Why the big deal over Firepower in Civilization 2?

[Mawrin]

The combat system in any Civ game is not realistic.

The combat system in any Civ game is not realistic.

Worth saying twice. Civ is as realistic as a game of Risk and a lot more fun. If you want more realism play Europa Universalis II though that stops well before the modern age.

[Wrong_shui]

Read one of vengers many posts about how FP/HP go together.

[Dis]

I'm sorry to say it guys

but you should not be playing this game. go back to civ2. you can mod all you want.

How long before you realize the game wasn't designed with you in mind. Yes it would be nice to have those features to make scenarios. I guess you could say Firaxis doesn't care about people who mod the game. All they cared about was a game that plays that will sell over a million copies.

The game will never be how you want it, how long until you realize this? they wil never, ever put FP and HP back in. You're only option is to go back to civ2.

[GePap]

Ahem, vs. 1.16?

To Marwin:
Then shouldn't warriors be 30/30/10 and tanks only 1/1/1, I mean, since this combat system is not realistic (nor meant to be) right?

To Dissident:
If I remember correctly, when I first bought Civ2, there were only 2 scenerios in it, and the ability to create them was based on the cheat menu. The editor came into the game only after FW's was released, at least one whole year after civ2 (as an add-on i had to buy), which made it all the way up to v2.69, if i remember correctly, while this patch will be v1.16. So, if infogrames is somewhat intelligent besides being greedy, they will try to keep this game alive as long as civ2 was alive (thus creating an openning for civ4) and will eventually create a worthwhile scenerio editor, since civ3 has great potential. So, continually saying what we want will tell the guys at fixaris what they could, or should, include in those future add -ons. Obviously, those that have been driven to orgasmic extasy by the game as is will not be the likely market for these add-ons, but folk like me will.

[Dis]

I agree about the editor. they will eventually get around to it.

but I don't ever expect to see FP/HP in this game. It seems to me that would change the fundamentals of the game- programming that is.

[Frank Johnson]

I don't understand why no one mentions this, but I think the single largest game balance change between civ2 and civ3 is the fact that in Civ2, city walls were vital in every age, and in civ3 walls are now a moot point.

In civ2....city walls gave +200% defense. The game was balanced in such a way that citieis with walls, hills, mountains, and fortresses were about the ONLY places you could make a defensive stand against a offensive type unit in same tech era.

Without walls or a bonus, the offensive unit would almost always win. With walls the offensive unit would almost always lose. Battles outside of cities themselves were usually limited to killing annoying AI forces would stupidly attacked and killing partisans.

So Civ2 had 2 strategies and 2 ways to play. If you play defensive you, you build walls everywhere. If you're playing offensively you prepare your units to attack enmass to overwhelm cities with walls...while smashing cities without them easily.

This is the big change not anything else. In Civ3....a city is never completely save, nor is it never somewhat protected.

[Heliodorus]

Calling to task for expecting the same cookie-cutter techniques that worked in Civ2 to work in Civ3 is not a red herring. It's an opinion formed by those of us who were smacked upside the head with that realization, and were excited at the possibilities created by such a system.

For those who are egregiously offended by the HP/FP change, I am sorry that you are disappointed (truly, I am). For me, I am very excited about it. I consider myself a true grognard and a hard-core wargamer. I didn't buy Civ3 to exercise that part of my personality. I bought it to exercise the portion that loves to fantasize about how cultures and worlds might have been if...

As such, the combat system is acceptable to me.

The aspect of Civ3 that seems to be most troubling to people is that the mindless pursuit of technology is no longer the ultimate path to victory. There are now other important decisions to make. There are compromises that must be made.

It has been said elsewhere with extreme poignancy that Civ3 punishes excellent play while rewarding mediocre play. I agree with that only in the degree that Civ3 is a game designed to keep a certain degree of competetive balance among all civilizations throughout the progress of the game. If you play excellent, you will still win a lot. If you play mediocre, you will still lose. But Civ3 has created a system MUCH more forgiving of mistakes in play or hardships in a particular game circumstance than any in the past. To me, it's exciting that the margin of victory is razor thin and the margin of error much more forgiving.

I'm sorry more people don't see it that way.

[JC Woodman]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli


*cough* Desert Storm *cough*

*cough* Whats u'r point? *cough*

[Dravin]

*cough* What's with the respiratory problems? *cough*

[XPav]

Originally posted by Heliodorus
For those who are egregiously offended by the HP/FP change, I am sorry that you are disappointed (truly, I am). For me, I am very excited about it. I consider myself a true grognard and a hard-core wargamer. I didn't buy Civ3 to exercise that part of my personality. I bought it to exercise the portion that loves to fantasize about how cultures and worlds might have been if...

