Why I quit Civ3 again... (Combat) (Rant)

[Stuie]

He should have used some catapults and/or horsemen to soften up the targets; this game rewards the use of combined arms.

I almost never attack any full strength unit with a swordsman.

[GePap]

Editing the number of HP up helps a lot in keeping results more even: 3 or 4 shots are few enough to let randomes rule. Move the HP up to 7 for regular units and while you may end up with badly damaged units, they will live. The ability ot have HP bonuses is great at allowing one to make units accross the ages more realitic.

In my own system, conscripts get 5, regular 7, veteran 9, elite 10 HP.

Ancient units get a -2HP bonus
Medieval -1HP
Industrial: normal or +1
Modern +1 or +2(for armor)

Thus an elite spearman is 8HP while a regular Mech Inf is 9HP. This system more than makes up for the randomness issues.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
They still had legions because they were hemmed in by me, and I don't think my 'bad luck' has anything to do with it.

Of course it does. What else could have happened? The computer decided to mix up the results just to make you mad? Don't be silly. It's random.

Otherwise my Elite Swordsman would have beaten regular warriors atleast 3 out of 10 times.

You clearly do not understand probability at all. Probability doesn't guarantee anything; you are not assured of winning any amount of times. Probability is chance, there is a distinct chance of pretty much anything happening.

Civ2's AI may have been a push over, but we aren't discussing the AI, the combat model was perfect. If the AI new where to put his units (ie on mountais, in fortresses etc) he would have been damn near impossible to beat.

They are linked. In any Civ game one can get ahead of the opponents in tech, because the AI just will never be as good as the human player. As a result, Civ2 was incredibly easy because with even a slight lead in tech the human player could destroy anybody easily. It depended entirely of tech; ridiculously small armies could conquer massive forces only one tech "jump" behind.

Fortunately, Civ3 fixed this ridiculousness and made the game a challenge.

[ChaotikVisions]

I don't even notice the RNG that much anymore. Sure, a Legion made two nights retreat out in the open, i'll say they had a good commander. All it takes is bringing another knight up to finish em off. And I personally think ranged units should get a first-strike type bonus, to where the archer in plains would be the warrior most of the time, but thats just me. Don't let everything ride on a few units, expect to lose up to or more then half your force when going to war. (Thats your attacking forces, not all of your guys.) Also, once you get up to Cannons bombarding can be great for weaking city defenses.

And whats this about it being unique to Civ3? I remember a Phalanx beating back a Mech. Inf or Armor in Civ2. Sure, it was on a hill/mountain in a large city, but it happened. Playing as the Greeks as a Theocracy, purging the world in white flame. Was on an island so didn't expect anyone to attack, but oh well. In Civ2 it did seem like terrain mattered more, in Civ3 i'll admit its hard to tell wether its the RNG or terrain affecting things sometimes. Anyway, I still don't know how you were fighting Spearman with Tanks, unless it was an AI isolated on an island, but even they usually get enough techs for at least late-age mideval units.

[CerberusIV]

If I have a problem with the RNG it is that it can be very streaky.

Example: My vet galley attacks a Babylonian vet galley and loses. I have preserve random seed turned off so I reload (I don't care if you think that is cheating - it's my game and I'll reload if I want to) and the same thing happens. It happens six times in a row and I eventually win the seventh replay.

That is not very probable for a 50:50 battle but I am prepared to live with it for a game that is a challenge. If you want to win every time go play CtP2.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Willem


The AI is part of the combat model. To seperate the two is ludicrous.

And even besides that issue, the system was far from perfect. Was there much of a challenge in the game once you achieved the Howitzer? How about in SMAC once you got the Chopper? Those units were so overpowering, it was almost impossible to lose once you had them. At least now you know there's no firm guarentee at any stage of the game, which makes it more interesting IMO.

Oh boy... you think this is the only way to fix the overpowered howitzer issue? No, it's not, it has nothing to do with that. Howitzer won because best defence was 6+fortify bonus, and best attack was 12, and ignored city walls (if both are vets 9+fortify bonus and 18). The issue was already fixed when "ignore defences" was removed from the howitzer (modern armor) and the defender strenght increased. Now its 18+bonuses vs 24, problem fixed, defender wins. The randomness which is the issue here (right? ) has nothing to do with that.

