this combat system has to **GO**

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by Arrian


Keep dreamin, pal. That is how the combat system works in CivIII. Either you learn to live with it, or you go play another game. I'm not trying to be nasty, but that's the truth. The combat system will not change, therefore you must accept it in order to play the game. If it ruins the game for you, you are not alone. Others (many of them, repeatedly) have registered the same complaint as you.

-Arrian

Arrian's right. Most people find the combat system annoying to varying degrees. If it doesn't ruin the game for you keep playing, otherwise you might as well stop. For me I found that it did basically ruin the game. I don't mind the occasional fluke or oddity, but I want an general idea of how well my troops will do. That was in Civ2, but it isn't in Civ3 as much, since flukes that cause 5-10 units or more to die can happy far too easily IMHO. Hence, I haven't been visiting the civ3 forums much and rarely ever post even if I do (and I don't plan on getting the expansion). Other people don't mind it as much, and the game is still fine for them (it's good some people enjoy the game).

Anyhow, I'll just wait for MOO3, RoN, and the eventual Civ4. Hopefully Civ4 won't have this problem (there are better solutions to the issue of advanced tech units vs. less advanced tech units, IMO).

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Blue Moose
Anyhow, I'll just wait for MOO3, RoN, and the eventual Civ4. Hopefully Civ4 won't have this problem (there are better solutions to the issue of advanced tech units vs. less advanced tech units, IMO).

Please enlighten us.

[vmxa1]

I still don't see why we need a solution. Let the backward civs die, they will anyway.

[Cyclotron]

I can't imagine a game that would be any fun if the only way I could win would be being in first place for the whole game. One of the problems with Civ games in general is the "threshold" at which you know you are more powerful than any other civ... victory is only a matter of time. With Civ2, I knew this as early as the middle ages because no civ stood a chance against any civ that even had slightly more advanced units. At least with Civ3, that is usually staved off until the industrial era or later.

It is key to any good game that people are able to "come from behind" and manage a win. If a game is made by "the rich get richer" principle, it won't be any fun. There needs to be competition, and for competition you need a more level playing field.

You may be saying, "but the field is level... everyone starts the same way." Very well, that's true, but you are essentially ending the game around the middle ages or industrial age... once you're ahead, you're ahead and all you have to do is mop up. You are essentially killing the game after this "critical point."

People talk about eliminating the threshold in Civ games, but the only way that can happen is if winning is a possiblity (even if it is not a great one) for good players who are not quite in the lead. Civ3's combat system is a step in that direction. There have been other threads discussing how to make a win from behind possible (because currently, even with combat system changes, it really isn't). Such a change doesn't have to be "unrealistic," empires have risen and fell throughout history. If the roman empire was being played in Civ... I would quit the game because it would be so boring, being essentially the only viable civ in the world, far surpassing all in power. Why would I even want to play through even to the middle ages?

vmxa1, if the somewhat backward civs (screw the really backward civs) don't have a chance, the game is the worse for it.

[N. Machiavelli]

If they had put more effort/thought into the Diplomatic, Cultural, and Space victories, then they wouldn't need to level the combat system. As is, many people turn one or most of those victory options off because they are either too easy or anti-climactic. Because of that, the game remains very combat-oriented while at the same time, mass-warfare is discouraged due to the 'dumbed-down' combat model.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Please enlighten us.

I assume you were refering to my hope that civ4 would fix the 'problem'. Well, the entire previous paragraph in my original post was devoted to it, and the entire topic of this thread is on it. I refer, of course, to the issue of the (IMHO) poor combat system of Civ3. Quite simply, the results are too given to flukes. I can live with the unreality of the enemy pikemen doing alright against my cavalry, but the enemy Spearmen should be getting their asses kicked. At the very least, I want an general idea of how the battle will turn out if I have 10 cavalry attacking a town defended by spearmen...or what have you. As it is now, you really can't have any comfort in how the battle will turn out, becaue the too often occuring runs of bad luck can eliminate a lot of an attacking force. So, those 10 cav might win without a lose, or you might lose them to the man (with maybe a couple wounded that are left over). And the chance of either happening is far, far too likely, hence battles are like playing craps, and there is no good strategy save massive, massive numbers. Against humans this will be more obvious, since the slower method of bringing artillery with you will simply leave you open to attacks before you get to a city. At least, that's how it looks to me. Anyhow, the pure randomness of battles ruined my interest in the game (as I have said before). I really shouldn't have rambled on so, but you don't seem to read so I repeated myself. (I am not usually so acidic with my statements, oh well).

