Warrior, Archer, Spearman Screens using 4roll combat

[WarpStorm]

The Jag was too good in MP play.

[Catt]

Seafaring and the Portuguese already made Navigation much less attractive. Why aren't you complaining about that?

Because it is a trait for certain civs and impacts how certain civs might approach the tech tree, i.e., increasing game variability depending on the civ chosen and the civs that you know about (just like other traits such as Religious and Scientific). Because it is a not a change to a core game feature that applies to all civs. Edit: Some one asked me via PM about this response, and they were dead right to ask -- how have seafaring and the Portuguese made Navigation much less attractive? I don't see that at all -- a beeline to Navigation is attractive because it allows for early over-oceans trade; neither seafraing nor the Portuguese civ offers that advantage. How in the world has Nav been made less attractive by the seafaring trait?End Edit.

What you are saying here is - Other avenues of tech now become important, when before they were just a requirement to escape the age. Whats the difference between beelining for Navigation and Beelining for Cavalry? It's the choice that has changed - ie, both choices have their merits, depending on how the game is going as a whole.

No, they would have dramatically different levels of merits. I personally feel that the two different beelines offer an interesting strategic choice (as does not beelining at all but rather working my way up both tech branches, sometimes all three tech branches). With the possession of saltpeter, beelining for Cavalry would make the most sense in all but the extremely isolated games. Even for a defensive player. Having a defensive mobile force of cavs, able to attack any interloping, and unfortified, AI attackers would absolutely eliminate the threat of an effective AI attack to any reasonably competent player. Cav attack of 6 versus, at best, musket defense of 4.4 – hit ‘em on lowlands as they move and are therefore unfortified, and very, very few cavs could protect a large empire. A free and easy economic domination for the offing.

Just like mathematics would be more important in order to get catapults in the early era. It's about enhancing the game as a whole, by making some techs and units less redundant than they are now.

Um, OK. I could suggest all sorts of changes that make certain units less redundant (how is a catapult redundant?) or more useful – the issue is one of pros and cons. Does a change make more techs and units more useful than it does more techs and units less useful?

No, you just don't see it do you? If you rush down that line in order to create a military, you've no chance of getting to Philosophy first, and therefore will be suffering badly in tech.

Some players don’t suffer badly in tech when they don’t get to Philosophy first, just like some players don’t find the Great Library a “must have.” It is my opinion that one free tech from Philosophy, while desirable, would not be nearly as important as securing BW and probably IW. I guess you consider the change to Philosophy a great imbalancer since it dictates an early tech approach in your mind?

Ditto getting to Mapmaking, and maybe building the Great Lighthouse (which incidentally, lets you get out and meet other races much faster, thereby giving you a technological edge).

Great Lighthouse might help you a bit, but I assure you that getting out and about and in touch with other civs does not ever, ever require the Great Lighthouse. And now with Conquests and the curragh available at Alphabet, you don’t even need Map Making to do so. We had a rousing discussion on this in connection with the AU Mod in the AU forum just recently.

On the flip side, it would allow builder players to continue building to their strength, and not to be overrun by a technologically inferior race that happens to have more crap than the human player does.

Having a more developed, more economically powerful civ is without doubt a very large advantage in the game. Part of the interesting strategic choice presented to the player is how much one can afford to devote to “building” without risking too much from an aggressive neighbor. Playing a solid builder game requires balancing the needs of defense against the needs of the economy – even the needs of defense against “a technologically inferior race that happens to have more crap.” If the only goal is to strengthen a builder’s game I fail to see how giving more room to be negligent with regard to defense is a good “balance” decision. You might think that the game is currently too weighted towards military conquest so the needle needs to come back towards pure building; I might agree with you or not. But simply asserting that it helps builders is not a “pro-balance” argument unless you first establish that builders are presently short-changed.

The AI's bombarding capabilities can be fixed. What are you saying Catt? That the game should negate bombarding just because the AI is hopeless at it? Better to fix the AI so that it can bombard effectively, no?

Of course they can be fixed, theoretically. But they haven’t to date, despite pleas to do so from a large proportion of the posters on this fansite since the vanilla release of Civ, over 2 years ago. It is apparent to me, and I’ll bet many others, that we’ve seen about the best we’re going to see in AI bombardment.

