What's with the loaded dice?

[notyoueither]

PS

I think the guy is either unable to express himself clearly, or is a troll.

*a three unit "raiding party" through about 20 blockading cavalry and attempt to march into our heartland with the* /Comment. Twenty Cav (actually 9) could completely surround a stack and prevent it from moving anywhere.

*capture my forbidden palace city, killing six entrenched inf and 3 cav defenders with ONLY THREE REGULAR CAV* /Comment. 3 Cav attack 6 times. 6 Inf dead. What did the 3 defending Cav do? Wait for the enemy Cav to heal and renew the attack? I find this example hard to accept as being in good faith.

*seeing 3 or 4 ironsides decimate a modern navy three times their numbers* /Comment. Anybody seen this? What were your Battleships doing while the Ironclads were adjacent?

*the ai successfully defend a city against an attacking stack of TWENTY FIVE UNITS with 3 regular and 2 conscript infantry, DESTROYING SIX ELITE CAV IN THE PROCESS.. (two defenders died) * Comment/. I simply can't belive it. It does not agree with any of my observations of how the game plays out. Anybody else attacked with 25 units against 5 and lost? Of course the other 19 could have been Warriors.

etc

Salve

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Jumping Choya
3. I expect the unit I see on screen to reflect what it is.

What you see on the screen is a 1/2/1 unit. If you actually had a bunch of real life Spearmen and Tanks on your screen, it would probably be pretty hard to play the game. Using regular units on grassland, the 1/2/1 Spearman has a 1.5% chance of winning when defending against a 16/8/2 Tank. The chance of it actually killing the Tank in that battle is 0.8%. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. The alternative is to take randomness out of the calculations completely, and make Civ 3 warfare the most boring thing ever put in a game. I dont know about you, but I really don't care to check if 16 is bigger than 2 over and over again.

And, before anybody says "well duh u just had a dum tank comander!"

The "tank comander" is the player. There will be some losses in warfare no matter the tech superiority, thats just how things work. Every once in a while military units end up killing themselves (crossfire) or just having accidents of one type or another. A smart commander is one that allows in his plans for unforseen setbacks and doesn't let them compromise the success of the mission. If ever the success a Civ 3 game depends on 1 Tank beating 1 Spearman, it was a poorly played game.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by GnuZ
- I found combined arms (once I could make ranged weps available) made little difference, 100% of the gunners are unable to hit a target 75% of the time.

Shows me that you brought not enough artillery.

Originally posted by GnuZ
Having played many hours of a fourth, to a point where EVERY city in my Egyptian empire, including my capitol, decended into civil disorder by the 4th turn after an unwarrented and unprovoked Pearl Harbour style attack on our industrial heartland by the Germans - who were "polite" towards us and good trading partners at the time... (complete with whining peaceniks destroying infrastructure and stopping military production, sure, that's believable.. As if!)

Egypt is a religious civilization. You could have changed into Monarchy or Communism in 1 turn. Others need 4-6 turns.

Originally posted by GnuZ
Having earlier been nearly at the "tearing hair and rending clothing" stage of frustration attempting to elegantly handle another "polite" trading partner ignoring requests to respect zone of control in order to "force land" a three unit "raiding party" through about 20 blockading cavalry and attempt to march into our heartland with the "friendly" objective of doing a walk in capture of an undefended city... (One must assume that someone's aunt sent a letter back to Russia saying "there are no soldiers here, quick tell the Czar to send a Cossack!" as I didn't trade my maps.) THAT'S reasonable, OH yeah.

There is no zone of control in Civ3. And unless they are Superman, Rambo and Captain Kirk, 20 cavalry will always stop 3 units or at least block them. By the way, who leaves cities undefended?

Originally posted by GnuZ
In all cases of agression having had the entire REST OF THE WORLD take the side of the ATTACKERS (b.s. they had mutual defense agreements, unless they were "secret", and what would be the POINT of having them, if so?) and declare war on us for DEFENDING OURSELVES..

What have you done to drag them at your side?

Originally posted by GnuZ
Having just watched (it seems like for the hundredth time) the ai successfully defend a city against an attacking stack of TWENTY FIVE UNITS with 3 regular and 2 conscript infantry, DESTROYING SIX ELITE CAV IN THE PROCESS.. (two defenders died)

Oh well, who attacks 10-defending infantry in a (may be even 13+ = 100% bonus) city with 6-attacking cavalry without weakening the defenders with LOTs of artillery or battleships, deserves to take severe losses. I once have survived a raid of 25-30 barbarian horsemen in a city with 2 vet hoplites. One died, other was down to 1 hp but held the city. So far about loaded dice.

Originally posted by GnuZ
Having then watched it magically capture my forbidden palace city, killing six entrenched inf and 3 cav defenders with ONLY THREE REGULAR CAV.

I refuse to comment this. It's just too ridiculous.