[Cyclotron]

Actually, I was asking what exactly the "better solutions" you speak of are. I'm pretty sure I already understand what you are complaining about... I'm just wondering if it's just complaining, or if you actually have any kind of suggestion.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Blue Moose


I assume you were refering to my hope that civ4 would fix the 'problem'. Well, the entire previous paragraph in my original post was devoted to it, and the entire topic of this thread is on it. I refer, of course, to the issue of the (IMHO) poor combat system of Civ3. Quite simply, the results are too given to flukes. I can live with the unreality of the enemy pikemen doing alright against my cavalry, but the enemy Spearmen should be getting their asses kicked. At the very least, I want an general idea of how the battle will turn out if I have 10 cavalry attacking a town defended by spearmen...or what have you. As it is now, you really can't have any comfort in how the battle will turn out, becaue the too often occuring runs of bad luck can eliminate a lot of an attacking force. So, those 10 cav might win without a lose, or you might lose them to the man (with maybe a couple wounded that are left over). And the chance of either happening is far, far too likely, hence battles are like playing craps, and there is no good strategy save massive, massive numbers. Against humans this will be more obvious, since the slower method of bringing artillery with you will simply leave you open to attacks before you get to a city. At least, that's how it looks to me. Anyhow, the pure randomness of battles ruined my interest in the game (as I have said before). I really shouldn't have rambled on so, but you don't seem to read so I repeated myself. (I am not usually so acidic with my statements, oh well).

I *completly* agree. I'm willing to tolerate EVERY fault Civ3 has....except this. This very one simply ruined the game for me. I can't go to higher difficulty levels because teh AI mongers war too much (and it gets bonuses/i get handicaps, so.....) and staying too low is easy.

Your encouraged to go a peaceful route but again the AI on higher difficulties declares war way too often, and then the combat system is screwed (I've had too many scens where primitive units defeat my Modern Armour and dont even get me started on bombard) but the ONLY way to get high points and to defend yourself is to use war, so......Its so screwed up. I was getting so tired of all these really weird battles (ahh!! my panzer was poked to death!) that....I just didnt see any need. I eventually was able to sell it (Civ3) to some sucker for 50 bucks.

[self biased]

tass, where's your sig from?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by self biased
tass, where's your sig from?

....The taiwanese national anthem

[vondrack]

I am quite happy with the combat system as it is. I cannot say I would be suffering from unlucky dice rolls very often... and I strongly disagree with the opinion that the only way to win wars is by sheer numbers. I seldom have the numerical superiority and yet I almost always win... The key is to maximize the odds... Odds of 1:1 suck for me... that is really too much of a risk. But terrain and fortification bonuses, bombarding, mobility, and experience of your units may significantly improve the odds in your favour... 2:1, even 3:1...

There is one thing I would love to see in a future patch or version of Civ: the ATTACK bonuses. Currently, there are only defense bonuses. I guess that, say, Knights should deserve an attack bonus on the grassland, as they are able to manoeuvre more easily...

Oh well, just an idea...

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
vmxa1, if the somewhat backward civs (screw the really backward civs) don't have a chance, the game is the worse for it.

I don't see how. If I am playing with 8 or civs, some will wither, not a prolem. I like Monarch and above and I do worry about the AI being way behind, that does not happen early. The idea that a low level unit needs to be able to be competitive with later ones for the backward civs, is just silly. If you are playing Regent or below, and know how to beat Deity, then the AI will be way behind, but if that is the game that player wants I don't mind.

[Ethelred]

Its not for the AI. Its for the player in case they are short a strategic resource. Its not much help someone that is way behind on tech but if someone is short on resources they can try to use numerical superiority instead with the present combat system. I went through that once myself were I was missing BOTH iron and saltpeter. I am managed to survive long enough to win the game.

[Theseus]

THANK GOD for that!!

AU 107 on Emperor is, hmmm, difficult. I have come to a point where numerical superiority is my only chance for relative strength... SMOTHER THEM!!

We'll see how it works out, but I welcome the possible toehold afforded by uncertainty.

[vmxa1]

Ethelred, that option is fine and is still available to them, althought I doubt the AI will pull it off. You can use strategy to overcome any postional short comings. The combat system does not need to be the means. Anyway I have said all along that the tweak that I am interested in would only affect a very small number of battles and not really impact the game. It is meant to remove some of the silliness and annoyances, not really impact the outcome. It is just entertaing to discus as nothing is going to be done.