Demand first instead of beg later!

I bought CIV3, played only once (frustrated), don't bother to try PTW and hopefully "Conquest" can bring my interest back.

*To me the closer a game to reality (real world situation) the father it is away from fun!

1) Can I opt out tech trade OR preferly all diplomacy features?
A good strategy game like CIV should present user with many ways "to control" (and make user enjoy the process of finding better or more strategic control) rather than put in more and more random or uncontrolable events which forfeits the main delight to be strategic.
That is why the first thing in my request list is to let me opt out stupid feature in diplomacy. What is the point of putting more weight in tech research when you know the rivals simply go on crazy trade of tech. Seriously, let me opt this feature out at all! (No room to be compromized, trade of tech only after certain tech is achieved? Forget it, where is the fun? (See *) In fact, I will prefer to drop all aspects of diplomacy out from this game. (but I don't mind when the rival knock on my door and say Hello, how do you do, like that in Civ2) I know many will disagree. I agree that Civ3 has improved the diplomacy system a lot compare with Civ2, but I don't understand why no one argue about the need of it in the game, does it really bring in more fun. If the progress of the game is in vertical direction, then, diplomacy is a process which goes horizontally. It simply chops the game into uncomfortable pieces! Don't catch my point? It is simple, it means if the whole diplmacy system is wiped from the game, it won't affect or discontinue the progress of the game at all. I do not agree, offering or requesting something from the rival and hope for possitive reaction is fun! It is worse if one have to try an error on the amount requested or offered, I feel like an old lady who is practising the art of bargaining at the market place, uh... I am building a civilization man...

2) Can I build 100 or even more controllable cities?
The corruption rate in Civ3 is intolerable. What kind of civilization is that when there are only about 30 controllable cities in term of corruption. I was so much disappointed when all the distant cities are of zero or nearly zero production (See*). If the game has to have corruption, then there must be a way to overcome it. Offer something to put corruption gracefully controlled! Don't turn a challeging fun into incontrollable torture

3) Is tech tree still down-graded ?
Civ2 definitely has a better tech tree. I recall, everytime when completing a tech research, there will be immediate reward. It make me excited or busy when something new is offered (a new building or army). But Civ3 tech tree is so drab, some many times one will end up with simply a stepstone for further research. I understand the need to adjust the game play (with the intention to slow down human player in tech pursue) in order to make it more challenging. But couldn't that been done in some way which does not forfeit the joy of completing each research? I agree and shall enjoy one or two techs with no immediate reward, but only if they serve to remind how great the next tech one can proceed. I really hate to research again and again in those "stepstone techs".

4) Can I play with revealed map?
Anyone can disagree with this. However, I just want it to be at least an option. In Civ2 it is treated as a cheat, but who cares! I just want to have more fun. It is really fun to start looking for a good location for the first city to build, plan ahead for future moves before I make my very first move. Name it idiot if the game designer prefer, but make it an option.


Suggestion to Civ3 producer:
Whatever campaigns you are offering in "Conquest", remeber to offer user to play a big map with lot of cities. (whether or not it is based on a historical background does not matter) There are many who own good enough P.C. that can handle big map, (and normally they are rich and are potential buyer of the game), do not let them down!

It is fun to fight for peace but monotonous to talk or bargain for peace!
Let's hope we are conquesting something big, not an island of few cities...

I agree that most should be an option... The more options the better IMO. I particularly like the No Tech Trading option. I believe each Civ should do its own research, and am frustrated also with the aggressiveness of AI trade. I think stealing techs should still be in though...

1) Can I opt out tech trade OR preferly all diplomacy features?

Click to expand...

Simply ignore the civs when they want to talk to you. How hard is that?

And if you are wanting AI civs not to trade techs with each other so much, simply go into the editor and change the AI-AI trade ratio to 100, so they don't give each other any discounts whatsoever.

Alliances, MPP, and using a civ to gain something I'm lacking only to later stab him in the back if I feel like it (or he stabs me in the back) adds fun to the game, IMHO. I feel it enchances the game instead of just building things and killing people.

The corruption rate in Civ3 is intolerable.

Click to expand...

If you have the latest patch (1.29), corruption is MUCH better than the unpatched version of civ3 (1.07f).

You can also simply go into the editor and lower corruption as much as you want, even down to 0% if that is what trips your trigger.

Corruption is there for game balance. With no corruption than the game just gets too frickin' easy for the person who is the biggest.

