Broken indeed - but not beyond repair

[Venger]

Okay - first game, playing regent level. It's a long one - large map, multiple Civs.

Doing well, in fact better than many seem to. I was a regular winner on Civ2 Deity - in fact I tried many things to make Deity harder (tried to increase tech paradigm, etc...). So I don't struggle so much with the corruption issues in Civ3, since I saw them alot in Civ2, large maps with sprawling empire far from the palace with loads of cities - so many so that the first citizen in a new city was brutally unhappy!

I've read enough reviews here to know when a game hasn't been properly playtested, and Civ3 certainly is that. The interface isn't finished. Want to pull up the Civilopedia on the unit while looking at the build queue? Can't do it, at least with any combination of clicks I can find, unless I click another area of the City to bring up the civilopedia for that part and then navigate to the units. Things like that show that game player feedback either wasn't available or wasn't listened to.

But their are more grievous problems. Combat is just plain broken. Ranged units that bombard can't destroy - just occassionally knock off a hit point or two. The catapult in Civ2 kicks the high holy hell out of it in Civ3. Please spare me the bombardment can't kill units, ask a sailor on the Yamato, or a VC soldier in an Arclite bombing, or a German SS soldier caught in an American time on target artillery assault.

I've also witnessed very, very bad combat results. I've seen armies lose to single units, only to be knocked out 3 to zip by the next attacking solo unit. It get's worse in modern times - I understand thinking of units as placeholders, but without firepower, realism simply has gone out the window. Any unit can defeat any unit, which isn't a) realistic and b) fun. It's the phalanx battleship again.

The other problem, other than corruption, which is clearly bad but to me not as bad as it could be (having played Civ2 deity) is the problem with capturing cities and cultural defection. I *LOVE* the concept of acculturation of captured cities, it's smart and frankly about time. But I sacked Athens, and stationed an army and two legionarys in it, only to have it ON THE NEXT TURN evaporate back into Greek hands. This is just nonsensical. Unless the citizens outnumber the occupation army 3 to 1, it shouldn't occur. If the army was strong enough to take Athens, it's strong enough to keep it. The loss of the army was a give up for me - I said "that's it" and shut it down.

Now - this can all be fixed. Please don't change garrisoning requirements and acculturation, those are wonderful add ons. But combat needs attention as does the whole city changing sides thing. I don't know the game program mechanics but the comabt engine is definitely a backwards step from Civ2 in total, but with some changes can be a sizable improvement. And cultural defection, especially of captured cities, should be rethought and more difficult than it is.

Like Yin and so many have said - Civ3 seems like a diamond in the rough. But the rough shouldn't have made it to the shelves...

Venger

[WhiteElephants]

Re: Broken indeed - but not beyond repair

Originally posted by Venger
But their are more grievous problems. Combat is just plain broken. Ranged units that bombard can't destroy - just occassionally knock off a hit point or two. The catapult in Civ2 kicks the high holy hell out of it in Civ3. Please spare me the bombardment can't kill units, ask a sailor on the Yamato, or a VC soldier in an Arclite bombing, or a German SS soldier caught in an American time on target artillery assault.

I would think that ranged units capable of destroying entire units would be highly unrealistic, though I feel that this issue should first be considered from the viewpoint of game play, and not realism. But for the sake of arguement all your examples are valid examples of realism from the perspective of a single soldier. Meaning, yes, a soldier caught in an artillery barrage is in danger of being killed, but to suggest that an entire battallion can be wiped out is far from realistic. Surely you don't think that the Civ units represent platoon sized or smaller units do you?

I'll meet you half way on this one. From playing SMAC I've felt that artillery should be a bit more effective, but I never clamored for the ability to annilate entire units.

The sole purpose of artillery bombardment is to soften hard points and cause suppression more so that its ability to maim and kill. If artillery bombardment was that effective why would anyone need combined arms to begin with?

[Fidel]

i can reccomend you a great game - steel panters
civ 3 is not a simulation - it is a fun take on empire building.
combat is fun, tactically logical and it is indeed a matter of placeholders. please try abstracting it a bit and you will start enjoying. at some point one cannot really make it completely realistic or it would kill all the fun. people here are calling for 'realistic nukes', knowing that realistic nuclear war would end the game. period. would you want 4000 years to dissapear or would you like FUN modern combat.
i guess it is very hard to please us all. i must admit they pleased me big time.

[Venger]

Re: Re: Broken indeed - but not beyond repair

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


I would think that ranged units capable of destroying entire units would be highly unrealistic, though I feel that this issue should first be considered from the viewpoint of game play, and not realism. But for the sake of arguement all your examples are valid examples of realism from the perspective of a single soldier. Meaning, yes, a soldier caught in an artillery barrage is in danger of being killed, but to suggest that an entire battallion can be wiped out is far from realistic.

