Why I quit Civ3 again... (Combat) (Rant) - Page 5

tinyp3nis · December 13, 2002, 19:49

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7
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.

Sorry if I sound like an ass but... I don't know how many times I said about the HP, clearly not enough times, since what in fact you are telling me is I knew already

.

Quote:

The RNG that you seem to like to demonize is not the culprit here; hit points are.

When there are only few HP, the RNG has huge effect. So, it kind of is the demon. But the HP increase will hinder the effect of the RN, in battle atleast.
You are probably right, the RNG may have been exactly as varying in civ2 as in civ3 because the units had as many as 20-40 hp if I recall correctly, and inspite of that there were still _some_ healthy variance in the results.

Quote:

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.

We'll see what future holds...

tinyp3nis · December 13, 2002, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by ACooper
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.

I mean, really nobody is forcing you to find people on forums who "whine" and then you start whining about their "whining". How long have you been holding that inside you? Let it all out. I don't think you suck, give yourself a break.

Edit: I'm sorry, maybe it hurts less if I add these here, I know how annoying I can be

tinyp3nis · December 13, 2002, 20:09

Quote:

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.

Since you didn't mention it, I have to assume you already checked it or didn't consider one possibility at all. They may have been building it in two cities. Maybe they were building something else (copernicus, magellan, or whatever) and switched, because someone finished those wonders, so they would have been construction it for a long time allready in another city... just a possibility. I don't know how the city they are building it is determined in the wonders window, maybe it's not the city that is closest to completing, but the city that first started the particular wonder. Or maybe it's your leader theory, I don't know... check if you can.

Panag · December 15, 2002, 18:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Action

So, I recently decided to get PTW and fire up Civ 3 again. I had originally quit in disgust before all the patches came out and had been playing Alpha Centauri again.

So anyway, I'm the Carthagians neighboring the Indians and I decide I will need to take them out. I have iron they don't. They have horses I dont.

I build roads right to the edge of their borders, and mass up a bunch of swordsmen and a few numidian mercenaries to defend strategic points and captured cities (2/3/1 carthagian special unit). All they have are a few archers, spearmen and horsemen. My troops were all vets, his were all regulars.
Should be easy right? Not with Civ 3's combat system.

Suffice it to say my attack failed miserably. Why?

One reg archer defending on plains beat two vet swordsmen.
One reg archer defending on woods beat two vet swordsmen.
A reg horsemen defending on grassland beat an elite swordsman.
A vet warrior defending on hills beat two vet swordsmen.
As well as a few swordsmen losing to spearmen, which is expected.

So anyway, my attack stalled, and as I was bringing up more guys using my large road system a few of their horsemen were able to attack my cities. Since their horsemen were only regulars and I have veteran numidian mercs (2/3/1) fortified in all my cities I'm not too worried.

Three times in a row a reg horseman beats a vet numidian merc fortified defending in a city.

At this point I close the program.
This wouldnt happen in Civ2 or SMAC.
This is just one of the reasons that while I've spent 95 dollars on Civ 3 products I've played them for about 1/10th as long as I played Civ 2 or SMAC.
Anyway, theres my rant, I'm sure you don't care.

hi ,

give it a try with the patch

have a nice day

vmxa1 · December 15, 2002, 20:46

I would think that those result may be a reson to play. That fact that you are not a lock to win a given fight. Civ2 was the antithesis of that, you could be sure to win all battles with a superior unit and in a city behind walls was a snap to defend, very lame and boring. Civ2 was a great game, but of no challenge what so ever and Smac was only a bit better.

ducki · December 16, 2002, 10:07

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man

this is all bollox, the only time in Civ3 I EVER had a succesful military was in a war against the romans who still had spearmen and legions (i had tanks and more modern stuff).

It's random.
I had a war against Persian Immortals (4/2/1) where I was able to judiciously use terrain and my "weak" Archers(2/1/1) and Horsemen(2/1/2) to consistently defeat Immortals.

Randomness is just random. Granted, on a computer, it's not "truly random", but streaks are just as common in randomness as non-streaks.

And we've all seen the immortal Spearman before. It happens. If it bugs you that much, reload from an Autosave and wait one extra turn before attacking.

Th0mas · December 16, 2002, 10:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy 2 Times
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. .....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.

I suspect a

..or maybe it is a coincidence?
...no let's go with an AI cheating conspiracy

I think the game is getting something right if you anthropomorphise the AI to the extent you are.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy 2 Times
Also, ignore the posts that try to attack your intelligence or accuse you of whining.

Be careful, you may loose the majority of your audience!

Traelin · December 16, 2002, 14:01

Quote:

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

I absolutely loved Civ2, don't get me wrong. But anytime you have units as unbalanced as Howitzers (and others) were in Civ2, it really decreases from the overall fun factor of the game. Especially when the AI was inept at using them the same way. Civ3, despite some of its really irritating bugs, has managed to addict me in a much, much greater way than Civ2 ever did.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
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.

