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

[CapTVK]

Pedantic whiners, the entire lot of you!

If you don't like random outcomes you should play on the basis of deterministic results like C-evo. No musketeers beating tanks there!

http://www.c-evo.org/

FAQ Part C: Game Rules Criticism

Comment: I do not believe to know the ultimate truth. Maybe I'm wrong with some of the thoughts and statements on this page, I won't mind if you convince me of something else. Also, I apologize for incomprehensible statements. Some things are hard to explain, even more in a foreign language.

C1. General Doubt

Q/S: I don't agree with the goals of this project. I think most players would prefer a less rigid aproach and a more simulation-oriented game.

A: Yes, of course most players would prefer that. That's why all commercial strategy games go that way. But the sense of this project is to do what commercial games can not do. Yes, this results in several decisions which many players don't like best, but that's only natural.

C2. Request For Explanation 1

Q/S: Why is this detail of the game different from Civilization II?

A: Because this is not Civilization II.

C3. Request For Explanation 2

Q/S: Please explain the motivation for you to change/omit/introduce this particular rule of the game.

A: I will try to explain the most conspicuous decisions here in this FAQ section. I can't explain everything, because this would take far too much time. (Also, for some decisions I don't have an explanation of a kind I could write down in an understandable way.)

C4. Determinism

Q/S: The game should not be deterministic. It's boring if I always know the result of an action before. Also, there should be random events like famine, plague etc.

A: Only determinism allows to think ahead, and this is the basic idea of a strategy game. Yes, the game is boring. But the reason for that is the missing challenge due to the poor artifical intelligence. If AI plays good enough, you will lose your game. If a game you lose is boring for you, you are probably not a strategist. To compensate missing challenge with amusing, unexpected happenings is the idea of a simulation (or of a film).

C5. Game Score

Q/S: Why doesn't the game calculate a civilization score?

A: If you win a game, it doesn't matter how you did it. It's your strategy. If your strategy is not good, you lose.

C6. Unrealistic Details

Q/S: This detail of the game does not come very close to real history.

A: This is not real history, it's a game!

C7. Behavior Influence

Q/S: I suggest a special event/wonder/government form/behavior of a nation to have a well defined effect on other nation's behavior/attitude to this nation.

A: Presumably, you are thinking of computer controlled nations changing their behavior or attitude. But these nations are AI controlled, not rules controlled. Please read the section "Rules vs. AI" on the project homepage. AI has the same rights as human players, it's not under the game's command.

C8. Independent Parties

Q/S: There should be barbarians or other non-player parties suddenly appearing or originating from special, outstanding events in the game.

A: The question is: How should these parties be controlled? If the behavior of an independent party was part of the game rules, it was absolutely predictable, because the rules are always exactly specified. Not very desirable, I think. If the behavior is not part of the rules, it's controlled by some artifical intelligence. But a non-player party can't win the game, so what aim should this intelligence pursue? The only guideline e.g. for barbarian behavior is how real barbarians would behave. But that's nothing to do with AI or with strategy at all, it's pure simulation. It's not what I think a strategy game should be made of.

C9. Distant Attacks

Q/S: The game should allow distant attacks to non-adjacent tiles, for example for artillery or modern ships. Of course, the attacker should not take damage.

A: In Civ II, each battle destroyed one unit. So there was a natural limit: there could never be more attacks than units produced. With distant attacks, this limit must fall. (Otherwise one could destroy any mega-defender with the cheapest unit capable of distant attack.) The likely result: a load of unit combat and movement without real relevance. I played Alpha Centauri. Moving around artillery just do deal some percent of damage and each turn waiting for useless enemy artillery attacks to come to an end. I hated it. Besides: Be aware of the playground dimensions! The tile size is several hundred kilometers. There are few units which attack over this distance -- some archers would be rather ridiculous doing that...

C10. Tech Tree Unrealistic

Q/S: The prerequisites of some technologies should be changed. Would be much more realistic if ... required ... instead of ....

A: The choice in technology dependencies is not free, because there are several formal conditions which are not that easy to meet. For example, one prerequisite of a technology should never have the other one as (direct or indirect) prerequisite itself. These conditions unfortunately cause some parts of the tech tree to be a little incorrect.

C11. Tech Tree Unweighted/Too Parallel/Too Linear

S1: It's not realistic that research cost only depend on the order of research. Polytheism takes more research than Computers if I invent it after that. Research cost should be fixed for each technology: little cost for early techs, high cost for late ones. This would force a realistic order of research, because it would no longer make sense to delay early technologies.

S2: It's not realistic that I can invent Computers before I have Polytheism. The technology dependencies should be rearranged to allow littler choice, forcing a realistic order of research.

S3: The technology dependencies do not allow enough choice in the order of research. For late technologies, I need almost all other techs as prerequisites. Instead, there should be independent branches to allow players to evolve to different directions.

