Lets get started

[Harlan]

Perhaps I'm a bit premature here, but its bound to happen sooner or later...

It may be some time until events language and some other things are implemented. But in the meanwhile, lets start changing things that clearly need to be changed. Of course people are going to make all kinds of modifications, but for starters it would be good if we could all chip in and make one mod pack that fixes the worst problems of Civ3.

As we hear reports about this unit being too weak, or that wonder too strong, etc... we should fix these things in a mod.

One thing I suggest we could start with is boosting all of the units hit points by one. It looks like this is possible in one of the screenshots. The result is that there will be less chance of an accidental victory of the Warrior beats the Mech Infantry type.

Another I'd suggest is that it would be fun to have more resource types. Especially for the basic resources, of which there are only 6. Only strategic resource that seems criminally left out IMHO is timber - needed for all ships prior to Ironclad. Historically some civs like the Egyptians simply couldn't have much of a navy because they lacked tall trees of the right type, and others like the Phoenicians were extremely dominant on the seas in large part to the trees they had. Copper/tin could be another potential one for early land units, if it would have a good impact on the game (could be too early to start worrying about resources at that point).

Perhaps make cities require more food to go up one in population, to reduce the impact of ICS. From what I've seen, it seems like players hit ceilings like the 6 and 12 size limit, too early.

Other ideas of "must" changes to the game?

[DarthVeda]

*continues riding the Macro train*

How could this be left out? There is no such thing as scenario without events. There is only chaos.

[FrostyBoy]

I think we'd need at least 2 weeks worth of playing before we can decide what needs to be changed, some of the things that are in there now are probably like that for a good reason.

Also, it would be great if we all put a list of what we'd like changed in this thread right here, and have someone, maybe you harlen, change the ones that should be changed, and then release it as one big 'patch'

[Harlan]

Darth,
I too am very bummed by that. But I'm assuming that Firaxis simply didn't have time to finish everything by the all important Christmas shipping date, and will soon make good on filling some gaps like this. If not, then we need to raise a ruckus. Hopefully someone will bring it up in the chat with Firaxians.

In the meantime, lets more forward and improve the game in the ways we can now, while they improve the games in ways we cannot (like adding more functionality).

[donarumo]

I agree, with the amount of customization currently in the game, I feel good about Firaxis releasing more or updated tools to further customize.

Basically though, my recommendation (yes even to those who really really want a macro language) is to play the living hell out of this game until such tools become available. Get used to how the game functions first before making changes. Just a thought...

[mactbone]

I'd like to direct you to my thread on the text files. It contains all the limited info I've gleaned by looking through them. It also has all of the text files zipped up.

[ajbera]

Battle standards

Hi Harlan, nice to see you're already taking an active role in things even though you're far away. It's good to hear from Darth again, too.

I was reading posts over at CivFanatics and came across a thread discussing the spearman vs. tank issue, specifically the chance that an elite spearman fortified in a metropolis could defeat an invading regular armor unit. One of the posters, a fellow named RobKid, did some great calculations that can be seen here on this page:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7104&pagenumber=2

about a quarter of the way down. Here's his summation:

RobKid, over at the other Civ site
Returning to the issue of a regular armor attacking a fortified elite spearman in a metropolis, plugging all of this into Excel results in the Armor having a 78% chance of winning (assuming all of my Excel work is correct). He has a 25.7% chance of escaping unscathed, a 30.6% chance of winning with 2 hps remaining, and a 21.8% chance of winnign with 1 hp remaining. If you advance the armor to elite status as well, his chance of winning goes up to 96%. (BTW, a veteran tank would win 90% of the time.)

Being also somewhat of the opinion that the spearman would have no chance, I'm a little bothered, but overall it's not too bad. Guess you could chalk some of it up to the armor being overconfident...

So, assuming his calculations are correct, an elite spearman in a metropolis would be able to fight off and destroy an invading armor unit 22% of the time. Knowing this, the Civ community can discuss what would be a more accurate chance of the spearman winning (1 in 100? 1 in 1000?), and units' attack and/or defense ratings can be adjusted until the chance of winning is more in line with what is deemed appropriate. Using a few battle combinations as standards (armor vs. phalanx, armor vs. pikeman, fighter vs. stealth fighter, man-o-war vs. battleship, etc.) we can establish a much more accurate baseline of battle success for units. Once the calculations seem sound, the actual unit settings can be changed in a mod.

This is an undertaking for someone with a good grasp of mathematics and statistics, time on their hands, and the painful devotion to the Civ game series that has led so many of us to sacrifice the precious hours of our lives in an effort to take over worlds that didn't even exist.