But aside from that, the whole line of argument you’re advancing is just total crap! Innumerable changes could be made to the AI to make the game, even with 4-roll-combat, better, more balanced, and more engaging. The point is that they are not being made! The game is and will be substantially the same as far as the AI goes from here on out (now that the “next release” will be Civ 4). If I am permitted the freedom of your argument, then let me say here and now that I’d like them to introduce 10-roll-combat . . . and rebalance all of the unit in the game, and make the AI know how to better use the units, and make the AI use them in a way a human would, and make the AI “learn” from human playstyles to devise better countermeasures, and, as long as I’m standing at the wishing well, I’d like to be able to sit around playing Civ all day, drink all the beer I want without gaining any weight, and still have all the disposable income I need to live the life of opulence and extravagance I feel I deserve.

The penalty for doing so is in 'military police' in your cities, which means less production overall, and much less chance of getting wonders.

Perhaps, if you’re playing a builder, small-army game in a government that provides military police effects. I’d think that a focus on building, effective defense, and city production power would indicate a better play was towards one of the representative governments?

Catt - this is what happens anyway. However, while you are 'beelining to Cav', the AI might have been 'beelining to Nav'. They might have met a strong AI on another continent, who traded them Saltpeter and Gunpowder. What a surprise that might be when you start attacking their cities. Does all this seem reasonable and sound like a game that is enjoyable? It does to me.

Does it really happen anyway? So the Cav beeline is uniformly, or at least widely, adopted by players of all stripes? So it makes sense to beeline for cavs in virtually all circumstances in the present game? The proposed change doesn’t affect this decision much? How so?

If you have access to iron and gunpowder at least. If not, you find yourself in a poorly defended position and are wishing you'd built a whole load of archers earlier. That's the breaks.

Why would I want archers? I’d want defenders and bombard. And walls. And defensive city sites. And good trade relationships with a civ that has resources to spare. Archers would be almost useless to me. I do not understand at all how you yourself think that the proposed change would greatly strengthen defensive-style games, and then you can turn around and say that a good REX followed by a defensive priority on one’s army is a bad thing. How do those opinions fit together?

The AI has many avenues open to it to ensure it is usually in the favourable position when attacking. This usually is a tech lead and trading every resource it needs if it can.

And your point that the proposed change would greatly benefit the defender applies how? Care to point to an offense-defense match-up with the AI on offense and the human on defense, and where the human displays even a modest skill at defensive planning, that the AI wouldn’t be sorely challenged to succeed at much of anything? As powerful as a human Cav versus AI Pike can be, an AI cav versus human Pike is, IMHO, an interesting challenge but not fundamentally game-threatening in most circumstances.

One of the main problems with building is that the AI is so aggressive to non-militaristic players that it's made very, very difficult. Until you play that style of game exclusively, you'll never know just what it's like.

Sorry, genuinely not trying to sound snotty, but if you find building peacefully while playing Emperor “very, very difficult” than you simply haven’t developed your skills far enough along. It is not that difficult after some reasonable experience.

You’ve tried to counter my arguments with your own thanks for noticing at this late date that I and others actually have arguments rather than just the whine you’ve ascribed to me / us; maybe you succeeded at poking holes in my arguments and maybe you didn’t.

Whether you did or didn’t, do you have any thoughts, any at all, on why the proposed change would improve game balance as opposed to simply strengthening a builder game or bringing in line Civ 3 combat results with something you assert many expect?

Catt

[Catt]

And following my convention of trying to respond to the substance of your arguments in one post, and to the crap in another . . .

You cannot see this game outside of the military Catt.

Can you see it from the non-militaristic PoV?

Again, you are only seeing this from the military PoV Catt. There are other ways to play this game.

You continue to assume that military techs are the be and end all of the game. That's because what you know *now* about the game is that military techs are the be and end all of it.

My first, and impolite, response would be: knock, knock, knock * Catt taps on Jeem’s skull * Anyone in there? I am commenting on a proposed change to combat in Civ 3. The change proposed would, as its primary in-game effect, strengthen the relative advantage accruing to a military unit with a higher effective A or D value than its opponent. I assume that a human player, smart as they tend to be, would alter his or her playstyle in an attempt to leverage this change in relative advantage. Based on such assumption, many of the “non-combat” alterations in player game approach that I put forth as hypotheses would nonetheless relate to the nature of the change, which again is combat-driven. Did you expect an argument such as “Wow! Cathedrals become that much more important – everyone’s going to beeline to Theology!” or “Marketplaces just become the end all be all of the game!” Did you expect someone to argue that the proposed change might ripple to all aspects of the game, but that it would flow primarily towards non-military aspects of the game?

