Anyone else experiencing balancing problems?

Seriously flying a fighter wing into a legion army should only have one result.
Legion army dies... several times I've lost the fight and it frustrating the hell out of me.

not uncomon result for Civ. Its all in the Combat Roll, somtimes the AI uses loaded Dice.:cool:

It's lame - some of these obviously "unfair" fights should be using "overrun" function as well by default.... Pisses me off as well....

What always gets my goat, in Civ iv my Uber Combat Woodsman Warrior is Eat'n by a bear while fortified on a Forested Hill. :mad:

Firaxis can we get a little more use out of the != function in future patches?

You guys make a great game! I'm always a stanch suppoter, but jebus, seriously...

An archer army taking out a bomber wing is just wrong.

Arrows in the engine intakes are devestating, apparently. :crazyeye:

I love it when my tanks lose to pikemen. AWESOME and very enjoyable. Or when my spy rings lose to a single spy. Love that.

It makes me mad also, but at the same time I've come out on the right side of those (beating the AI even though they overmatched me by 8-10 attack).

Besides, did you all forget what the Ewoks did at the Battle of Endor!?!

Realism is not what Civ is all about. ;)

I have won more often when the AI is a few points ahead of me then winning when I am a few points ahead of the AI in combat.

It's a shame there can't be some sort of balancing feature for technology. But with the various bonuses one can get, an archer army can be competitive with significantly advanced technology... but let's be honest, I don't care how inspired, fortified and capital city defending an archer can be, a P-51 mustang is gonna have a field day :-).

At least it's not like Civ 2 (I think it was Civ 2, it was a long time ago!), where workers could fend off enemies.

THe problem is the role of Fighters... seriously they should simply not let you attack ground units with Fighters because Fighters are not Supposed to attack Ground units. Never hea complaints about a Bomber wing v. a Archer Army... because even an Engineer Wall Veteran Palace Fortified Archer Army would be only str 30... the Bomber wing, str 54

I think in a game where there's no way to upgrade a unit other than via a wonder it's a good idea to not make older units automatically useless against more modern ones.

I think if your army is 2 techs higher than the other army your going against (warriors vs knights), it should be an automatic win, plain and simple

also, check out my reviews of some of the civs, i hope you post what you think each civ should be rated,(out of 10), and post how good or bad my reviews were

I think if your army is 2 techs higher than the other army your going against (warriors vs knights), its an automatic win, plain and simple

also, check out my reviews of some of the civs, i hope you post what you think each civ should be rated,(out of 10), and post how good or bad my reviews were

This is just a bold faced lie.

If your attack power is at least double to the defender it should be an auto overrun. If your defense power is double to the attackers attack power then it should be something like "no contest" and you win. I am tired of having triple attack power and still losing.

Never hea complaints about a Bomber wing v. a Archer Army... because even an Engineer Wall Veteran Palace Fortified Archer Army would be only str 30... the Bomber wing, str 54

I have had this happen to me.

I have won more often when the AI is a few points ahead of me then winning when I am a few points ahead of the AI in combat.

This happens so often that I almost expect it as a result vs. what the numbers say.

in the game guide, it says '' a galleon isn't going to destroy a cruiser!'', well it did to me, jerks

Aaah, a good old thread complaining about the random number generator. Every new civ game sees them pop up like shrooms after a rainfall :)

If your army is not 7 times stronger (overrun) than your opponent's, then there is a chance that you will lose, period. The chance gets higher as your str gets closer to that of your enemy.
So every time you fight, and it's not an overrun situation, you are taking a risk. And over a couple hundred fights, you will lose.
It is annoying, but if you lose your game because you lost such a fight, your strategy sucks.

It can be annoying, but what can you do? It works in the players favor as well. I remember one game online in civ 4 when 6 quechu attacked my 3 warrior in my city and I ended up winning.
Its just that the computer is retarded and is usually chooses to fight with the lower odds throughout the game so they're bound to win a couple fights.

Aaah, a good old thread complaining about the random number generator. Every new civ game sees them pop up like shrooms after a rainfall :)

If your army is not 7 times stronger (overrun) than your opponent's, then there is a chance that you will lose, period. The chance gets higher as your str gets closer to that of your enemy.
So every time you fight, and it's not an overrun situation, you are taking a risk. And over a couple hundred fights, you will lose.
It is annoying, but if you lose your game because you lost such a fight, your strategy sucks.

Im alright with some luck, like a 4 beating a 6, but its tad too much if a 9 loses to a 3. I Think they need to take out a little of the luck, but not all of it

Im alright with some luck, like a 4 beating a 6, but its tad too much if a 9 loses to a 3. I Think they need to take out a little of the luck, but not all of it

Hahhaha.... I agree. When your tank army gets ravaged by a couple of archers it's time to "recalculate" the "Luck"

It can be annoying, but what can you do? It works in the players favor as well. I remember one game online in civ 4 when 6 quechu attacked my 3 warrior in my city and I ended up winning.
Its just that the computer is retarded and is usually chooses to fight with the lower odds throughout the game so they're bound to win a couple fights.

