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

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Action
Imagine that you have a sliding scale, at one end the superior unit always wins, at the other end it's truely random, theres a 50/50 chance either one will win.

Ok, done. Civ3 is neither of those systems.

Now, at various intervals along the scale you can easily set it up so (putting aside terrain for now) the inferior unit almost never wins or the inferior unit is able to win a good percentage of the time. It's all based around how you design your combat system.

No, it is not. It is based around unit values. You can change the unit values in Civ to either make inferior units win quite often or lose 99.9% of the time.

There essentially an unlimited number of potential systems for resolving combat. Each system places a varying weight on luck and a varying weight on unit stats.

Again, you are confusing a combat system with combat values. Civ3's system can function as anything along that slider of yours, if you change the unit values.

These are extremely simple and extreme examples put in form of dice to make it more understandable, but I hope they show you how luck and stats can be weighted to different extents by the combat resolution formula.

And Civ3 can do this. What's your point?

It is my belief that the combat resolution formula for Civ 4 should assign a little more weight to the stats and a little less weight to luck/randomness/probability. So, inferior units winning would be more rare.

You don't need to wait for Civ4. Just mod the ADM and hit point values and you're done.

[Tattila the Hun]

Get artillery! Artillery rules!

[notyoueither]

That is purely a brutal string of bad results.

I have had a few bad runs. I had to buy a new mouse once.

However, randomness aside, the game does reward the better prepared and the better planner. I think the strategy forum is full of that.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


so true, so true. I like it the way it is now much more. makes me think harder while planning an invasion. howitzer rush was so boring after a while, no need to go back to that.

The howitzer rush is not in civ3, since the MI in a city _is_ a better unit than the MA. I already explained this. Civ 2 was not easier because it lacked random combat.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

I agree with you 100%. Better unit should win the fights. The current combat system does not add strategy, but takes some away.

Strategy is not knowing for certain what will happen before the event. Strategy is being better prepared and taking better advantage of your opponent's weakness than he takes of yours. Whatever the fortunes of war serve up.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Well, for starters, where is the strategy? There would be absolutely no point to most city defense, because if the offensive units were more powerful they would always win... and worse, if the defensive units were more powerful, you would never be able to take a city.

That's just about the worst idea I've ever heard. If units always won when they were more powerful, you would either have completely useless defenders or cities that were impossible to take.

to that idea.

.... So you think better unit wins means, it won't lose any hp? Is that it??? Of course it should lose some strenght, so it cannot go on forever, that would be just so stupid, please, give some benefit of a doubt, I'm not a complete idiot. Let's say city has a MI, one MA could not take it, but 2 could, and should. The current combat system allows things such as:
One tank, or even one cavalry unit could take it (if you have the same luck that the starter of this thread had ) or
Three MA's, or even a _lot_ more could not take it.
Solution is very simple, but I was not asking for anyone to explain it to me, because it's old news, just increase the hp. Then you can plan more accordingly. Can I do the hp increase with the editor? Yes. Do I want to? Not in single. Will the hp increase help the multiplayer? No because the people will play at the Firaxis settings. Will Firaxis do anything about this i.e increase hp, or make it optional? Probably not.

[TacticalGrace]

I think the harder to predict nature of civ3 makes it more fun than civ2. It's the surprises that makes it interesting.

The good strategist is always thinking "what if this doesn't work" and tries to have reserve troops and contingency plans

[notyoueither]

I'll bet Bastogne was a bit of a surprise to the Germans. So too was Stalingrad.

Then again, the French were truely shocked in 1940. Not to mention the Russians in the same year.

Bigger numbers and values do not always win. Sometimes luck, conditions, or sheer cussedness carry the day.

Stuff that down your Civ2 combat system.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Strategy is not knowing for certain what will happen before the event. Strategy is being better prepared and taking better advantage of your opponent's weakness than he takes of yours. Whatever the fortunes of war serve up.

Strategy is interracting with the opponent, versus human, this is the best and the most rewarding part. RNG does not add strategy at all, it removes it, now you cannot plan with small number of units, since you never know what will happen with your units. You can hope for the best, which is not strategy. Certain fun is in that fact yes, I admit that. The guy who said about big armies said it right, of course you fight with smaller armies, but then the winner might not be the better player, but is the random player . The units have values, attack, defence, I just wish the values would have more meaning than the RNG.

Of course, for the real life battle lovers, the RNG is a dream. But if you peeps really liked real life battle system, you would wan't a system that offers no numbers, just words.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'll bet Bastogne was a bit of a surprise to the Germans. So too was Stalingrad.

Then again, the French were truely shocked in 1940. Not to mention the Russians in the same year.

Bigger numbers and values do not always win. Sometimes luck, conditions, or sheer cussedness carry the day.

Stuff that down your Civ2 combat system.

No, I won't since I really don't care about that when I play. I should know about the randomness, afterall, only reason why I don't speak russian is because of winterwar.
When I play, I want to be in the control, if I don't, I can watch a movie instead. When I build units I want to get their worth, and the opponent should too. If for some reason my MA or whatever good unit I build, does not provide, I hope the reason of this will be either :
The silliness of _my_ actions
OR
The wisdom of my opponent, NOT the RNG!!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
I just wish the values would have more meaning than the RNG.

Make them that way.

Of course, for the real life battle lovers, the RNG is a dream. But if you peeps really liked real life battle system, you would wan't a system that offers no numbers, just words.

The RNG simply makes combat less than 100% predictable. Probaly the most boring thing I can imagine would be a combat system where I knew the exact result every time. Risk is part of strategy. There is no risk in such a system. There is no exhilaration of victory, because you knew it was going to happen. No amazing victories. No agonizing defeats. No stalwart defenders.

Your combat system is a sterile world, devoid of emotion, lacking imagination and suspense. It has all the fun of an algebra class, where everything works by formula and everything is predetermined. It is a bleak realm of bland results and no surprises. It sounds like a midlife crisis, not a computer game.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
It sounds like a midlife crisis, not a computer game.

Actually, I'm not weighing in (again?) on this topic, but I think this quote is great.

[Dis]

all we really want is the civ2 system . If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But since we are stuck with this system I am OK with it. I'm not going to quit playing because of it.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Dissident
all we really want is the civ2 system . If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

The Civ II system was broke, it was way to easy at the end to win. It became boring and predictable.

[Cyclotron]

Agreed entirely with Willem.

Hmm... Warpstorm, that is a good quote. Modifying signature...