Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1.29 and PTW: Closer but still not great

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1.29 and PTW: Closer but still not great

    Well, as I slave over my two new mods and anticipate the release of 1.29... I've been picking the game up a bit not having really played it for months. Already I'm feeling that the patch and even Play the World aren't going to bring the game anywhere near where it should be.

    In just the last few days I've noted these serious (hard-coded) problems that are still a long way from solved...

    I recently played a game as the Babs against the Persians. Now, I know that the occasional bit of randomness is good, but having swordsmen being killed while attacking unfortified archers on plains at least a half dozen times is absurd. As far as I know, randomness in combat hasn't even been touched in 1.29 or in PTW. The best we have is the "preserve random seed" toggled off, which doesn't help if you don't want to have to reload the game 20 times just to get an equitable outcome in a war.

    Secondly, resource distribution and exhaustion is a crime as it is. It makes no sense that resources will just go *poof!* and be gone like that. There should be some sort of warning, and it would make sense if you actually use the resource before it disappears...

    Economic warfare (i.e. blockades and sieges) are pathetic. Blocking importation of a resource will stop NEW units from being made, but what about existing ones? If you destroy a civ's supply of oil, their tank divisions should suffer for it. Unfortunately, events scripting (macro language) could easily solve this problem, but we haven't even been given that... and without it, I don't think truly decent scenarios will ever really be possible.

    Oh, and hopefully that cap on operational range will be dealt with too... thats a real hinderance in modern warfare.

    And there are a few things from Civ2 that I realized I missed. One of them was partisans. I hear people complain that the game is too easy, and I think that a combination of no use of roads, resistance/culture flipping, and partisans could make invasions a REAL challenge then. Government-specific units like the Fanatics would've been nice too. I don't know why they got rid of these things.

    I had hoped the patch and PTW would resolve some of these issues, but they haven't seemed to address them. They fix minor annoyances, but I think the bigger problems remain. Regretably, I doubt these aspects will ever be solved.
    Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

    I truly believe that America is the world's second chance. I only hope we get a third...

  • #2
    As far as the Archer VS Swordsman situation.

    The Archer has a defense of 1 (slightly increased because all terrain actually gives some bonus). The Swordsman has an attack of 3. This means the Archer has a 1 in 4 chance of damaging the Swordsman. Therefore, a regular Archer VS a regular Swordsman, the Archer has a 1 in 12 chance of defeating the Swordsman while on defense. While these are fairly small odds, a particular run of bad luck will give you numerous Archer victories... that's just part of bad luck. If it was something like Cavalry VS Archer, then I could understand your complaints more.

    As far as the other stuff, yes, I feel there should be some improvements.

    Comment


    • #3
      Dom Pedro, it's a game.
      Formerly known as "CyberShy"
      Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori

      Comment


      • #4
        I think the problem is people's perception of unit strength, not the actual unit itself.

        As trip pointed out, Archers beating Swordsman is rather common and the odds aren't that far off.
        AI:C3C Debug Game Report (Part1) :C3C Debug Game Report (Part2)
        Strategy:The Machiavellian Doctrine
        Visit my WebsiteMonkey Dew

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 1.29 and PTW: Closer but still not great

          Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
          Well, as I slave over my two new mods and anticipate the release of 1.29... I've been picking the game up a bit not having really played it for months. Already I'm feeling that the patch and even Play the World aren't going to bring the game anywhere near where it should be.

          . . .having swordsmen being killed while attacking unfortified archers on plains at least a half dozen times is absurd. . .

          Secondly, resource distribution and exhaustion is a crime as it is. It makes no sense that resources will just go *poof!* and be gone like that. . .

          Economic warfare (i.e. blockades and sieges) are pathetic. . . I don't think truly decent scenarios will ever really be possible. . .

          And there are a few things from Civ2 that I realized I missed. One of them was partisans. . . Government-specific units like the Fanatics would've been nice too. I don't know why they got rid of these things. . .