My second, and also impolite, response would be: (to try to remember, and paraphrase, a famous quote) Better to keep your mouth shut and let others speculate on whether you are horribly uniformed, than to open your mouth and confirm the fact for them. You apparently know absolutely nothing about how I play the game. Truth is, I play the game in a variety of ways, depending on mood, circumstance, and the random result of my random game settings. In fact, I think if you ask around to some of the other posters, particularly in the Strategy and AU forums, you’ll find my playstyle, to the extent actually known, is regarded as far more towards the “builder” than the “warmonger.” A long while back I felt I’d learned about as much as I wanted to learn about warmongering, and decided to spend all of my time exploring the peaceful game. I spent a lotof time doing just that, having special fun with those games that seemed longshots at best with a house rule against offensive warfare. When I felt I’d learned all I wanted to about “pure peace” games, I just played for the occasional random experience, but played less often.

You seem to have trouble keeping the personal separate from the arguments, and I’d offer an opinion that you’d come off as both better-informed and a better discussion participant if you stopped trying to divine the motives behind posters’ opinions and instead focus on the opinions. Labeling me as a vigorous and regular warmonger is doing no more than highlighting the fact that you know very little of my playstyle or experience with the game, something apparent to many of the posters here who both know me and know my game biases. And its only one example of your misdiagnoses.

When you’ve come out with whoppers about how “X is required” or “Y is impossible” or “Z is just totally unfair” I and others have called you on it and tried to, politely, offer examples or facts that might clarify why it just isn’t so. You can listen to the arguments, and disagree with the conclusions; you can listen and agree. You’ve consistently chosen a third approach: you seem to have a preference for listening and then challenging others with “not if you’d see my game” or “you just don’t play enough to know” or “if only you understood” – my examples of this reaction are your efforts in recent threads regarding: (1) the efficacy of tech trading; (2) huge map play; (3) AI combat bonuses at higher levels; (4) the importance of the Great Library; and (5) always being forced into being militaristic and aggressive at Emperor level or higher. Sorry, but sometimes others do actually have similar experiences as you do, and sometimes their view is going to be different. It’s just not very worthwhile to discuss it with you if your reaction is always going to be “you don’t understand because I have unique experiences in this game.”

Since I have obviously failed at holding back my impolite responses to your posts, it is time for me to bow out of the discussion. Others can continue to debate you on this topic if that prospect is enticing in any way.

Catt

[Theseus]

Jeem, I was gonna do a big quote of one of your posts... but in retrospect the sum total of your stance is more important.

I'll say it: I agree.

Combat SHOULD be more deterministic. The question is, of course, how much more so? And further, how should this be tested?

I think what the status quo'ers are saying, myself included, is that, yeah, there are some absurd combat results, but the whole game is pretty damn well balanced, and with C3C and the beta patch we don't want to screw around too much, let's see the lay of the land first, and make sure that overall balance is maintained. Which is pretty reasonable, I think.

I think the discussion needs to migrate to: If we are going to move combat up the deterministic scale, what other game aspects need to be tweaked (and there are an awful lot)?

[Antrine]

QUOTE//..make the AI know how to better use the units, and make the AI use them in a way a human would, and make the AI “learn” from human playstyles to devise better countermeasures, and, as long as I’m standing at the wishing well, I’d like to be able to sit around playing Civ all day, drink all the beer I want without gaining any weight, and still have all the disposable income I need to live the life of opulence and extravagance I feel I deserve.UNQUOTE BY CAT//

Cat, this is truly a worthy position
Especially the part about beer and disposable income
I also would like to see the AI copy human strategies as their own routines. As well, give me access to AI tweaking. That is of course if it any way feasible.

Sincerely,

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt
Because it is a trait for certain civs and impacts how certain civs might approach the tech tree, i.e., increasing game variability depending on the civ chosen and the civs that you know about (just like other traits such as Religious and Scientific). Because it is a not a change to a core game feature that applies to all civs.

