If you were wondering why there is no Mplayer, here

[King of Rasslin]

I know many people have said that combat results favor the computer, and they are right. A unit with 4 attack should be = with a unit with 4 defence. No, thats not the way it is in the game.

But it got me to think that, because the combat results are rigged up to the computer, there is no multiplayer. If there was a multiplayer than the results would have to be fixed and apparently Firaxis doesn't want to do it.

So I know that the first thing I will do when multiplayer is available is: play single player! Because then I won't have to worry about rigged defence units, and very,very weak bombard units until the artillery.

[Ming]

Have you run significant trials to prove your "theory"?

Could you please post the results of your tests so we can all take a look for ourselves... Do you have a save file so we can see the proof...

[King of Rasslin]

I don't have to post any proof

Just ask the 5,000,000 Civ players that lose a rifleman to a spearman.

In a metropolis, the spearman is an = unit that is very, very cheap and can beat a rifleman.

I somewhat like the need to pillage and bombard first, but it only means more power to mounted units. You know as well as most other civ players that you need 3x the number of units in a city to effectively take it, even more depending on it's size.

Because the need to destroy improvements is very, very high now, I think it makes the stupid chariots and horsemen too powerful as they don't have to worry if they lose to a spearman- they can always fight another day!

And this is what is stupid. High power units with only 1 movement point like the archer, longbowman, and swordsman are far too weak.

I would rather have a horseman than a swordsman even though (in theory) the swordsman should easily beat and spearman and the horseman would lose.

My point is that units with high power/low movement cannot match power with defensive units and cannot pillage like the mounted units. Exactly how often do you see someone using a balanced team of longbowmen, musketmen, and cannons?

Duh.... Its all about Knights wrecking the land and ruining the economy of a nation.

So, here is my suggestion. Make it harder to destroy improvements with Knights and mounted units and easier to do it with bombarding units. The power of defensive units stops when you starve out a city or bomb it. But the length of time required to do this makes it far too difficult to take more than 1 city, and that resource can be 3+ cities away. To get at it, you need fast, powerful units that can heal themselves by retreating. You can see where this is getting at...

Battlefield Medicine should be available earlier to make units that can't move very fast more useful. I think it would be cool to make longbowmen even though you have the resources to make knights. What is unfair is that a war needs to be fought quickly, and your units need to heal as they will almost always lose to a unit with = defence because of city defence bonuses. You know what unit type i am talking about...

[Murtin]

In a metropolis, the spearman is an = unit that is very, very cheap and can beat a rifleman.

Sounds to me like you're treating even the various defence bonuses as bugs in the combat system.

Regarding combat, there are two things to keep in mind.
1. The combat system depends on random numbers. This means that victory for any unit in any battle is a matter of probabilities. There are no "for sure" outcomes.
2. A defending unit enjoys at least a 10% bonus, depending on terrain and other circumstances. Do you account for that when complaining that the AI wins a disproportionate amount of battles?

As for the real issue, I'm happily convinced that the combat system isn't broken in the way that 50/50-battles are more often won by the AI. And I'm even more convinced that such a problem wouldn't stop Firaxis from including MP.

[Ming]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
You know as well as most other civ players that you need 3x the number of units in a city to effectively take it, even more depending on it's size.

Yeah, Civ players have learned what real life generals already know, it's easier to defend then attack. You always need a superior force to take out an entrenched army.

I think it makes the stupid chariots and horsemen too powerful as they don't have to worry if they lose to a spearman- they can always fight another day!

Yeah, but they can't run away from another mobile unit if they lose But seriously, that's the advantage of mobility. It is what it is.. The mongols and germans really unstood that principle.
And that's why it costs more to build them a spearman.

And this is what is stupid. High power units with only 1 movement point like the archer, longbowman, and swordsman are far too weak.

In the early game, and "army" of archers and swordsman are unbeatable... especially if you are using them on offense. I attack early with waves of archers or swordsman (iron willing). and I have no problem. The swordsman is a very powerful unit, because it not only can kill... it can defend itself on the battle field.

I would rather have a horseman than a swordsman even though in theory) the swordsman should easily beat and spearman and the horseman would lose.

I'd rather have an army with a mix of the two. A large army of horseman and swordsman is unstopable.

Exactly how often do you see someone using a balanced team of longbowmen, musketmen, and cannons?

Why would anybody unless mobile units aren't available.
A good early army has mobility, heavy guns, and foot soldiers.


Every unit has it's role. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. The more powerfull ones cost more.

