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

[Action]

So, I recently decided to get PTW and fire up Civ 3 again. I had originally quit in disgust before all the patches came out and had been playing Alpha Centauri again.

So anyway, I'm the Carthagians neighboring the Indians and I decide I will need to take them out. I have iron they don't. They have horses I dont.

I build roads right to the edge of their borders, and mass up a bunch of swordsmen and a few numidian mercenaries to defend strategic points and captured cities (2/3/1 carthagian special unit). All they have are a few archers, spearmen and horsemen. My troops were all vets, his were all regulars.
Should be easy right? Not with Civ 3's combat system.

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.

At this point I close the program.
This wouldnt happen in Civ2 or SMAC.
This is just one of the reasons that while I've spent 95 dollars on Civ 3 products I've played them for about 1/10th as long as I played Civ 2 or SMAC.
Anyway, theres my rant, I'm sure you don't care.

[zulu9812]

You could, of course, edit the unit stats to your satisfaction...

[Jaybe]

UGLY streaks of bad luck.
OTOH, knowing that YOU can have such luck, know ALSO that the AI could. If you happened to have Preserve Random Seed turned off when you started the game, you could have another go at it.

Otherwise, enjoy your gaming!
If this was your 1st PTW game, I would say that my first one was a fiasco also, though I don't blame it on the combat system/RNG. Part of it was due to different AI behavior, something to adjust to.

[The Andy-Man]

Bad luck?
I played civ3 for a month hoping it would get good, and what he said is all that ever happend, amongst other things.

I agree, this would never happen in SMAC of AC.
eg. How many warriors did you build in civ2 and how useful were they?
In civ3 otoh, a warrior is an effective infantry unit until the medieval ages.

[Cyclotron]

It all works according to probability; that has been tested.

Of course, if the probability is too strange for you, it is not diffficult to mod more hit points/ADM/ whatever.

To say that better units were better in Civ2... is true. But then, in Civ2, having just one better unit than the AI guaranteed your win... no challenge. The Civ3 combat system is optimized to keep resources and difficulty in mind.

Would you care to post stats on how many times your swordsmen won battles?

[Catt]

Well, at least you ackowledge it is a rant. The Civ 3 combat system is what it is -- it works for some and not for others.

If you get infuriated when the "longshots" come in (at least when the longshot is against you ), especially when a series of longshots comes close together, then you probably shouldn't play Civ 3 - you will be destined for rant-inducing, blood-boiling, red-faced incredulity.

Catt

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Catt
The Civ 3 combat system is what it is -- it works for some and not for others.

Well, actually, it works for everyone, but not everyone likes it. Kinda like most products out there...

[Thrawn05]

*wonders if Action is really a Coracle DL*




I have a love hate relationship with Civ3, but right now I'm busy with other games to play it (in fact, I don't think I've been playing since Aug.)

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Catt
you will be destined for rant-inducing, blood-boiling, red-faced incredulity.

Catt

I can definately personally attest to this. Before quitting Civ3, I tried one more game....just to see if my judgement was off just a little bit. Ugh. Because of the combat system, let us just say it did not go well.

And then it was bye bye for Civ3 At least it helped me realize the full glory of Civ2 and AC

[The Andy-Man]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
It all works according to probability; that has been tested.

Of course, if the probability is too strange for you, it is not diffficult to mod more hit points/ADM/ whatever.

To say that better units were better in Civ2... is true. But then, in Civ2, having just one better unit than the AI guaranteed your win... no challenge. The Civ3 combat system is optimized to keep resources and difficulty in mind.

Would you care to post stats on how many times your swordsmen won battles?

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.

[Minmaster]

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.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
*wonders if Action is really a Coracle DL*

Can't be! He never once mentioned cultural flipping.

[Catt]

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).

This is silly.

If the only time you had a successful military engagement was when attacking from an age (or two!) ahead of your enemy, then you simply don't understand the game (or are horribly, unconscionably, truly unbelievably (i.e., not believable)) bad at both basic math and simple logic.

As cyclotron7 said, the game is perfectly straightforward and "plays by the rules" -- it simply may have a greater degree of randomness associated with combat than some would prefer.

That's not a problem with the game; it's a matter of taste.

Catt

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Catt
This is silly.

...

Oooh! You said it MUCH nicer than I almost did.
It's okay to be or act like an idiot (i.e., "dim"), but such people should learn the skills necessary to not ADVERTISE it!

If one is not proficient at a task, they can try to understand it better through study or ask for help, but that was just a wee bit overboard in the sour grapes department.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
this is all bollox,

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.

If it is luck, you can do several things.
1) Realize it's luck and stop whining about how unfair life is.
2) Change the hp values so combat results more closely fit the probabilities.
3) Modify the ADM values so you never lose, or whatever.

I challenge you to go in the strategy forum and tell people there that same-era wars are impossible. If that were true, they wouldn't be discussing early wars, archer rushes, etc. like they are. Same era wars work; I fight them nearly 100% of the time.

Sorry. You can not like the numbers if you want, but it's a fact that the combat system is not flawed in any way.