Patch now available

[Panag]

Originally posted by MarkG
lib: i made a comment about the content of some of the threads(and not the people) of the forums as being full of whining. if somehow you felt that yourself was included, i cant see how i caused it.

woody: the next time i see such language from you will mean a free ticket to mingapulco

lib, paulmagusnet: a single insulting post is a different thing from half a page of flames

panag: on whether or not we're making a profit from this, please take a good look on our ads

paulmagusnet: criticism is one thing, whining is another. if when i make a general comment about whining someone feels personally insulted, that is something i can not do anything about.

well , you said it good , just for the record , i do not care , if you make a profit , the main point is this , you run a good site , probably the best on Civ there is , point

now as for the topic , well , would someone please tell me , why 1.16 is still there for download ?

as for the rest , apolyton had 1.17 , some "firms" still had 1.16 , this only proves my point , so maybe , some people in some "firms" should learn one or two things from you !


have a nice day

[number6]

Fair enough. The editor isn't much use for scenario making, but it's perfectly fine for modifying unit values for offense/defense. Did you even look? Really, you shouldn't complain until you at least give something a try.

Woody,

If you had actually read my post I was not "complaining", I was giving my reasons of why I don't want to use the editor. You seem to read into things too much. To answer your question, no I have not used the editor.

To unit combat values??? Just where do you get your information?

Again I say to you, Actually read my post. I said nothing about "unit" values did I.

Patches only come out every couple of months. It's not like you have to enter the changes every time you start up the game.

That's it, trivialize everyone elses concerns because it does not bother you. It may not bother you, but I refuse to put up with such nonsense.

Ah, okay. So, you'd like to see the game broken for everyone else, just so you don't have to spend 5 minutes to make some modifications. Gotcha... you're simply whining.

I am not the only one who sees this as a problem. Again it is my opinion and if you disagrree that is fine. I could also say that you are a whiner about people who hold different positions on a matter than you. By your own definition you are a whiner.

It is. The tank has a 99.5% chance of beating the spearman. (Fortified, open ground.) Is that not enough for you? I'm rather surprised that the 0.5% chance ruins your strategy. Although, perhaps I shouldn't be.

I was using the classic "Spearmen Vs. Tank" comparision everyone uses on this borad. I have never actually encountered that specific unit match, but I have seen several tanks get blown away by calvary and that does not seem quite right to me. I have been able to win the game through overwhelming forces, but I think that is not very fun. I want some strategy. I want to counter my enemy with forces that will be technically superior so that I can minimize casualties.

I have seen how you have lashed out at others who say anything negative about Civ 3. You should probably spend more time actually reading the posts on this board instead of lashing out at percieved whining. If you can't take the time to understand what you are reading I don't see why I should bother to respond to your nonsense ever again. Have a nice day.

[Panag]

well , hmmmmm
okay , spearman blows up tank , sure , it is a guy with a molotov ,
think of it as the modern day resistancefighter , look a Greece , in WW2 some guys kept thanks and bombers occupied for days , read weeks , and even won , some , nono , a lot of fights !

example , one guy , on a hill , in a bunker , with an antitank weapon , lol , destroys the first tank that comes to him !

ex 2 , cavalry , well , on a horse , hmm , the Greeks did it(!) , against tanks , try , just try , to imagine what it is like , lol , tanks alone dont represent anything , in modern day war , ya need some infantry with them , so build an army , héhéhé , and then , well , ya smoke those spearman , alias molotov out of there hills

huh , by the way , keep an open mind guys , huh , girls to


have a nice(r) day

[number6]

