Announcement

**Velociryx** · November 15, 2001, 13:43

oops! Forgot one!

[/tongue in cheek mode on]
Corruption!? Give me a break! I am an ***ENLIGHTENED*** despot! There IS no corruption in my government. That's why everyone should love me when I steamroll over their pathetic resistance and conquer them! I don't want to have to THINK about the game....take into account stuff like corruption and losing shields and gold just because my 342nd base is halfway around the globe from my palace!!!!

[/ticm off]

-=Vel=-

**Steve Clark** · November 15, 2001, 13:47

Wonderful work. Providing perspective is always valuable among the noise here.

**Wrong_shui** · November 15, 2001, 13:47

Your right!

And here i was thinking the combat system was odd!

My old civ2 strat was to research so i could build advanced units like tanks to kill there inferior units like knights.

But now all units are about as successful as each other so my new strat is just build a horde knights as its quantity and not quality.

**Velociryx** · November 15, 2001, 13:52

Hmmm....okay....let's put that theory to the ultimate test, shall we?

If what you're saying is true, Wrong, then you should be able to fire up a game right now, LET THE AI get to tanks (trading techs to get them there), build some knights (and remember now...don't build anything but knights, 'k?), and win.

Let's see some screenies of that....that'd be cool.

Let's also hear about how you trade blows 1:1 with those knights vs the AI's tanks. Remember, the argument is exactly as you have stated, so you should be able to build twenty or so knights and EASILY take on say...ten tanks. Should be no sweat at all if the combat system is broken.

-=Vel=-
PS: Thanks Steve....

**zapperio** · November 15, 2001, 13:58

Maybe Soren has some input about this...let's see, here it is:

gamadictG> Soren, I don't know if this has been addressed before, but do you think low-tech units have too
good of a chance to defeat higher-tech units...??
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> gamad...: concerning the loss of firepower. Firepower added needless complexity to the
game. For example, there is no significant difference between a unit with an offence of 10 and a firepower
of 2 and a unit with an offense of 20 and firepower of 1... however
Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2.
This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if
you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X

Clear enough?

Zap

**Arrian** · November 15, 2001, 14:14

I agree w/Vel.

Clearly, there are some bugs that need fixing, and perhaps some other things that may need tweaking (corruption). But, in order for the game to be "broken," which I think is a silly term anyway, it has to have flaws that make it unplayable. As different people define "unplayable" differently, we can argue with each other until we're all blue in the face (or, on this forum, have really, really sore fingers) and get nowhere. Personally, I love the addition of culture, I think corruption is entirely realistic early on, and just needs to be reduced later in the game.

On combat: Yes, occasionally I have experience brief flashes of rage resulting from a fairly crazy combat result. Two examples:

1) Veteran Battleship attacks caravel... Battleship wins w/1 hit point left. 2) Longbowman attacks tank (tank is on forest, not fortified, is veteran at full strength) and forces the tank to retreat (down to 1hp) w/o any loss of health. The tank was easily killed by another AI unit b/c it retreated into a grassland square (that part, a 1hp unit on grassland, is fine).

Overall, however, the combat mostly goes the way it should. I sometimes get frustrated when my Tanks get beat up attacking spearmen, but it's not like they die - I just have to pull them back and heal them up - think of it as maintainence. Destroyers do get killed by Frigates with distressing regularity.

The combat system isn't perfect... but this isn't a war game, is it? If you want a "perfect" combat model in a Civ game, you will most likely always be disappointed. Destroyers that take 20+ yrs. to circumnavigate the globe?

People miss the CIV II firepower... and I think I do too, but I'm not sure. The fact is, at Regent level and up, the AI will pretty much keep pace in Tech, so you won't be fighting armies of spearmen w/tanks all that often anyway - and the AI is smarter now (again, not perfect, but certainly better).

If you're fighting spearmen w/tanks every game, you are probably the type of player that doesn't really want a challenge. I don't say that to insult anyone - sometimes I just want to play a fairly easy game where I totally dominate (I nearly always played at Diety in CIV II, but once in a blue moon, I'd go back to Prince and... oh my, it was silly). For someone who is looking to play that way, the combat system in CIV III will consistently drive you crazy. Me, I accept, learn how to best deal w/it and move on, 'cause the game is just do damn fun!

-Arrian

**Velociryx** · November 15, 2001, 14:29

Another interesting point to consider....

There are a subset of people out there who keep screaming about more realism in the game.

Let's think about that.

4000 BC....Hmmm....we've got some old farts here at the office, but I somehow *doubt* they can provide us much insight on what things might have been like in 4000 BC....'fraid there's little opportunity for realism on the opener then...gonna have to suspend disbelief a bit.