As such, the combat system is acceptable to me.

Damn straight! If you want a good wargame, go play The Operational Art of War or Combat Mission or something.

After playing those games, one realizes that Civ isn't a wargame by any stretch of the imagination, and any attempt to draw parallels between real life and Civ are COMPLETELY AND UTTER SUBJECTIVE and in the end, FUTILE.

[Venger]

Sigh...as has been mentioned, firepower and hit points in Civ2 are two sides of the same coin, you cannot discuss one without the other...the key is the transitions in HP and FP, FP determines the shape of a battle, HP determines the result.

Dissident is still soiling his cotton lined panties because alot of gamers with connected lobes find the core combat engine inferior to Civ2...

Heliodrus - you wonder about how cultures might have been...what? Different if you had made a temple in your city? Is that what you are really fanatasizing about? What if...Egypt had built tanks that could be destroyed by cavalry? What if...swordsmen could attack and kill tanks? Come on...

XPav, Civ has always been a war game - try playing a game without fighting someone. Just because it isn't ONLY a wargame doesn't mean a damn thing, conflict is CENTRAL to the concept of the game.

I suggest the pacifist type try Sim City. Or CandyLand.

Venger

[XPav]

Originally posted by Venger
XPav, Civ has always been a war game - try playing a game without fighting someone. Just because it isn't ONLY a wargame doesn't mean a damn thing, conflict is CENTRAL to the concept of the game.
Venger

When I sa wargame, I don't mean a game that has war in it. I mean a realistic & historical game that simulates war.

Civ isn't realistic or historical. It takes names & places & technologies & unit types from the span of human history, rolls them all together and simplifies & abstracts them to make a fun to play empire-building game.

It is not a wargame like The Operational Art of War or Combat Mission. Before you can argue "Realism" when it comes to units, you have to define what a unit is first.

What does one tank in civ represent? A brigade? Battalion? What type of tank is it? Is this tank unit tanks only? Why can't I take half a tank unit and half an infantry unit and make a task force?

Why does everyone (save the Germans) seem to have the same tank?

How is it even possible that a Warrior unit that's been in existence since 4000BC requires the same upkeep than a brand new Modern Armor unit?

There is absolutely no way to find real world analogs with any sort of consistency the military units and structure and tactics used in Civ.

There are hundreds of "to make it more realistic" arguments in Civ.

Just accept the fact that its not a realistic or historical game.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dissident
I'm sorry to say it guys

but you should not be playing this game. go back to civ2. you can mod all you want.

How long before you realize the game wasn't designed with you in mind. Yes it would be nice to have those features to make scenarios. I guess you could say Firaxis doesn't care about people who mod the game. All they cared about was a game that plays that will sell over a million copies.

The game will never be how you want it, how long until you realize this? they wil never, ever put FP and HP back in. You're only option is to go back to civ2.

Civ3 comes with a rules editor.
Firaxis always said loud and clear that they were listening to the modding communauty.
Firaxis always said that we'll be able to modd Civ3 to the death.
Now you come to tell us "if you want to modd go back to Civ2" ?
HP are already in the game. FP is already here under the form of Rate of Fire. It would NOT need a lot of change to bring FP/HP.
I don't care if Firaxis change the A/D/FP/HP values after giving us the FP/HP system. I don't care if they are set to 1 each and then there is nothing changed in the fighting system.

I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO MOD MY GAME LIKE I WANT IT TO BE !

Give me a break with your opinion on how good the combat system is. I don't ask it to be changed for you. I ask to have the tools so I can change it for ME.

[WhiteElephants]

For some unexplicable reason I can't seem to get these Kansas lyrics out of my head...

Carry on my wayward son
there'll be peace when you are done
lay your weary head to rest
don't you cry no more.



Don't take this too hard guys, just poking fun. Good luck on your mission and may the force be with you.

Carry on boys, carry on!!!

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by JC Woodman
*cough* Whats u'r point? *cough*

Whenever the point is made that technology is the deciding factor in 99% of all battles in history, someone, usually Libertarian, waves the "What about Vietnam?" banner as though it makes the entire point moot. I mentioned Desert Storm because technology was the deciding factor in that war and everyone can remember that (I hope).