Why I quit Civ3 again... (Combat) (Rant)

[Willem]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man

Now Civ2 had a combat engione that worked. It was, infact, perfect for turnbased strategy games.

Except that the AI was a total push over. Get the right units, and it didn't stand a chance. But then if you're into games where you're guarenteed to win all the time, I can see why you don't like Civ3.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Jaybe

Oooh! You said it MUCH nicer than I almost did.

I too was inclined to post something nasty, mainly having to do with his IQ and the modern GM watermelons.

[Theseus]

Catt, you are, as always, a gentleman.

I respect Coracle... he may be monochromatic and UNRELENTING, but at the end of the day he understands how the game works, and is lodging more or less valid philosophical complaints.

This nonsense? Either learn to play, or don't.

Tanks versus Legions and Spearmen... Andy-man, do I need to suggest that there's something wrong with your game?

Back to Action: Waaay bad luck, sorry. Try again, it'll swing back your way.

[Cyclotron]

Right on.

Willem: Clearly he's in to games he's guaranteed of winning, otherwise he wouldn't be playing at a level where he has tanks and the AI has spearmen...

[Nubclear]

Ugh, instead of whining in the Civ3 forums, just come and join the light In Civ2 or AC

[tinyp3nis]

Re: Why I quit Civ3 again... (Combat) (Rant)

Originally posted by Action
Suffice it to say my attack failed miserably. Why?

One reg archer defending on plains beat two vet swordsmen.
One reg archer defending on woods beat two vet swordsmen.
A reg horsemen defending on grassland beat an elite swordsman.
A vet warrior defending on hills beat two vet swordsmen.
As well as a few swordsmen losing to spearmen, which is expected.

So anyway, my attack stalled, and as I was bringing up more guys using my large road system a few of their horsemen were able to attack my cities. Since their horsemen were only regulars and I have veteran numidian mercs (2/3/1) fortified in all my cities I'm not too worried.

Three times in a row a reg horseman beats a vet numidian merc fortified defending in a city.

Sounds really really bad luck, even with civ 3 combat system. Goes greatly against the odds.
When me and my friend played one 1v1 to try out ptw, even losing with archer attacking vs warrior on grassland with warrior winning and losing no hp got us pissed, the time invested in the archer was total waste. Also make us notice how the multiplayer does not provide competive play.
Usually the combat goes the way it should, many times not, but never have I had such a bad luck streak you have... are you for real?
"Go increase the hp in the editor" Wouldn't the battles take ridilculously long, or you have to turn animation off? Never touched the smelly editor

i think the problems of combat might stem from the "random seed" thing. i played some games preserving random seed and as well as not preserving it. when it is preserved, i noticed that because of how combat results are predetermined, attacking with a highly superior unit is going to get killed if it was already predetermined that way. for example, i attack a spearman with a horseman while random seed is preserved, and if the horseman dies, i then reload and attack the spearman instead with a cavalry, then the cavalry will die too because of the random seed (must be attacking the same enemy unit). i notice that however, things eventually balance out a great deal with random seed preserved as i lose some outrageous combats that i shouldve won while i win some ridiculous combats that i had no business winning. so try turning off the preserve random seed option and i think you might not run into some of the weird combat results.

Not sure if this helps, since random seed is allways there, it just changes with every load if you don't preserve it, or so I have thought...

[Action]

oh I assure you, it was real, keep in mind this was part of a huge assault with lots of fighting so there were some combat results which went as expected which I didnt mention.

Also I have no idea who Coracle is but it's funny you should mention culture flipping. The one city I managed to take before my attack stalled actually did culture flip a few turns later, taking 3 strong units with it (it was size 2)

I didn't bother to complain about that; it's my fault for not turning it off at the start of the game. Culture flipping would be fine if it didn't steal your military units. The flippers should get a rebel unit for each population of the flipping city and fight the garrison.

[Harovan]

Culture flipping can be turned off in PtW.

I find your idea of fighting the garrison interesting. The unit should be the Guerilla (new in PtW) and the # of units fighting the garrison should be the # of resisting citizens. That would be a nice improvement.

