Unit Power.

[ToD.MB]

It's not all that negative

TechWins,

The posts are not all that negative really, I suppose, but I if we're all looking forward to the game (which will be the ultimate Civ incarnarnation ) we shouldn't be creating possible 'bad points'. Mind you, as Firaxis moniors this site, I suppose that constructive criticism will get back to them and possibly affect their design of the game.

Tod.MB

[TechWins]

we shouldn't be creating possible 'bad points'.

If one sees a bad point about that person should state what that is, try to support why it is a bad point, and thirdly let people discuss why or why not that point is bad. If a large number of people suggest that the 'point' is bad then possibly Firaxis might change it to make it better. This can only be done if it is done in a civilized and orderly fashion, constructive criticism not bashing. Sometimes when finding a bad point people continue to bash this part of the game. Bashing without any logical reasons behind it is pure stupidity. If you bash with some support behind your thought then that is alright. Negative posts don't really bother me too much unless they are uniformed, negative posts...

Then there is all that spam crap.

[ToD.MB]

Aye

True enough TechWins.

But you must admit, there is a dearth of posts regarding the positive aspects of Civ III - it's all "what if Civ III doesn't allow me to do this and that, etc." and "what if it doesn't support this facility". The game is going to be the greatest ever produced, but of course it won't have everything everyone wants. Do you disagree?

All I'm saying is that (while the constructive criticism is undoubtedly interesting) perhaps more posts should explore the fascinating aspects of what we already know about Civ III rather than postulating possible deficiencies that we don't know even exist. What are your thoughts on this?

Tod.MB

[TechWins]

Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree with that. There are too many nit picking threads like the ones you suggested. Not only is Civ3 going to be the best Civ game ever it's going to be the best game, out of all, ever.

What are your thoughts on this?

Well, it could be from your lack of time spent here but there has been many 'positive' threads. These threads aren't something of abundance but then again they aren't rare. It's just hard to continue to go over the 'good' info we know about Civ3. Considering so little has been given in comparision to the amount of time spent discussing Civ3.

Even with all this being said almost everybody who posts about Civ3 will buy Civ3 (except Solver of course with his sad situation oh wait that's not funny). Some of these people will be dissapointed that certain things they wanted to be implemented weren't included but that won't stop them from enjoying the game immensely.

[ToD.MB]

I admit my lack of time on the threads - I only signed on last night. But I maintain that many are negative.

Some of these people will be dissapointed that certain things they wanted to be implemented weren't included but that won't stop them from enjoying the game immensely.

This is very true, but I think that many of the things people have wanted from Civ all along will be included in Civ III. This will be the ultimate incarnation of Civ.

If people feel that they are going to be dissappointed, they will be. I have a feeling that this game will be excellent (though obviously not perfect).

[Ralf]

Originally posted by ToD.MB
All I'm saying is that (while the constructive criticism is undoubtedly interesting) perhaps more posts should explore the fascinating aspects of what we already know about Civ III rather than postulating possible deficiencies that we don't know even exist. What are your thoughts on this?

Well, I guess I can agree on that. Firaxis have revealed many very nice design-details already, like A: the close correlation between war, economy & resources, which give the civ-enemy some alternative ways of conducting war, then just sending combat-units at you, B: the new flexible diplomacy/trade bargaining-screen, C: the extended city-area model, with gradually introduced new special resources/ use of colonies, D: the whole culture-concept with expanding CI-dependent borders (no more instant border-boxing ala SMAC - good!), E: the new trade-model where we (at last) get rid of those pesky caravans, and so on...

In the end however it all depends if they put enough emphasize on strategically strong AI-civs, because this ties it all up.

[Chronus]

I'm glad people post their concerns about game features and such, even if it's negative, as long as it isn't overkill. Sadly, some of these threads, such as the ones asking to put the Spanish or the Vikings (or whoever) back into Civ are really terrible: they are filled with national and cultural arrogance, elevating themselves while bashing others . . . blah, blah, blah.

On the other hand, Firaxis Dan, in one of the Golden Age threads, has responded to the concerns over the GA trigger and said he would mention it to the developers. Yeah, I know ... he COULD just be saying that but you never know. Fixing a trigger, I would think, should be an easy task, even this late in production. So keep voicing the concerns ... but please, there's constructive criticism and there's destructive criticism.