Why? Have you seen an Arclite mission? How about an attack of a divisional 155mm artillery time on target mission? These missions wipe out hundreds of men. Not to mention sinking naval units...

It's simple - 4 catapult successes should destroy a defending unit. This is already a very, VERY different result than Civ2, where 4 catapult succcesses meant...4 dead defenders.

Surely you don't think that the Civ units represent platoon sized or smaller units do you?

You don't think one catapult represents a single catapult do you?

I'll meet you half way on this one. From playing SMAC I've felt that artillery should be a bit more effective, but I never clamored for the ability to annilate entire units.

Clamor or not, they are grossly ineffective now.

The sole purpose of artillery bombardment is to soften hard points and cause suppression more so that its ability to maim and kill.

Artillery alone has killed more in combat than bullets. That's a simple FACT. Add in bombing and it becomes a rout. "Softening" and "Supressing" occurs when you are "killing" and "destroying".

If artillery bombardment was that effective why would anyone need combined arms to begin with?

Which is why I didn't like the Civ2 artillery - human players simply build howitzers and flood the enemy. What fun is that? But you've taken it to the other extreme now. A simple change to allow howitzers (any ranged weapon) to knock off that final hit point goes a long way to fixing this...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by LaRusso
i can reccomend you a great game - steel panters

I am running SP:WAW and waiting for version 7 which is supposed to be out imminently.

civ 3 is not a simulation - it is a fun take on empire building.
combat is fun, tactically logical and it is indeed a matter of placeholders. please try abstracting it a bit and you will start enjoying.

I do abstract it a bit, which is why I don't complain too much about a fortified pikeman in mountains defeating armor. However, the combat rules and results we see simply don't work properly, and are not an improvement over Civ2. They could be though...

Venger

[Altuar]

Perrsonally I like it that the final HP cannot be knocked off - except for air missions against ship, but that's another story.

About arty, I will say this: They are so underpowered against the defenders (fortified in cities) of their respective eras, that they remain mostly irrelevant. To counter this in my last game, I upped regular artillery by two points up to 12, and the radar arty to 22 and then it started to make sense. That gives each about %50 chance to knock a hp or two from a defending infantry or mech. infantry, and that meant I lost far fewer tanks / modern armor in wars. I also increased the movement for radar arty to two, AND made it avaiable with rocketry and computers.

there, my two cents.

[WhiteElephants]

Artillery alone has killed more in combat than bullets. That's a simple FACT. Add in bombing and it becomes a rout. "Softening" and "Supressing" occurs when you are "killing" and "destroying".

I fail to see your point. I could say the same thing that infections and disease killed more than artillery and bombing. That's a simple FACT. Yet this fails to answer why you think artillery and bombing are capable of destroying entire units. I need not point any further than the current war in Afghanistan to make my point. Granted it kills people, but that's not what we're arguing about. What we're arguing about is whether or not it's capable of destroying units that are represented in Civ, which I assume are near Corp size. Now I'll grant you that they can inflict vast amounts of damage, but you surely aren't going to march your artillery into the Stalingrad are you? Of course not, you need ground troops to go in and clean up the mess.

I don't have the game, but, again, I'll meet you half way and agree that maybe artillery needs to be stronger, but I'm not going to as far as to say that it should wipe out entire units either. Considering that people survived Hiroshima I don't think its a strech of the imagination to believe there would also be survivors of an artillery strike no matter what the size large.

Besides the gameplay repercussion of artillery deystroying units are exactly what you want to aviod that was in Civ2. I would think you'd be somewhat happy.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Altuar
About arty, I will say this: They are so underpowered against the defenders (fortified in cities) of their respective eras, that they remain mostly irrelevant.

And perhaps rightfully so. Depending upon the era you are referring to I would think that trying to hit a target, or otherwise, in a populated city is no simple task. It wasn't until the last 30 years that computer and satellite technology has allowed for the guided strikes you see today. You have to imagine that these units are dug into bunkers and whatever else they can imagine for cover. Stalingrad was block to block fighting for a reason.

How many air strikes against bridges and other infrastructure in Vietnam were effective? How come London didn't capitulate to Hitler's Blitz? The list goes on.

Come on people, you are making unrealistic demands in the name of realism.

[Altuar]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
How many air strikes against bridges and other infrastructure in Vietnam were effective? How come London didn't capitulate to Hitler's Blitz? The list goes on.

Come on people, you are making unrealistic demands in the name of realism.

Well, OK, you have a point. A well made one.

Yet, let's think in civ terms. Purely gameplay terms that is.

a) there is arty.
b) most (%90) fighting against the AI occurs against or in defense of cities. On further qualification, if it is neccessary, in the late medieval era onwards, where the permissable unit density allows humans to mass forces.
c)Arty is useless is those conditions.

So,

Arty, if it is ever to be relevant to the game, must be be souped up. Of course, thanks to the editor, even if its a personal choice it may remain so: a choice.