Duh.... Its all about Knights wrecking the land and ruining the economy of a nation.

If I'm on the offensive, I usually want their cities, so I don't wreck my soon to be owned land

And I've had no problems stopping AI knights from doing it to my land, even when they come in hordes.

Battlefield Medicine should be available earlier to make units that can't move very fast more useful. I think it would be cool to make longbowmen even though you have the resources to make knights. What is unfair is that a war needs to be fought quickly, and your units need to heal as they will almost always lose to a unit with = defence because of city defence bonuses. You know what unit type i am talking about...

First.. battlefield medicine in those times meant saying a prayer
And I don't how it's unfair that injured units don't fight as well.
You need to alternate fresh and injured units... and bring enough units along to do the job in the first place. And if you attack when your units are injured... and you lose... that's your problem, not the games.

I see no reason why any of the issues you raise would effect MP play. All players would be under the same conditions. Like in Civ II, If you want to win, bring enough units along. Actually, it will probably add more warfare to games than Civ II. You can send 10 warriors at your enemy early, and easily take out his spearman. You just will have to worry where his ten warriors are

[Skanky Burns]

King of Rasslin, try this:

Start a game as the Aztecs. Build a horde of Jaguar Warriors. Attack an enemy defending with spearmen. See just how good spearmen really are.

Honestly, bring enough of them and you will crush every enemy unit you see, entrenched defender or not. Even though they have an attack value of 1 versus the defencive value of 2 ( + 10% and any other bonuses ) you will easily be able to see that battles dont always go the computer's way.

[DrFell]

Jaguar warriors are great up to the point when the AIs start defending cities with more than one spearman.

'In a metropolis, the spearman is an = unit that is very, very cheap and can beat a rifleman.'

Well, riflemen aren't attacking units. I know in theory this shouldn't happen and was extremely rare in civ2, but you shouldn't be attacking with these units and you must remember it's a game. Work out the defence bonuses etc. and see what the chances of losing really are. The AI isn't cheating, humans just have a built in 'unfairness factor'. You don't notice it when the AI loses very badly to your units, and most people don't whine about it (perhaps because few people attack with horsemen and archers throughout the game).

'And I've had no problems stopping AI knights from doing it to my land, even when they come in hordes.'

The AI sure has problems stopping me from doing it, and if you bring enough, you can destroy any empire. The only choice for units I feel is horsemen, knights, cavalry, etc. basically the fast units, as you lose so few of them. In my current game I've razed 20-30 cities and destroyed two empires, and am working on the third. I've only attacked with horsemen, riders, and now cavalry, and I've lost a grand total of 5 units (3 great leaders created too). I tried something similar with swordsmen and I lost as many of them destroying one much smaller empire. Conclusion: I'm using horsemen over swordsmen any day (unless I'm Persia).

[Kramsib]

Phalanx Vs Battleship.

Welcome to the old challenge where all your dreams come true.

The spirit of Numantia is very strong in Civ III because a simple spearman can defeat lots of units, whoo, hooo, make our neighbours crazy is really easy.

I think we have to adapt our way of playing to the new game because it is more realistic.

In a city the power of defense is very high and you need more than a little riflemen to take a city of brave resistants. You have also to use pillage (you never did in Civ II because that city was going to be yours anyway and you did not want to rebuild anything), the conquered citizens are very bad boys because they destruct all the improvements and you have to rebuild them (less destruction please firaxis, there were churches and markets wen the allies entered in Germany).

But now you have to organise a good plan of invasion before conquiring and prepare a good number of units, do not think you will conquer Rome in one hour.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by DrFell
Jaguar warriors are great up to the point when the AIs start defending cities with more than one spearman.

You didnt bring enough of them

[Dis]

Interesting use of logic...Not!!

[Terser]

Just MHO:

Unless or until firepower or some other system is included as an option, I have no interest whatsoever in multiplayer CivIII. It's aggravating enough losing a destroyer to a galleon in singleplayer mode. I simply cannot comprehend what it would be like experiencing this at the hands of an immature player.

"H4, my 733t g47730n 0\/\/n5 j00r d35720y32, 5ux02!!!!!!!!!"

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Well, we could always put a realtime l33t-to-English translator in there...

Dan

[notyoueither]

It would be worse in English!

Salve

[Kramsib]

Hello Dan.

Thank you for your visit Dan, is an honor for us, if we were in the same place I will give you some beer to celebrate the last victory of my galleon against a destroyer.

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Anyone who wants to give me some beer is OK in my book!




Dan