Now to this thread (sorry for my preaching): I think the chariot is a bit weak. What really caught my attention is the Babalonian bowman having a movement of 2. Will these bowmen be on horses? It didn't appear so in the picture. This jumps at me because in the other civs, foot units always had a movement of 1, while mobile units were 2 or 3. Those are sure mighty fast Babalonians

[Grumbold]

Yes. please lets drag this thread back to the original topic. Then we may encourage Dan or someone to enlighten us a little further. They certainly won't if we spend all our time debating what is or is not a positive post

[korn469]

i think the reason that chariots are 1.1.2 is mostly because of armies

i did a little testing...in civ2 i changed the warrior to three hit points, and i changed the horseman to have three hit points, no other changes were made to their stats

a 3 hp warrior should be about the same as an army with three chariots in it, if stacked combat works like i suspect, which means no combat bonuses, just when one unit gets damaged the next one takes its place...a 3 hp horseman should be about the same as an army with three archers in it

a 3hp warrior beat a phalax finishing in the red
a 1hp warrior lost to a phalax which finished in the yellow
an archer beat a 3 hp warrior finishing in the red
an archer beat a normal warrior finishing in the green
a 3hp horseman beat a phalax finishing in the yellow

no the tests aren't exact, nor have i done enough repititions to confirm anything...but i highly suspect that even a small army (3 units) of 1.1.2 chariots can beat any single 1.2.1 spearman out in the open, and a size 4 army of chariots can probably beat a single spearman in a city...then an army of egyptian war chariots (2.1.2) should be able to win easy victories over a single spearman

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sabre2th

Since you have not played it and know next to nothing about it, it could definately be considered whining.

That we know next to nothing about the game two months before release is a major reason for complaint. Look, over here we are arguably the most dedicated civ fans in this civilization. Which means, imo, that the information policy of Firaxis telling us 'next to nothing', as You correctly put it, comes close to being an abuse.

War is to important to leave it to the generals, and Civ is too important to leave it to Firaxis.

[Kestrel]

Relative strengths of each unit aside, it does seem a shame that Firaxis has seen fit to perpetuate one of the frustrations for modmakers of Civ 2 in that they have left NO gaps in between the various units (unlike what was available in CTP & CTP2).

By setting Unit abilities to :

Standard Chariot 1a 1d 2move
Egyptian War Chariot 2a 1d 2move

Instead of (say)

Standard Chariot 10a 10d 2move
Egyptian War Chariot 20a 10d 2move

they have eliminated the ability to allow new units with small incremental improvements. Instead there must be large quantum steps between each type of unit.

For example, a Musketeer equipped with a Bayonet on his firearm (which does not obstruct the firearm from firing) might be 'a little' more effective in offense and defense that a Musketeer with none, but not 33% more.

In the current set of attack & defense ratios if :
Musketeer is 3a 3d 1move
then
"Musk with B" has to be 4a 3d 1 move (or 4a 4d 1 move) to make a difference.

But if a finer discrimination were possible I could have :

Musketeer 30a 30d 1move
"Musk with B" 35a 32d 12 move

Which is perhaps more balanced.

Really each "Unique Unit" shouldn't be a "Super" unt, but rather a Unit which is generally better than the other units of its type (but surely not DOUBLE the Attack or Defense ?).

Hopefully there will be no inbuilt upper limits in Civ3 which will stop me from multiplying all the Att / Def strengths by 10 so as to allow greater customisation while keeping the same overall relative strengths.

[korn469]

Kestrel

here is a stupid question, but for attack/defense values, must the numbers always be whole numbers? or could you say change the value of a warrior to like 1.026-.986-1 and a phalanx to like .964-1.375-1 in the rules.txt?

if you could that solve most of your problems, but i too think that firaxis should have started all values out at least at 2 so warriors in civ2 might have been 2-2-2 while a phalanx was 2-3-2 and a horseman was 3-2-5 and a legion was 9-3-3 starting with one means that even a single increase in power is at least doubling the power of the unit...also if all units had movement it would allow you to slow down all units in rough terrain