Edit: The calculations were performed with elite spearmen defending against tanks, not phalanxes as I originally claimed; my errors have been rectified. However, this reinforces my suggestion. If a friggin' spearman (granted, an elite spearman) could defeat a tank 22% of the time, a phalanx is probably closer to 40%.

[Harlan]

Regarding making changes, sure play the game more first. But no reason we can't start throwing ideas around now, and seeing how many people agree/disagree or take things in new directions. Some things I can see need changing even before I play the game. For instance, 22% success rate of Phalanx vs. Armor in the mentioned conditions is too high IMHO, period. Maybe for playbalance reasons its better to have the units of different ages more balanced in strength, but I'm just not gonna have fun if technology doesn't lead to more advancement than that.

Also, people should start playing variations and see how that affects things. How would a game play with all the units having an extra hitpoint, for instance? Or slower growth? Lets start finding out!

By the way Sn00py, I'm not gonna be the one to make these changes unfortunately, at least any time soon. Starting tomorrow I'll be in internet contact only very rarely for about 3 weeks. But I wanted to get the ball rolling anyways and get a few thoughts in while I still can.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Ajbera, have you seen the formula for calculating the combat odds in CivII? See the thread "Info: Combat (GL)" in the CivII Strategy forum. I think it may have just sunk to page two.

I direct your attention to this for two reasons:
One, the statistics of combat are explained thoroughly. Altho the Civ3 model is slightly different (as far as we know at this point), it is very similar to the CivII model.

Two, the odds of one combat are very different than for the whole battle. For example, a one round success rate of 78% can lead to the victory in an overall battle being 99%. I'll go to the other thread to see if Robkid is on track...

[Marquis de Sodaq]

I was just over at Civfanatics. It looks like the same sort of panic that I've seen on these boards. While Robkid's math looks good, it starts from the wrong premise. The phalanx's 22%/round odds are too high, and would vanish to 1% over the course of a battle anyway.

I don't have Civ3 yet (let's hope that xmas stocking looks very rectangular... ), so I can't test anything yet. I'll be on it as soon as I have the game, tho!

[Steve Clark]

Harlan, good to have you here. In reading your first post, I recommend, conceptually, that such changes are done independently of each other as much as possible. Some of the suggested changes could be subjective and I would think that a "one-size-fits-all" solution would not work for some changes could be positive while others negative, just like the defaults. Perhaps breaking it down into common categories or groups would allow users to pick and choose their level of customization. Just my initial thoughts.

[Ozymandous]

Just an addendum to all those who think a spearman should have no chance against tanks while defending in a city.

Umm, have you ever tried to drive a tank through tight city streets? Or tried to fight an effective armored campaign with one in a city?

Tanks are not meant to fight in cities, they are for the country-side. ANY infantry unit dug into and defending a city, be they spearmen or marines would have a definite advantage over a tank just because urban warfare is hell on tanks.

This is what artillery, battleships and air superiority are FOR.

Use them.

Now if the spearman had those chances of winning when both units were on flat grassland then there would be a problem, but otherwise, heck no.

[ajbera]

This is why we need to know what the current battle success percentages are, and why we need a discussion afterwards to determine their accuracy.

What do we think are the chances that a group of elite spearmen (and because they're elite, they're tough, battle-hardened, and quite skilled at killing - think Maximus Decimus Meridus with a wicked spear) defending their own metropolis (tight streets, lots of buildings for cover) against a regular armor will fight off the tank? Considering the general intelligence of Civvers, we can discuss what would be a realistic chance (and perhaps temper this number if it proves to detract too much from gameplay), and once a consensus has been reached, attack and defense numbers tweaked to produce the desired outcomes.

I never said the spearmen should never win, I just don't know what a believabel chance is. When I think of a squad of hardened warriors like Maximus attacking a tank, they should win sometimes (howling like apes, prying open the hatch and stabbing the drivers to death) - collectively, though, we should decide how often is 'sometimes.' For all I know, the default att/def ratings are perfect. I just think we should do the calculations and see, while hearing from players if they feel battles are lopsided. If a general improvement or fix-it-all mod is going to be designed (as it was for CtP and Civ2), tweaking settings for better combat should be a part of it.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

The more reports I've read, the more it does look like the city defender, be he a spearman or a rifleman, will still have good odds against any attacker, even a tank. Maybe they did simplify it back to civ1!

I imagine at least that Firaxis balances combat with the addition of bombardment. Have you with the game had to alter your attack strategies because of this new element? In other words, does the addition of catapults and such return the tank's 78% chance of victory to the 99% we'd expect?

I really want to get this game...

[Rommel393]

The thing that really bothers me is that steel isnt implimented in the game at all. Shouldn't some units (ie, tank) also need coal+iron to be built? Maybe this would create too many resource requirments for single units and effect gameplay. But its realistic.