And I refuse to comment the whole rest. I suggest you to switch to another game, without war and diplomacy. Teletubbies will be fine.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Jumping Choya
You're overlooking several key points here:

1. If my tanks are facing spearmen in some grasslands, there is no ravine.

I believe the circumference of the Earth is about 25,000 miles. My maps have 256 tiles, making one tile roughly equivalent to 100 miles. I'm sure somewhere in there it's entirely possible to have a ravine, or some other terrain feature that's not suitable for a tank.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jumping Choya
You're overlooking several key points here:

1. If my tanks are facing spearmen in some grasslands, there is no ravine.
2. If there was a ravine, I doubt the tanks would just drive on into it, throwing all caution to the winds. They would take the high ground.
3. I expect the unit I see on screen to reflect what it is. If I see a spearman, it is a spearman. It fights with a spear. It is not a molatov cocktail thrower, or a boulder pusher, or a guerilla fighter. If it was any of those, I would expect it to be named so and be upgraded accordingly.
4. I don't see how I group of guys with spears (since in this case, we're dealing with spearmen) would do anything like sabotaging supply lines. And even if they did, the tank crews would still have sufficient ammo in the form of pistols and machine guns to massacre any guys running with spears.
5. Well, you just can't have a list end with four points, can you?

And, before anybody says "well duh u just had a dum tank comander!", here's my response: don't be silly, and don't make up random excuses for a pathetic situation. The game makes no mention about random factors like dumb commanders and other adverse conditions. Thus, I don't consider it a feature of the game. And even if I somehow ended up with a dumb commander, at worst he would order his men to run the damn spearmen over.

And just in case somebody wanted to say "You need to use your imagination, it could be plenty possible!"...no. I didn't buy this game to make inane explanations for crazy situations. I enjoy using my imagination to form stories about my empire, but I don't see any reason why I should have to make an excuse for a lame combat result. If I felt like doing that, I might as well have not bought the game and instead created "Mental Civ" in my head, where I could make all the little excuse-stories I wanted ("and then the pikeman, with a wind of 100 MPH at his back, heaved his pike, and given the added power of the wind, it sliced through a tank, and meanwhile, everybody else was having the same, stellar results!...")

Unless the 100 square kilometers are paved, there are always "interesting" terrain features. Even spearmen have the technology called "fire". Tanks often have to invade difficult terrain in order to control the area. For instance, how do you think they got on the high ground? A boulder-pusher or fire-lighter is hardly an upgrade to a spearman.

You are making the same mistake countless generals have made. By believing them to be "only savages," you leave yourself and your soldiers open to a catastrophe.

And yes, there are always random factors, meaning uncontrollable and unpredictable factors, hence the randomizer.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Just wishing that those people would understand. It is not a spearman against a tank. It is a 1-2-1 against a 16-8-3. Regardless of attacking unit the odds are 8-1 (or 1-8). That means that in 9 battles, the spearman, opps I mean the 1-2-1, will win one of them. It gets worse if the odds are capped like they are on many board games. Most board war games use a look up table and dice to determine the odds. They usually do not go over 4-1 odds.

[Jumping Choya]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Unless the 100 square kilometers are paved, there are always "interesting" terrain features. Even spearmen have the technology called "fire". Tanks often have to invade difficult terrain in order to control the area. For instance, how do you think they got on the high ground? A boulder-pusher or fire-lighter is hardly an upgrade to a spearman.

You are making the same mistake countless generals have made. By believing them to be "only savages," you leave yourself and your soldiers open to a catastrophe.

And yes, there are always random factors, meaning uncontrollable and unpredictable factors, hence the randomizer.

Oh, come on. Savages or not, spearmen would just have downright crappy luck against tanks. Could you imagine any modern country fielding the "105th Special Tactics Spearman Division"? I think that says something about how succesful they'd be. I'm even skeptical of this boulder-pushing concept. Tanks aren't blind, and they aren't that slow either. They'd see the boulder and adjust their speed accordingly. Or, the boulder would skip unpredictable down the hill, and miss altogether. And again, in a grassland, there isn't going to be terrain that will lead to a situation like that. Sure, it wouldn't be completely flat, but it wouldn't ever be a situation where spearmen would have any outrageous advantage.

I admire your patience in justifying everything that people find wrong with Civ III. I see that you take the time and find instances where an army defects, for example. But, I think you need to step back and think about it. Just how reasonable is it that a bunch of tanks, made of metal and firing high-velocity projectiles, would ever have trouble with spearmen, who fight by running up to their targets and stabbing them? Even if the spearmen weren't actually spearmen, do you think that an entire division of tanks would be wiped out by boulders and molatovs? Keep in mind, also, that modern battle groups are better trained and are usually superior in numbers as well.

[Jumping Choya]

Originally posted by RPMisCOOL
Just wishing that those people would understand. It is not a spearman against a tank. It is a 1-2-1 against a 16-8-3. Regardless of attacking unit the odds are 8-1 (or 1-8). That means that in 9 battles, the spearman, opps I mean the 1-2-1, will win one of them. It gets worse if the odds are capped like they are on many board games. Most board war games use a look up table and dice to determine the odds. They usually do not go over 4-1 odds.

I realize that it's just a bunch of statistics, which might be the underlying problem. In my opinion, there should be some flags in the game that render certain units invincible to other units - but that's not the issue right now.