[Grumbold]

It's been suggested before from time to time. It just gets lost in the usual 'flipping sux' 'flipping rules' 'stfu coracle' avalanche

[Traelin]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man


this is all bollox, the only time in Civ3 I EVER had a succesful military was in a war against the romans who still had spearmen and legions (i had tanks and more modern stuff).

Even then, a spearmen would do some decent damage to my tanks before I won. It was a joke. And don't say this thing about luck, its not luck. It happens ALL the time.


Now Civ2 had a combat engione that worked. It was, infact, perfect for turnbased strategy games.

I honestly don't understand how you guys are having so much trouble with the Civ 3 combat model. Maybe it's because I build up huge militaries that I don't notice any problems. Maybe it's because you have bad luck. But, in the worst-case scenario in my games, my military deters anyone from attacking me. I guess when I have 400+ MIs and 300+ MAs every game, it's hard to notice bad rolls though.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Action
The flippers should get a rebel unit for each population of the flipping city and fight the garrison.

That's actually a pretty cool idea. Much more realistic than units just disappearing.

[The Andy-Man]

They still had legions because they were hemmed in by me, and I don't think my 'bad luck' has anything to do with it.

Otherwise my Elite Swordsman would have beaten regular warriors atleast 3 out of 10 times.

Civ2's AI may have been a push over, but we aren't discussing the AI, the combat model was perfect. If the AI new where to put his units (ie on mountais, in fortresses etc) he would have been damn near impossible to beat.

No, it isn't. Battles in Civ3 have been statistically proven to be in accordance with the unit values. Knowing this, I can only conclude your results are either bad luck or gross stupidity. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's luck.

Anything can be proven wit a barrage of numbers.

[Gen.Dragolen]

Gentlemen,

One of the better educated players Vulture (degree in Astrophysics) did an analysis of the RNG used for the game and came to the conclusion that the RNG was performing properly.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=60407

However, if the combat model is flawed to begin with, what does it matter ? I've been play-testing using increased hitpoints for the experienced units, and you can still loose an elite swordsman with 8 hp to a 2 hp archer in open ground. Granted with more hp, it happens much less frequently, and which is a good thing.

The problem is that for every beneficial change you make in the editor, it usually screws something else up in the game. Having made it much harder to kill veteran + units, it does slow down combat a touch, and it makes the need for upgrades all the more important. Unfortunately, I find that I am always short of gold needed to upgrade, let alone rush production in PtW games. It was never a problem in vanilla Civ3. So back to the editor and adjust the gold the bonus resources generate. It's an iterative process, just like learning combat.

And I do like the idea of having a city in revolt with the garrison having to fight it out with guerilla units to see who keeps the city. At least it would feel like your troops died with their boots on.

What I would like to see Firaxis use a more realistic combat model, by either making morale replace hp's or adding back firepower. Even going away from the a/(a+d)=%chance to do damage model to a difference model: a-d=X x 100% chance of winning a battle would be an improvement. This is the model they used with wargames using dice for the random element, so it should be workable for a game like Civ3.

In any case, it would also be nice to see Firaxis actually play test their game before they release it. I'm getting tired of being a Beta Tester for them and most other software products these days.


D.

[vmxa1]

Civ2 was about as challenging as Ascendancy, you could not lose. I enjoyed both games, but please, they are not going to make life hard for anyone. Smac was not far behind. Civ3 can make you work a bit at a high level and a not so great start location. Did you ever work up a sweat in Civ2? I think not.

[Willem]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man

Civ2's AI may have been a push over, but we aren't discussing the AI, the combat model was perfect. If the AI new where to put his units (ie on mountais, in fortresses etc) he would have been damn near impossible to beat.

The AI is part of the combat model. To seperate the two is ludicrous.

And even besides that issue, the system was far from perfect. Was there much of a challenge in the game once you achieved the Howitzer? How about in SMAC once you got the Chopper? Those units were so overpowering, it was almost impossible to lose once you had them. At least now you know there's no firm guarentee at any stage of the game, which makes it more interesting IMO.

I don't want my military campaigns to become a forgone conclusion, I like that bit of an adrenalin rush worrying about whether my troops will be victorious or not. It's called a challenge!