Why I quit Civ3 again... (Combat) (Rant) - Page 4

Dis · December 12, 2002, 00:25

aside from howitzers it wasn't broke. All it needed was a few more units and more complexity like the current morale system.

peterfharris · December 12, 2002, 00:41

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
now you cannot plan with small number of units, since you never know what will happen with your units.

Umh, remember the Civ 2 stealth fighters and the awesome damage you could predictably do with a mere handful of them even at deity? Was that exciting and filled with suspense?

punkbass2000 · December 12, 2002, 09:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
aside from howitzers it wasn't broke.

I disagree. For me, Elephants were broken. Crusaders were broken. Dragoons and Cavalry were definately broken. Alpine Troops were broken. Mech. Inf. too. Tanks, actually, weren't too broken. Bombers were. Stealth and Howitzer were just godly.

Traelin · December 12, 2002, 10:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

The Civ II system was broke, it was way to easy at the end to win. It became boring and predictable.

I agree. Anyone that doesn't think so is completely oblivious to the ridiculous unit imbalances. Not to mention the fact that the attacker was ALWAYS, ALWAYS at an advantage with how transit was implemented in Civ2.

tinyp3nis · December 12, 2002, 13:24

Quote:

The RNG simply makes combat less than 100% predictable. Probaly the most boring thing I can imagine would be a combat system where I knew the exact result every time. Risk is part of strategy. There is no risk in such a system. There is no exhilaration of victory, because you knew it was going to happen. No amazing victories. No agonizing defeats. No stalwart defenders.

Your combat system is a sterile world, devoid of emotion, lacking imagination and suspense. It has all the fun of an algebra class, where everything works by formula and everything is predetermined. It is a bleak realm of bland results and no surprises. It sounds like a midlife crisis, not a computer game.

You manage to describe midlife crisis, but you _do not_ manage to describe the game as I want it to be. Oh well, I'm happy you are enjoying yourself

Really, was civ 2 that annoying to you? Did you play it? Because that is the system I want, well not it excatly but pretty much it. If the HP is simply increased, it is almost the civ 2 system. The firepower however is unnecessary. Old techs should still not be overrun too much by new ones. Bunch of hp made the units live up to their costs, and the random results were to occur when 2 somewhat same strenght units had a fight, i.e 2-x unit attacks x-2 unit, or damaged x-2 defends versus 1-x unit. Of course, when a unit with 4-x attacked a unit of x-1, the 4 would allways win (assuming it had full health). Like I said, the strategy comes from interracting with the other player, not with interracting with random numbers, atleast for me it does.
If your civ 3 games versus the AI are full of emotions, I must admit your imagination is excellent. If you can get great pleasure from random results, and imagine (after battle of course ) your fighting conditions and other stuff why the unit that had no business winning did win, that is all in your favor, you get so much from so little, and that's great.
Maybe you should still try MP, any MP game, with real people, there is where I get the emotions.
For me, the RNG is just another part of the program, it's no magical thing, it does not make the AI anyway lifelike. For the record, I admit civ 3 has much more lifelike AI than civ 2, but no, the random numbers don't help it make it so, IMHO.

tinyp3nis · December 12, 2002, 13:47

Quote:

Originally posted by peterfharris

Umh, remember the Civ 2 stealth fighters and the awesome damage you could predictably do with a mere handful of them even at deity? Was that exciting and filled with suspense?

Where did I state I want unbalanced units?

celicakydd · December 12, 2002, 14:39

Regardless of whether we agree or not with you regarding the balance of the units, what I don't understand is why you don't take matters in your own hands an modify the untis to your liking?

The editor couldn't be easier to use. I also like to have a bit of an advantage if I am technically superior to my openent, but rather than rant and throw out the whole game, I will take steps and make the game, the game I want to play.

tinyp3nis · December 12, 2002, 15:36

Quote:

Originally posted by celicakydd
Regardless of whether we agree or not with you regarding the balance of the units, what I don't understand is why you don't take matters in your own hands an modify the untis to your liking?

The editor couldn't be easier to use. I also like to have a bit of an advantage if I am technically superior to my openent, but rather than rant and throw out the whole game, I will take steps and make the game, the game I want to play.