There are quite a few seafarers now Catt. You've got a pretty decent chance of seeing one most games. Does this mean that the Lighthouse and Navigation are less important than they were before? I say yes, it does. However, I don't think it's broken the game. It's close, but still not broken. My personal belief is that Seafaring is just a bit too powerful, and could do with the lesser chance of sinking being dropped. In the hands of a human player, it can be like an early navigation in the sense that if you try hard enough, you *will* get across the ocean and meet the other civs.

Edit: Some one asked me via PM about this response, and they were dead right to ask -- how have seafaring and the Portuguese made Navigation much less attractive? I don't see that at all -- a beeline to Navigation is attractive because it allows for early over-oceans trade; neither seafraing nor the Portuguese civ offers that advantage. How in the world has Nav been made less attractive by the seafaring trait?End Edit.

Yeah sure Catt. Seafaring gives the player a much better chance of skipping across the seas and meeting the other continent and you know it fine well. Trading resources through harbour links might be a nice bonus, but it's not the reason why you send ships out. It's all about the tech swaps, getting maps and contacts. The Portuguese get it for sure with Astronomy, but more often than not most Seafaring races have probably already skipped across the Ocean in Galleys.

You know this fine well. Please lets not play to the crowd and pretend otherwise.

No, they would have dramatically different levels of merits. I personally feel that the two different beelines offer an interesting strategic choice (as does not beelining at all but rather working my way up both tech branches, sometimes all three tech branches). With the possession of saltpeter, beelining for Cavalry would make the most sense in all but the extremely isolated games. Even for a defensive player. Having a defensive mobile force of cavs, able to attack any interloping, and unfortified, AI attackers would absolutely eliminate the threat of an effective AI attack to any reasonably competent player. Cav attack of 6 versus, at best, musket defense of 4.4 – hit ‘em on lowlands as they move and are therefore unfortified, and very, very few cavs could protect a large empire. A free and easy economic domination for the offing.

Cavalry are not cheap to build (neither are muskets unfortunately). There may well be a problem with cheap upgrading from Knights to Cav, but that's a feature already in the game.

However, this is about Nav vs Cav. I say that Seafaring has already made up the mind of the player to head for Cav anyway. The times when Nav is really important have changed due to the Seafaring trait. In other words, if there is a seafaring race in the game, most players will ignore Nav and head for Cav anyway. That's a fundamental change to the game, and although it might be race specific, it's still a fundamental change.

Does a change make more techs and units more useful than it does more techs and units less useful?

Look at Conquests. Archers get 0-level bombard. The only plausible reason I can think of for making archers more powerful than they already are in the ancient era is that a combat change was already afoot at Firaxis. This is pure speculation of course, but it makes sense to me. Of the 3 main, non-race specific units (archers, swords and horse) in the early era, all 3 now have certain advantages and disadvantages over the others. In other words, the desperation for Iron isn't quite as bad as it once was because Archers are better overall. Furthermore, with a combat change to something more predictable, archers become much easier protected by spearmen.

If somebody attacks your archers, you first get a free 0-level bombard, then they have to get past the spearman. Even a swordsman is looking at that thinking 'I've got a 50-50 chance of taking a wound from the archer, then I've got to beat the Spearman'. If it's on a hill, the chances are the swordman will lose.

Terrain becomes very important when attacking or defending. Catapults and other war machines look like they'll be great with the changes, - BUT - they can't utilise the best defensive terrain (mountains). In other words, it creates a dynamic game where fighting over a single square could make a big difference. The AI is already pretty competent at hugging the best defensive ground so no change would be required there. However, humans use bombards better - BUT if you utilise those then your attackers won't be as safe from Swordmen as they would have been if on a mountain.

Some players don’t suffer badly in tech when they don’t get to Philosophy first, just like some players don’t find the Great Library a “must have.” It is my opinion that one free tech from Philosophy, while desirable, would not be nearly as important as securing BW and probably IW. I guess you consider the change to Philosophy a great imbalancer since it dictates an early tech approach in your mind?

I dislike the free tech from Philosophy personally as it's a real 'must have' - yes, really - for builder players. I'll go for it everytime I start with Alphabet. Why? Because I know it'll give me a chance to keep parity with the tech race when I won't be beating up the AI and then extorting tech from it.