          They fix minor annoyances, but I think the bigger problems remain. Regretably, I doubt these aspects will ever be solved.
          They won't be. That patch won't solve the problems you relate, and many others, such as the idiotic results of Culture Flipping, or that annoying Settler Diarrhea, or the stupid AI, et al.

          Let me just address several of your main points.

          Resource allocation. The rates in the basic game are ABSURDLY too low. They can be edited, but their disappearance is ridiculously random. One resource tile can theoretically supply massive armies forever; on the other hand, I had an iron tile become "exhausted" three turns after a road was built on it linking it to a town on an island - a town that had NO harbor! Worse, due to Culture Flipping I had borders flip over my strategic resources and I am then insulted and ordered to get off my own resource that has a garrison and fortress on it! Crazy.

          Economic warfare is a joke, as are blockades. I have complained since December that there is no way to use subs and privateers to attack enemy merchant shipping on his trade routes - their historic purpose. There is NO way to do a real WW II or WW I scenario without showing the effect of U-Boats on merchant shipping. In Civ 2 we at least had to risk naval attack to deliver a caravan or freight across the sea. It added a lot to the game.

          BTW, espionage also sucks now. It used to be dramatic using spies; now it is a tedious expensive abstraction good mostly for getting the other guy to declare war on you.

          Partisans can be modded in. Just replace the useless helicopter unit. Fanatics are part of Fundamentalism which isn't in the game. Too bad; we enjoyed it. They did give us Culture Flipping instead.

          The "minor annoyances" should havge been playtested out before tha game was marketed. For that matter, SO SHOULD THE BIGGER PROBLEMS that you speak of.

          Comment


          • #6
            It's not perfec but after all it is only a game not real life.
            And do we always have to complain
            I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow. As surely as night follows day.

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh, I was wondering when Coracle would come up...

              Problem is: Civ3 is different from Civ2 by design. They will not modify the game to make it look like Civ2 because that was never their intention. D. Pedro complains about combat, but Firaxis got rid of the firepower concept since the beginning. Therefore, combat in Civ3 will never be the same as it was in Civ2. If you like it, fine. If you don't, fine too, because you have the right to disagree with the designers.

              But I don't get why, at this moment and after all things that happened since Civ3 was released, some people are still complaining. I know, they were hoping that Firaxis would address the problems. Guess what? The firaxians think that Civ3 is fine as it is now, being a different game. It will never be Civ2 again. Give up, guys. And pay a visit to the Civ2 section here at Apolyton; there you'll find plenty of interesting and creative scenarios and mods to Civ2 that will certainly extend your fun.

              But Civ3 is a different beast.
              I watched you fall. I think I pushed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Re: 1.29 and PTW: Closer but still not great

                Originally posted by Coracle
                Worse, due to Culture Flipping I had borders flip over my strategic resources and I am then insulted and ordered to get off my own resource that has a garrison and fortress on it! Crazy.
                Coracle, I'm curious. You mention "Culture Flipping" quite a bit: Are you referring to the phenomenon whereby cities suddenly proclaim allegiance to another Civ, the growth of Civ borders due to the production of culture points, or both?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Trip
                  The Archer has a defense of 1 (slightly increased because all terrain actually gives some bonus). The Swordsman has an attack of 3. This means the Archer has a 1 in 4 chance of damaging the Swordsman. Therefore, a regular Archer VS a regular Swordsman, the Archer has a 1 in 12 chance of defeating the Swordsman while on defense.
                  Sorry to be nitpicky, but this is actually wrong... it should be 1/64 (1/4*1/4*1/4) for two regular units. 1 in 64 losses for the swordsman doesn't exactly seem like an unrealistic value for a swordsman attacking an archer. Maybe next time you should bring along more units, no?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I think it is strange that people constantly nit-pick at Civ3, certainly it has some problems and concepts that could have been worker out better. The Civilisation games are going through darwinian evolution, the best of the game survives and gets improved, while somethings go away. People complain about caravans and freighters going away, well it was annoying to have to spend your time on moving those units towards cities. They replaced it with the user-friendly trade system employed in Civ3, still needs some work, but definatelly better then in Civ2. Resourcess and their allocation, and culturally determined borders are simply an effort to make the game more realistic and complex. These measures are somewhat shallow, but there was no account for these issues in Civ2.

