General Overall Problems

[vmxa1]

If they are rigging the contest, they are cheating as they are stating a proposition without the full disclosure of facts.

[zorbop]

i have found that the way to win the higher difficulty levels is simply surviving to the industrial age. on deity i am unable to build any wonders until industrial age. if you can at least be equal with the ai in tech at that point go for industrialization first, and don't trade it...

the ai is completely incapable of taking advantage of factories or railroads. take advantage of that.

[gunkulator]

The biggest adjustment I had to make going from CivII to CivIII is the unpredictability of combat. In CivII you just knew that your Cavalry would defeat a Musketeer. Not so in III. There are no more Howitzers, Spies or other killer units in this game.

[David Murray]

Oh yes - the combat system in CivIII SUCKS, let's not make any bones about it.

[ToeTruck]

I like Civ3 combat...

Getting rid of Zones of Control and that silly "destroy the whole stack" rule (I once destroyed a stack of 54! Pikemen) are superb improvements over Civ2.

Yeah, sometimes a Spearman beats a Tank, but that is way rare. And, yeah, bombardment takes a little getting used to, but overall the combat system is excellent.

That's what I think.

- TT

[vmxa1]

I'mwith you ToeTruck. I hate ZoC and stack killing. Super city with walls stopping anything the AI sent at you. Not nearly as bad as a few bad beats in CivIII.

[David Murray]

Agree wholeheartedly that CivIII combat beats CivII by a mile. However, while IME a spearman never beats a tank (the odds are truly miniscule under any other circumstances than when the spearman is elite and the tank has only 1 hit point left), fortified spearmen in cities quite often beat cavalry. Musketmen fortified in cities are quite nasty too. I don't think that old fashioned units should be allowed to have such a moderate chance of beating an offensive unit designed to take on riflemen.

The one thing that needs to be brought back from CivII and refined is the idea that old units simply don't have much of a chance of beating newer ones. I *think* it was called firepower in Civ2. For example, there's almost no conceivable way a spearman or pikeman can beat pre-industrial age cavalry armed with horses and rifles. How could they - unless they chucked their spears?

I believe I read somewhere that like something firepower is coming to Conquests, something which stops things being so wildly random. Can't wait!

[Gufnork]

Well, if you hide in a city it's not that hard to kill someone riding in, even if he has a musket. Especially when better trained. You need line of sight to fire those things and cities has a lot of places to hide. So does mountains. I've never lost a cav to a spearman on open field so I don't find it illogical at all.

[vmxa1]

I always felt that FP should have been added to smooth out the rough edges. I am not one of those that wants to see much weaker units win any battles. It should be doable, but I should not see it more than once every few games. It should be a huge surprise. The RNG provides a large swing and FP can antenuate it a bit.
Firaxis felt that ancient units needed to have a chance to win to keep civs in the game that were way behind. I think this is misguided and flat out wrong. If they are that far behind, let them lose.

[Panag]

Originally posted by David Murray
Agree wholeheartedly that CivIII combat beats CivII by a mile. However, while IME a spearman never beats a tank (the odds are truly miniscule under any other circumstances than when the spearman is elite and the tank has only 1 hit point left), fortified spearmen in cities quite often beat cavalry. Musketmen fortified in cities are quite nasty too. I don't think that old fashioned units should be allowed to have such a moderate chance of beating an offensive unit designed to take on riflemen.

The one thing that needs to be brought back from CivII and refined is the idea that old units simply don't have much of a chance of beating newer ones. I *think* it was called firepower in Civ2. For example, there's almost no conceivable way a spearman or pikeman can beat pre-industrial age cavalry armed with horses and rifles. How could they - unless they chucked their spears?

I believe I read somewhere that like something firepower is coming to Conquests, something which stops things being so wildly random. Can't wait!

hi ,

spearman where used well into the 18th cen , .......

they where still deadly to horses , ......

have a nice day

[ToeTruck]

I agree with panag...

Sitting here in the comfort of my office chair, I see no reason why a Spearman with a really long pointy stick shouldn't every now and then kill a charging horse whether it is the basis of a Horseman or a Cavalry. The underlying technology (the horse) is vulnerable to long pointy sticks.

And, I also agree with David Murray and vmxa1...

Firepower would certainly smooth the rough edges, at least in the extreme cases. While I can envision a long pointy stick possibly killing a horse, it is much harder to envision the same technology defeating a metal shelled Tank. Yep, might happen, but shouldn't very often.

And, I have my own concerns...

As long as firepower is implemented to eliminate the extreme abuses, I'm all for it. If, however, it means that any technology that is only a minor improvement on the previous technology will always win in combat, I am opposed.

In other words, Cavalry and Riflemen shouldn't always defeat Knights, Medieval Infantry, and Pikemen, and even occasionally Spearmen and Swordsmen. Tanks shouldn't always defeat Infantry and Geurrillas (and they don't), but they also shouldn't always defeat Riflemen and Musketmen.

Firaxis felt that ancient units needed to have a chance to win to keep civs in the game that were way behind. I think this is misguided and flat out wrong. If they are that far behind, let them lose.

Are you sure, vmxa1, that this was Firaxis' reason? If so, I agree that it is misguided. However, I do believe there is gameplay value in the uncertainty of the current system. Under Civ2, it was way to easy to *know* you would win. Where's the gameplay fun in having that knowledge?

One of the reasons I play Civ3 is because I don't know. At least not yet. The longer it takes me to master a game (and I'm a ways away with Civ3), the more I will play.

That's where I'm at.

-TT