this game needs massive improvement

[Dis]

I have only read one of his posts, but judging from its juvenile content the ignore feature might be useful. It's even more juvenile than my posts

[Ironikinit]

Soz, I meant MM.

[SieGermans]

ok look everyone. my beef is primarily with the combat system. When i said it's almost impossible to win on any setting other than chieftain, I meant in terms of warfare. Enemy nations are always making threats, but my military advisor says our army can take them, so I go to war with them, and end up having my ultra contemporary military defeated by spearthrowers and guys with sticks. I understand the need to expand, and my technology is always up to par with everyone else (but never ahead). I'm used to having technology to trade for gold etc. but when I was playing as Japan in the industrial ages and went to war with pathetic china who was mostly armed with Riders and longbowmen because they were slow to upgrade their units. so after consistent, ineffiective shelling of a city defended by a pikeman and two spearmen, their little battalion of riders managed to come up, kill 4 of my fortified, veteran infantrymen and capture three of my artillery units with only one of their units lost. that pissed me off because in the very same game, my cavalry was essential ineffective against enemy riflemen. I take offense to being called a "newbie" too, i've been playing the civ series since civ I came out and I am very familiar with the gameplay. it's just that Civ III changed a lot of things that were essential and replaced it with a lot of eye candy, which is nice, but doesn't make the game worthwhile. I am used to Civ 2, and was expecting more Civ 2 in the game, but it's just not present.

Terser, when you say editor, you mean the scenario maker?

Zachriel, I'm pretty sure the Army assembled in WWII to retake France was much larger than the Gulf war. The gulf war army was piddling compared to those of WWII and even Vietnam. but what your saying just works into what I am saying. Caesars legions were an "ancient" technology. they used ancient strategy, ancient weapons, thus weaker than the medieval forces used by william to invade normandy during the 11th century. I think it would be less of a headache if firaxis just made the AI upgrade it's units with the age. that way if I send in 4 infantrymen and they all get kicked trying to attack a tank oor a fortified infantryman, it makes SOME sense. sure it's still a loss but its within reason. a phalanx defending against a tank? no, not a chance, not even the slightest bit of damage. hell, I doubt a bronze or iron spear would even scratch the thick paint on the tanks armor, which can withstand a small HE round. just the same with a frigate attacking a destroyer. NO damage should be done. a cannon ball would just bounce of the hull of even a 100 year old warship. the copper armored USS Constitution deflected cannon balls for crying out loud! and a submarine should recieve no damage from anything but modern warships. Bombers should also have an increased attack, as with fighters. Fighters should be able to destroy units like tanks and infantry. they should give the option of "strafe" for the mission, which means your fighter can go in (with an attack of 12 for the WWII fighter, and 18 for the jet fighter, and 20 for the stealth fighter) so you can destroy ground units, which is one of the fighters most important role. I'm rambling now. you guys get the point.

[Terser]

SieGermans, I am refering to the "Civ3Mod" file. Just in case you don't know, it allows you to modify many of the rules governing the game.

The process of changing the attack and defense strengths of the units to reflect some sort of reality is rather laborious. It took me four or five hours of modding, two or three test games (played all the way through the tedium of modern times) and several "worksheets" filled with numbers before I finally had everything "tweaked" the way I wanted it. But the results have been worth it: I no longer have anti-tank spearmen or swordsmen, and my battleships plow the seas without fear of galleys or caravels.

As for calling you a noob-no offense was meant. It's just that anyone who is not familiar with the arguments over CivIII's combat system (and the rather extraordinary justifications for the whacked results) is kind of a stranger around these parts.

[steelehc]

Originally posted by SieGermans
Zachriel, I'm pretty sure the Army assembled in WWII to retake France was much larger than the Gulf war. The gulf war army was piddling compared to those of WWII and even Vietnam. but what your saying just works into what I am saying. Caesars legions were an "ancient" technology. they used ancient strategy, ancient weapons, thus weaker than the medieval forces used by william to invade normandy during the 11th century. I think it would be less of a headache if firaxis just made the AI upgrade it's units with the age. that way if I send in 4 infantrymen and they all get kicked trying to attack a tank oor a fortified infantryman, it makes SOME sense. sure it's still a loss but its within reason. a phalanx defending against a tank? no, not a chance, not even the slightest bit of damage. hell, I doubt a bronze or iron spear would even scratch the thick paint on the tanks armor, which can withstand a small HE round. just the same with a frigate attacking a destroyer. NO damage should be done. a cannon ball would just bounce of the hull of even a 100 year old warship. the copper armored USS Constitution deflected cannon balls for crying out loud! and a submarine should recieve no damage from anything but modern warships. Bombers should also have an increased attack, as with fighters. Fighters should be able to destroy units like tanks and infantry. they should give the option of "strafe" for the mission, which means your fighter can go in (with an attack of 12 for the WWII fighter, and 18 for the jet fighter, and 20 for the stealth fighter) so you can destroy ground units, which is one of the fighters most important role. I'm rambling now. you guys get the point.