How are they screwed up results? Rare maybe, but not "screwed up". We were by far the superior force in Vietnam (both technologically and otherwise), but we lost. Yes for many reasons, but the point is that our military, despite the fact that it didn't lose a key battle, still had its ass handed to it a few times.

And we won the Revolution. Talk about crazy odds! In all seriousness that was an amazing victory.

So how are the combat results "screwed up"?

Cyclotron · December 16, 2002, 20:33

Agreed. There is no "screw up" in the combat system. The RNG is 100% fine, only the low number of hit points makes the results "streaky."

peterfharris · December 16, 2002, 23:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Traelin
How are they screwed up results? Rare maybe, but not "screwed up". We were by far the superior force in Vietnam (both technologically and otherwise), but we lost. Yes for many reasons, but the point is that our military, despite the fact that it didn't lose a key battle, still had its ass handed to it a few times.

And we won the Revolution. Talk about crazy odds! In all seriousness that was an amazing victory.

So how are the combat results "screwed up"?

A very good point. It seems completely "unrealistic" that America did not prevail in Vietnam. It also seems completely "unrealistic" that the Americans won the Revolution.

As for the Spartans holding off the Persians for days at Thermopylae, that is simply absurd, far more ridiculous than a spearman winning 3 times in a row against bowmen!

Er, those wars happened in the real world.

vmxa1 · December 17, 2002, 01:51

Isn't there a saying for this situation? Sh** happens.

High_Lord · December 17, 2002, 05:01

Just wish you could give allies military units ala Civ2...would also be cool if you could fortify units in allied cities and board allied transports , of course that could be messy if your alliance went poo poo

Willem · December 17, 2002, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by High_Lord
Just wish you could give allies military units ala Civ2...would also be cool if you could fortify units in allied cities and board allied transports , of course that could be messy if your alliance went poo poo

They solved that problem in Alpha Centauri by sending all units back to home territory. I don't see why they couldn't do the same.

Major Guz · December 18, 2002, 03:16

That was indeed one of the first things I noticed (not being able to be in the same square as your allie) in contrast with AC, but then again I realised I should not compare this game with AC.
If you see CivIII as a different game you will much more like it.
(otherwise you keep in the circle "governments suck, I want social engineering etc. etc. etc. like I read in some of the threads).

High_Lord · December 18, 2002, 04:05

ah yes that is much simpler and to the point of what I meant Major Guz...you should be able to be in the same square as you ally!

Traelin · December 18, 2002, 10:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Major Guz
That was indeed one of the first things I noticed (not being able to be in the same square as your allie) in contrast with AC, but then again I realised I should not compare this game with AC.
If you see CivIII as a different game you will much more like it.
(otherwise you keep in the circle "governments suck, I want social engineering etc. etc. etc. like I read in some of the threads).

I dunno, I really liked SMAC's way of doing certain things. One of the things I thought cool was that allied cities could heal your units. And your units could park themselves in allied cities. I love Civ3, but SMAC had some diplomatic and military implementations that were far superior (IMO) to Civ3. But I would never trade Civ3 for SMAC.

Hanksname · December 19, 2002, 13:15

Well, in Civ terms America never lost ... it simply withdrew. A million casualties versus 50,000 ( or whatever the actual non-Westmoreland numbers may be, still overwhelming ) is a tactical win though obviously not a strategic one.

The Spartans did do well against thousands of Persians, including a larger size of Immortals ... the problem is, someone at Firaxis read that and decided to build it into the game. It happens a lot more often for the AI because the AI has access to everything in the game. Someone wrote earlier that the results are 'statistically' proven to be valid, which is complete hoopie. Who ran that analysis?

Quote:

Originally posted by peterfharris

A very good point. It seems completely "unrealistic" that America did not prevail in Vietnam. It also seems completely "unrealistic" that the Americans won the Revolution.

As for the Spartans holding off the Persians for days at Thermopylae, that is simply absurd, far more ridiculous than a spearman winning 3 times in a row against bowmen!

Er, those wars happened in the real world.

Cyclotron · December 19, 2002, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Hanksname
The Spartans did do well against thousands of Persians, including a larger size of Immortals ... the problem is, someone at Firaxis read that and decided to build it into the game.

Wrong. Firaxis wanted to balance unit strengths to a) give lower tech civs a fighting chance and b) give civs without access to a certain resource a fighting chance.

It was a gameplay decision.

Quote:

It happens a lot more often for the AI because the AI has access to everything in the game.

Wrong again. "It" happens no more often to one side as any other.

Quote:

Someone wrote earlier that the results are 'statistically' proven to be valid, which is complete hoopie. Who ran that analysis?

And again, wrong. We have tested the RNG over many trials and concluded that it is indeed random. Why would you belive otherwise?

vmxa1 · December 19, 2002, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Hanksname
Well, in Civ terms America never lost ... it simply withdrew. A million casualties versus 50,000 ( or whatever the actual non-Westmoreland numbers may be, still overwhelming ) is a tactical win though obviously not a strategic one.

