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

[Stuie]

He should have used some catapults and/or horsemen to soften up the targets; this game rewards the use of combined arms.

I almost never attack any full strength unit with a swordsman.

[GePap]

Editing the number of HP up helps a lot in keeping results more even: 3 or 4 shots are few enough to let randomes rule. Move the HP up to 7 for regular units and while you may end up with badly damaged units, they will live. The ability ot have HP bonuses is great at allowing one to make units accross the ages more realitic.

In my own system, conscripts get 5, regular 7, veteran 9, elite 10 HP.

Ancient units get a -2HP bonus
Medieval -1HP
Industrial: normal or +1
Modern +1 or +2(for armor)

Thus an elite spearman is 8HP while a regular Mech Inf is 9HP. This system more than makes up for the randomness issues.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by 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.

Of course it does. What else could have happened? The computer decided to mix up the results just to make you mad? Don't be silly. It's random.

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

You clearly do not understand probability at all. Probability doesn't guarantee anything; you are not assured of winning any amount of times. Probability is chance, there is a distinct chance of pretty much anything happening.

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.

They are linked. In any Civ game one can get ahead of the opponents in tech, because the AI just will never be as good as the human player. As a result, Civ2 was incredibly easy because with even a slight lead in tech the human player could destroy anybody easily. It depended entirely of tech; ridiculously small armies could conquer massive forces only one tech "jump" behind.

Fortunately, Civ3 fixed this ridiculousness and made the game a challenge.

[ChaotikVisions]

I don't even notice the RNG that much anymore. Sure, a Legion made two nights retreat out in the open, i'll say they had a good commander. All it takes is bringing another knight up to finish em off. And I personally think ranged units should get a first-strike type bonus, to where the archer in plains would be the warrior most of the time, but thats just me. Don't let everything ride on a few units, expect to lose up to or more then half your force when going to war. (Thats your attacking forces, not all of your guys.) Also, once you get up to Cannons bombarding can be great for weaking city defenses.

And whats this about it being unique to Civ3? I remember a Phalanx beating back a Mech. Inf or Armor in Civ2. Sure, it was on a hill/mountain in a large city, but it happened. Playing as the Greeks as a Theocracy, purging the world in white flame. Was on an island so didn't expect anyone to attack, but oh well. In Civ2 it did seem like terrain mattered more, in Civ3 i'll admit its hard to tell wether its the RNG or terrain affecting things sometimes. Anyway, I still don't know how you were fighting Spearman with Tanks, unless it was an AI isolated on an island, but even they usually get enough techs for at least late-age mideval units.

[CerberusIV]

If I have a problem with the RNG it is that it can be very streaky.

Example: My vet galley attacks a Babylonian vet galley and loses. I have preserve random seed turned off so I reload (I don't care if you think that is cheating - it's my game and I'll reload if I want to) and the same thing happens. It happens six times in a row and I eventually win the seventh replay.

That is not very probable for a 50:50 battle but I am prepared to live with it for a game that is a challenge. If you want to win every time go play CtP2.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Willem


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.

Oh boy... you think this is the only way to fix the overpowered howitzer issue? No, it's not, it has nothing to do with that. Howitzer won because best defence was 6+fortify bonus, and best attack was 12, and ignored city walls (if both are vets 9+fortify bonus and 18). The issue was already fixed when "ignore defences" was removed from the howitzer (modern armor) and the defender strenght increased. Now its 18+bonuses vs 24, problem fixed, defender wins. The randomness which is the issue here (right? ) has nothing to do with that.

[Nubclear]

Hmm.....

Ok, I will state this bluntly: To me, the Civ3 combat system SUCKS. There, I said it as bluntly as I can. The way the game is much more aggressive SUCKS. For me, the game SUCKS.
Others share my opinion as well about the combat system. Many other people also think it SUCKS. Others also believe that the aggressiveness SUCKS. And yes, others also believe that the entire game as a whole SUCKS.

We don't care about if the AI is relevant or not. We dont care if its reliastic or not. We also dont care if its "not a challenge" or any other related comments because we think it SUCKS.

Now, you probably think it SUCKS that we rant on here about how much it SUCKS when you dont think it SUCKS at all, dont you? I'm also getting tired of people who think it SUCKS posting that they think it SUCKS over and over and over again. I also get tired of people saying "Well Civ3 is great because of its combat system" or "Civ3 SUCKS because of its combat system" because both those statements SUCK because theyre trying to convince someone who think it SUCKS (or doesnt) and it SUCKS because its not going to happen.

So to the people who think it SUCKS: Stop posting on this message board about how it SUCKS. People who dont think it SUCKS will not begin thinking it SUCKS no matter how much you say "Culture flipping SUCKS" or "The combat system SUCKS." ITS JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. People who enjoy the game should be left to enjoy the game even if you think it SUCKS. Don't ruin their fun.

This sucks.....I'm going to go play AC.

Tassadar, Apoltyons Most Eloquent Poster

[Catt]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
If you want to win every time go play CtP2.

