Fire power is not what we need, we need modern units to have more hit points

[woody]

Originally posted by n.c.
The erroneous nature of this comment has been explained many, many times (even on this thread). Maybe one day you will understand.

It's totally irrelevant. Hit points is a red herring. If you don't change the offense and defense, you'll just end up with damaged tanks from spears. Then you'll whine about why your tanks are being damaged at all.

Face it. All you're looking for is something to cry about. You can already break the game the way you want to, but you still whine and cry. Firaxis isn't your mommy, so you should get her to make the changes for you.

[TheDarkside]

Originally posted by Venger


If you feel your gameplay requires a handicap and unreasonable unit strengths, please try a challenging game of "Candyland" or "Chutes and Ladders". Id like a game about history and controlling a nation and the world to include things resembling what happens in history and the world...

Venger

Have you played EU2 yet? (Europa Universalis 2)

[TheDarkside]

I'm surprised some people are really defending the current combat system. It's really a fact that combat is simple and abstracted, based solely on dice rolls and 2 simple variables. There's no strategy involved really, except fortify in the hills but then you get ignored unless that hill contains a strategic resource the AI wants... combat is simply mass your highest attack rating units upon one city in one turn (so that the defenders dont magically fully heal next turn via barracks) until it falls or u ran out of units in that particular area. I never thought I'd say this, me being abig-time TBS fan, but I find my click-fest RTS games like starcraft involving alot more thought and strategy. The only reason I'm ranting about this, is this game is _based_ on war and combat. You can't win without engaging wars unless it's a fluke. Especially with AI as aggressive as it is (which is nice) you have to engage in wars.

[Wrong_shui]

Im giving up on this debate, people arnt prepared to accept firaxis made a wrong decision.

[E. Goldstein]

Originally posted by woody
It's totally irrelevant. Hit points is a red herring. If you don't change the offense and defense, you'll just end up with damaged tanks from spears. Then you'll whine about why your tanks are being damaged at all.

Face it. All you're looking for is something to cry about. You can already break the game the way you want to, but you still whine and cry. Firaxis isn't your mommy, so you should get her to make the changes for you.

You're a joke, woody, as is what you try and pass off as an argument. People have repeatedly stated that damaged units of armor are perfectly acceptable in combat(or battleships vs caravels, or cruisers vs. frigates, or...). What isn't is spearmen defeating armored divisions with any such regularity.

And my mommy didn't buy me Civ3, so I feel that if I get a defective product I should try and get the defection fixed. Something about earning one's own money makes a person care more about the quality of the items they purchase, but you wouldn't know about that, would you?

Please, just tell me why I should have to go to the same lengths to defeat a fow with bows and arrows as I would one with armored formations and heavy bombers. Please, no rediculous crap about how the Allies invaded Normandy or the Germans Russia with a massive number of men, because that is nonsensical in this argument. Don't give me any evasions such as the "red herring" line, or idiotic armchair quarterbacking of tactics (Duhhh you need 300 units to invade a medieval foe with modern equipment), or any sh!t about Civ3 being a new game and therefore it's acceptable to throw out the TRUE combined arms of Civ2 in favor of some rediculous flip-of-the-coin system. Just tell me why it is logical that ancient units can put up a semi-credible defenses against modern ones.

[woody]

Originally posted by E. Goldstein
You're a joke, woody, as is what you try and pass off as an argument. People have repeatedly stated that damaged units of armor are perfectly acceptable in combat(or battleships vs caravels, or cruisers vs. frigates, or...). What isn't is spearmen defeating armored divisions with any such regularity.

You must be playing a game other than Civ3. Because, certainly in my version of Civ3, ancient units hardly ever beat modern units.

But just why do you feel it's okay for ancient units to damage tanks, but not destroy them. Your argument is non-sequitur. I think you need to think things through.

Finally, I hope you realize that Civ3 is a game. Games do not have to emulate reality. In fact, when they do, they cease to become games. Try to learn to use your imagination.

[E. Goldstein]

I feel it is ok for tanks to be damaged, but not destroyed, because the armor token is representative of a large force. Surely even you understand that it doesn't mean one tank, and an archer doesn't mean one archer.

Some games are meant to emulate reality. It's a good indication that this is the case when the majority of the things in a game are named after real people or objects. Claiming otherwise only exposes one's ability for doublethink.

Oh, and you never answered the question: Did you buy Civ3 yourself, or with $60 from mommy's pocketbook?

[woody]

Originally posted by E. Goldstein
I feel it is ok for tanks to be damaged, but not destroyed, because the armor token is representative of a large force. Surely even you understand that it doesn't mean one tank, and an archer doesn't mean one archer.

Some games are meant to emulate reality. It's a good indication that this is the case when the majority of the things in a game are named after real people or objects. Claiming otherwise only exposes one's ability for doublethink.

I feel kind of sorry for you. You obviously can't think straight. In the first paragraph, you claim that the tank isn't really a tank. Then, in the second paragraph, you claim that it is a tank because it's named like one. Well, which is it?