A: How "parallel" should the tree of technologies be? This decision has enormous influence on the game, the difficulty is to find the right balance. Some probably want a very forced, linear tech system, which does not allow an order of advancements that differs much from the history of mankind. But for a strategy game, this is not the right approach. It's much more fascinating to give the player some freedom of choice for his order of advancement, allowing completely different strategies. Why not allow inventing Polytheism after a nation already knows Computers? You don't need one for the other. On the other hand, an invention that should not be possible before 1900 must have 3/4 of all other inventions as (indirect) preriquisites. If there were, say, four distinct branches instead of one, you could reach every technology after a quarter of the game, even the most advanced...

C12. Ocean Transformation

Q/S: Why not allow to transform shore tiles next to the coast into land?

A: Land is the most important basic resource of the game. If a player didn't want to waste his chances, he was forced to make almost all of his shore tiles land as soon as this was possible for him. I think that's too much importance and too much busywork for such a special thing.

C13. Zones Of Control

Q/S: Players do not move at the same time, so what are the movement rules concerning zones of control good for?

A: Zones of control have nothing to do with exclusion for possible movement. ZOCs only exist to improve the gameplay. If units had no ZOC, it would be almost impossible to build something like a frontier line, because enemies could simply pass strong defenders instead of having to defeat them.

C14. Scripted Rules

Q/S: Scripts should define as many of the game rules as possible, e.g. tech tree, wonder effects etc. This would allow players to fit the game to their personal preferences or to make experiments with modified rule sets.

A: I do not generally refuse this idea, maybe a later version of cEvo will allow to change the rules by editing a script. But rules changes are very critical for the AI. Fixed rules allow to build in playing experience, unpredictable rules do not, which potentially makes AI less good.

C15. Parachuters

Q/S: Why doesn't cEvo have parachuter units as Civ II did?

A: Civ II didn't have parachuters, it had jumpers -- simply jumping across half the playground. This had nothing to do with parachuting except for the name. cEvo has real parachuters: you can drop any ground unit from a transport plane.

[Cyclotron]

TVK, is advertising other games on the Civ3 forums all you ever do?

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
TVK, is advertising other games on the Civ3 forums all you ever do?

And what's that link in your sig about then?

I try to show there are other options besides Civ3 when a debate drops into an endless spiral. How do you expect to hear something new when nobody mentions it?

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by CapTVK
How do you expect to hear something new when nobody mentions it?

Angry that Ming closed your thread?
Tired of MtG banning you?
Sick of Markos ripping you off in the store?
Can't stand Canadian Admins?
Want to beat up a fellow Poly Spammer?

Download my Mingapulco Mod for Morrowind!

Click on the link in my Sig and Order today!
(Totaly Free)

[The Hack]

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

It actually is. I approach this game the same way I play chess. There has been many times I lost my qween or major pieces to poor play or oversight(Randomizer). But saw a possible mate and stratagized how to make that happen. Sometimes it's bait. And these were the most rewarding wins. Even if they almost work it can be enjoyable.

A good example was the last regiside game I played at Monarch level. I determined I was going to loose. Five techs behind the superpower Germany who's researching the last tech to launch. I'm in fifth place and need aluminum bad. I disagree with my military adviser and declare war on him. My strategy is two distracting moves to devide his superior force. Call in MP pacts. Withstand his counter attack. Spear head an attack at his capital to get a road close enough to launch my only tactical nuke to be built when I get aluminum from the city I need to take at all costs. Part of this strategy was determining which cities I could not aford to loose. The only way this is going to work is with a little luck(randomizer) and I need to make this happen to try my luck. Same in chess maybe he won't see what I'm up to maybe he'll make a mistake. So I make my luck, do what I need to do to get to the moment, nuke his capital and get lucky(randomizer). Otto dies smooth sailing to the win.

It all comes down to what kind of person you are. In chess there are those who will quit when they loose the qween and there are those who can snatch victory out of defeat. With a little vision and strategy. In life there are those who's car breaks down and they sit at the side of the road hating life, cursing god and everything and everybody. And there are those who get out and deal with it and are prepared for what ever happens(randomizer) and get on with it.

Funniest one-My poorly defended city, regular warrior defeats two veteren marines before dying a hero with full honors.

Most aggravating-Lone un-fotified pillaging Legionare on spices defeats 3 vet Tanks without loosing a single hit point. A one hit point elite takes him out for TEO!(It wasn't as bad as I initially thought)

Most amazing- One conscript infantry defeats 16 of my vet marines after bombardment. Delaying my D-Day amphib assault.

Most gratifying- What ever the Carthiginians spear men are I can't remember now. Three of them withstand 10 horsemen, 3 archers, and 6 swordsman. The last one alive killed 5 swordsman! Two of them unfortified. Just able to get them there before the assault.

Most surprising-Two marines defeat my two fortified ME in a size 7 town.

I could go on and on.