. . . . or play with Preserve Random Seed "Off" and reload as necessary, perhaps up to seven times.

Sorry, CerberusIV, that was too inviting to pass up (it's your game and you should play in any way that you like ).

Catt

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Hmm.....

Ok, I will state this bluntly: To me, the Civ3 combat system SUCKS. There, I said it as bluntly as I can. The way the game is much more aggressive SUCKS. For me, the game SUCKS.
Others share my opinion as well about the combat system. Many other people also think it SUCKS. Others also believe that the aggressiveness SUCKS. And yes, others also believe that the entire game as a whole SUCKS.

We don't care about if the AI is relevant or not. We dont care if its reliastic or not. We also dont care if its "not a challenge" or any other related comments because we think it SUCKS.

Now, you probably think it SUCKS that we rant on here about how much it SUCKS when you dont think it SUCKS at all, dont you? I'm also getting tired of people who think it SUCKS posting that they think it SUCKS over and over and over again. I also get tired of people saying "Well Civ3 is great because of its combat system" or "Civ3 SUCKS because of its combat system" because both those statements SUCK because theyre trying to convince someone who think it SUCKS (or doesnt) and it SUCKS because its not going to happen.

So to the people who think it SUCKS: Stop posting on this message board about how it SUCKS. People who dont think it SUCKS will not begin thinking it SUCKS no matter how much you say "Culture flipping SUCKS" or "The combat system SUCKS." ITS JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. People who enjoy the game should be left to enjoy the game even if you think it SUCKS. Don't ruin their fun.

This sucks.....I'm going to go play AC.

Tassadar, Apoltyons Most Eloquent Poster

You SUCK!

[Willem]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
The randomness which is the issue here (right? ) has nothing to do with that.

The issue here, IMO, is whether Civ III is more of a challenge when it comes to combat than the previous games. I don't think there's any contest on that score. The fact that inferior units sometimes win is irrelevant.

History is full of examples of an inferior force succeeding against overwhelming odds. It happens in reality, why not in a game, albeit somewhat exaggerated?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

You SUCK!

Btw, for the curious, there are 22 "suck" in that post. Mine, that is.

[vmxa1]

I do not think it is a case of convincing us, the combat suck people, have failed to make their case. It is in fact not valid. The scores of players that manage to deal with the combat system effectively have proven that the combat system is not the issue.
If one does not like that game for any reason, that is fair. The combat system is not a problem, it is not perfect and can be annoying. My ex is annoying, my kids are annoying, heck I am annoying so what. They are still are worth my time. I can't speak for weither I am worth their time or not.

[Brizey]

I think that a lot of the "problems" people have with the Civ3 combat system stem from not understanding it. For example, a fortified spearman of equal rank will beat an attacking legion most of the time because of the terrain bonus. My guess is that people overestimate the importance of the A and D difference, and forget about all the bonuses. Get a good calculator (see my thread in the strat forum for mine) and play with it a bit.

What the Civ3 combat gets right is that it reflects attrition better. The good players attack with overwhelming, concentrated force to minimize casualties.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I do not think it is a case of convincing us, the combat suck people, have failed to make their case. It is in fact not valid.

If I dont like it for ANY reason, then it is valid. For me at least.

The scores of players that manage to deal with the combat system effectively have proven that the combat system is not the issue.

Hey, if it spoils the game for me...Then it is the issue. I dont care if its logical, I dont care if "scores of players" have managed to deal with it.....its annoying. I dont like it. Its annoying enough to force me to discotninue playing the game.

If one does not like that game for any reason, that is fair. The combat system is not a problem,

Again, that depends on your perspective....I would be playing civ3 were it not for the combat system, so again for me it IS the problem.

it is not perfect and can be annoying. My ex is annoying, my kids are annoying, heck I am annoying so what. They are still are worth my time. I can't speak for weither I am worth their time or not.

No offense, but what you are implying is EXTREMLY flawed. Just beause something is annoying doesnt mean the product is worth your time. Not sure if you meant to imply that, but....just incase you did.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
We don't care about if the AI is relevant or not. We dont care if its reliastic or not. We also dont care if its "not a challenge" or any other related comments because we think it SUCKS.

So, in other words, there isn't any actual reason that you don't like it.

But of course, that's entirely the point... Tassadar is right that you can't convince people that something is good or bad.

However, Tassadar, please consider this:

This is a discussion forum. If somebody posts something here, it is assumed they wish to discuss it. Usually, the person has a question, point of debate, something that can be argued about and we discuss it.

When somebody comes with some topic that is impossible to discuss, however, like the fact that they hate the combat system... what are we to discuss? Well, to stay on topic, we'll talk about how it doesn't suck and why. What else can you expect? If the founder of the thread wants to talk opinion, then we discuss our opinions.

I too think we should have no more "i love/hate this" threads. But the fact is, people essentially post what they want here, and if they want to talk opinion then so be it.

So, although it may appear like those of us who like it are trying to "convince" you or somebody else how good Civ3 is, we are not... we are just posting on topic in the spirit of the thread. You are, as always, entitled to your opinions.