[Nubclear]

Hmm.....

Ok, I will state this bluntly: To me, the Civ3 combat system SUCKS. There, I said it as bluntly as I can. The way the game is much more aggressive SUCKS. For me, the game SUCKS.
Others share my opinion as well about the combat system. Many other people also think it SUCKS. Others also believe that the aggressiveness SUCKS. And yes, others also believe that the entire game as a whole SUCKS.

We don't care about if the AI is relevant or not. We dont care if its reliastic or not. We also dont care if its "not a challenge" or any other related comments because we think it SUCKS.

Now, you probably think it SUCKS that we rant on here about how much it SUCKS when you dont think it SUCKS at all, dont you? I'm also getting tired of people who think it SUCKS posting that they think it SUCKS over and over and over again. I also get tired of people saying "Well Civ3 is great because of its combat system" or "Civ3 SUCKS because of its combat system" because both those statements SUCK because theyre trying to convince someone who think it SUCKS (or doesnt) and it SUCKS because its not going to happen.

So to the people who think it SUCKS: Stop posting on this message board about how it SUCKS. People who dont think it SUCKS will not begin thinking it SUCKS no matter how much you say "Culture flipping SUCKS" or "The combat system SUCKS." ITS JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. People who enjoy the game should be left to enjoy the game even if you think it SUCKS. Don't ruin their fun.

This sucks.....I'm going to go play AC.

Tassadar, Apoltyons Most Eloquent Poster

[Catt]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
If you want to win every time go play CtP2.

. . . . or play with Preserve Random Seed "Off" and reload as necessary, perhaps up to seven times.

Sorry, CerberusIV, that was too inviting to pass up (it's your game and you should play in any way that you like ).

Catt

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Hmm.....

Ok, I will state this bluntly: To me, the Civ3 combat system SUCKS. There, I said it as bluntly as I can. The way the game is much more aggressive SUCKS. For me, the game SUCKS.
Others share my opinion as well about the combat system. Many other people also think it SUCKS. Others also believe that the aggressiveness SUCKS. And yes, others also believe that the entire game as a whole SUCKS.

We don't care about if the AI is relevant or not. We dont care if its reliastic or not. We also dont care if its "not a challenge" or any other related comments because we think it SUCKS.

Now, you probably think it SUCKS that we rant on here about how much it SUCKS when you dont think it SUCKS at all, dont you? I'm also getting tired of people who think it SUCKS posting that they think it SUCKS over and over and over again. I also get tired of people saying "Well Civ3 is great because of its combat system" or "Civ3 SUCKS because of its combat system" because both those statements SUCK because theyre trying to convince someone who think it SUCKS (or doesnt) and it SUCKS because its not going to happen.

So to the people who think it SUCKS: Stop posting on this message board about how it SUCKS. People who dont think it SUCKS will not begin thinking it SUCKS no matter how much you say "Culture flipping SUCKS" or "The combat system SUCKS." ITS JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. People who enjoy the game should be left to enjoy the game even if you think it SUCKS. Don't ruin their fun.

This sucks.....I'm going to go play AC.

Tassadar, Apoltyons Most Eloquent Poster

You SUCK!

[Willem]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
The randomness which is the issue here (right? ) has nothing to do with that.

The issue here, IMO, is whether Civ III is more of a challenge when it comes to combat than the previous games. I don't think there's any contest on that score. The fact that inferior units sometimes win is irrelevant.

History is full of examples of an inferior force succeeding against overwhelming odds. It happens in reality, why not in a game, albeit somewhat exaggerated?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

You SUCK!

Btw, for the curious, there are 22 "suck" in that post. Mine, that is.

[vmxa1]

I do not think it is a case of convincing us, the combat suck people, have failed to make their case. It is in fact not valid. The scores of players that manage to deal with the combat system effectively have proven that the combat system is not the issue.
If one does not like that game for any reason, that is fair. The combat system is not a problem, it is not perfect and can be annoying. My ex is annoying, my kids are annoying, heck I am annoying so what. They are still are worth my time. I can't speak for weither I am worth their time or not.