Quechua aren't too good against fortified warriors, particular on a hill. Quechua rush sucks online because humans don't spam archers like the AI do :P, Quechua are not as overpowered as people say they are, its the computer who's stupid enough not to counter Quechua properly. You only need about half maybe a little more of your warriors to their Quechua. I play Inca and know not to do Quechua rush on humans, I only did it once and that was cus I had to (virtually no land). It failed miserably.

In any case, its more annoying here because of how much smaller armies are or rather how fewer battles there are. A few odd losses is ok in civ 4, but in this game losing a critical army in a battle that should be an easy win sets you back so badly and I feel so cheated when it happens.

Why are we talking about quechuas??? :confused:

It is annoying, but if you lose your game because you lost such a fight, your strategy sucks.

I think this sums it up pretty well.

I can understand losing a fight being very frustrating, and even being a temporary set-back, but if your whole game hinged on the outcome of that one fight, it's time to rethink your strategy.

I have to say that I'm supporting the game on this area.

Remember that this is a GAME. Adapt to the rules it presents, or lose.

There is nothing that states that technology is a sure way to win. It still is important, and could give you the edge. If you send enough tank armies on that archer, the archer will eventually die.

Still, I really enjoy the fact that even if you're a little bit behind on techs, you might hang in there and make a comeback. It adds some more diversity to the game.

I have to say that I'm supporting the game on this area.

Remember that this is a GAME. Adapt to the rules it presents, or lose.

There is nothing that states that technology is a sure way to win. It still is important, and could give you the edge. If you send enough tank armies on that archer, the archer will eventually die.

Still, I really enjoy the fact that even if you're a little bit behind on techs, you might hang in there and make a comeback. It adds some more diversity to the game.

Game's only as strong as it's "rules" if the rules change, its cheating.

They shoulkd release a patch that makes ancient/medeival era units (catapult, pikemen) auto overrun by tanks, bombers, etc. Its really ridicoulus.

Balance issues?

I just played my 1st game on the 2nd difficulty tier.. once I got to catapults the game basically was over. 2 armies of cats wiped out isabella, then ghandi DOW'd so he died next. culture flipped a german city, then 3 armies of cats wiped him out.

I had just researched the tech that unlocks rifleman, so when monty DOW'd he ate it hard

way back to land is power land is power land is power!

and the ooooold civ strat of unlock catapults then go on the warpath FTW

NaZ

Im alright with some luck, like a 4 beating a 6, but its tad too much if a 9 loses to a 3. I Think they need to take out a little of the luck, but not all of it

The game already takes out a bit of the luck: it's called overrun. Have an army 7 times stronger than your opponent and you will NEVER, ever lose.

And if in the game a 4 beats a 6 40% of the time, and a 3 beats a 9 25% of the time, I don't see anything wrong with that. You just need to factor that in your strategy. You will be safer attacking a 3 with a 9, but there is still a risk, so bring a backup army.

Overrun is a great way to balance the Luck system.

Nothing makes me happier then to see a tiny archer overrun by my Panzer Tank Army.
:)

Even though 7x might seem like a lot, it's easier to obatin than you think (ESPECIALLY the Zulu, who only need a 3:1 odds for overrun).
Also, the ability to make fleets that carry naval support, spies that can destroy enemy fortifications, and unit upgrades make it easier to obtain the overrun bonus.

Therefore, the name of the game is not so much stacking the odds in your favor (where you can still lose at 99.9%), but instad attempting to obtain the overrun bonus, where your victory chances are 100% every time you have it.

Any thoughts?

hmmmm??? Ladt game it didn't seem to work

Overrun is a great way to balance the Luck system.

Nothing makes me happier then to see a tiny archer overrun by my Panzer Tank Army.
:)

Even though 7x might seem like a lot, it's easier to obatin than you think (ESPECIALLY the Zulu, who only need a 3:1 odds for overrun).
Also, the ability to make fleets that carry naval support, spies that can destroy enemy fortifications, and unit upgrades make it easier to obtain the overrun bonus.

Therefore, the name of the game is not so much stacking the odds in your favor (where you can still lose at 99.9%), but instad attempting to obtain the overrun bonus, where your victory chances are 100% every time you have it.

Any thoughts?

Having overrun is certainly great when you can achieve it, but it's not always possible. (Although it's possible much more often with the zulu).

The best way to deal with it is to simply make sure you have enough units to get the job done. I suspect alot of the people (not all of them mind you) complaining about their modern units losing to outdated units are relying on a small number of modern units to do most of their fighting and expecting to overwhelm just based on tech superiority.

If you bring tech superiority and numerical superiority, it won't really matter if you lose a battle here or there, your still going to win the war.