Is this directed at me? Civ 3 units are already balanced, for me atleast (except for UU's of course

). They just have too few HP. Why not increase HP? About the increase, you can read what I have already said about that.

Cyclotron · December 12, 2002, 18:00

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
You manage to describe midlife crisis, but you _do not_ manage to describe the game as I want it to be. Oh well, I'm happy you are enjoying yourself

Well, so am I

Quote:

Really, was civ 2 that annoying to you? Did you play it?

Yes, I played Civ2 for years. I only stopped when I got Civ3.

Quote:

Because that is the system I want, well not it excatly but pretty much it. If the HP is simply increased, it is almost the civ 2 system. The firepower however is unnecessary...

I agree with firepower being unnecessary. Besides that, though, you can easily modify Civ3 to be as random or as predictable as you want.

Quote:

If your civ 3 games versus the AI are full of emotions, I must admit your imagination is excellent. If you can get great pleasure from random results, and imagine (after battle of course ) your fighting conditions and other stuff why the unit that had no business winning did win, that is all in your favor, you get so much from so little, and that's great.

I don't see any unit that has "no business" winning. If I did, I would mod it immediatly so it did.

I derive enjoyment from not knowing exactly what to expect. Certainly, combat results in Civ3 are usually easy to predict, but the suspense of whether or not an attack will break through is, IMO, the best part of the game, combat-wise.

Quote:

For the record, I admit civ 3 has much more lifelike AI than civ 2, but no, the random numbers don't help it make it so, IMHO.

I can't undersatnd this. Who would not be bored knowing how every combat would end? Where is the risk? I simply don't see how what you propose would be any fun at all. Nearly all comp games I have ever played had some sort of RNG. I consider it vital to any good combat system. Popular games from D&D to Risk all use an RNG of some kind... can you imagine anyone playing Risk with no risk? Playing a tabletop RPG with no dice, knowing exactly what every action you performed would do? I can't, and maybe that's why I can't understand you.

tinyp3nis · December 12, 2002, 19:54

Quote:

I agree with firepower being unnecessary. Besides that, though, you can easily modify Civ3 to be as random or as predictable as you want.

I only want to explain things once, I have explained this already. The standart that will be used in MP will be the Firaxis system...

Quote:

I don't see any unit that has "no business" winning. If I did, I would mod it immediatly so it did.

Hmmm? Never said so, please try to undrestand. Warrior has every business to kick another warriors ass, but not full health pikeman for example. It's not just about the unit, it's about the situation too.

Quote:

I can't undersatnd this. Who would not be bored knowing how every combat would end? Where is the risk? I simply don't see how what you propose would be any fun at all. Nearly all comp games I have ever played had some sort of RNG. I consider it vital to any good combat system. Popular games from D&D to Risk all use an RNG of some kind... can you imagine anyone playing Risk with no risk? Playing a tabletop RPG with no dice, knowing exactly what every action you performed would do? I can't, and maybe that's why I can't understand you.

Are you trying to undrestand? If it's too hard, you can stop trying and accept people value different things.
I liked hero quest as a kid, rolling the dices was fun. I also enjoy many other random things too, i.e slot machines (I usually lose btw), and many many more. What has Risk to do with civ3?

Sure, candy is nice, but I don't put it in my food. And I don't put potatoes in my candy. They taste bad together. Not all games need massive randomness, some rely entirely on it, and imho, civ3 has too much.

asleepathewheel · December 12, 2002, 20:04

I'm sure this has been posted before in this thread, and if so, please ignore it, but...

If someone doesn't like the randomness of results, then they should use bombard units. That's what they are for, to soften the enemy and to reduce the randomness. If you are afraid that pikeman will beat your knight, then take off a hp or two with bombard. Will reduce the risk of loss considerably.

I like how Civ3 forces a choice: do I take a risk and attack with a small number of units, hoping that most are sucessful now, or do I wait a little longer and build some artillery to reduce the risk of failure.

Its much better to me than the Civ2 system where I have to amass the best unit of the era and nothing else.

I know a lot of players ignore the use of bombard units, and I do sometimes as well, too slow for me sometimes, but if they are used correctly, the can nearly eliminate the randomness that plagues some.

Cyclotron · December 12, 2002, 20:34

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Hmmm? Never said so, please try to undrestand. Warrior has every business to kick another warriors ass, but not full health pikeman for example.

