WTF?! I just started playing Civ 3 and....

[Arrian]

DOH! Typo. I meant to say, why DIDN'T he attack with his fortified knight.

-Arrian

[Ethelred]

I thought that might be the case but Planetfall had claimed that swordsmen have some sort of advantage against knights. So far all indications are that combat is entirely based on Attack vs Defense plus the known terrain and city bonuses. Nothing special for swordsmen or pikes.

[Dante_X]

Thanks, all.

The town I was trying to seige was poulation 4, no walls, on a desert square. In all instances (attacking and defending) my soldiers' health was full. I attacked this towns with three regular Legionary troops, one regular knight, and 1 veteran knight. His town had two regular swordsmen. I was promptly massacred. He suffered one casualty, and the last swordsman had 1 bar of health left.


The reason some of my troops were regulars was because only my border towns had barracks. I was trying to keep costs down, and build more cultural architecture, in the hopes of avioding riots and increasing my influence, and therefore my borders. I really thought even a regular Knight, behind city walls, should have no problem fending off a minor invasion of 1 or 2 swordsmen. Obviously I was wrong.

Incidentally, is there any way to turn on a "ratio-to-win-battle" toggle, like the one seen in Alpha Centauri? (Your knight has a 3 to 1 chance of winning this battle....)

I also have one other small criticism, which I know has been repeatedly addressed. I was unable to mount a successful offensive, because after only building 4 knights and 3 legionaries, my iron ore was depleted. Meanwhile, the Russians, who also had only 1 mine, had already pumped out 16 swordsmen, and these were just the ones in the field. I have no idea how many were behind city walls. Being thrust back to having only longbowmen, horsemen and archers, I had no way of seiging his cities, equipped with swordsmen and pikemen. I really wish you had some way of estimating how much ore was left in a mine.


I'm not giving up on the game, and do enjoy many aspects of it, but I feel that combat heavily favors the computer. thanks for all your comments.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Dante_X
I really wish you had some way of estimating how much ore was left in a mine.

It doesn't work that way. Its a per turn chance and the chance is always the same for a given resource. Different resources have different odds of depletion. Getting and keeping resources is part of the strategy and sometimes you just won't be able to manage it.

I'm not giving up on the game, and do enjoy many aspects of it, but I feel that combat heavily favors the computer. thanks for all your comments.

Combat doesn't favor the computer. Its been shown time and again. Tests have been run and they always fit the stated odds. The only bias is in the eye of the player. Humans naturally remember the things that don't fit our expectations and forget about things that do fit them. Con men and profesional gamblers have been making money on this bit of human nature for a very long time.

[vmxa1]

As the saying goes s... happens. You can see nearly any kind of a combat out come given enough battles. Even though it seems they are all in the AI's favor, you will get your shots in. You just tend to remember the ones that go against you.

[civjunkie]

Leonardo and regular troops

From another thread:

What the heck were you WASTING shields on walls instead of building barracks and then sending out out lambs to the slaughter with REGULAR legions. NEVER build regulars. They will get their killed way to often.

Disagree. Regulars and obsolete units are good for policing conquered cities, and you don't want to waste shield building barracks in every city, just your big resource producers.

Which reminds me: I don't see the point of Leonardo.
So it saves you some money: great, go for it if you have nothing better to do; but there are lots of uses for weak/obsolete units (e.g. camping on RRs to keep the baddies from cluttering them up, or on resources to keep them from building colonies until your workers can get to them; you can use them to bash barbarians, or to explore. Finally, in a pinch you can disband them to rush a key improvement). And having to haul everyone's glutes back to a city with barracks to upgrade them is tiresome, Leo or no Leo.

In civ2 it was indispensable; in civ3, ho hum.

[MosesPresley]

One time I had three spearmen wiped out by three warriors in the same turn. I was P O'd, but what can you do? The PC made up for it on a later turn, when two of my warriors defeated two swordsmen in a row. I managed to keep the defending city.

The RMG will give strange results fairly regularly, but in the end they balance out. I still yell at the screen when it happens, though.

[vmxa1]

Civjunkie, I almost agree with you on Leo's, but consider that if you have 100 units and save 20 each for an upgrade that is not insignificant. Plus you may upd more than once for units that can go Rifle/Inf/MI. That can pay for a lot of things and if nothing else I do not want the AI to get those sayings, if I can help it. Unfortunately at the higher levels I often can not do much about it.
As for barracks, I like to have one on front lines cities once I go on the attack. Healing and maybe an upgrade, especially if the city is going to be counter attacked often. This happens when I grab a large city and try to hold it.

[Tiberius]

The RMG will give strange results fairly regularly, but in the end they balance out. I still yell at the screen when it happens, though.

It happens to me, too. In such situations I'm very close to slap my monitor with my keyboard But then I remember that this is a game after all, so I count to 10 and keep playing.

Keep in mind Dante_X that it is not always bad luck, but sometimes bad strategy (it seems to me that bad strategy acts like a magnet for bad luck ). Like in your case when the knight and the swordsman, instead of beeing fortified, should have taken out at least 2 enemies.
There are many strategies, basically one for each situation, so keep reading the forums and your playing style will improve.

[Ethelred]

Re: Leonardo and regular troops

Originally posted by civjunkie
From another thread:

Disagree. Regulars and obsolete units are good for policing conquered cities, and you don't want to waste shield building barracks in every city, just your big resource producers.

I produce nearly all my units in cities that have nothing else to build and that includes the barracks which after the core cities comes last in my builds. I use obsolete units that can't be upgraded as a source of shields in newly conquered cities unless they are elite. I hold on to the elites.

[Raion]

Walls are only for barbarians. Not Civ's.
Is Russia a military Civ? Can't remember.
If you are playing a non-military Civ, you will need better units by having elite units guard your city.
Was terrain favorable for the swordsman?
Other factors, like the culture of the Civ better, more advanced in technology, better in economics, (people happier)?

It's the entire Civ in that unit, not just the unit?

Hope that helps!

How many times do you think a Ax Man can attack barbarians with only a single hit point left?

If you were a Roman, you might say 'several times' and they will win all the battles?

Your Civ, if not military, maybe not even 'once' but maybe, even once, but I doubt it!

Different Civ's for different folks!