Prewiev Reply
Spell Check

I see it fine

aaglo · October 31, 2002, 06:50

Messer

You could be hiding in there, waiting for the right moment to attack the riflemen...

DanaLea · October 31, 2002, 06:57

Quote:

Originally posted by aaglo
In the lower area there are four buttons:
[snip]
I see it fine

ok, Mr. Smartie Pants. here's a screenshot of what I see...

http://dbeads.net/spellcheck.jpg

I don't get no spellcheck.

-dana

aaglo · October 31, 2002, 07:02

Well, I see this.

Maybe your settings aren't same as mine. Perhaps the forum style affects on this...

[edit]: yep, I tried it. You propably have a Light forum style setting, there's no spell check button.
I use Default-special. It has the spell checking button.

notyoueither · October 31, 2002, 07:23

Don't argue with the Finns. Bad plan to argue with the silly Finns.

If they are willing to stand up in your face, you are most likely incorrect in your interpretation of the facts...

aaglo · October 31, 2002, 07:25

Yep

You better just argue with the smart honkers.

notyoueither · October 31, 2002, 07:33

honkers?

Don't argue with geese?

Not arguing, mind you...

aaglo · October 31, 2002, 07:36

ewwww... forget it, NYE.

Sea41571 · October 31, 2002, 07:44

Yes we all have been through something like this before ,But now we have the Editor

Think of them a calulated ambushes, do to bad leadership,
I know it sux sometime but war is unperdictable look at what Ghengis Kahn did

History is full of Greek Errors
A few things to keep in mind when playing

1)Just because someone else did it ,It does'nt mean u can
2)Beware of Greeks bearing Gifts

3)If somethings to good to be true ,it usaully is

4)If Being stupid was painful, We all would be on morphine at sometime !!

DanaLea · October 31, 2002, 07:52

Quote:

Maybe your settings aren't same as mine. Perhaps the forum style affects on this...

okie dokie, changed to default-special (was on light-special) and now I have spellcheck!!

thanks bunches

-dana

addon: just hit the spellcheck button - it gives me a pop-up whcih reads: [small]Due to the current advertising climate, SpellChecker.net no longer offers a banner supported service. Webmasters: click here to sign up for the paid version of the SpellChecker.net system.[/small] so I still have no spellcheck.

aaglo · October 31, 2002, 08:06

Well... you win some, you lose some...

So all this posting for nothing...

Sea41571 · October 31, 2002, 08:29

DoN't ch Wory Non NOw DaNalEa ,We'l FeTch Ya SoME Of tHeM THErer HoOkEd On FoNiKS Fer YA. ThEY Workd ReALLy WeLL Fer mE

DanaLea · October 31, 2002, 08:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Sea41571
DoN't ch Wory Non NOw DaNalEa ,We'l FeTch Ya SoME Of tHeM THErer HoOkEd On FoNiKS Fer YA. ThEY Workd ReALLy WeLL Fer mE

veeerrrrrry funny.

I know I cannot speel. That's why I use a spellchecker.

But I can type....

-dana

Zachriel · October 31, 2002, 08:50

- dp -

Sea41571 · October 31, 2002, 08:51

Danalea don't take it to Heart, im just Teasing You lol

Zachriel · October 31, 2002, 09:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Og

I don’t like the idea that you need resources to produce your units. In the real world resources are abundant. Even the smallest countries have almost all the resources they need and the ones they don’t have they can easily acquire by trade.

The availability of strategic resources in the modern world is due to the strong global trading network. This is the results of several wars over resources that have guaranteed availability of these resources. It has not always been that way, nor is there any guarantee it will stay that way.

- Japan has no natural sources of oil or rubber. The Allies cut off their trade in these resources during the 1930's. The Japanese considered this an act of war and attacked. This is considered one important cause of WWII.
- Rome invaded Britain, in large part to acquire the Tin mines. Tin was even more important during the Bronze Age.
- The Confederacy was reduced to using urine for the manufacture of Gunpowder due to a lack of Saltpeter.
- After WWI, France exerted various levels of political control of the Ruhr, a major German coal and industrial region.
- Ancient Egypt had no wood. Egypt had to maintain good relations with or friendly political relations with Lebanon.
- The U.S. wrested control of the West from Mexico largely because of the Gold and Silver there.
- When Kuwait was invaded, the West intervened because of a strategic resource, oil. When war broke out in sub-Saharan Africa -- even to the point of genocide -- the West stood by. No strategic resources.

vmxa1 · October 31, 2002, 13:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Og

I don’t like the idea that you need resources to produce your units. In the real world resources are abundant. Even the smallest countries have almost all the resources they need and the ones they don’t have they can easily acquire by trade.
I think that resources should be in the game and they should be worth fighting for but not by being a prerequisite for unit production. They should only change the “price” of the units. That is if a civ has a lot of resources it will have higher productivity and will produce more units than a country with fewer resources.

In the game you are allowed to trade for resources. During war there are not enough resource to do every thing, even in USA, there was shortages. Many units today can not be built in many countries with out getting imported goods. It really just added another challenge to the game. Any way if it is a bother you can created random maps and put the desired resources inplace and make them so they do not go away.

Last time I tried the spell check (last week) it was disabled.

Sir Og · November 1, 2002, 05:23

Zachriel: I think that even in ancient times there was an adequate trade network that distributed the goods. And in the examples you gave each country was actually able to build a significant amount of the units that need those resources even though they didn’t have deposits of the resource on their territory.
That’s why I think that you should always be able to build any unit but if you don’t have the resource it should be more expensive maybe ( like prototypes in SMAC).