okay , spearman blows up tank , sure , it is a guy with a molotov ,

panag,

I have heard this argument before. I guarentee you that if you could get a tank in the deep jungles of South America you could kill a whole tribe of spearmen with no problems or they would at least retreat. I never see the computer retreat against ridiculous odds. The problem is Civ 3 really does not factor in the special cases as you have described. You are talking more about modeling of real world events which is beyond the scope of most consumer games. I just think that all things being equal, and I have heard a lot of people talking about "balance" on this board, that a tank should annihilate a cavalry unit 9 times out of ten. I have never seen that statistic in the games I have played. I think my real gripe is that the AI never seems to upgrade its old units. I don't mind losing to equally matched units. If any of you read the review PCGamer gave this game back in October they complained about the tank Vs. Calvary issue. They still gave the game a good review thinking that this issue would be resolved. I am playing a new game with the latest patch and I have yet to get to the modern age, but I have not seen this issue listed in any of the patch notes. I think I am open minded about what other people say on this board and elsewhere. I have not attacked anyone for liking this game as is. If someone makes a valid argument as to why I am totally wrong about this I welcome their comments. I think you made some good examples of the possibilities of an encounter between units with differing abilities. I just don't think that the combat system really factors that into the equation. If it did it should be more than random. Maybe if you had a way to train some special forces units or you could spend time and resources training your spearmen the weaknesses of tanks. That kind of stuff would make sense and I would agree with something like that. There should be effort spent for older units to have a fighting chance against more powerful modern units. As the game stands a tank is a tank and a calvary unit is a calvary unit. There is no special training so that molotov idea does not stand in my opinion.

[Andrew Cory]

Tank vs. Spear/cav, whatever

So, I just finished –again- Mr. Turtledove’s books about WWI. One thing that he makes rather abundantly clear is that Infantry ruled all, stopping cavalry cold, until the tank. The early tanks were massive, slow, and didn’t really have the stopping power that one would expect. In order to be effective, they had to be deployed en-masses. It wasn’t until about WWII that tanks got good.

I would really like to see a couple more tank units in the game, and the units would have these relative stats:
The current tank would have an offense that just beat out the infantry, call it a 60-40 split (the infantry should be able to stop a cavalry about 90% of the time) a second tank that was a bit more advanced, able to win about 75% of the time, (this would be a WWII tank, the panzer would have stats a bit better than this one) a third tank that could walk over infantry, but would come right around Mec. Infantry. Call it 60-40 again, Mec. Infantry VS this tank. The last tank would be a modern armor, and would beat Mec. Infantry about 70-75% of the time. The nice thing is that if someone could make the units, this is all doable with the editor right now…

[Dida]

It is pointless to have so many different tank unit in the game, as you will gain one tech right after another in the late game, such that each unit becomes obselete before you can built them in great numbers.
Tank and Moderm Armor as they are in Civ3 is good for me.

[woody]

Originally posted by number6
I was using the classic "Spearmen Vs. Tank" comparision everyone uses on this borad. I have never actually encountered that specific unit match,

snip

I have seen how you have lashed out at others who say anything negative about Civ 3. You should probably spend more time actually reading the posts on this board instead of lashing out at percieved whining. If you can't take the time to understand what you are reading I don't see why I should bother to respond to your nonsense ever again. Have a nice day.

Actually, I take no issue at all with people who criticize Civ3, as long as they do so intelligently. There are plenty of valid complaints.

Unfortunately, you (and some others) choose to criticize things that you clearly have never even encountered by your own admission. Why are you whining about spearmen beating tanks, when you have never actually seen it happen?

You should stop and think for a few minutes. The editor is there for you to make mods you see fit. But to expect the game designers to change the default rules just because you think things don't work right... when you haven't even played it... ???

I stand in awe of how you seem to think your position is even defendable. But, I suppose you have made up your mind, based on your prejudice and preconceived notions. Incredible!

[Phalanx2000]

OH MY GOD!

I leave this thread for a week and come back and you guys are STILL b1tch1ng at each other!!!!

Next to nothing is posted here relating to the patch...












I give up.