I really hate to research again and again in those "stepstone techs".

Click to expand...

PTW and Conquests added new units, wonders, and improvements and other things. I can't guarantee that there is NO 'stepstone techs', but there certainly is fewer of them.

You can also go into the editor and add stuff to the 'stepstone techs' if it really bothers you that much.

Can I play with revealed map?

Click to expand...

PTW has the 'debug' mode. This was mainly intended for people creating units to test out their units without having to play a game up until they can build that unit. With the Debug mode, you see the whole map revealed, every unit, add units (to any civ), add buildings, gain techs for free, add money to yourself, add population points to any city. You can even cheat more by messing with the AI cities.

The annoying thing about debug mode is you have to watch all the barbarians and every unit on the map, the entire game. I don't play with the debug mode, only use it for testing. And you can turn off animations so you don't have to watch every barbarian.

remeber to offer user to play a big map with lot of cities.

Click to expand...

If you only played with the unpatched version of civ3, the city limit was 256. Since then the limit has been raised to 512. Also, in PTW you can create a 356X356 map.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
...And if you are wanting AI civs not to trade techs with each other so much, simply go into the editor and change the AI-AI trade ratio to 100, so they don't give each other any discounts whatsoever...

Click to expand...

I'd still like to see an option that does not allow for any tech trading... But it won't happen. If I could set the ratio to 0 this might work, but I can't.

Just MHO, for what little it's worth: this sounds to me like a case of "I don't want to play the game I bought; I want to play a completely different game, but using the game I bought."

I don't mean to give offense, but why remove/modify everything that makes the game Civ3? If it is so far off from the game you want to play, why bother to play it? Go buy a game that IS what you want to play.

I hope you don't play any mods, Padma...

Only rarely.

"Simply ignore the civs when they want to talk to you. How hard is that?"

Ignore to talk? That is totally out of my point, I am not looking for a way to put aside those diplomatic frustration. The diplomacy affairs could be interesting, may be in another diplomacy centric game by itself. They just can't be aligned nicely in Civ game. If you plan to win with the best result on a big map (a long game), you will know what I am talking about. The diplomatic things simply disturb your long term planning. For example, you can't plan to be an early bird for a tech which will enable you to grasp a wonder, because while you are dying to complete the tech research, a stupid rival who never touch on it simply gain it through trade, and he/she start to build wonder on the next round. Yes it does not always happen that way and I am not saying this kind of event is not challenging, but it has very little to do with the term Strategy. The best strategy is to opt out that kind of thing

"You can also go into the editor and add stuff to the 'stepstone techs' if it really bothers you that much."
You get me wrongly, what I mean is I miss the "I am always busy with something new" feeling which is one of the best thing in Civ game.
I do not care about how much one can do with the Civ game editor because I don't enjoy finding out what each game parameter does. I just want to play with a lot of fun! Why try so hard to adjust the game for the game producer. They are supposed to be the one fine-tune everything for us, or at least help us to tune the game by offering options. If I can decide NOT to win diplomatically, why can't I opt out those diplomacy affairs?

"If you have the latest patch (1.29), corruption is MUCH better than the unpatched version of civ3 (1.07f)."
But it is still far from overcome it, right? In fact, I didn't even bother to play with the latest patch after I went through the readme file:
1) They take away the reveal map capability.
2) They remove the capability to upgrade individuals in an ARMY. I am not blaming Firaxis for fixing up a bug, just can't agree with them to treat something that suppose to be a feature as a bug. I feel sad to resort to a bug.
3) And a few more things I can't recall at this point.

"Corruption is there for game balance"
I understand that, but don't you agree it is at a rate suitable only for civ with less than 40 cities? If you build beyond that, it simply means many "totally corrupted" or ghost cities.

"If you only played with the unpatched version of civ3, the city limit was 256. Since then the limit has been raised to 512. Also, in PTW you can create a 356X356 map."
It is not a matter of how many cities one can build, of course I will prefer to have no limit. What matter is how many productive cities one can build and manage. I hate to see those "ghost cities".

Debug mode? No thank you. Just give me a cheat to reveal the map.

BTW, there is one more crucial thing I have forgotten to mentioned in my last post:
It is still that difficult to find out how many cities will go on raid.
If the number of city grows, I really have pain to count the heads for all of them. I remember the latest vers of Civ2 make that very easy, just a glance.