[Brizey]

I think that a lot of the "problems" people have with the Civ3 combat system stem from not understanding it. For example, a fortified spearman of equal rank will beat an attacking legion most of the time because of the terrain bonus. My guess is that people overestimate the importance of the A and D difference, and forget about all the bonuses. Get a good calculator (see my thread in the strat forum for mine) and play with it a bit.

What the Civ3 combat gets right is that it reflects attrition better. The good players attack with overwhelming, concentrated force to minimize casualties.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I do not think it is a case of convincing us, the combat suck people, have failed to make their case. It is in fact not valid.

If I dont like it for ANY reason, then it is valid. For me at least.

The scores of players that manage to deal with the combat system effectively have proven that the combat system is not the issue.

Hey, if it spoils the game for me...Then it is the issue. I dont care if its logical, I dont care if "scores of players" have managed to deal with it.....its annoying. I dont like it. Its annoying enough to force me to discotninue playing the game.

If one does not like that game for any reason, that is fair. The combat system is not a problem,

Again, that depends on your perspective....I would be playing civ3 were it not for the combat system, so again for me it IS the problem.

it is not perfect and can be annoying. My ex is annoying, my kids are annoying, heck I am annoying so what. They are still are worth my time. I can't speak for weither I am worth their time or not.

No offense, but what you are implying is EXTREMLY flawed. Just beause something is annoying doesnt mean the product is worth your time. Not sure if you meant to imply that, but....just incase you did.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
We don't care about if the AI is relevant or not. We dont care if its reliastic or not. We also dont care if its "not a challenge" or any other related comments because we think it SUCKS.

So, in other words, there isn't any actual reason that you don't like it.

But of course, that's entirely the point... Tassadar is right that you can't convince people that something is good or bad.

However, Tassadar, please consider this:

This is a discussion forum. If somebody posts something here, it is assumed they wish to discuss it. Usually, the person has a question, point of debate, something that can be argued about and we discuss it.

When somebody comes with some topic that is impossible to discuss, however, like the fact that they hate the combat system... what are we to discuss? Well, to stay on topic, we'll talk about how it doesn't suck and why. What else can you expect? If the founder of the thread wants to talk opinion, then we discuss our opinions.

I too think we should have no more "i love/hate this" threads. But the fact is, people essentially post what they want here, and if they want to talk opinion then so be it.

So, although it may appear like those of us who like it are trying to "convince" you or somebody else how good Civ3 is, we are not... we are just posting on topic in the spirit of the thread. You are, as always, entitled to your opinions.

[Nubclear]

So, in other words, there isn't any actual reason that you don't like it.

Not exactly.....But thats not the issue And I'm just going to conceed the rest to you because I'm tired of debating this. It's so.....old

[Action]

It's not a matter of difficulty. I love difficult games. I complain all the time about games being too easy.

It's just that when I develop a strategy I'd like to have some reasonable expectation about how my troops will perform. The combat system should be consistent enough that you can develop a strategy other than just build 3x as many guys and swarm them. You should be able to form expectations of how your troops will perform, occasional flukes are fine of course, but they should be occasional.

When the game is this streaky and random the best strategy is to just build an overpowering force and swarm them, since a force that should be able to take a certain objective simply can't be relied upon to do so. This is more of a production strategy than a military strategy. While I realize this is not a war game, no war game would make combat this random, in fact I'd argue that in the short term randomness far outweighs any strategy besides swarming them with huge numbers.

Short version: Too random, not too hard.

[ACooper]

How many times has this been discussed? Get over it people. Either play the game or don't. Whine. Whine. Whine.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Action
The combat system should be consistent enough that you can develop a strategy other than just build 3x as many guys and swarm them.

In the real world, an attacking General will usually try and go for at least a 3:1 advantage against an entrenched enemy. I guess that means that thousands of years of military strategy isn't valid in your opinion? Perhaps you'd like to go to the Pentagon and tell the millitary advisors there that their tactics have been flawed all theses years?

When the game is this streaky and random the best strategy is to just build an overpowering force and swarm them...