What I feel is that if the combat changes come to pass (as they surely will), then Philosophy will be the great equaliser for the defending player. Or more likely, the penalty the warmonger pays for beelining towards IW. Remember - you might not have any Iron. If you've gone for that route assuming you will and you don't, then that's your fault and you deserve to be left languishing in tech and no further forward in military superiority.

Still think it's a sure-fire thing that IW will be the most important tech in the early ages? I don't think so. Logic dictates that if you are desperate for something (in this case Iron) and there is a good chance you won't find any (as there is), then you've made a bad choice somewhere.

Great Lighthouse might help you a bit, but I assure you that getting out and about and in touch with other civs does not ever, ever require the Great Lighthouse.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. However, the odds are stacked against you enough that it's not always the best idea to sacrifice x amount of ships in the hope that one will finally make it across to the other continent. As a pure builder, I can only afford a couple of ships at best otherwise I'm negating the building aspect in a city or two. That's enough to ensure that I won't make it across the ocean by luck.

I know that the better option is to keep chucking out ships, but then again I also know the better option is to go on the offensive ASAP. It's a choice I made in order to make the game more challenging to myself.

And now with Conquests and the curragh available at Alphabet, you don’t even need Map Making to do so. We had a rousing discussion on this in connection with the AU Mod in the AU forum just recently.

I'm sure the general consensus was that curraghs were too good, especially with a seafaring race. That could well be true (and IMO, is on anything smaller than a huge map). On a huge map, Curraghs are still too slow and even Seafarers will need a bit of luck in order to get across the Ocean. Like I said earlier - the new traits could well have broken the game but I don't believe they do. I think they need tweaking (esp Seafaring), but they don't break the game. However, they CAN give a monumental advantage to a Seafarer who gets lucky.

Having a more developed, more economically powerful civ is without doubt a very large advantage in the game. Part of the interesting strategic choice presented to the player is how much one can afford to devote to “building” without risking too much from an aggressive neighbor. Playing a solid builder game requires balancing the needs of defense against the needs of the economy – even the needs of defense against “a technologically inferior race that happens to have more crap.”

I agree, completely. However, as you've already admitted that you rarely play Huge maps, you probably are not in a good position to determine just how important building to the stage of neglicting your army is on a Huge map. I showed you my save game with the Celts where I built temples and basically built to the neglect of my army. It was working fine until I met the Russians who were 2.5 times more culturally developed than I was.

'Playing a solid builder game' means different things depending on the map size.

If the only goal is to strengthen a builder’s game I fail to see how giving more room to be negligent with regard to defense is a good “balance” decision. You might think that the game is currently too weighted towards military conquest so the needle needs to come back towards pure building; I might agree with you or not. But simply asserting that it helps builders is not a “pro-balance” argument unless you first establish that builders are presently short-changed.

I'm not asserting that it helps builders. It *will* help builders like me, on huge maps where the disparity between the military and defensive game is very apparent. I don't believe it will damage the game on smaller maps, merely change it.

Of course they can be fixed, theoretically. But they haven’t to date, despite pleas to do so from a large proportion of the posters on this fansite since the vanilla release of Civ, over 2 years ago. It is apparent to me, and I’ll bet many others, that we’ve seen about the best we’re going to see in AI bombardment.

Maybe by changing the combat system, Firaxis will be forced to address this soon because the AI is poor at bombarding? Just an idea that is worth considering.

But aside from that, the whole line of argument you’re advancing is just total crap!

Why thankyou!

Innumerable changes could be made to the AI to make the game, even with 4-roll-combat, better, more balanced, and more engaging. The point is that they are not being made!

Maybe it's because the current faulty combat system doesn't allow for it in the first place? Ever considered that Catt?

The game is and will be substantially the same as far as the AI goes from here on out (now that the “next release” will be Civ 4). If I am permitted the freedom of your argument, then let me say here and now that I’d like them to introduce 10-roll-combat . . . and rebalance all of the unit in the game, and make the AI know how to better use the units, and make the AI use them in a way a human would, and make the AI “learn” from human playstyles to devise better countermeasures, and, as long as I’m standing at the wishing well, I’d like to be able to sit around playing Civ all day, drink all the beer I want without gaining any weight, and still have all the disposable income I need to live the life of opulence and extravagance I feel I deserve.

Nice one. One thing is for sure - by resisting this combat change, you ensure that no wanted changes will happen.

Why?

2-reasons.