After playing chess on computors I would say that the better you play the more mechanical it is. But with civilization there is more strategy and untill you learn to deal with it you'll never enjoy the game.

I must say I have only played Civ3 and only been playing for about 9 months.

[Merc]

I don't usually mind the combat system, but that's only when I have 100 tanks and it doesn't matter.

What really makes me mad, is when the battles really COUNT. When I have limited forces, I get mad when they just get defeated over and over again by inferior units.

Today I was playing a regent game and all 7 civs declared war on me (I was surprised, becuase this was like 500 b.c.) And I was under massive attack every turn.
My swordsman just lost and lost and lost. It's really frustrating when they can't kill an archer on grassland, or take back a city with war chariots defending.

And how do they sign all those military alliances? I thought those were available with nationalism? Whenever I'm talking to another civ that early it never has the alliance option.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Merc
I don't usually mind the combat system, but that's only when I have 100 tanks and it doesn't matter.

What really makes me mad, is when the battles really COUNT. When I have limited forces, I get mad when they just get defeated over and over again by inferior units.

Today I was playing a regent game and all 7 civs declared war on me (I was surprised, becuase this was like 500 b.c.) And I was under massive attack every turn.
My swordsman just lost and lost and lost. It's really frustrating when they can't kill an archer on grassland, or take back a city with war chariots defending.

And how do they sign all those military alliances? I thought those were available with nationalism? Whenever I'm talking to another civ that early it never has the alliance option.

Are you convinced yet?? The AI is built to unfaiirly screw the human with obvious and subtle "cheats" and "concepts" that make no sense in game terms or in reality.

[Merc]

I thought it was bullshit how they all allied against me. I only had like, 8 cities, I wasn't even a threat to any of them. And then I couldn't even stop their stupid chariots from taking over my cities with my swordsmen, on the attack or the defence. So yeah, I'm pretty much conviced.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Merc
And then I couldn't even stop their stupid chariots from taking over my cities with my swordsmen, on the attack or the defence. So yeah, I'm pretty much conviced.

You are incompetent. Give up.

Play Sim City or Sims. You will have more fun.

[vmxa1]

It is well understood that the AI does not know how to distinguish between the AI and the human.
It does not gang up on the human. It may turn out that you are ganged upon, but it is not because you are the human, it is due to how you played the game.
At regent, what does it matter if they gang up anyway, just kick their butts. They have no chance what so ever.
They really have a tough time winning at deity, let alone lower levels.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by Merc
IAnd how do they sign all those military alliances? I thought those were available with nationalism? Whenever I'm talking to another civ that early it never has the alliance option.

It comes with Writing. Assuming you build embassies you too can gang up on enemies in the early ancient era.

BTW, I find that the AI loves to wipe out the weakest player (human or AI). If you are 'not a threat to them' expect to be attacked real soon.

[Panag]

Originally posted by notyoueither


You are incompetent. Give up.

Play Sim City or Sims. You will have more fun.

hi ,





have a nice day

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by CapTVK
And what's that link in your sig about then?

I try to show there are other options besides Civ3 when a debate drops into an endless spiral. How do you expect to hear something new when nobody mentions it?

You could at least be on-topic about it, as I am. And please, don't make the inference that if the debate seems to be in a 'spiral' that everybody needs your advertising to save them.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Merc
I thought it was bullshit how they all allied against me. I only had like, 8 cities, I wasn't even a threat to any of them. And then I couldn't even stop their stupid chariots from taking over my cities with my swordsmen, on the attack or the defence. So yeah, I'm pretty much conviced.

Most of the games I play, I actually start getting rather bored becuase there'll be long periods where I won't be at war with anyone. And if I am, I can always count on a couple of allies right away to join me against my enemy. If your being attacked from all sides, it's probably because your neglecting your diplomacy.

Pay a visit now and then, and give them a small gift each time. My standard is usually 25 gold, up to 100 if they're really irked with me. I'll even give them a free luxury if relations are really strained, if I have one to spare. It only means I can't make money from it for 20 turns, then it's mine again.

If you don't keep in touch and try to work with the other civs, guarenteed their going to dislike you, and might even attack you.

[Merc]

But in Sim City, I can't take over rival cities.

So what's YOUR explanation as to why all the AI's declared war on me?

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by Merc
But in Sim City, I can't take over rival cities.

So what's YOUR explanation as to why all the AI's declared war on me?

I know it's hard to accept, but you're just unpopular with the AI.
Try some more shmooze, or maybe dressing like them?

Have a Merry Christmas

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man Anything can be proven wit a barrage of numbers.

So I should consider someone else's account of 10 battles a more accurate representation of the RNG results than a scientific study of it?

[MosesPresley]

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.

If it really irks you that bad, there is an easy solution. Reload, wait one turn and then press your attack. The game will generate an new random seed, hopefully one more favorable to your attack.

It is cheating, but if you feel you are being cheated, maybe it is justified.