Zacherial was talking about the most powerful army ever assembled. I believe it was the army tasked with the invasion of Japan which never happened, bu thats beside the point. Numbers do not always reflect power.

I agree that having the AI upgrade units would be very good.

I already posted about spearmen vs. tanks (twice in this thread).

A frigate attacking a destroyer is different. Some of those ships had eighty guns or more, half on the same side. These guns could fire iron shot only, but iron shot can weigh a lot. 40 sixty-pounders could cause quite a bit of damage to a destroyer. Now a battleship...

The copper on the USS Constitution was mainly to prevent rot of the wood. It did not help protect the ship from cannon fire. That was due to the unusually thick wood paneling on the sides of the ship.

I already posted on submarines as well. Anything firing explosive shells (ironclads and later) should be able to damage submarines.

The attack value of fighters is (I think) for their air-to-air combat only. Bombers are not good at air-to-air combat.

If you think that WW2 fighters would not be as good at strafing as a modern jet, you are mistaken. The P-47 Thunderbolt (the Jug) had eight .50 calibre machine guns. Eight. The F-14 Tomcat has a single 20mm cannon. One. It is a bigger gun, but not eight times bigger. The P-47 can put out at least twice as much weight per second as the F-14, or any other modern attack aircraft. As for stealth fighters, the F-117 has ZERO guns. It would not be able to strafe at all. WW2 fighter-bombers (P-47, P-51, Typhoon) were the Kings of Strafing. Fighter's major role was/is air superiority. Thats why they are called fighters. The fight other aircraft.

Steele

[GeneralTacticus]

Caesars legions were an "ancient" technology. they used ancient strategy, ancient weapons, thus weaker than the medieval forces used by william to invade normandy during the 11th century.

Actually Encyclopedia Brittanica disagrees with this.Under "the inferiority of medieval tactics, it says:

Inferiority of medieval tactics
Compared to the most powerful ancient armies, however, even late medieval ones were impermanent and weak. Numbers never approached those fielded during Hellenistic and Roman times: it was a mighty medieval prince who could assemble 20,000 men (of whom perhaps 5,000 would be knights), and most forces were much smaller. Apart from the stirrup, an invention whose importance may have been exaggerated by modern historians, no important advances took place in military technology. Consequently, tactics tended to repeat themselves in cycles rather than undergo sustained, secular development--as was to become the case after 1500 and, above all, after 1830. If only because medieval discipline was often lax and organization usually elementary, sophisticated tactical maneuvers such as those which characterized the armies of Alexander, his Hellenistic successors, and the Romans at their best were few and far between. Otherwise put, the knightly system of making war was much more individualistic than its classical predecessors; had the two been pitted against each other, the earlier forms would likely have overcome the later.

Of course the Encyclopedia Brittanica isn't always right, but personally I believe this point. The Normans were able to keep control because the English culture was much different and they didn't have the capacity for the kind of revolts that were a frquent irritation to the Romans.

In addition, the reason for having fewer troops in the Middle Ages was NOT that the troops were better, it was that the assortments of kingdoms and fiefdoms were unable to support larger armies.

[SieGermans]

steelehc
"40 sixty-pounders could cause quite a bit of damage to a destroyer. Now a battleship... "

no, it would bounce of the hull of a destroyer and a battleship. you have no idea how powerful the hulls of these ships are. the cannons used on sailing ships would not do any more damage than dent the hull at best. I have a cousin in the navy and I myself have been on a ticonderoga class cruiser, they can withstand a hit with an HE shell and still keep chugging. it takes a aerial bombardment or a large torpedo to do these kinds of ships in.

"Anything firing explosive shells (ironclads and later) should be able to damage submarines."

if a regular HE round detonated underwater, it would do very little a submarine because of water pressure. depth charges were invented to overcome this by having special equipment and explosives on them that created a concussion shockwave rather than a regular explosive which used the water itself to blow apart a sub's hull. still, the most effective anti-submarine weapon is another submarine with a torpedo.

