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

[Dis]

aside from howitzers it wasn't broke. All it needed was a few more units and more complexity like the current morale system.

[Egbert]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
now you cannot plan with small number of units, since you never know what will happen with your units.

Umh, remember the Civ 2 stealth fighters and the awesome damage you could predictably do with a mere handful of them even at deity? Was that exciting and filled with suspense?

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Dissident
aside from howitzers it wasn't broke.

I disagree. For me, Elephants were broken. Crusaders were broken. Dragoons and Cavalry were definately broken. Alpine Troops were broken. Mech. Inf. too. Tanks, actually, weren't too broken. Bombers were. Stealth and Howitzer were just godly.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Willem


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

I agree. Anyone that doesn't think so is completely oblivious to the ridiculous unit imbalances. Not to mention the fact that the attacker was ALWAYS, ALWAYS at an advantage with how transit was implemented in Civ2.

[tinyp3nis]

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.

You manage to describe midlife crisis, but you _do not_ manage to describe the game as I want it to be. Oh well, I'm happy you are enjoying yourself
Really, was civ 2 that annoying to you? Did you play it? Because that is the system I want, well not it excatly but pretty much it. If the HP is simply increased, it is almost the civ 2 system. The firepower however is unnecessary. Old techs should still not be overrun too much by new ones. Bunch of hp made the units live up to their costs, and the random results were to occur when 2 somewhat same strenght units had a fight, i.e 2-x unit attacks x-2 unit, or damaged x-2 defends versus 1-x unit. Of course, when a unit with 4-x attacked a unit of x-1, the 4 would allways win (assuming it had full health). Like I said, the strategy comes from interracting with the other player, not with interracting with random numbers, atleast for me it does.
If your civ 3 games versus the AI are full of emotions, I must admit your imagination is excellent. If you can get great pleasure from random results, and imagine (after battle of course ) your fighting conditions and other stuff why the unit that had no business winning did win, that is all in your favor, you get so much from so little, and that's great.
Maybe you should still try MP, any MP game, with real people, there is where I get the emotions.
For me, the RNG is just another part of the program, it's no magical thing, it does not make the AI anyway lifelike. For the record, I admit civ 3 has much more lifelike AI than civ 2, but no, the random numbers don't help it make it so, IMHO.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by peterfharris


Umh, remember the Civ 2 stealth fighters and the awesome damage you could predictably do with a mere handful of them even at deity? Was that exciting and filled with suspense?

Where did I state I want unbalanced units?

[celicakydd]

Regardless of whether we agree or not with you regarding the balance of the units, what I don't understand is why you don't take matters in your own hands an modify the untis to your liking?

The editor couldn't be easier to use. I also like to have a bit of an advantage if I am technically superior to my openent, but rather than rant and throw out the whole game, I will take steps and make the game, the game I want to play.

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by celicakydd
Regardless of whether we agree or not with you regarding the balance of the units, what I don't understand is why you don't take matters in your own hands an modify the untis to your liking?

The editor couldn't be easier to use. I also like to have a bit of an advantage if I am technically superior to my openent, but rather than rant and throw out the whole game, I will take steps and make the game, the game I want to play.

Is this directed at me? Civ 3 units are already balanced, for me atleast (except for UU's of course ). They just have too few HP. Why not increase HP? About the increase, you can read what I have already said about that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
You manage to describe midlife crisis, but you _do not_ manage to describe the game as I want it to be. Oh well, I'm happy you are enjoying yourself

Well, so am I

Really, was civ 2 that annoying to you? Did you play it?

Yes, I played Civ2 for years. I only stopped when I got Civ3.

Because that is the system I want, well not it excatly but pretty much it. If the HP is simply increased, it is almost the civ 2 system. The firepower however is unnecessary...

I agree with firepower being unnecessary. Besides that, though, you can easily modify Civ3 to be as random or as predictable as you want.

If your civ 3 games versus the AI are full of emotions, I must admit your imagination is excellent. If you can get great pleasure from random results, and imagine (after battle of course ) your fighting conditions and other stuff why the unit that had no business winning did win, that is all in your favor, you get so much from so little, and that's great.

