If you were wondering why there is no Mplayer, here

[Zoid]

Too bad you guys didn´t write the combat rules for WWII, coz then the SS Panzers would´ve been grinded to bits under the steel clad hooves of the fierce Polish Cavalry

[cutlerd]

During Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in the early 1930's, the Italian tanks were small two-man affairs and the hatch was built into the top of the tank in the turret where the gun was mounted.

Ethiopians with spears would wait in hiding until one of these Italian tanks came along, then sneak up to it all from one side and push and tip it over.

As the hatch was on top of the tank, by tipping it over the hatch was effectively blocked by the ground and could not open. The Italian soldiers inside would literally bake to death in the hot Ethiopian sun.

Spearmen CAN take out tanks.

The Russians found molotov cocktails and other home-brewed weapons effective against the lighter German tanks, especially in city warfare.

A molotov cocktail is essentially available to any culture that has discovered beer and fire. As the Sumerians developed beer, it is safe to say that even Warrior units have access to such weaponry.

Warriors CAN take out tanks.

The Japanese used to use human tank busters in WW2 by strapping explosives onto a person and having them charge a tank, blowing the person and the tank up in the process. Explosives are a function of gunpowder.

Musketmen CAN take out tanks.

Devin

[kimmygibler]

I've been guilty of "bashing" many things about civ3 and FIRAXIS in the past, but this argument is really insane. Combat is not rigged. This conclusion was reached on the basis of three main premises.
First of all, nobody has tested this in depth so all we have to rely on is anecdotal evidence of tanks losing to spearmen. You may not like the fact that this happens, and you may argue that a real tank would never lose to a real spearman, and this may be true, but it don't mean that combat is rigged.
Secondly, FIRAXIS has said that there is no combat advantage given to the cpu. You may think that they are lying to us, but why? Is there any logical reason why they would secretely fix combat rolls to favour the cpu but not tell anyone? I'll be waiting on this one...
Third. From my games, I have had no reason to suspect that combat favoured the cpu.

The first premise is an appeal to ignorance, but it must be said. With the lack of evidence I'll go with what FIRAXIS says since they have no reason to lie. The only thing that might have changed my mind would be if I had an unusual amount strange results. Then I might try to test it myself. However, just posting your claim based on minimal evidence and vague suppositions is idiotic.

[cutlerd]

I already posted this in another place, but I will do it here as well.

A study by a university basically gave people supposedly random results that they had a vested interest in. The results actually were not random but were fixed and were I believe set at dead odds on.

They then asked the subjects whether their results were better than average or worse than average (there were more events than a person could reasonably keep track of mathematically in their head). A startling 80% of the subjects said that they had had worse than average results!

The conclusion, proven by other studies and to me by over 25 years of gaming, is that people tend to only recall the bad or disfavourable events or at least recall them far more readily than the average or good events.

Because of this, it is ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS for ANYONE on these forums to ***** and whine about rigged combat results UNLESS AND ONLY UNLESS you have done a rigid survey of results over the course of a hundred or more combats, and then repeated those results over at least 3 or 4 more such surveys.

THEN AND ONLY THEN can you stand up and start talking about variations from standard deviances or variations from mean result and have any sort of backing for what you are talking about.

Until then, all you are doing is *****ing and moaning. After all, the studies show that even if Civ3 combat were PERFECTLY not-rigged, a full 80% of you people would still feel it was rigged against you.

Now, one could argue that we as hardcore gamers are less susceptible to such influences...and I might agree...but the fact remains that the human brain seems predilected to remember the bad.

Devin

(still waiting for someone to actually provide observed statistical data regarding CIV3 combat results)

[Dinner]

Originally posted by cutlerd
The Russians found molotov cocktails and other home-brewed weapons effective against the lighter German tanks, especially in city warfare.

A molotov cocktail is essentially available to any culture that has discovered beer and fire. As the Sumerians developed beer, it is safe to say that even Warrior units have access to such weaponry.Devin

Molotov cocktails are most commonly made with gasoline or petroleum ether not beer.. I doubt anyone could even get beer to ignite. You need something like 150 proof alcohol or higher other wise there is simple to much water in the mix to get the volatiles to combust.
As for spearman defeating tanks; while it is true some small early tanks were defeated by relatively primative people (who never the less had guns) I doubt such a thing could happen to a modern M1 or Leopard tank. This is just another reason why Civ3 should have two tank units. One "early" and the other "modern.

[Murtin]

Originally posted by cutlerd
After all, the studies show that even if Civ3 combat were PERFECTLY not-rigged, a full 80% of you people would still feel it was rigged against you.

True. And there's another tendency regarding human perception of random events that I believe is making all this even worse. Presented with the task of generating a "random" sequence of results from tossing a coin, people will believe that the sequence HTHT is far more likely to occur than the sequence HHHH. Thus, they tend to severely underestimate the probability that a battle between to evenly matched veteran units ends with one unit winning without taking any damage at all. In fact, this probability is 1/8.

So not only will you selectively remember the occasions when the AI beat you, but you will also remember that the computer insulted you by coming up with an outrageously improbable sequence of hit point losses for your unit. No wonder people tend to perceive the unfairness of combat so obvious that it's just ridiculous for anyone to ask for hard evidence.

[cutlerd]

As for spearman defeating tanks; while it is true some small early tanks were defeated by relatively primative people (who never the less had guns) I doubt such a thing could happen to a modern M1 or Leopard tank. This is just another reason why Civ3 should have two tank units. One "early" and the other "modern.

Which is EXACTLY why CIV3 DOES have two tank units...one early and the other modern.

From the tone of your message it seems to me you are unaware of this fact.

Devin