"The copper on the USS Constitution was mainly to prevent rot of the wood. It did not help protect the ship from cannon fire. That was due to the unusually thick wood paneling on the sides of the ship."

it was documented as an early form of armor actually, stemmed out of reducing the need to repanel the ship every year. since iron was still considered too heavy a material to use to plate ships, more maleable, readily available and cheaper copper was used on older frigates. the fact remains that the ship deflected a cannon ball. Ironclads were a direct result of this, especially when the steam engine came about and was able to move a heavy iron ship through the water at a reasonable speed. the huge clipper ships of the early industrial age also had iron hulls, and about an acre of sail to push them through the water fast.

"The attack value of fighters is (I think) for their air-to-air combat only. Bombers are not good at air-to-air combat"

Fighters fill both ground attack and air defense. you can't use a heavy bomber to strike strategic points. since the game doesn't have the several classes of aircraft available (air support, ground attack, defensive fighter, strike fighter, light bomber, heavy bomber, precision bomber, recon plane, etc.) the role of the unit needs to be widened

"If you think that WW2 fighters would not be as good at strafing as a modern jet, you are mistaken. The P-47 Thunderbolt (the Jug) had eight .50 calibre machine guns. Eight. The F-14 Tomcat has a single 20mm cannon. One. It is a bigger gun, but not eight times bigger. The P-47 can put out at least twice as much weight per second as the F-14, or any other modern attack aircraft. "

I never once said that. Respectively however, WWII planes were lethal to there contemporaries. busting tanks and destroying railways, munitions dumps, and destroying infantry positions was done perfectly by the warbirds of WWII. however, you gave a bad example of a good modern strafing plane. an F-14 is a better support and defensive fighter. the A-10 Thunderbolt II is a superior ground attack plane, carrying bombs, machine guns, cannons, and a large 20 mm gattling gun on the front. it is slow flying, and heavily armored for this role. the P-47 may not have had cannons on it, but a Spitfire Mk. IX had two 20mm wing mounted cannons, the Hawker Tempest had 4 wing mounted 20mm cannons, and the Focke-Wulf 190 had two nose mounted machine guns (.30 cal), two 12.7mm wing mounted machine guns, and a 20 mm cannon mounted on the airscrew and all had 8 rocket rails underwing to deliver an extra punch to armored installations. these planes could do serious damage to todays modern army but the lack of armor and speed the new planes have is what would make them suffer heavier loses. you need to realize ground attack requires bombs, rockets, as well as conventional guns to be successful, which both modern, and WWII fighters had. a heavy bomber, such as the ones depicted and used in Civ III are good to hitting cities and attacking fleets. fighters, and fighter-bombers of any age, do everything else, attack ground units, destroy rails, mines, take out forts, sink transports, take out enemy fighters and bombers, and attack specific targets within cities, but since the bombard value of a fighter is about as strong as a catapult, they are completely useless in the game.

"As for stealth fighters, the F-117 has ZERO guns. It would not be able to strafe at all."

sure it can, it has great maneuverability, can carry rockets, and has a large bomb payload. a very capable strafer and can go in undetected and catch units of guard, as they did during the gulf war.

"Fighter's major role was/is air superiority. Thats why they are called fighters. The fight other aircraft."

I pretty much covered this above, but that kind of thinking is completely incorrect. if your logic was correct, then a bomber would "bomb other aircraft". a fighter has multiple roles, hence the several variations of fighters. you have strike fighters like F-16s, support fighters like F-18s, stealth fighters like F-117s, ground attack like A-10s, fighter-bombers like the A-6 Intruder, and defense fighters like the F-14, as well as electronic warfare EF-111s. trust me, I know more about this than you would. I am in the Air Force ROTC.

[Dis]

build more units.

that is my motto. that is how to win at higher levels.

And yes fighters do have multiple roles. The navy and air force has to stretch its resources as much as possible. That is why they use the term interceptor/bomber. They really don't call them fighters.