I don't see any unit that has "no business" winning. If I did, I would mod it immediatly so it did.

I derive enjoyment from not knowing exactly what to expect. Certainly, combat results in Civ3 are usually easy to predict, but the suspense of whether or not an attack will break through is, IMO, the best part of the game, combat-wise.

For the record, I admit civ 3 has much more lifelike AI than civ 2, but no, the random numbers don't help it make it so, IMHO.

I can't undersatnd this. Who would not be bored knowing how every combat would end? Where is the risk? I simply don't see how what you propose would be any fun at all. Nearly all comp games I have ever played had some sort of RNG. I consider it vital to any good combat system. Popular games from D&D to Risk all use an RNG of some kind... can you imagine anyone playing Risk with no risk? Playing a tabletop RPG with no dice, knowing exactly what every action you performed would do? I can't, and maybe that's why I can't understand you.

[tinyp3nis]

I agree with firepower being unnecessary. Besides that, though, you can easily modify Civ3 to be as random or as predictable as you want.

I only want to explain things once, I have explained this already. The standart that will be used in MP will be the Firaxis system...

I don't see any unit that has "no business" winning. If I did, I would mod it immediatly so it did.

Hmmm? Never said so, please try to undrestand. Warrior has every business to kick another warriors ass, but not full health pikeman for example. It's not just about the unit, it's about the situation too.

I can't undersatnd this. Who would not be bored knowing how every combat would end? Where is the risk? I simply don't see how what you propose would be any fun at all. Nearly all comp games I have ever played had some sort of RNG. I consider it vital to any good combat system. Popular games from D&D to Risk all use an RNG of some kind... can you imagine anyone playing Risk with no risk? Playing a tabletop RPG with no dice, knowing exactly what every action you performed would do? I can't, and maybe that's why I can't understand you.

Are you trying to undrestand? If it's too hard, you can stop trying and accept people value different things.
I liked hero quest as a kid, rolling the dices was fun. I also enjoy many other random things too, i.e slot machines (I usually lose btw), and many many more. What has Risk to do with civ3? Sure, candy is nice, but I don't put it in my food. And I don't put potatoes in my candy. They taste bad together. Not all games need massive randomness, some rely entirely on it, and imho, civ3 has too much.

[asleepathewheel]

I'm sure this has been posted before in this thread, and if so, please ignore it, but...

If someone doesn't like the randomness of results, then they should use bombard units. That's what they are for, to soften the enemy and to reduce the randomness. If you are afraid that pikeman will beat your knight, then take off a hp or two with bombard. Will reduce the risk of loss considerably.

I like how Civ3 forces a choice: do I take a risk and attack with a small number of units, hoping that most are sucessful now, or do I wait a little longer and build some artillery to reduce the risk of failure.

Its much better to me than the Civ2 system where I have to amass the best unit of the era and nothing else.

I know a lot of players ignore the use of bombard units, and I do sometimes as well, too slow for me sometimes, but if they are used correctly, the can nearly eliminate the randomness that plagues some.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Hmmm? Never said so, please try to undrestand. Warrior has every business to kick another warriors ass, but not full health pikeman for example.

Why not?

Not all games need massive randomness, some rely entirely on it, and imho, civ3 has too much.

Ok, this is precisely what I'm getting at... if you accept some randomness (which you do, by your "civ3 has too much" comment), then I would say that all you need to do is mod unit values. You can totally change how much randomness the game uses.

As for MP... that's a valid complaint, but I do not have PTW and I don't play MP so I really can't comment.

[tinyp3nis]

Why not?

The pikeman costs more, and would be nice if it was better than warrior, not better "maybe" like it is now.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
The pikeman costs more, and would be nice if it was better than warrior, not better "maybe" like it is now.

The pikeman is far better than a warrior. How could you say that 1/3/1 is "maybe" better than 1/1/1?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


The pikeman is far better than a warrior. How could you say that 1/3/1 is "maybe" better than 1/1/1?

Because the warrior can kill the pikeman with a good RN. Sure, the pikeman has better stats but RNG > stats