To Padma,
"I don't mean to give offense, but why remove/modify everything that makes the game Civ3? If it is so far off from the game you want to play, why bother to play it? Go buy a game that IS what you want to play"

Yes you do. But don't forget the purpose of this forum and the title: "Requests, fixes and changes"

Which phase in my post that make you feel I am requesting for a removal or modification of EVERYTHING in Civ3? What makes you think that the game is too far from what I want? Common sense shall tell if it is that bad, I won't even bother to join this forum.

Just for your information, the price of the game is not a matter to me. I won't ask for those things simply because I have paid, I am here to point out a few issues which I hope Farixis will improve on them and make the game fun to be played again and again like Civ2. Btw have you played Civ2?

If the number of city grows, I really have pain to count the heads for all of them. I remember the latest vers of Civ2 make that very easy, just a glance.

Click to expand...

Use these 'smiley badges':
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10197
It makes it SO much easier to see which citizens are happy/unhappy (and count them).

The diplomatic things simply disturb your long term planning.

Click to expand...

Why not play without any AI. Sounds like you want no competition to me.

I find that diplomacy impacts whatever my long term goals are, unless I am playing an 'always war' game where the only diplomacy I do is declare war on everyone the first time I meet them.

If I want to slow down the tech pace so I can pull ahead in research, I get the AI to fight each other. If they are fighting each other, they aren't trading (techs or luxuries) with each other. If they aren't trading luxuries, then that really puts a hurt on them and their research.

For example, you can't plan to be an early bird for a tech which will enable you to grasp a wonder, because while you are dying to complete the tech research, a stupid rival who never touch on it simply gain it through trade

Click to expand...

Play a lower level. Start the game with more techs. If he got the tech from someone else, why wouldn't the other person (who had the tech to begin with) get the wonder?

I think I see what you want. You want to complete every wonder in the world and do nothing but build every improvement in every city so you can go "Oh, wow, look at my pretty empire". Been there, done that. Fun doing it once, but then very boring to do it again.

"I am always busy with something new" feeling which is one of the best thing in Civ game

Click to expand...

You should try the Double Your Pleasure mod (DyP). You'll never get done building EVERYTHING. It has like 50+ great wonders, just as many city improvements (if not more), a gazillion techs to research.

Civ game editor because I don't enjoy finding out what each game parameter does.

Click to expand...

That is why there is a Completed Modpacks forum. Other people can do all the changes for you. If you want a specific request just go the Custom and Creation forum and make a request and tell them that you don't want to fiddle with the editor because you don't know how to use it and ask if someone could make those changes for you.

But it is still far from overcome it, right?

Click to expand...

Well, eventually if you build enough cities you will still have some cities that are 95% corrupt. Increase the 'optimal number of cities' in the editor if you want to have more cities with low corruption. And there is a slider to lower overall corruption (optimal # of cities and distance corruption).

Many players have no problem with the current level of corruption. Some think corruption is too LOW!

just can't agree with them to treat something that suppose to be a feature as a bug.

Click to expand...

It never was intended to be a feature. It's called game balance.

1) They take away the reveal map capability.

Click to expand...

One reason was because it was too easy for people playing in competions to cheat, and there was absolutely no way to detect that form of cheating. And before you say it, yes, there is a way to detect how often a person reloads a game.

I used the multitool program and and it gave a "continued" number. Is that the number of times you loaded? I sometime load for various reasons. To reset the units so units stacked on the same sqaure go together instead of jumping all over the map, to look at a previous year for things like culture number and so on. Basically it means little in my games. Plus about corruption, I only think the distance factor is out of whack. Cities near my capital have almost no waste while some have total. Neither makes sence. I couldn't increase the OCN because then the FP would need more cities to allow it to be built. And before you say communism doesn't work either. I do want to try DYP at some point. I wonder if it is going to be changes to allow C3C stuff?

Originally posted by hclass
To Padma,
"I don't mean to give offense, but why remove/modify everything that makes the game Civ3? If it is so far off from the game you want to play, why bother to play it? Go buy a game that IS what you want to play"

Yes you do. But don't forget the purpose of this forum and the title: "Requests, fixes and changes"

Click to expand...

I apologize for giving offense. It really was not my intention. It was, as I said, just my humble opinion. Bamspeedy has said much of what I *should* have said, and in a much more coherent and well-thought out fashion.