1) Because it's the broken combat system that has held this game back for so long.

2) Because Firaxis want to address this, and want our help, but instead are getting the usual scaremongering crap that stops them from going ahead with changes that *might just* improve the game overall.

Does it really happen anyway? So the Cav beeline is uniformly, or at least widely, adopted by players of all stripes? So it makes sense to beeline for cavs in virtually all circumstances in the present game? The proposed change doesn’t affect this decision much? How so?

Seafaring has made Nav much less useful. We both know this Catt and there's no point pretending otherwise. The next best option is? Military Tradition.

Funny, but I usually go down the top route towards Democracy myself. I guess it ALL depends on what you are trying to do in the game.

{snip}

Too long already. This post is probably going to take up an entire page.

[vmxa1]

Jeem I don't know of any AI civ that will cross ocean tiles until it has the tech to do it safely. You will not be seeing them send gallies out on suicide runs. Only humans do it at this point.
Humans will use curraghs and not wait for GL or anything. They will send as many as they feel they can justify losing until they either make it across or the pain gets to great.
This is the one of the reasons there is talk of stopping them from entering ocean tiles.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Catt
And following my convention of trying to respond to the substance of your arguments in one post, and to the crap in another . . .

That's a good convention Catt. Maybe I'll try that out sometime.

My first, and impolite, response would be: knock, knock, knock * Catt taps on Jeem’s skull * Anyone in there? I am commenting on a proposed change to combat in Civ 3. The change proposed would, as its primary in-game effect, strengthen the relative advantage accruing to a military unit with a higher effective A or D value than its opponent. I assume that a human player, smart as they tend to be, would alter his or her playstyle in an attempt to leverage this change in relative advantage.

That seems reasonable enough. I could counter with "given the inherant randomness of the combat system, I assume that a human player would go for the weight of numbers over quality approach when fighting'.

Based on such assumption, many of the “non-combat” alterations in player game approach that I put forth as hypotheses would nonetheless relate to the nature of the change, which again is combat-driven. Did you expect an argument such as “Wow! Cathedrals become that much more important – everyone’s going to beeline to Theology!” or “Marketplaces just become the end all be all of the game!” Did you expect someone to argue that the proposed change might ripple to all aspects of the game, but that it would flow primarily towards non-military aspects of the game?

No. However, Cathedrals and Marketplaces WILL become more important than they are now. That is the point. Why exatly would I spend 17 turns building a Cathedral when I could throw out 4 Knights in the same time Catt? I wouldn't - unless I was trying to beat the game in a manner that didn't rely on combat. What are the chances of that ONE Cathedral being better than 4 knights? Pretty slim.

My second, and also impolite, response would be: (to try to remember, and paraphrase, a famous quote) Better to keep your mouth shut and let others speculate on whether you are horribly uniformed, than to open your mouth and confirm the fact for them. You apparently know absolutely nothing about how I play the game.

Sorry to confirm this Catt, but I didn't go and check out your personal profile before determing how 'awesome' you are at Civ3. Why? Because I don't give a sh*t. I'm not interested in what you have done or may do. All I care about is what you are saying NOW, in this thread.

Your treatise on 'the brokeness of the game post combat-change' is a nonsense, and I've offered my reasons as to why. You probably aren't used to somebody disagreeing with your Ominiscient viewpoint. What's more, anybody who couldn't care less about what you might have done in the past reading it would think 'Catt is a militarist through and through'. That cannot be argued. Just about every single point was made from a militarist PoV, with NO thought given to the other game styles.

Truth is, I play the game in a variety of ways, depending on mood, circumstance, and the random result of my random game settings. In fact, I think if you ask around to some of the other posters, particularly in the Strategy and AU forums, you’ll find my playstyle, to the extent actually known, is regarded as far more towards the “builder” than the “warmonger.”

That might well be true. However, your post on 'how the AI will spontaneously combust' because of the combat changes was nothing more than the PoV from a player steeped in the military game. There is no getting away from it Catt - just about everything you stated was your opinion as seen from the military game. Worst of all was the declared *fact* that IW is now the only tech worth heading for. B*llocks. I've given reasons as to why that is a dangerous and foolhardy option - let's hear your counter to it.