                    All that we can expect and hope for is that these issues will be more fully thought out in Civ4 . Taking us one more step towards the absolute Civilasation game.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Re: 1.29 and PTW: Closer but still not great

                      Originally posted by Coracle
                      Just replace the useless helicopter unit.
                      Being able to move a foot unit (via rails) to a city with a helicopter, fly that helicopter to any of your cities in the world, unload the foot unit, and send the foot unit into combat or sentry duty all in one turn is quite useful.

                      ...especially if you give helos a capacity of four like I do.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Papa Chubby
                        I think it is strange that people constantly nit-pick at Civ3, certainly it has some problems and concepts that could have been worker out better. The Civilisation games are going through darwinian evolution, the best of the game survives and gets improved, while somethings go away. People complain about caravans and freighters going away, well it was annoying to have to spend your time on moving those units towards cities. They replaced it with the user-friendly trade system employed in Civ3, still needs some work, but definatelly better then in Civ2. Resourcess and their allocation, and culturally determined borders are simply an effort to make the game more realistic and complex. These measures are somewhat shallow, but there was no account for these issues in Civ2.

                        All that we can expect and hope for is that these issues will be more fully thought out in Civ4 . Taking us one more step towards the absolute Civilasation game.
                        I couldn't have said it better myself.

                        Yes, there are many things I would like to see changed in Civ 3 for more realism, complication, scripting, etc. etc. etc., but I realize that major changes in design require a lot of work and confirmation, and are highly unlikely to happen. Continuous whining will not change that (*cough*we all know who*uncough*).

                        However, submitting ideas and arguing why they're good just might get them into Civ IV.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          At times like this when heaps of praise are being thrown around, I like to see a little whine. You go, Dom!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Well, I can see that my post generated a little more criticism of ME than of the game, so I'd just like to clear a few things up....

                            I do like the game. I'm not sad that I bought it at all, and if I was given the option of sticking with Civ3 or going back to Civ2, I would almost certainly stick with Civ3.

                            Perhaps my disillusionment is partially the product of a run of bad luck. For some reason, ever since I downloaded 1.21, I've been started in the middle of jungles or tundra while the AI gets beautiful starting locations, my last game I had three settlers killed by barbarians including one that I guarded with a spearman and the pair happened to walk into a massive barbarian uprising. I've had swordsmen beaten in attacks against archers in 7/10 battles, Lonbowman beaten by spearmen in 8/10 battles... now, I'm not blaming all that on the game. A large part of that is my keen ability to beat the odds against my favor

                            And secondly, to defend myself a bit, all of my criticism here is related to gameplay with the exception of the economic warfare factor. When I bought Civ3, I wanted to have a game where I would be creating strategy. If I wanted to play a game of luck disguised as a strategy game, I'd go out and buy Monopoly... So this "it's just a game" argument really is a strawman argument to my case.

                            And about the economic warfare issue, I would like to note that I said that there wouldn't be an issue if there had been a macro events language included in 1.29 or PTW. That's more of a criticism on the patch and the expansion pack than on the original game itself.
                            Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

                            I truly believe that America is the world's second chance. I only hope we get a third...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Oh, and this thread wasn't SUPPOSED to be whining about Civ3 as much as it was supposed to be whining about how inspite of the hype, 1.29 and PTW really aren't doing all that much... they're putting in all the bells and whistles without doing any work under the hood.
                              Dom Pedro II - 2nd and last Emperor of the Empire of Brazil (1831 - 1889).

                              I truly believe that America is the world's second chance. I only hope we get a third...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X