Which phase in my post that make you feel I am requesting for a removal or modification of EVERYTHING in Civ3? What makes you think that the game is too far from what I want? Common sense shall tell if it is that bad, I won't even bother to join this forum.

Click to expand...

No specific phrase, just the sense of the whole, to me. You are saying you don't want to play with some of the very things that make Civ3 Civ3! Again, Bamspeedy has said it much better.

(And just FYI, we have had people register and post here who simply *HATE* the game - just to troll those of us who do like it. )

Just for your information, the price of the game is not a matter to me. I won't ask for those things simply because I have paid, I am here to point out a few issues which I hope Farixis will improve on them and make the game fun to be played again and again like Civ2. Btw have you played Civ2?

Click to expand...

Yes, indeed, I have played Civ2. Starting in the mid 90s. I loved it. But I haven't touched it since Civ3 came out. There is simply no comparison. The difference between us is, I *like* the things you want changed.

Specific points:

1) Trade and Diplomacy are an essential part of the game. Can they be improved? Certainly. Play without them at all? Never!

2)Corruption is easily managed if you know what you are doing, especially with the latest patches. Yes, you still get some "wholly corrupt" cities if you build/conquer too much too fast. Not a problem - it's a game-balance issue.

3) I love the Civ3 Tech Tree. It gets even better with Conquests.

4) Reveal the whole map? Why would I want to cheat?

Oh, and just for the record, I have never cared for posts that imply we need to *demand* anything from the developers. Suggest, request, yes, that is fine (and what you actually did ). I DO hope the developers take what you have said into account. They cannot give us their best game without listening to feedback from ALL of us.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
...If I want to slow down the tech pace so I can pull ahead in research, I get the AI to fight each other. If they are fighting each other, they aren't trading (techs or luxuries) with each other. If they aren't trading luxuries, then that really puts a hurt on them and their research....

Click to expand...

Such a simple idea, I can't believe I never thought of this ... Thanks for the tip I guess I just play to peaceful, I want the other civs to admire my empire. I want to win their hearts and minds through culture...

To Padma

"Yes, indeed, I have played Civ2. Starting in the mid 90s. I loved it. "
So did I.

"But I haven't touched it since Civ3 came out. There is simply no comparison. "
I don't agree!
Revise my first 2 posts, you should see that except for the "removal of tech trade" request, the rest of them are all inherited Civ2 features. For the "Reveal of map" request, it is of course a personal favour rather than a must (and that is why I ask for an option) As for the rest, I am trying to point out where or why they are better in Civ2

"The difference between us is, I *like* the things you want changed. "
Jumping too fast into conclusion like the above is really no good,
and that is why I felt offended. You are judging my requests based on CIV3 only (have you forgotten Civ2) and I am comparing Civ2 and Civ3 to find out why this time the feel when playing Civ game is not so good for me.
You don't have to classe me into the "dislike group" so quickly! Think about it, I have never mentioned anything bad about all the rest of the new features added to Civ3, things such as culture, army and leader and so on...
Let me tell you my feel of Civ3, Faraxis has added many good features in it. However, some of the brought forward features are badly tuned and a few of the new features are fun...NY. And just because these few bad things, I have no motivation to repeat play. I am posting in this forum simply because I would like to see those things turn from funny into fun and I can play Civ game for another 10 years. (hopefully my posts is read by one of the team)

"Oh, and just for the record, I have never cared for posts that imply we need to *demand* anything from the developers."
You did, when you answer mine and with 2 mistakes:
1. You are wrong of the word imply. I seldom expresse my opinion in an implying manner, sometime I do blurt...
2. You should n't be the one who are particular about whether it is a demand or suggesttion.
I couldn't really understand your position, from the forum as I glance through, you should be a moderator, right? If I am right, then the title should be understood by you as: Hey this guy demands something from the game producer for the next product he might want to buy, he is telling the rest of the customers try not to ask for things in patch later because it is as difficult as begging.
I suddenly realized, there is no subject in my post title, but common sense shall tell that the subject for begging and demanding is the same one, the game producer.

To Bamspeedy,

"Why not play without any AI. Sounds like you want no competition to me."
No, I don't

"If I want to slow down the tech pace so I can pull ahead in research, I get the AI to fight each other. If they are fighting each other, they aren't trading (techs or luxuries) with each other. If they aren't trading luxuries, then that really puts a hurt on them and their research."
I have done that in Civ3 but with no fun, the process of getting the rivals fight each other is really boring, but when I do the samething in game like "Romance of 3 kingdoms" it is really a fun. I think the nature of this kind of strategy simply don't fit in the Civ game.