[number6]

Sorry Phalanx. I am not going to try to communicate with woody anymore. He refuses to actually read the posts he responds to or he likes to twist what people actually say. Anyway I was talking about the patch in my original post to this thread. Woody just had to start attacking me because he does not agree with me. I just wanted to know if the combat system was ever going to be tweeked that's all. I understand that you can change values in the editor, but I don't want to use the editor. If the combat system is so "perfect" why does everyone use the editor to change unit values? Seems to me that this is something needed in a patch. I did not buy Civ 3 to play around with the editor. If I bought a software package called "Civ 3 rules editor" I could understand why he thinks I am being unreasonable. I bought a game called "Civ III".

[Panag]

Originally posted by number6


panag,

I have heard this argument before. I guarentee you that if you could get a tank in the deep jungles of South America you could kill a whole tribe of spearmen with no problems or they would at least retreat. I never see the computer retreat against ridiculous odds. The problem is Civ 3 really does not factor in the special cases as you have described. You are talking more about modeling of real world events which is beyond the scope of most consumer games. I just think that all things being equal, and I have heard a lot of people talking about "balance" on this board, that a tank should annihilate a cavalry unit 9 times out of ten. I have never seen that statistic in the games I have played. I think my real gripe is that the AI never seems to upgrade its old units. I don't mind losing to equally matched units. If any of you read the review PCGamer gave this game back in October they complained about the tank Vs. Calvary issue. They still gave the game a good review thinking that this issue would be resolved. I am playing a new game with the latest patch and I have yet to get to the modern age, but I have not seen this issue listed in any of the patch notes. I think I am open minded about what other people say on this board and elsewhere. I have not attacked anyone for liking this game as is. If someone makes a valid argument as to why I am totally wrong about this I welcome their comments. I think you made some good examples of the possibilities of an encounter between units with differing abilities. I just don't think that the combat system really factors that into the equation. If it did it should be more than random. Maybe if you had a way to train some special forces units or you could spend time and resources training your spearmen the weaknesses of tanks. That kind of stuff would make sense and I would agree with something like that. There should be effort spent for older units to have a fighting chance against more powerful modern units. As the game stands a tank is a tank and a calvary unit is a calvary unit. There is no special training so that molotov idea does not stand in my opinion.

okay , i understand , however , the tank , well , believe me , in the jungle , you are best on foot , tanks , well , tehy dont do good there , BUT

the above is in real live , in civ , it should not be , and i dont think that the "dice" do any good ,

people , lets unite ourselves and lets point all these things out to them , ?

allas , for what it is worth , have a nice day

[Panag]

no6 , i read your message again with a friend , i agree , and the new patch , hmm , i dont think it is that good , could this maybe be the reason that that explains why they still have 1.16 on the downloadlist ?

[number6]

Panag,

Thanks for seeing my point of view! As to why they still have the 1.16 patch available I guess that's because most game producers for PC games keep all patch versions available for download.

I think the current combat system stinks. Does anyone out there on this board really think the Civ III combat system is better than Civ 2? I think the major drawback is that they have taken away individual hit point values. How can a veteran Calvary unit have the same number of hit points as a veteran Tank? A tank can handle a lot more punishment than a human. Why did Firaxis think this was a good idea? It seems like a step backwards to level hit points across all unit types doesn't it?

[woody]

Originally posted by number6
I think the current combat system stinks. Does anyone out there on this board really think the Civ III combat system is better than Civ 2? I think the major drawback is that they have taken away individual hit point values. How can a veteran Calvary unit have the same number of hit points as a veteran Tank? A tank can handle a lot more punishment than a human. Why did Firaxis think this was a good idea? It seems like a step backwards to level hit points across all unit types doesn't it?

I'll try to explain, but based on your prior posts, I fear that you're not too swift and probably won't understand.

The hit points aren't used to determine a unit's strength by era, like they were in Civ2. The hit points are used for individual units to differentiate experience. IMO, a reasonable system.

Era strength is simply determined by attack/defense values (with a bit more complexity with bombard units). They got rid of hit points and firepower because it just adds needless complexity. Almost the same results can be obtained just by setting the attack & defense values.

The attack and defense values for units were chose to make the game more balanced than in Civ2. In Civ2, once you got tanks and howitzers, you could wipe out an enemy in a single turn or two. Ridiculous!