A long while back I felt I’d learned about as much as I wanted to learn about warmongering, and decided to spend all of my time exploring the peaceful game. I spent a lotof time doing just that, having special fun with those games that seemed longshots at best with a house rule against offensive warfare. When I felt I’d learned all I wanted to about “pure peace” games, I just played for the occasional random experience, but played less often.

So join a big club Catt. Do you honestly think I haven't beaten this game in every way possible (on Emperor btw). The point is, right now you are defending the warmonger stance and ignoring the others.

You seem to have trouble keeping the personal separate from the arguments, and I’d offer an opinion that you’d come off as both better-informed and a better discussion participant if you stopped trying to divine the motives behind posters’ opinions and instead focus on the opinions. Labeling me as a vigorous and regular warmonger is doing no more than highlighting the fact that you know very little of my playstyle or experience with the game, something apparent to many of the posters here who both know me and know my game biases. And its only one example of your misdiagnoses.

Well, I reckon I'm firmly marked down as a pacifist builder also. I guess it's what you say that makes others think that way. By my reckoning, you've mentioned it a few times yourself. I can warmonger along with the rest of them Catt, trust me.

When you’ve come out with whoppers about how “X is required” or “Y is impossible” or “Z is just totally unfair” I and others have called you on it and tried to, politely, offer examples or facts that might clarify why it just isn’t so.

I must have missed those.

You can listen to the arguments, and disagree with the conclusions; you can listen and agree. You’ve consistently chosen a third approach: you seem to have a preference for listening and then challenging others with “not if you’d see my game” or “you just don’t play enough to know” or “if only you understood” –

So you don't like the new guy acting the same way as you do, is that it?

my examples of this reaction are your efforts in recent threads regarding: (1) the efficacy of tech trading; (2) huge map play; (3) AI combat bonuses at higher levels; (4) the importance of the Great Library; and (5) always being forced into being militaristic and aggressive at Emperor level or higher. Sorry, but sometimes others do actually have similar experiences as you do, and sometimes their view is going to be different. It’s just not very worthwhile to discuss it with you if your reaction is always going to be “you don’t understand because I have unique experiences in this game.”

Funny, but I'm pretty sure you said that you'd only played around 5 Huge map games. Go play some more, then I'll be able to take your definitive views on it a bit more seriously. What I did get was a bunch of large or less map players telling me that there was nothing wrong with the Huge map game, even though they haven't played it very much. Like I'm going to accept that? I don't think so Catt. I can confidently tell you that I know more about Huge maps than you do. I have given examples of how the AI can run away with the game on huge maps.

Since I have obviously failed at holding back my impolite responses to your posts, it is time for me to bow out of the discussion. Others can continue to debate you on this topic if that prospect is enticing in any way.

Catt

That's fine by me Catt. I'd rather you stuck around and offered up some more reasons as to why the combat change will mean the game breaks down. That way, I can offer my opionion and views as to how it won't happen.

I'm genuinely sorry if you got a bit pissed off at my post, but your 'banging heads' thread is hardly one to be proud of yourself. Also understand that when I'm being attacked on multiple fronts (as I am here), then I will generally get more defensive (in my own special, attacking way ).

Brass necks are required all round. It won't get to me as my neck is brasser than...brass, and I won't think any less of you personally so long as you refrain from personal attacks. I won't continue this on other threads, and I'll continue to treat your points as they come to me - not on the basis of this one thread.

Just be sure that you're in a real argument here, and that I wouldn't be arguing this if I didn't think I'd come out on top eventually. In your favour, I have actually been proven wrong in the past.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Jeem I don't know of any AI civ that will cross ocean tiles until it has the tech to do it safely. You will not be seeing them send gallies out on suicide runs. Only humans do it at this point.
Humans will use curraghs and not wait for GL or anything. They will send as many as they feel they can justify losing until they either make it across or the pain gets to great.
This is the one of the reasons there is talk of stopping them from entering ocean tiles.

Yep, I know. That's what I said (I think?).

Seafaring is probably a bit too good for a human player. My point on Nav and Lighthouse not being quite so good is based on what humans will do with Curraghs. The AI plays the Lighthouse fairly well, but nowhere near as good as a human.