[SieGermans]

general tactitus
first off, i'd like to say that the encyclopedia britannica is using a very biased approached with that issue. Medieval europe and the feudal system wasn't the only group in middle ages that was perfecting battle strategy. it was the saracens who invented the concept of guerilla warfare when they repelled the Mongol push into egypt and then back out of the middle east. add technology into the mix. medieval weaponry such as heavy ballistas, greek fire, bodkin arrows, heavy shields, longbows, composite bows, crossbows, blast furnace steel (not iron, but steel), and chain mail are the advantages a medieval army would have over their ancient counterparts. if a roman legion were to go to war with a regement of 14th century spanish army, the legion would get destroyed, even if it out numbered the regement 2 to 1. the bodin arrows would rip through their shields and plate armor, pots of flaming tar would hurled into the legion would burn the soldiers out of their armor , crossbows would split helmets and skulls with ease, and steel weapons would shatter iron broad swords. if a roman legionaire was lucky enough to get a hit one of these soldiers, unless it was a heavy, crushing weapon like an axe or mace, the chain mail would keep the soldier alive and relatively uninjured, allowing him to take his steel axe and kill the legoinairre. if this regement managed to have these new weapons called muskets and cannons which were around in the 1300s, the armies would be leveled. the Turks were able to push into Europe as fast as they did because of technological advantage. they had cannons, cavalry, and musketeers which mowed down formations of armored european knights from afar. the tactics of the turks were relatively simple, they used the same tactics in the 10th century AD when they first tried to seize constantinople but their navy got destroyed by greek fire. when the playing field is level, tactics make the difference, when there is a major technological advantage, tactics can do very little to change the outcome of the battle.

[Deathwalker]

The part of the game that needs the most work is the modern eara. This part of the game is the most incomplete.
So I thing any future exspansion packs need to be aimed at exspanding this eara the most and add a few things in the other earas

[SieGermans]

I agree with that too, but seeing as how I either get fed up or bored with my game before the discovery of the radio, I really haven't spent much time playing in this era. although, I have played in it a few times. forced retirement at 2050 is a *****. I mean it's only 2050! they should have definitive future techs like they have in call to power, to show that firaxis has a bit of imagination (or do they expect us to pop out Civ III and put in Alpha Centauri when we research all there is to research .

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fighting Fools

Originally posted by steelehc
that numbers do not always mean power. However, I can see two glaring exceptions:Russia (WW1+WW2), and China.

The Battle of Britain was fought with troops numbering in the hundreds.

Another example, the Napoleonic Wars. The first time around Napoleon had a million man army. The second time around he could only field about 72000 at Waterloo, as the manpower of Europe was pretty well exhausted by that time.

In any case, it is an arguable point.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by SieGermans
I agree with that too, but seeing as how I either get fed up or bored with my game before the discovery of the radio, I really haven't spent much time playing in this era. although, I have played in it a few times. forced retirement at 2050 is a *****. I mean it's only 2050! they should have definitive future techs like they have in call to power, to show that firaxis has a bit of imagination (or do they expect us to pop out Civ III and put in Alpha Centauri when we research all there is to research .

I've played many, many games just through the ancient age, especially after finishing a war, win or lose, and things are pretty well settled for a while. I usually try to play out bad positions, at least until the loss is certain. Don't be afraid to lose either; it's part of the fun.

Did I ever tell you about my Luxembourg strategy?

Hey Joan, baby. Give me some Saltpeter.

Dearest Catherine. You look lovely today. Would you like some of these wonderful gems to decorate your beautiful visage?

Oh Great Bismark, sage ruler that you are, would you mind having your Panzers get off the palace lawn. Thank you very much. Oh, and here's your annual tribute. What do you mean, it's not enough?

[SieGermans]

hehehe, i'm cocky, i will retire before I face invasion but rarely have i ever lost cities on my continent, if I do it's a foreign city I had weakly guarded with cavalry waiting for reinforcements or something. It's just some battles on other continents are total *****es. and really tick me off cause the cocky jerk I'm invading is still trying to pretend he is stronger than me despite my 242 Infantry units back home just dying to destroy China. oops, i've said too much.

[Martinus Magnificus]

Re: COMBAT BONUS FOR DIFFERENT AGES

Originally posted by Encomium
I've posted this before and do so yet again.

What Civ III needs is a combat bonus if a military unit is of a different Age than the opponent. 25% sounds fair.

In otherwords, a longbowman attacking a cavalry unit suffers, say, a 25% decrease in combat effectiveness. Yes, I have seen a full strength longbowman destroy a full strength cavalry (with no escape route) even though the cavalry was armed with rifles.

Combat bonus, or differentials, between units of different Ages would help a lot of these problems.

So get Moralin's Exponential Mod!!! Am I the only one who knows of its existance?