FYI Veitnam now say they lost about 2 million.

Zachriel · December 19, 2002, 14:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Hanksname
Well, in Civ terms America never lost ... it simply withdrew. A million casualties versus 50,000 ( or whatever the actual non-Westmoreland numbers may be, still overwhelming ) is a tactical win though obviously not a strategic one.

American casualties were about 350,000 (deaths were about 50,000). Other nations suffered casualties, including Canada and Australia. The Vietnamese casualties are harder to measure, but were probably about 2-4 million.

The Americans lost the battle, nearly suffered a political meltdown, and went into debt to fund the war effort. However, Vietnam did pay an even higher price in terms of human suffering. Just in the 20th century, they fought the French, the Japanese, the French again, then the Americans, before finally securing their independence.

Hanksname · December 19, 2002, 15:19

1) Conjecture.
2) Conjecture.
3) How exactly did you test it?

Quote:

Originally posted by cyclotron7

Wrong. Firaxis wanted to balance unit strengths to a) give lower tech civs a fighting chance and b) give civs without access to a certain resource a fighting chance.

It was a gameplay decision.

Wrong again. "It" happens no more often to one side as any other.

And again, wrong. We have tested the RNG over many trials and concluded that it is indeed random. Why would you belive otherwise?

swagled · December 19, 2002, 17:14

In a way, I'm surprised at how much hullabaloo there is about the combat systems. I think the Civ2 system worked OK, and I think the Civ3 system works OK.

Civ2 had the more "realistic" attack-at-weakend-strength-from-a-long-march feature, which is removed in Civ3. This is the only thing I really noticed.

And, you know, I kind of like that. I felt like in Civ2, it didn't matter what kind of unit I was using... they needed to be one square away to be any good.

Cyclotron · December 19, 2002, 18:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Hanksname
1) Conjecture.

No, I'm pretty sure we had firaxians around here a while ago telling us about how the combat system changed to deal with the resource system.

Quote:

2) Conjecture.
3) How exactly did you test it?

We have had many threads on this in the past, and at several points people have initiated tests of the combat system by making... you guessed it, many attacks in the same circumstance. It has been established that the RNG is flawless.

Why would you ever assume it was anything else? What, you think Firaxis lied to you about the combat system? If that's not meaningless conjecture, I don't know what is.

Cyclotron · December 19, 2002, 18:40

Oh, and here's a good link on a test:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...5&pagenumber=1

punkbass2000 · December 19, 2002, 20:09

Quote:

Originally posted by swagled
And, you know, I kind of like that. I felt like in Civ2, it didn't matter what kind of unit I was using... they needed to be one square away to be any good.

Very good point. I never built one move units in civ2. I build plenty in civ3.

High_Lord · December 20, 2002, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by swagled
Civ2 had the more "realistic" attack-at-weakend-strength-from-a-long-march feature, which is removed in Civ3. This is the only thing I really noticed.

And, you know, I kind of like that. I felt like in Civ2, it didn't matter what kind of unit I was using... they needed to be one square away to be any good.

Yeah , I remember that...little dude would pop up like "is you crazee?...these guys are wiped out!!" LOL....I tell you what I miss most is the Diplomat...I love CivIII diplomacy but miss being able to use my gigantic treasury to steal units in my territory

Dis · December 20, 2002, 01:48

What I really mean by the civ2 combat being decent is I liked the odds you would lose a battle. Sure there were overpowered units like howitzer and stealth aircraft. But there was always a decent shot your tank would lose a battle to a musketmen or something. Of course they would clean the board with warriors and such. Howitzers of course blew everything out of the water (or ground) as they had a firepower of 2, and all the other land units had a fp of 1 (except artillery I believe).

In any case there was maybe a 1 or 2% chance of losing a battle you should always win. I was fine with that. With civ3 that chance seems to be around 10 to 20%.

War4ever · December 20, 2002, 02:17

yup the combat model is weird, sometimes you need your elites extra hp to win against regular troops, other times they lose??? but had you reloaded and attacked with your vet troops you would have won???? how is that normal....it grew tiresome very quickly....

Cyclotron · December 20, 2002, 02:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
But there was always a decent shot your tank would lose a battle to a musketmen or something. Of course they would clean the board with warriors and such.

Wow, that never happened in all the years I played Civ2. A rifleman had maybe a slim chance... forget a musketman.

Quote:

In any case there was maybe a 1 or 2% chance of losing a battle you should always win. I was fine with that. With civ3 that chance seems to be around 10 to 20%.

IMO there all no battles you should always win...

Cyclotron · December 20, 2002, 02:20

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
yup the combat model is weird, sometimes you need your elites extra hp to win against regular troops, other times they lose??? but had you reloaded and attacked with your vet troops you would have won???? how is that normal....it grew tiresome very quickly....

Obviously, it is all random. There is a chance of winning and of losing. It's pretty clear they didn't win because they were veteran, but because that's what the ransom result was.

It's completely normal. To say it is not means you don't understand probability.