Funny but it seems to me that was the approach the Allies used in Normandy wasn't it? Or do I have my history all wrong. Oh yes, and the Gulf War.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by Action
It's not a matter of difficulty. I love difficult games. I complain all the time about games being too easy.

It's just that when I develop a strategy I'd like to have some reasonable expectation about how my troops will perform. The combat system should be consistent enough that you can develop a strategy other than just build 3x as many guys and swarm them. You should be able to form expectations of how your troops will perform, occasional flukes are fine of course, but they should be occasional.

When the game is this streaky and random the best strategy is to just build an overpowering force and swarm them, since a force that should be able to take a certain objective simply can't be relied upon to do so. This is more of a production strategy than a military strategy. While I realize this is not a war game, no war game would make combat this random, in fact I'd argue that in the short term randomness far outweighs any strategy besides swarming them with huge numbers.

Short version: Too random, not too hard.

The random element in the combat results can result in “bad luck” as a low probability event must eventually occur. This must be factored into your strategy, you must allow for a bit of uncertainty (or call it bad luck if you prefer).

To some extent one makes one own luck. To send a barely adequate force into enemy territory is to invite bad luck.

For example, 3 cavalry should, at least in theory, be able to take a city from 3 entrenched swordsmen. The problem is that all cavalry must successfully attack for this to happen. There is a very good chance that at least one attack will fail leaving three injured cavalry outside the enemy city where they are very vulnerable to counterattack from enemy forces. It is feasible that all three cavalry may be destroyed in the counterattack. You just created your own bad luck. OTH If you had sent four cavalry (and/or a good defending unit to cover your cavalry) your chances would be greatly improved. Five cavalry would be plenty with defending units following to garrison the captured city. There is no need to send overwhelming force, enough is enough.

One must also look at the terrain the enemy unit is standing on. Also consider the experience of the enemy unit. I often forget to do this and get a nasty result. Umh, that elite enemy spearman was fortified on a hill and I attacked him with my regular knight. My knight lost then a warrior came and finished him off, no rotten bad luck involved.

I suggest “swarming” is rarely needed or desirable.

There is a huge difference in “bad luck” between sending a theoretically sufficient force (perhaps 3 cavalry) and a force which is sufficient after allowing for uncertainty (perhaps 4 cavalry). The difference in the sizes of these forces is not large. An extra two or three units can make all the difference in an invasion.

May I point that that, in real life, things often do not go according to plan.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by Willem
In the real world, an attacking General will usually try and go for at least a 3:1 advantage against an entrenched enemy.

True. Perhaps the real world is as unrealistic as Civ 3?

[Action]

Originally posted by Willem
In the real world, an attacking General will usually try and go for at least a 3:1 advantage against an entrenched enemy. I guess that means that thousands of years of military strategy isn't valid in your opinion? Perhaps you'd like to go to the Pentagon and tell the millitary advisors there that their tactics have been flawed all theses years?

That's true, but thats 3 to 1 at the area of attack, not 3x as many total troops as the enemy. Having 3 to 1 local superiority is easy in Civ 3, but I had at least that much in my assault and it failed due to the combat results in my first post.

When I said 3x as many men as your enemy in the post you quoted I was refering to 3x as many total troops. Obviously this is somewhat of hyperbole, but I've been reading many accounts of battles on these boards and far too many times I hear people saying "well I just got 30 cavalry yada yada yada". 30 cavalry is like 10 to one local superiority. That's just boring.

It's becuase the the combat system is so random that people feel the need to mass up 30 troops in order to attack, as well as using troops with retreat. Since the defender is so spread out you will have like 10 to 1 local odds. At that point, luck can no longer screw you over. But at that point the campaign is just boring.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Action


That's true, but thats 3 to 1 at the area of attack, not 3x as many total troops as the enemy. Having 3 to 1 local superiority is easy in Civ 3, but I had at least that much in my assault and it failed due to the combat results in my first post.

Everything you've said so far indicates to me that you're not in the habit of using bombardment. I think you'd find your odds improving considerably if you were to soften up your opponents first before you send in your troops. Exactly as they do in the real world, if they can.