"I think I see what you want. You want to complete every wonder in the world and do nothing but build every improvement in every city so you can go "Oh, wow, look at my pretty empire". Been there, done that. Fun doing it once, but then very boring to do it again."
Bingo! I admire your ability to find out that! Not exactly but very close. (Actually not every wonders but almost all of them, not to build all improvements, but to capture all rival cities)
You can take me as one of those never tired of that kind of satisfaction.

"It never was intended to be a feature. It's called game balance."
Are you referring to the inability to upgrade individuals in army or the corruption?
I was talking about the formal. Isn't it a buggy feature (the army supposed not to be disassembled, but the bug enables it)?

"One reason was because it was too easy for people playing in competions to cheat, and there was absolutely no way to detect that form of cheating."
I knew about that reason. But what about those who do not take part in competition and really love to play with a revealed map. I recall, I was excited (10 years ago) when I told my friend (Civ2), cheat it and reveal the map, reload and that won't be recorded in the hall of frame. Isn't this kind of childish idea (you might name it any other way you like) did contribute to the long live of Civ game for the past 10 years?

About game editor, since you mentioned it quite often:
In fact, the idea of game editor to certain extend has its disavantage. If a game has an informal parameter list (a file), many find it excited to hack and adjust the game the way they like (The game "Dune", for example). But when the "hack" is turn into something formally allowed (in this case an editor), it might be still fun, but there will be no more excitement. For example, if he is an ordinary Civ player who finds (out himself, but not told by one of the Faraxis team) the way to reveal the map (before the patch shuts it again), I am sure he is exicted, because that can't even be done with the game editor. (Guess what he felt when that was FIXED)

So do you understand the feeling of one who is excited to find out that he can manipulate a bug to upgrade ARMY while others (who don't know) can not. I knew about that before it was discussed in the forum.
I am sure Faraxis team don't understand that kind of player emotion.

Normally a cook won't enjoy that much as those who are served with his food. That is another important reason I try not to touch the editor. Try, go slay a chicken or whatever and prepare it the long and hard way as a dish, you won't enjoy it as much as those who join you for the dish. You have to trust me on this, if you are trying...

Are you referring to the inability to upgrade individuals in army or the corruption?

Click to expand...

Upgrading of units in armies. Armies are powerful if used wisely. To prevent something from being 'game-breaking' there needs to be some sort of limitation for it. The fact that you have limited time to use a particular army is the limitation. It prevents people from conquering the whole world because they got just 1 army. They may be able to have the army help them conquer their neighbor(s), but by the time they start on the next continent a thousand years later, they should have to earn another army instead of a cheap 'upgrade'. Armies have been improved in Conquests (but you still can't upgrade them).

In fact, the idea of game editor to certain extend has its disavantage. If a game has an informal parameter list (a file), many find it excited to hack and adjust the game the way they like (The game "Dune", for example). But when the "hack" is turn into something formally allowed (in this case an editor), it might be still fun, but there will be no more excitement.

Click to expand...

Don't understand you here. If you 'hack' the game in order to make the game easier , then no, I don't find that fun (well, maybe once just to give Shaka some payback ). No challenge is not fun. Having a challenge is fun. TOO much of a challenge (impossible, or nearly impossible), I admit is not much fun either.

If you hack the game to change some rules to make it more like the game you want to play or would make the game more fun for YOU, then why would that be a bad thing?

I don't know about Dune, but are you saying you don't like that there is an editor to make rule changes easy to do?
The editor is user-friendly so that more people can change the game to their liking, instead of just a few people who can understand all the computer code.
There are many things that are too controversial for 'forcing' people to play by. Some want higher corruption, some want lower. Some want different civs, some want different unit values. Some think you should have to research a tech before you can irrigate or mine. It's impossible to please everyone, so there is the editor so people can change what they don't like (with some limitations of course) and then the most # of people will be happy.

You are the first person I've seen that has said there is disadvantages for there being an editor.

So do you understand the feeling of one who is excited to find out that he can manipulate a bug to upgrade ARMY while others (who don't know) can not. I knew about that before it was discussed in the forum.

Click to expand...