If you're willing to accept that the pretty pictures aren't really tanks and pikemen, it's not much more of a leap to realize that they're only representations of entities with fixed attack/defense/movement values. Just try to make the leap. I know it's hard for you, but the game is a lot more fun once you realize that it's an abtraction of reality.

[N. Machiavelli]

This is nutz

Originally posted by woody


I feel kind of sorry for you. You obviously can't think straight. In the first paragraph, you claim that the tank isn't really a tank. Then, in the second paragraph, you claim that it is a tank because it's named like one. Well, which is it?

Errm, actually he said that the single tank is representative of many tanks, not just one ie the 'tank' is representative of a column just as the 'archer' represents a regiment etc. HIm not think straight? Evidently you can't read straight.

If you're willing to accept that the pretty pictures aren't really tanks and pikemen, it's not much more of a leap to realize that they're only representations of entities with fixed attack/defense/movement values. Just try to make the leap. I know it's hard for you, but the game is a lot more fun once you realize that it's an abtraction of reality.

Then why give them graphics relating to reality at all? If they have no correlation to reality, or the units they 'represent' why do it at all? You might as well play it on a Excel Spreadsheet, if all they mean are numbers. In previous games, you knew a tank was superior to a pikeman, just as it is in real life. Tanks beat pikemen in real life, and they coud beat them in the game; the attack/defense/movement combat system of those games reflected it. Now, common sense is moot. The only difference between this 'tank' and 'pikeman' is the odds one has to hit the other. This game now plays more like Dungeons and Dragons: everything you do is settled upon a dice roll; at least in D&D, the dice weren't loaded.

This entire argument (like nearly every other string on this board) has de-evolved into 4 guys throwing insults at one another. Jesus, how old are you people? If you wish to argue about the game, knock yourself out.......but remember that it's just a game and there's no reason to throw in the kind of passion you folks put into insulting each other, take that kind of crap back to the playground where it belongs.

[TheDarkside]

Do you think if the guy in Tien An Men square might've had a chance had he held a spear and shield?

[E. Goldstein]

Originally posted by woody


I feel kind of sorry for you. You obviously can't think straight. In the first paragraph, you claim that the tank isn't really a tank. Then, in the second paragraph, you claim that it is a tank because it's named like one. Well, which is it?

If you're willing to accept that the pretty pictures aren't really tanks and pikemen, it's not much more of a leap to realize that they're only representations of entities with fixed attack/defense/movement values. Just try to make the leap. I know it's hard for you, but the game is a lot more fun once you realize that it's an abtraction of reality.

Since you are too lazy to read and comprehend a post, I will post a short explanation for you. My exact words were, "I feel it is ok for tanks to be damaged, but not destroyed, because the armor token is representative of a large force. Surely even you understand that it doesn't mean one tank, and an archer doesn't mean one archer. "
To anyone who speaks English (and has even a bare modicum of intelligence), this means that the tank icon represents a group of tanks. For example, it might represent an armored brigade or division. Likewise, an archer represents a group of archers, for example a formation of 200. Your circular logic is becoming quite tiresome. Are you capable of responding to what a person actually says in a post, or are you just able to concoct nonsense?

If the icons are just "entities with fixed ADM values," then why name them, and make them appear like, real objects? Familiarity? If this is the reason, then why give them nonsensical values? It's like calling a football a basketball then pitching it to a guy who swings a bat.


Oh, and you STILL haven't answered the question: Did mommy buy your Civ3?

[WhiteElephants]

Re: This is nutz

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
Then why give them graphics relating to reality at all? If they have no correlation to reality, or the units they 'represent' why do it at all? You might as well play it on a Excel Spreadsheet, if all they mean are numbers. In previous games, you knew a tank was superior to a pikeman, just as it is in real life. Tanks beat pikemen in real life, and they coud beat them in the game; the attack/defense/movement combat system of those games reflected it. Now, common sense is moot. The only difference between this 'tank' and 'pikeman' is the odds one has to hit the other. This game now plays more like Dungeons and Dragons: everything you do is settled upon a dice roll; at least in D&D, the dice weren't loaded.

I hate to break it to you, but the grahics for the units are simply eye candy. If you look back at the old Civ games you can see that the graphics of today's Civ and yesterday's Civ aren't comparable. They certainly weren't "cutting edge" for their day, but the basic premise and addictivity of the game remained. Today's games have just pushed the envelope further to the point where we expect this kind of eye candy. Consider the old Avalon Hill War Games that were simply squares of cardboard, hardly aesthetic. I've also played SMAC for years and have yet to run into anyone complaining about the validity of a Silksteel Sentinel defending against a Shard Rover. Both games use similar mechanics, except one has no real life counter part to measure against, and thus no arguement. The fact remains that the game is an abstraction of reality and that the premise of the entire combat system is based on odds and numbers, not whether a tank is really a tank. Whether the units look like tanks or unicorns the mechanics and odds behind there names still remain.