__________________________________________________ __

ok i have done some more experimenting and here are my results

i tested ten normal warriors against ten normal phalanxes with no combat modifiers and i got the following results

the phalanx won 100% of the time with the following breakdown
*70% were in the green
*30% were in the yellow

i then rested ten 3hp warriors against ten normal phalanxes with no combat modifiers and i got the following results

the phalanx won 70% of the time with the following breakdown
*10% of the phalanxes were in the green
*10% of the phalanxes were in the yellow
*50% of the phalanxes were in the red (with two having only a sliver left probably was 90-95% damaged)
*10% of the warriors were in the red
*20% of the warriors were in the yellow

so if armies do work as i suspect where when a unit is damaged the next most powerful takes its place in that round of combat then an army even if it has a lower attack/defense ratio has a chance of winning and in some circumstances not losing a soldier...while all of the units in the army might get damaged i would think that there is a better chance for each unit in an army to survive combat...if you attack with three warriors most likely you will always lose at least the first warrior to the phalanx, whereas with an army you'd have at least some chance of having all three units survive

since units have a better chance to survive they also have more chances to gain vetern and elite level and to finally spawn a great leader...this in turn makes them more likely to survive

and while ten warriors attacking a tank one at a time might not have much of a chance to win, ten warriors attacking in an army might not have much of a chance to win, but if they did then probably more would survive than attacking one at a time

[Grumbold]

Interesting results Korn. I take it that the phalanx is not fortified or benefitting from any terrain effects? Since the most likely early game scenarios will be units/army vs. fortified phalanx it would be interesting to see how many you need to attack with to be reasonably confident of victory. I suspect it will be too many to be sensible to do.

[korn469]

Grumbold

i ran some more tests

this time i tested normal warriors, 10hp warriors, and 5hp horseman against fortified normal phalanxes in fortifications

For the normal warriors attacking one at a time against a fortified phalanx in a fort i had the following results

*first attempt my 12th warrior won and finished in the yellow (lost 11 warriors)
*second attempt my 7th warrior won and finished in the yellow (lost 6 warriors)
*third attempt my 11th warrior won and finished in the yellow (lost 10 warriors)

so based on these conclusions i determined that a player would need an army of around ten warriors to have meet the "reasonably confident of victory" requirement...so i set the warriors at 10hp to simulate a size 10 army and i also set horsemen at 5hp to simulate a size 5 army just to compare reults

the 10hp warriors won 90% of the time with the following breakdown
*30% of the warriors were in the yellow
*60% of the warriors were in the red
*10% of the phalanxes were in the red

the 5hp warriors won 90% of the time with the following breakdown
*10% of the horsemen were in the green
*30% of the horsemen were in the yellow
*50% of the horsemen were in the red
*10% of the phalanxes were in the red

so if armies are implemented in how i suspect, then even a large enough army of warriors could be dangerous...if these results hold up over the long term then not only would an large enough army of warriors have good odds at defeating an entrenched phalanx (spearman in civ3) but they would take far less causulties than attacking one at a time, plus they would be immune from attack by single units (unless those single units were really powerful)

also a size 5 army of either egyptian war chariots or babylonian bowmen would be able to defeat an entrenched single 1.2.1 unit and take fewer causulties than attacking one at a time

with a large enough army units should be able to defeat any unit in their era and probably even units from the next era...so if you have 20 warriors in an army and it attacks an entrenched musketman the warriors might have a good chance of victory (i'm not completely sure, but perhaps 5 out of ten attacks could win) while this is q 200 shields army compared to possibly 30 shields for the musketman the army would have a much greater chance of winning than units attacking individually

armies are a better use of shields if you are a low tech force (which the AI usually is) especially if you have lots of units (which the AI usually does)...so hopefully the AI will be better at putting up a fight in civ3

a high tech army would be invinciable to a single less advanced unit, and with similar techs, armies will always win over those who attack one at a time

[Pagan]

I hope terrain adjustments are revisited

Terrain adjustments to attack / defend should be sensitive to not only the type of terrain held by the attacker / defender, but also to the type of unit that is attacking / defending. For example, a tank defending in the mountains / swamp should not get the same modifiers as an infantryman. Perhaps they shouldn’t even be allowed to travel in that type of terrain until roads are built. Same goes for the chariot vs warrior, archer, etc.