My impression of you is either:

A. You like finding ways to cheat. And then you can make yourself look like a better player than you really are.

or

B. You like finding bugs. You should be a beta tester.

hclass, I do sincerely apologize if I offended you. That certainly was not my intent. I do understand that you are not a native-English speaker, and that may be a contributing factor - our intentions not being crystal clear to each other.

Concerning your comment about "demanding" vs. "begging", let me say that as I read the thread title, the implication is that we should demand something of the developers. When I first saw it, I almost shut the thread down, but decided to read it through to give you a fair chance, and I found that the demand was in reality a request, or a suggestion. So I let the thread remain.

As for the actual discussion in this thread, I must admit that Bamspeedy has been much more articulate than I have been, and that I agree with all he has posted here.

With that, I will bow out of the discussion, and intervene only if necessary as a moderator.

It seems like the original request was for an "every civ for itself" scenario, sort of a shut up and start pounding on each other, all war all the time scenario. This would make an interesting scenario or mod or whatever and I think it would be fun to play. Strategy in this case depends more on securing productive land than it does dealing in trades. If you want fast research then go for productive land. Need a resource - go get it yourself!
However, I would hate to limit the entire game to that style. Diplomacy and trade adds a lot of depth and other types of strategy to the game. Still, it would be a good mod.

To Bamspeedy

As game balance and army is concerned, there are many other ways to reduce its impact, for example make it moves slower, higher rate of missing a target and so on. The non-upgrade solution is the worst I can immagine.

"If you hack the game to change some rules to make it more like the game you want to play or would make the game more fun for YOU, then why would that be a bad thing?"
But why should I? Do you cook for every meal you take?
I don't mind to put some chilli sauce to my fast food on my own. (un/check an option in the game) But using editor to change the game is not so easy, in some case finding out suitable value for a parameter will require many tries. It is just like cooking the fast food on my own. I don't like cooking, I just want to eat a tasty food!

"I don't know about Dune, but are you saying you don't like that there is an editor to make rule changes easy to do?"
No, I am not. What I mean is, it shouldn't be the way to make the game producer easier by simply let the users do the job. For me and many other games in the market today, a game editor is supposed to be used to modify the feel of the game not to align it.
In other words adding some new units, shaping the map and so on are those things proper to be in there (If one like to create a new game) but adjusting the corruption level, make the canon hit harder and so on sounds more like corrections to the producer's mis-calculation.

"My impression of you is either:...."
Whatever you guess, it is not crucial. However, if future Civ game is moving in a direction where modifying it before play seems to be as important as playing it (otherwise there will be no fun) then I will be very sad. I understand that many enjoy both modifying and playing Civ, but unfortunately, I am one of those find no fun at all to modify Civ game myself.

But why should I?

Click to expand...

Because everyone has their own opinion of what the rules should be. Do you realize how many options would be on the start-up screen if all the things people commonly mod into their games were on it? The starting screen with all the options would certainly be an ugly sight to see.

What I mean is, it shouldn't be the way to make the game producer easier by simply let the users do the job.

Click to expand...

Actually, it makes their job harder. They have to do twice as much programming! They have to program it to work one way and then program it to work the other way. Then add the options into the interface of the editor, etc. It would be easier for them just to make it work one way and not have to give you any options (hard-coded).

but adjusting the corruption level, make the canon hit harder and so on sounds more like corrections to the producer's mis-calculation.

Click to expand...

Like I said before, everyone has their own opinion on how much corruption there should be, how much damage cannons should do (some want cannons to have lethal bombard, while others think that is too powerful). So they decided what the standard game would have, and if you don't like it, then the vast majority of players are glad they are at least given the option to change it.

for example make it moves slower, higher rate of missing a target and so on.

Click to expand...

Then people would never, ever build an army. There have been debates about whether it is better to make an army, or use the units individually (because individually you would get 3X as many attacks). If they were worse in combat, then obviously you'd be better off using them individually. Swordsmen or defensive armies can't possibly move any slower. I find that my armies can last quite a bit longer than when the individual units would have been obsolete, so I don't consider that as the worst solution.

in some case finding out suitable value for a parameter will require many tries.

Click to expand...

Read the Custom and Creation forums, and completed Mod packs forums, talk to people in the chat room and you'll find out what does and does not work. You can't expect the developers to try out every possible combination of A/D values, bombard values, range values, etc. that is available in the editor-they only need to test the values in the standard game and standard units. the possible combinations of changing different things would number in the billions. the debug mode allows you to very quickly test out unit vs. unit battles. It's great they gave us that.