The spearman still only has about a 0.5% chance against a tank, but cavalry has a better chance. They did it this way because resources play a large part of the game. If you didn't have rubber or oil, you'd be whining about the "cheating computer" running all over you with their "cheating invincible" tanks. At least under the current rules, you stand a chance.

You can, of course, use the editor to increase the strength of modern units, if you feel a competitive game isn't fun. Of course, you have chosen not to do so, because you're either too lazy or too incompetent to do so. Asking the game designers to change the game for everyone else, just so you can play it your way (and likely find something new to whine about), is arrogant and foolish.

I don't expect you to understand anything I've said. This is primarily written for others. You may leave your head in the sand. Your choice.

[Panag]

Originally posted by number6
Panag,

Thanks for seeing my point of view! As to why they still have the 1.16 patch available I guess that's because most game producers for PC games keep all patch versions available for download.

nope , i believe that it could be because they are not sure , wheter or not that its stable

I think the current combat system stinks. Does anyone out there on this board really think the Civ III combat system is better than Civ 2? I think the major drawback is that they have taken away individual hit point values. How can a veteran Calvary unit have the same number of hit points as a veteran Tank? A tank can handle a lot more punishment than a human. Why did Firaxis think this was a good idea? It seems like a step backwards to level hit points across all unit types doesn't it?

well , tru , example , in civ2 one could give a unit , by autodefault the reciever would also get that tech ,

in civ3 it is not possible , they should have done that , with something extra , give a unit , but let you decide wheter or not you would give the technology , however this may cause some problems , the AI would start to do it on a large scale , but with some extra programming this would be fixed



allas , have a nice day

[number6]

The hit points aren't used to determine a unit's strength by era, like they were in Civ2. The hit points are used for individual units to differentiate experience. IMO, a reasonable system.

Woody,

So you think a well trained spearmen can withstand just as much punishment as a well trained tank. You think that is reasonable. Why? You did not say why that is reasonable other than it's OK by you. Who is the arrogant one here? It seems to simplistic to me and that is what I don't like about the combat system. If this were Civ 1 I would have no room to complain about an overly simplified combat system. This is the third iteration of a in depth turn based strategy game and now we are being told that less depth and detail is better than more? Believe it or not I can understand every thing you have said and I am trying to listen to you. It really does not help your cause by attacking my intelligence. I believe I have given reasoned arguments as to why I am unhappy with the combat system and to why I will not use the editor. I have no interest in competing with other Civ players I just want to ejoy Civ 3 the way I enjoyed the previous versions of the Civ series.

The attack and defense values for units were chose to make the game more balanced than in Civ2. In Civ2, once you got tanks and howitzers, you could wipe out an enemy in a single turn or two. Ridiculous!

This may have been true in Civ 2, but guess what I was never that good at the game to wipe out an enemy in a single turn. I guess I am not the Civ fanatic that you are. I play it occasionally to have fun, that's all. It's the people that play the hell out of the game that force all of this balance crap in the first place. The average gamer just wants to have an enjoyable experience. Believe it or not I had no idea how the combat system worked in any Civ game until I started playing Civ 3. The earlier games seem a lot more satisfying to play. I can't help but think the "improved" combat system is to blame. Anytime someone tells me we have simplified something that tells me that they cut corners. That's exaclty what has happened here. You may like that, but I feel cheated. I don't expect Firaxis will take any of my posts here to heart so you don't have to worry about the game ever getting "broken" for all the people that love the game as is. More power to you if you like it. I actually enjoy the game until I get to the modern age and combat becomes unrealistic in my opinion. I might even agree that the combat system works for the earlier ages, but I think it is broken when modern units come into play. I also have had no problems with naval combat. It's just the ground combat in the modern age that does not seem right to me.

I have said all that I have to say about the combat system on this threa and I don't plan to talk abou it anymore unless anyone cares to continue the discussion. I know I am getting a litlle tired of this myself.