Why not?

Quote:

Not all games need massive randomness, some rely entirely on it, and imho, civ3 has too much.

Ok, this is precisely what I'm getting at... if you accept some randomness (which you do, by your "civ3 has too much" comment), then I would say that all you need to do is mod unit values. You can totally change how much randomness the game uses.

As for MP... that's a valid complaint, but I do not have PTW and I don't play MP so I really can't comment.

tinyp3nis · December 12, 2002, 21:48

Quote:

Why not?

The pikeman costs more, and would be nice if it was better than warrior, not better "maybe" like it is now.

Cyclotron · December 12, 2002, 22:35

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
The pikeman costs more, and would be nice if it was better than warrior, not better "maybe" like it is now.

The pikeman is far better than a warrior. How could you say that 1/3/1 is "maybe" better than 1/1/1?

tinyp3nis · December 12, 2002, 22:41

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

The pikeman is far better than a warrior. How could you say that 1/3/1 is "maybe" better than 1/1/1?

Because the warrior can kill the pikeman with a good RN. Sure, the pikeman has better stats but RNG > stats

Cyclotron · December 12, 2002, 22:46

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Because the warrior can kill the pikeman with a good RN.

That doesn't change the fact that the pikeman is much better.

Quote:

Sure, the pikeman has better stats but RNG > stats

The RNG cannot be greater than the stats. They are not in competition. The stats are simply too close together (1 and 3). You would not have the problem if you changed them (1 and 8, for instance).

WarpStorm · December 12, 2002, 23:47

Oh-Tiny-One, are you sure you really know how the system works? Sure, a Warrior can defeat a Pikeman. About 8.6% of the time. Of course, if the Pikeman is stupid enough to attack the Warrior it is a 50-50 fight. It seems to me that stats > RNG 91.5% of the time in this particular example.

Dis · December 13, 2002, 00:24

I am suprised so many people didn't like civ2 combat. Alpine troops overpowered? I don't remember that being a problem.

I did forget to mention stealth fighters/bombers with my howitzers. But aside from those units the combat wasn't too bad.

But even though there weren't very many problems with civ2 combat imho I actually do seem to like civ3 combat a little more. I just wish combat was a little more complex and with more units. And yeah I do get upset at the screwed up results.

Cyclotron · December 13, 2002, 02:05

I never thought alpine troops were too bad either.

Mostly, IMO, the offenders were stealth, howitzers, bombers, battleships (almost impossible to kill), helicopters (they could smash tank divisions... and they could go over water!), and elephants.

There were certainly very powerful units in Civ2, but those are the ones I considered broken in that regard.

tinyp3nis · December 13, 2002, 06:12

Quote:

You would not have the problem if you changed them (1 and 8, for instance).

You have to realise the big picture, these kinds of units would be totally unbalanced.

Harovan · December 13, 2002, 07:00

I think the combat system is ok as it is. Sure it could be improved, but to teach the AI to use stacks with combined arms seems to be hard, as show the stacks of twelve Fascists I have seen in CtP2. Alpine troops were cool and I think they would be a nice addition. Basically we already have them as UUs (Keshiks), I'm sure there is a way to add Alpine troops in a mod.

What I really miss, is a real zone of control.

Also the implementation of the 2nd tile improvement by railroads is a poor decision. There should be advanced farms and advanced mines instead. The railroad sleaze looks not only ugly, the infinite movement hurts also the gameplay, even though it may be realistic. No need to deploy your troops wisely, just park them anywhere with access to RRs and you'll have them instantly anywhere in your empire. Air lifting is limited to one time per city per turn, why is RR movement unlimited?

Kampus majore · December 13, 2002, 07:33

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

You have to realise the big picture, these kinds of units would be totally unbalanced.

What is meant here is that you up ALL units. So maybe warrior stays at 1/1, pikeman gets 1/8, musketman gets 2/16 etc, etc.....

(But editing is not my thing. I want to play the "standard" way. )

IMHO this system is better than civ2. In civ2 you could have howitzers and nothing could really hold them back, not even mechanized infantry. So once you had howy's you just had to build more of them than the AI and bingo: you could crush them!