I think your experiment was interesting and impressive, but I'm not sure if it proves your point or if it just proves how pathetic the AI still is. We're also waiting for that screen shot. Do you think a human would have reacted in the same way? What units did you find yourself up against? Did you find yourself attacking more than defending or vica versa? If what you say is true I might be inclined to change my position, but I'm not sure what we can conclude from a battle vs. the AI.

[GePap]

On the experiment

First, we can't, nor should compare the SMAC combat system to this one:SMAC's was far better and made more sense. Silksteel was 2, yes, but remember the advantage of inf in cites over fast units (very realistic) plus the addition of morale. It was ususlally best to storm cities with inf-not mech units as one does in real life (or would in real life in a planet 4.5 light years away in a hundred years... )
Second, the A.I. is no slouch at fighting war- many in these forums can attest to having real difficulty beating concentrated A.I. assults, as can I. In fact, war fighting and handling strategy, especially finding the weaks point in your attack, is a strength of the A.I. so we should at this point not dicount the experiemnt by saying, "oh well, but it was the A.I....". The other major point is that wehter he was continually in the assault or resting for a few truns does NOT MATTER. The victory was won by overwhelming numbers, even with completely backwards units. No amount of A.I., or perhaps even unprepared human strategy ( and what player would assume his human counterpart stopped advancing at Map making and is sitting there just making units? Would we not think them insane or stupid, especially when they must face my 'mighty' tanks?) would have been able to counter this endless horde of stone age men simply because, as N. Machiavelli said, as of now, it is just %'s multiplied by the hundreds.The only counter wouuld be to have as many troops yourself, but who, in that situation, would?

[E. Goldstein]

Re: Re: This is nutz

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


I hate to break it to you, but the grahics for the units are simply eye candy. If you look back at the old Civ games you can see that the graphics of today's Civ and yesterday's Civ aren't comparable. They certainly weren't "cutting edge" for their day, but the basic premise and addictivity of the game remained. Today's games have just pushed the envelope further to the point where we expect this kind of eye candy. Consider the old Avalon Hill War Games that were simply squares of cardboard, hardly aesthetic. I've also played SMAC for years and have yet to run into anyone complaining about the validity of a Silksteel Sentinel defending against a Shard Rover. Both games use similar mechanics, except one has no real life counter part to measure against, and thus no arguement. The fact remains that the game is an abstraction of reality and that the premise of the entire combat system is based on odds and numbers, not whether a tank is really a tank. Whether the units look like tanks or unicorns the mechanics and odds behind there names still remain.

I think your experiment was interesting and impressive, but I'm not sure if it proves your point or if it just proves how pathetic the AI still is. We're also waiting for that screen shot. Do you think a human would have reacted in the same way? What units did you find yourself up against? Did you find yourself attacking more than defending or vica versa? If what you say is true I might be inclined to change my position, but I'm not sure what we can conclude from a battle vs. the AI.

I'm sorry, White Elephant, but this argument doesn't even qualify as specious. So, because the graphics of Civ1/2/3 aren't cutting edge, we're to believe that they don't represent what they appear to - or what they are named? Really, you have to be either stupid or on the take to try and argue something that looks like a tank, is called a tank, and sounds like a tank isn't really meant to be a tank.

The SMAC argument, however, does qualify as specious (but just barely). This shouldn't require any explanation for anyone smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time, I will do so for the sake of my own amusement. The reason that no one complains about impact rovers and silksteel sentinels is because they are fictional. Tanks and pikemen, however, are very real. Those of us with the ability for critical thinking expect something which looks like a tank and is called a tank to naturally smash something which looks like a pikeman and is called a pikeman.

However, a cretin would have us believe that those things that look like tanks and pikemen really AREN'T tanks and pikemen, but whatever suits them in the present. Naturally as their old lies come full circle and catch up with them, the pikemen and tanks will come to be something totally different.

Nice strawman at the end.

[WhiteElephants]

Re: On the experiment

Originally posted by GePap
First, we can't, nor should compare the SMAC combat system to this one:SMAC's was far better and made more sense. Silksteel was 2, yes, but remember the advantage of inf in cites over fast units (very realistic) plus the addition of morale. It was ususlally best to storm cities with inf-not mech units as one does in real life (or would in real life in a planet 4.5 light years away in a hundred years... )

Sure we can. Hit points, combat modifiers, and morale aside, it was basically the same system only different modifiers. It still operated on a compare attack vs. defense mechanic, no? My point was that there were no heated battles about realism because the game was considered unrealistic as most games are. We accepted the fact the Silksteel was a 4 defense and played the game as though it was a unit with 4 defense and not what we thought it should be. There was no wild speculation on what a Silksteel defender should really defend at. We didn't clamor for a editor in order to rectify the outrageous situation. What we did was accept the unit for what it was and modify our strategy accordingly. What we seem to have here is a portion of the playing population who feels that the game should be modified to fit their strategy not their strategy to the game, which is good that they've included a editor in the game.