Oh, ok yeah..........WTF???

[orange]

I just played a game, and I don't know if these are bugs or just really bad screw ups....

Seconds after peacefully trading two technologies with the Zulu (early in the game) they declare war on me (on the same turn) right after exiting the diplomacy screen.

Ok...no biggie, takes a city, I take it back...sign peace...

Japan - very weak. I'm nice to them, give them everything they request (for gold of course) and they refer to themselves as unworthy of my time etc...

All of a sudden, Zulu declare war on me again, and Japan signs a pact and joins the crusade. I also recieve word that China (peaceful with me) and England (not so peaceful...but still....) declare war on me....

Fine....

While this is going on, I'm at war with Persia, who is the ONLY country that DOESN'T join the Zulu backed crusade against me.

I defeat a group of Persian warriors and get a great leader, I get 3 elite horsemen together, load them up, and take off. 6.1.2 15 HP

First battle...

Victory against Jap archer. Awesome. NO HP lost

2nd battle against Jap spearmen (ok, I should expect a slight loss of HP...) I lose 14 of 15 HP against ONE spearman. (1.2.1)

So now I'm ticked, here I am, the most peaceful civ on the continent, culture out the wazoo (as the histograph showed)

So I fortify the army of horsemen in a city until they've regained their strength, meanwhile, I'm having major invasions from all fronts, in short...I'm screwed. Luckily I had recently walled my outer cities, so they hold off a few units before taking over (and in some cases, the culture brings them back to me anyway)

I bring the horsemen army back out thinking "ok, now time to kick some butt and take back some land"

First battle back...

Horsemen army (6.1.2 , 15 HP) vs. Jap Vet. Warrior (1.2.1 , 4 HP)

I lost. And I didn't just lose...I was shutout. He didn't lose a single HP block.

At that point, a bit POd (and because the Dbacks game went into the 9th ) I quit.

What a rip off

[dexters]

I think the current problem with Civ 3's apparent combat bonuses is that the game works with probabilities. If you're read the manual, you'll see that a knight has something like 4 out of 6 chance to beat a spearman (4 attack power of the knight + 2 defense power of spearman = 6) so with 6 as the denominator, and 4 is the attack power of the knight. (without defensive bonuses being factored), and that means spearman has a 2 out of 6 chance of beating the knight. This problem causes the knight beats tank effect so many have talked about. The probability engine needs to be refined to account for these technological differences. In real life, a knight has no chance against a Tank. Sure, if you have a very able knight, he may be able to take out the Tank crew by surprising them, but head to head, a tank crew can take out a knight even before the knight sees the tank.

[freezuch]

yeap, sometimes regular infantry sitting on the mountain killed my modern armor. Not to mention swordsman can take some hitpoints out of the armor. It looks that units are best at defence(maybe firaxis tried to stop us and ai from succeful crusades?) than in attack. I was able to hold my town without walls with only 3 musketeers against dozens of longbowmen, pikemen, swordsman and the rest of the old dudes until some enemy cavalry arrived. Smart me , I immideately signed a peace treaty with cavalry owner and then the rest of the world contacted me to stop this bloodshed. (was the same scenario with crusade aginst human you experienced).

[orange]

another major problem is the difference between infantry, ranged, flanker, and bombard units (land)

Archers should have a bonus against infantry, cavalry should have a bonus against archers, flanker (like knights and tanks) should have a major bonus against infantry....etc.

but by assigning them all a number and simply rolling the dice, it doesn't accurately represent warfare.

[freezuch]

you played too much in CTP2.
Historically, knights were always the main front force to crush the enemy infantry. But i absoluttely agree with you that rolling dice the way it happens now is kind of odd.

[mrbilll]

Seeing this once in a while wouldn't be so bad. Look at the Zulus and the English- "upsets" do happen in military history. But it's also noteworthy that in the end, the Zulus lost. I don't mind losing units, even in unbalanced contests. But it's pretty annoying when one defensive unit mauls or destroys several attackers in succession, any one of which is superior to the defender.

[[LordLMP]]

I would think they would use a combat system like the one in SMAC. This number combat system is pretty silly and unrealistic.

And not completed Firaxis fault that they had to rush the game too... damn Infogrames.

-LMP

[orange]

Originally posted by freezuch
you played too much in CTP2.
Historically, knights were always the main front force to crush the enemy infantry. But i absoluttely agree with you that rolling dice the way it happens now is kind of odd.

Well of course, but attacking a group of cavalry with archers would be suicide...as the cavalry can run you down....archers aren't heavily armored, and can't fire at close range. That's why cavs would get a bonus. But a bonus against infantry would be good too (just not quite as much I think....and not against spearmen, pikemen, hoplites, musketmen, etc.)

[yavoon]

dexter why do u need to take something other than the attack/defense strength(+other inherent modifiers) into account. u say it as though its rhetorical.

I find no problem w/ "unrealistic" things happening, especially when I consider them to help gameplay. its not like there isnt a list miles long of unrealistic things in civ3.

hey I know we're repeating ourselves, but its nice to always get bot sides.

[orange]

Yeah but c'mon, it happened twice in a 10 minute time period!

[Jason]

Well of course, but attacking a group of cavalry with archers would be suicide...

Hence that famous French victory, Agincourt?

One of those examples wasn't quite right though; modern armour losing to Infantry fortified on a mountaintop isn't so incredibly far fetched. Mountain terrain gets a great modifier in Civ, and is good IRL also. If you think WWI infantry against M1A2s, ok, maybe unreasonable, but if you think WWII infantry entranched on a mountain vs. soviet semi-modern tanks its an ok compromise. Mountains are mountains.

[orange]

Originally posted by Jason


Hence that famous French victory, Agincourt?

One of those examples wasn't quite right though; modern armour losing to Infantry fortified on a mountaintop isn't so incredibly far fetched. Mountain terrain gets a great modifier in Civ, and is good IRL also. If you think WWI infantry against M1A2s, ok, maybe unreasonable, but if you think WWII infantry entranched on a mountain vs. soviet semi-modern tanks its an ok compromise. Mountains are mountains.

yes yes, thank you for pointing that out

Well fortified on a mountain is different. I'm talking about open terrain, or cities.

[freezuch]

If you think WWI infantry against M1A2s, ok, maybe unreasonable, but if you think WWII infantry entranched on a mountain vs. soviet semi-modern tanks its an ok compromise. Mountains are mountains.

Agree here. Russians in afganistan is a good example of how easily LAW or RPG can take out modern tanks. But still, swordsman against tank has no chances at all.

[orange]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by freezuch

But still, swordsman against tank has no chances at all.

Lets hope

[freezuch]

i meant in real life, not in Civ3.