In civ3 you still have to think once you have Modern Armour. In order to win against an AI which has about the same tech you have, you need to bombard them a lot in order to get through. Much more realistic I think!

Anyway, this is my opinion. Sure, I get pissed when my good units loose from a bad one. But I get over it and try even harder. That builds character and makes civ even more challenging!

celicakydd · December 13, 2002, 09:00

I agree with there being a bit too much randomness. Civ3 should be more akin to chess than risk.

tinyp3nis · December 13, 2002, 09:26

Quote:

What is meant here is that you up ALL units. So maybe warrior stays at 1/1, pikeman gets 1/8, musketman gets 2/16 etc, etc.....

If you can say this with a straight face, you haven't been reading what I have said.

1 x pikeman = 8 x warrior
and
1 x pikeman = 3 x warrior
Does this look like the same balance? No.
If you still don't get it I'm not sure if I can help you.

Kampus majore · December 13, 2002, 09:33

I see what you mean now, but was it not your purpose to have a pikeman that is better at defending a warrior? So instead of unbalancing things you can balance it the way you want it to be! I must admit that once you start messing with these numbers it will take a long time before you are finished....

Anyway it wasn't my point at the first place, but cyclotrons....

tinyp3nis · December 13, 2002, 09:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Kampus majore
I see what you mean now, but was it not your purpose to have a pikeman that is better at defending a warrior? So instead of unbalancing things you can balance it the way you want it to be! I must admit that once you start messing with these numbers it will take a long time before you are finished....

Anyway it wasn't my point at the first place, but cyclotrons....

It's ok...

Yes, it was my purpose. In civ3 and civ2 both, if you had a 1-x unit and a x-3 unit, and you were to kill the x-3 unit by attacking it with 1-x unit you'd need about 3 units to do the job... In civ 2 you have to use all the 1-x's to beat the x-3. But in civ 3 you can (with nice RN) beat it with the first warrior. So how good the x-3 unit was in the end when it got beaten by a single cheap unit?
In civ 2 the unit provides what it promises in it's statistics.

Cyclotron · December 13, 2002, 16:16

Tinyp3nis, the thing you have to realize is that the RNG in Civ3 is the same as that in Civ2. If they were different, they wouldn't be random.

The entire reason you get different results is because of hit points and firepower.

Obviously, firepower makes better units more powerful in Civ2, so its removal in Civ3 has an effect.

The main difference is that in Civ2, I belive, each unit had 10 or so hit points for each actual hit point level. Since Civ3 has far fewer hit points, results tend to be more streaky than Civ2.

All I'm saying is that the combat system is not profoundly different from that of Civ2; in fact, the only changes are fp and hp. The RNG that you seem to like to demonize is not the culprit here; hit points are.

I will make the concession to you, as I tried earlier, that MP poses some problems for the obvious solution of modding, but also as stated I really am not in a position to comment on that.

WarpStorm · December 13, 2002, 16:17

Your sample sets are too small, tiny. Yes, if you have a sample set of one event any event can happen, however in a sample set of 100 warriors in a line attacking 100 pikemen in a line, the number of living pikemen will be pretty close to 91. This is assuming the pikemen don't fortify and are out in the open.

ACooper · December 13, 2002, 17:18

I read an article recently about how people nowadays tend to find someone, anyone, to blame when things don't go exactly there way. They cited anecdotal evidence to show how this was ultimately destroying the world.

So....I guess if you a whining you are destroying the world. So...whiners suck.

Jimmy 2 Times · December 13, 2002, 18:05

I recommend that you toss the game and never play again. The ultimate judgement for any game is whether it is fun to play, and in my opinion CivIII is just plain annoying to play. However every couple of months I'll pick it up and give it a go. Today I was one turn away from building Smith's Trading Co when the Chinese build it. Obviously I was pissed but not that surprised since this has happened on many occasions, even earlier in this same game. So I reload a few turns back, establish an embassy with the Chinese and check their progress on this wonder. 32 turns away. Okay you say - they used a leader right? How did they know to build it one turn before me? They have no embassy. Could they have spied on my city some other way? Just bad luck? Happens way too often for that. Anyway, there's my rant.
Also, ignore the posts that try to attack your intelligence or accuse you of whining. As you are probably aware, the internet is a haven for those, whatever you want to call them, that attack and attempt to incite anonymously.