One more point I'd like to address (that I haven't noticed before) :-

The AI will generally NOT send troops to certain death in Conquests. It seems that it won't attack a unit which has a defensive value around 2.5 times better than it's attack value, unless the defender is injured. I just watched the AI ignore my Musketeers waltzing across it's mountains (10D) - even when it had 5-6 units next to them. The Musketeers would have had a 10 defence, and the best attackers going around were all 4 attack (knights, med inf and longbows). I also had a town defended by musketeers (5D) on a hill (7.5D), with walls (10D) and it never got attacked once even when surrounded by 10-12 longbowmen/med inf.

However, I did get attacked in another city that had musketeers fortified within walls (also a 10 defence?).

I dunno if this was just a fluke or not, but it seemed that the AI wasn't going to throw good after bad. Assuming there is a 'non-attackable' factor somewhere in the game, it can be easily changed to stop the AI from making rash attacks. Change the 2.5 differential to 1.6 or something with the new combat, and the AI won't commit suicide. If it WAS just a fluke, then simply adding a small bit of code will stop the AI from committing suicide.

This is a small change that Firaxis could make in 5 minutes if required.

[Theseus]

Jeem, let me get that last bit outta the way... I've already seen the AI sending attackers in against hopeless odds, repeatedly.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
Jeem, let me get that last bit outta the way... I've already seen the AI sending attackers in against hopeless odds, repeatedly.

That might be so, but I can show you the save game where my Musketeers on mountains are being ignored and you can check for yourself.

I've rarely been able to follow the AI's lead and pillage everything in sight like I have been in this game. Besacon (walls on a hill, with fortified musketeers) has never been attacked once. Considering the mainstay of the Ottoman army was hanging around the mountains at that time (because they were in a long war with the Dutch), and never attacked once, I think it's too much to suggest that it's a pure fluke.

None of my Musketeers have been attacked whilst on mountains either. Play a couple of turns yourself and you'll see. (It's a large map btw - just thought I'd try it out to reconfirm how much easier the builder game is.)

[Jeem]

Here it is :-

[Theseus]

Too small a data sample for conclusion.

[asleepathewheel]

Jeem-

I'm not sure I understand your Nav-Cav/Seafaring argument, could you lay it out more clearly, I'm a bit slow. Are you saying that seafaring civs cause one to beeline for Cavs? Seafaring as the human or AI? If its the latter, I don't agree at all. I find that my research goals are largely geographically driven. In my current game, Russians (read: cossacks), Emperor, Huge, Archipelego, I've totally abandoned the southern tech branch for the Navigation, Free Artistry, Economics line. Why? I'm at tech parity with one civ, the Dutch, we are both about 4 techs ahead of the nearest competitor and there is no land in range of my cavs. I need that extra sea move of Magellan's. Furthermore, I need to trade with other civs (for luxuries), how can I do that otherwise? Having seafaring civs in the game just doesn't impact me all that much.

If you were meaning the human as a seafaring civ, I agree that its a bit overpowered, as many have already said here. Much stronger trait (though what isn't?) in the human's hands.

Originally posted by Jeem
Look at Conquests. Archers get 0-level bombard. The only plausible reason I can think of for making archers more powerful than they already are in the ancient era is that a combat change was already afoot at Firaxis. This is pure speculation of course, but it makes sense to me. Of the 3 main, non-race specific units (archers, swords and horse) in the early era, all 3 now have certain advantages and disadvantages over the others.

You're right, it is pure speculation from you. The impetus for this change wasn't from Firaxis, it was from people like Catt and others in the Strat forums and mod forums here and at CFC. I'm not sure when it was discovered or by whom, but its been around for sometime in the AU mod, so maybe midway in the PTW lifecycle if not earlier. Had it not been for these people, I doubt this change would be in the game.

[Jeem]

Originally posted by Theseus
Too small a data sample for conclusion.

Ummm. What?

There is a save game showing you that the AI does not attack units with 2.5X the defensive value. Or at least, it doesn't in my game.

To dismiss this as being 'too small a data sample for conclusion' is indicitive of what I've come to expect from the posters here.

Better to bury your head in the sand, right?

I'm not even saying that this is how the AI will react every time. I dunno for sure - it came as a suprise to me, frankly. All I'm saying is that the AI seems not to be so crap that it'll attack odds that it thinks aren't worth attacking. In this example, it seems the AI determines around 2.5X as being 'not worth attacking'. As the AI generally attacks everything on sight (a bit like a crocodile), to dismiss this as being 'too small a data sample' is frankly unbelievable.

At least do me the courtesy and try it out first.