Actually, I think you're off on the way the game figures it. Don't ask me how it works, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't as straightforward as comparing offense to defense, because I know that my tanks have had better luck than losing one battle every nine.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jumping Choya
Oh, come on. Savages or not, spearmen would just have downright crappy luck against tanks.

You're right! I wouldn't give them a one in a hundred chance.

The civulator says that a veteran tank v. regular spearman on grassland is 99.739%. That is about what I see in my games.

Civulator

http://www.columbia.edu/~sdc2002/civulator.html

[vmxa1]

I agree with Jumping and the apologist will have unlimited excuses. I think that RPMisCool has the answer, they cap the odds so the real chances are lower than one would expect. All rationalization aside it just a number crunch. The fact that some say they never see this tells me that they are very cautious and have no exposure, that is fine, but as I have seen and said, why would I sit there with my Calv and let an archer grap a worker, just because I only have a Calv at that time and location. I would attack and have lost the calv to even a warrior (Elite Calv so it takes more rounds). I can live with that, if was truly a 9x.xx% as the calc says. It seems that the levels do have an impact as I see it very seldom on Regent or higher and quite often on Chief. I like to play with min levels of troops so I will not have enough to blanket the land, why should I need a back up for a tank when it is going after an acient unit? My point is that for all who have no problem with or have not seen it, that is great, but the ones who have tossed the game over and told friends not to buy it are bad for business. It is not hurting me as I can win on any level either way, well actually I have not played Emperor yet.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by vmxa1
It seems that the levels do have an impact as I see it very seldom on Regent or higher and quite often on Chief.

The lower the difficulty level, the more likely that the AI will have inferior units. That means more of these lopsided fights, which should result in more occurances of "impossible" AI victories. The odds for each individual fight are the same regardless of difficulty level, other than against barbarian units.

[Murtin]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I like to play with min levels of troops so I will not have enough to blanket the land, why should I need a back up for a tank when it is going after an acient unit? ¨

I'm thinking this might be responsible for quite a lot of the outrage concerning bad breaks: The style of playing which involves no backup at all. Having no backup units will turn every instance of losing a battle into a full-blown disaster. And on top of that, minimal numbers of military units will make the AI all the more likely to think you're a pushover and decide to wipe you out. No wonder people get ticked off.

My point is that for all who have no problem with or have not seen it, that is great, but the ones who have tossed the game over and told friends not to buy it are bad for business.

That concern I can understand, but I really can't see there's any way to stop people from trying to play a game using strategies inappropriate for the game, then fail, get disappointed, and eventually tell their friends what a crappy game it was. You will always run into newbies who are either too impatient to learn what works and what doesn't, or too stubborn to accept that their pet strategy won't work.

Now I do think that Civ3 has some serious design issues, but this bad break thing isn't one of them.

[Zachriel]

I agree. Every game posted by people complaining about bad combat results or negative cultural results played with the barest minimum of military units to take ground, but not to hold it.

I myself do take chances, especially when I'm behind, but I know when I am taking those chances. Sometimes a tank will sneak behind enemy lines to cut supply lines. Sometimes a Cavalry will expose itself to save a damaged infantry. But I don't disrepect my enemy just because he appears to be technologically primitive. So when I attack, I send a combined force of cavalry, riflemen and cannon in sufficient quantity for the mission.

Spartacus wiped out a Roman Legion. But how? A Legion is a combined force, not just a bunch of guys with swords. It includes sword, spear, archer, seige, engineers, command structure, and very strong unit cohesion. Spartacus won because the Romans did not take him seriously. They did not follow the manual, didn't build field fortifications, didn't patrol, and so ceased being a Legion and in effect became a bunch of guys with swords.

So in Civ, if your tank attacks a spearman on a hill, and loses, some would blame the gods of Firaxis. A more distant observer might note the artillery in the town and wonder why it wasn't brought up. It just sat there unused.

Read about infantry and combined arms:

http://www.crowncity.net/civ3/Infantry.htm

[vmxa1]

The number of units nor the strategy is the issue. It does not matter if I have 10,000 units and you have one. If your spearmen wins over my tank I do not like it. If this happened once in a few games, great. These things are more common than that. The outcome of the battle is not going to hurt me, I will still win, you are going over a point that is moot.
This is what I am looking at: 5 games 4 will see one or more battleship defeated by galley or some such. If it was once or trwice in that 5 games, I would say nothing, just laugh. When it is more often than that, I suggest it could be corrected.
For others to say, well I must have an army of units to attack a mighty spearmen, makes no sense. Tactics are simple and well understood, circumstances will lead to less than optimal conditgions from time to time, this does not mean I do not understand the value of combined arm or over powering force. I am not talking about having one unit going all over the land attacking everything and expecting to win all battles, merely one unit in a postions to defend an improvemnet or a worker from an greatly inferior unit. This are not freak conditions is the point, they will occur unless you never get in one on one combat often. Combat, not invasions.

[Zachriel]

A military disaster only once or twice in the history of the world? Must be nice to live in such a perfect world.

The history I know if full of human folly leading to disaster.