During the Gulf War, not a single soldier or piece of armour was deployed until the Air Force had finished doing their thing against the Iraqi forces. Same thing in the Balkan War, and to a certain extant in Vietnam. Why should things be any different in Civ?

It's just bad military tactics to send your troops in on a frontal assault without bombardment support.

[Brizey]

The extreme local superiority only works with the AI.

The civ3 combat system is predictably unpredictable. Take that into account. The rules of combat are pretty much explicit (or would be if the documentation was better, but that is another rant), and the random number generator is most likely good. Take this into account.

Another way to look at it is imagining the game with deterministic combat. The game would become tic tac toe, or whoever gets the best land wins. I know that the detractors are not suggesting this, but this has become an intractible argument of degree.

[Cyclotron]

I think that when it comes down to it, the RNG is fair, has been proven to be random... all that remains is whether you like the chances or not.

If you do, great... if you don't, change the hp or ADM values.

That's really all that needs to be said.

[Coracle]

I'm well known for pointing out the many faults and problems in Civ 3. I can list them by the score.

So when even I tell you I HAVE NEVER COMPLAINED ABOUT THE COMBAT SYSTEM it must tell you that system is not a significant problem.

Any battle must have a random element.

(Of course I ten months ago edited the absurd unit values that came with the game, if that's relevant).

[theNiceOne]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
If I have a problem with the RNG it is that it can be very streaky.

Example: My vet galley attacks a Babylonian vet galley and loses. I have preserve random seed turned off so I reload (I don't care if you think that is cheating - it's my game and I'll reload if I want to) and the same thing happens. It happens six times in a row and I eventually win the seventh replay.

That is not very probable for a 50:50 battle but I am prepared to live with it for a game that is a challenge. If you want to win every time go play CtP2.

You don't say whether you think the RNG is very streaky for your taste or very streaky compared to real random numbers.

The fact is that the CIV3 RNG has been tested and verified to not be more streaky than real random numbers.

However, humans normally expect random numbers to come without long streaks, and with all numbers evenly spread out along the string. This is not how real random numbers behave, as they tend to be much more streaky than we expect. As an example: if you flip a coin ten times, it's close to 50% chance of getting a streak of at least 4 heads or tails, and the chance of getting 7 or more of either heads or tails is almost the same as getting 5 of each.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
If I dont like it for ANY reason, then it is valid. For me at least.

Hey, if it spoils the game for me...Then it is the issue. I dont care if its logical, I dont care if "scores of players" have managed to deal with it.....its annoying. I dont like it. Its annoying enough to force me to discotninue playing the game.

Again, that depends on your perspective....I would be playing civ3 were it not for the combat system, so again for me it IS the problem.

No offense, but what you are implying is EXTREMLY flawed. Just beause something is annoying doesnt mean the product is worth your time. Not sure if you meant to imply that, but....just incase you did.

I neither impy nor stated that it was worth anyones time if it was annoying. I said that being annoying is not a death knoll and can be over looked. The way you stated it, would be flawed. Maybe I was not clear, no matter.
That it spoil the game for you is fine, but it does not follow that it is broken. My point is that the problem is not with the combat system it is with you. When most can not cope with something, it may be fair to look at that something as having a problem. When only a small number are having a problem with the something, them it makes sense to look to them, not the something.

[Dis]

You fail to realize that by making combat simpler, the game is far superior to civ2 . We have to assume the programmers knew what they were doing when they did this

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I do not think it is a case of convincing us, the combat suck people, have failed to make their case. It is in fact not valid. The scores of players that manage to deal with the combat system effectively have proven that the combat system is not the issue.
If one does not like that game for any reason, that is fair. The combat system is not a problem, it is not perfect and can be annoying. My ex is annoying, my kids are annoying, heck I am annoying so what. They are still are worth my time. I can't speak for weither I am worth their time or not.

I hope you can tell your kids to quiet down? Or you can try to discuss with your wife if she is being too annoying? I mean, if there is a problem, many people want to try to change the situation, or even tell about it to someone to find their opinion,even if it cannot be changed, no? If you have problems at home, you can talk to someone about it right? To me your post is in favor of whining in the forums instead of being against it. Remember, same things annoy different persons with different amounts.