[WhiteElephants]

That's depeding upon how you play the game. I assume you hole up all your units inside the city, yes? It would seem, though I don't own the game, that taking advantage of other fortifications would be essential becasue of the, as some claim, extreme cap on the amount of cities caused by rampant corruption. I was hoping that forts, bunkers, airbases, etc., would actually be useful in this game as opposed to their extremely limited functions in SMAC.

Thoughts?

Edit: I was also under the impression that the AI like to mass units on your borders before launching an attack. A fire base in the area would seem appropriate to counter this. Of course, when you taking a city you going to need infantry. SMAC gave infantry a bonus when attacking a base square, but was largely irrelevent once you achieved airpower. Did this bonus carry over to Civ3?

[dexters]

I have to come down on the side of Firaxis here.

Combat is not broken. Soren said in the interview it is all in the eye of the beholder, and he is right. Even when I had briefly complained about combat, I knew it my gut it was not really broken, it was just different.

Essentially, outdated units in Civ3 are allowed to have a fighting chance against superior units because you wouldn't like it if you're on the receiving end of an army of Tanks when all you have to fight with are infantry and Artillery because you didn't get any oil in your map. It is a balancing measure, and I think something we will all come to appreciate once we get used to it.--in other words, advanced units has had their attack/defend points cut down a bit so that the difference between a tank and a rifleman isn't as pronounced. It's not realistic, sure. But ruling a civilization for 6000 years isn't realistic either.

Also, ranged units SHOULD NOT be able to kill units. In Civ2, cataputs and howitzers attacked like any unit, they had no range for bombardment. Having a ranged unit that can bombard an enemy city, or an enemy unit in safety and be able to kill them would be highly overpowered. Again, think of it being used against you. If you have border cities facing off and the enemy built a few artillery in their cities and bombarded your cities and units and destroying them, i think we'd be hearing threads of combat being overpowered. It's a catch 22, Firaxis can't win either way.

[Altuar]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
That's depeding upon how you play the game. I assume you hole up all your units inside the city, yes? It would seem, though I don't own the game, that taking advantage of other fortifications would be essential becasue of the, as some claim, extreme cap on the amount of cities caused by rampant corruption. I was hoping that forts, bunkers, airbases, etc., would actually be useful in this game as opposed to their extremely limited functions in SMAC.
Thoughts?

Actually, its not me but the AI. I like building up forts to protect my borders in case of a sudden attack so as to protect my workers and because it looks "cool" and to keep my border cities' improvement getting pillaged but now that the ZoCs are effectively removed, the AI doesnt take any heed of them and shoots straight towards the cities on the border. I of course garrison the forts with a piece of additional arty but that doesnt seem to deter the AI while my units take potshots at them. Of course, if I am lucky, I get to knock a single hp out of those units. Which makes the forts useless (given the reasons to build them) since they give a measly %25 defense bonus anyway.

For the corruption cap, the AI doesnt seem to care about this either.

As for AI building forts and trying to create a front line, forget it. It only happens when a human attack fails and the AI overproduces you (the frontline, not the forts). In that case, if the human throws units piecemeal, as does the AI, the result is a shifting frontline. But for that to happen the unit density has to be low enough (otherwise a city would be taken in either side), which unfortunately leaves little room for arty units that cost as much as regular combat units and are much less effective and has to be protected to boot. One thing to note: Although forts are supposed to give any unit garrisoned in them ZoCs (which work differently: instead of entirely blocking an enemy unit, it allows the controller to take a potshot, i.e, one chance to knock off one hp from the violator)

Yes, the AI is more capable, but not by much. It still does not mass units for an attack nor does it recognize you doing the same. And since none of the premises actually occur in the game, or they do occur but does not draw the rational reaction from the AI, arty, as it is, remains useless.

Observations drawn from 4 games on Monarch and 1 game on Regent.

So to answer your question: no, I dont hole up my units within the cities. But the AI does. How many wars do you think the AI initiates as being the aggressor? Yup, keep them happy with relatively negligible amounts of gold when you're weaker and smash em when you're the bully.

One thing to note: I removed air units from the game, due to 'the bug.' Perhaps the AI has some built in code from initating wars without air support, hence my experience. But this would run counter to Soren Johnson's claim to otherwise; that is, the AI being adaptive.

[Stromprophet]

I have one big question.

Why can't I have all 16 civs on my Foriegn Advisors screen? Is there anyway around this.

Right now I have to wait to be contacted, or have ships ourside their ports so I can contact them. Am I missing something?

[Stromprophet]

Another question, City Govs, how useful are they? I like to set most of my special citizens to science, can a governer do that for all my cities?

So far, the auto gov has been ok, but doesn't always start buildling what I would like it to.

[Madine]

Shift + right click on a portrait to change it.

Also there's a really really really really really small D in the lower right hand corner of the screen. Also there's ctrl + D.