Another point. I have no idea what life expectancy was in 4000BC, but my guess is that it wasn't high. Living to 30 would prolly make you an old man. Now, given that each of the opening turns lasts 100 years each, that means it takes you 400 years to "build" (train?) a Cave Warrior! He's freakin' DEAD and buried before you even finish training him!

Okay....so much for realism.

And, as you mention, in the modern era, we've got destroyers that circumnavigate the globe in a decade or so, while bombers can do it instantly (select new base).

Realism? I thought the whole POINT of gaming (speaking both as an avid player and a designer) was escapism. If I want realism, I'll just look up from my computer.

Besides that, does anyone ACTUALLY believe that you can implant a serious sense of realism in a game that spans 6000 years of history!? Especially when the bulk of that history is both unknown and unknowable?!

Sure, it's possible (at least after civs discovered writing), if you set the playspeed at 1 day = 1 day, but at that point....I think it'd be a bit tough to actually FINISH a game.

Anyway....sure there are flaws. I'd be interested to hear from ANYBODY who knew of a game that didn't have it's share of detractors.

C'mon...send me a link. I'd love to see the forum of the game that was universally praised.

But I won't hold my breath.

-=Vel=-

**Robert** · November 15, 2001, 14:33

Velociryx,

posts like yours are so true, (well, the thought behind it is

)
but unfortunately much people read it and keep on claiming how right they are about their infallable tanks and happy citizen that produce 100% in the other edge of the empire.................

it's sad but true

they're not the real civers, that's a fact.
start calling names. And yes, I feel my opinion is superior to someone's opinion that claims that this game is broken.

Great post !
Civers unite against the barbarian ! (read: FPS-ers)

CyberShy

**Garth Vader** · November 15, 2001, 14:36

Good posts Vel. I have noticed a few combat problems, but not many. I was able to fight well with Swordsmen against Spearmen. Cossacks and Knights against Musketmen and Pikemen. Tanks agaisnt Riflemen. Modern armor against Infantry.

But in all cases I needed many more units that I was used to from SMAC and Civ2. If I encountered a strongpoint, I would isolate and bombard just as you would really have to do.

I don't have a problem needing to leave a garrison in a captured city, but to lose 5 tanks when a size 6 city reverts is just nuts. But that's manageable because it's easy to raze and rebuild if you want. I would like to see cultural reversion addressed.

Corruption is easy to mod. I made later buildings like police station and airport help corruption. That way corruption will suck in the early game like it should, but that when technology has progressed enough corruption can be brought under control at a cost.

The game is NOT broken, just a little unpolished.

**Tre976** · November 15, 2001, 14:41

you forgot 1 other thing!

read the damn manual for the answers to my questions or complaints before i post a thread on how so and so sucks because i said so..
ha! i played civ2 i shouldnt have to!

**Wrong_shui** · November 15, 2001, 14:48

If i want to escape reality ill get drunk.

If i want to have fun ill watch my tanks roll over inferior races in civ2 and use my civ3 cd as a coaster for my pint.

Joking aside civ3 is a good (read good not great) game and i suggest you buy it so they can listen to all you ppl here and implement your ideas in civ4.

So anyway, roll on civ4!

**zapperio** · November 15, 2001, 14:55

Originally posted by CyberShy

Civers unite against the barbarian ! (read: FPS-ers)

CyberShy

Hey! My other favorite game is HL, so I resent that. Also I love MP SC now and then. And I'm sweating, defending my current favorite game, Civ3.

Take it back or meet me in 'Zapperios eternal canyon' on the RF free server and we'll duke it out!

Zap

**DinoDoc** · November 15, 2001, 15:10

You forgot one point Vel and I'd like to see it addressed in this 'love' thread.

Editors: I don't know about other people but one of the reasons I bought the game was the expectation that it would come with a useful editor that was capable of creating scenarios. This was further confirmed by the advertising on the box. Would anyone like to ask the scenario community in general what they think of the editor? Where is the advertised feathure that I paid for? Do I have a valid complaint?

**player3** · November 15, 2001, 15:10

Vel,
Finally, someone with some common sense! God forbid Firaxis would release a game that's actually CHALLENGING and requires THOUGHT to win. My feeling is that the people complaining about how 'unfair' the combat system fit the stereotype you pointed out in your initial post. They're used to beating Civ2 deity with a couple of tanks, but now they're getting their butts kicked on Civ3 Warlord because the new rules and AI actually requires them to THINK.

Still, their arguments aren't completely unfounded. There are still a few issues to be resolved as you pointed out. And I still get frustrated on the RARE occasion when my elite panzer loses to a regular spearman (Rommel would roll in his grave)

But it's not nearly as severe as they say. You WILL have instances where a superior unit will lose to an inferior one, but the MAJORITY of battles always go to the superior unit. Period.

Announcement

Broken Beyond Repair....:(

Broken Beyond Repair....:(

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment