I am SICK of playing General Custer

Ran out and purchased Civ III today. I was very happy to see that bribing units is now but a fond memory.

By and large, it's the same Civ we know and love with some much needed improvements.

However, what is really turning me off to this game is the blatant favoring of the AI in combat.

I recently had a game on the Chieftan level. You know, the CHIEFTAN level, which is supposed to be the level you can only lose if you explicitly TRY to lose.

I started a war with the english, and started to crank out the archers. Of course, built a barracks in each one of the cities. I made a huge force of wave after wave of archers attacking.

It's amazing how a silly computer game, built for your enjoyment, can fling you into a near homicidal rage.

I KEPT LOSING. I mean COMPLETE BULLSH!T like losing with a VETERAN archer, fortified in hills, against a WARRIOR UNIT! I didn't even scratch him! I know the Archer units really suck, but there were battles I should have won handily, and got my a$$ handed to me without even getting him in the yellow.

What makes me furious is this is the CHIEFTAN level. I should not have to commit hundreds of armies to take a single crappy city. The AI is either seriously screwed or it is very blatantly cheating.

Anyone else getting this?!?! This is not a matter of the game being harder, I am using superior units in tactically sound strategies and I am NEVER WINNING. This is coming from a King level Civ 2 player.

Please help before I break this CD ROM with a hammer.

I agree with you. Me too I tried a bit to capture cities but it seems to be such a pain that I quickly switched to culture for winning.

The computer keep producing units like crazy and having better science and a bigger kingdom doesnt even seem to help!

I also agree that chieftain should be way easier. How can I have my gf play the game if I get my ass kicked myself (and I used to play civ 1 a lot).

One think I hate is defending a city with riflemen. The puter sends waves of horsemen. They cannot damage me but I do can. THe problem is: when they have 1 point left, they flee so I can kill none of them! and the puter doesnt stop fighting, it keep sending them again.. and again...

I have battleships and what can they do? bombard one unit per turn, scratching it? it's useless! And in the mean time the puter crappy stoneage units is destroying my roads and everything and I cannot do anything because then I would be out of my city and my riflemen would probably ket their ass kicked...

Hey firaxis, wake up! do something about it!

first of all, it's obvious the combat system is not biased to difficulties. You could probably expect to get the same thing at deity, in terms of fighting.

"THe problem is: when they have 1 point left, they flee so I can kill none of them! and the puter doesnt stop fighting, it keep sending them again.. and again... "

LOL

The same thing happened to me when I first played the game. It's pretty annoying, but the sollution is to wait with major wars until you have longbowe archer units and maybe even cavalry. It seems like you can't do much harm with archers and horseman, but just wait till you have better attacking units and you'll be able to capture cities almost like in Civ 2.

Except for this the game is nearly perfect - just have to get used to the differences!

Aha.

And what do you do if the enemy declares war and swarms your territory with units? Which units of course suck, unless (as they are) happen to be on a mountain? And you just cant get rid of them. There is no ZOC - I cant be expected to put a line of units on my borders?

How do you prevent pillage from those same swarms of crappy enemy units?

If you leave your town to attack them you leave your town less protected and you get your units killed. Having a catapult doesnt do much.

Is it possible to attack a nearby unit WITHOUT leaving the town?

Now in my game the AI did just that at Chieftain level--sent wave after wave of units that just got hammered or beaten down. Looking at the civ graph, that is what helped propel me as I was able to defend the one city taht all the other civs attacked and grow the rest, consequently when the war ended they had all been on warp roduction footing and I had some new techs, gunpowder (they were using chariots and stuff) and I took the lead from then on.

It works both ways...

You can't commit to a war before you have "Swarms" of units made in Civ3.

Only defence would be to keep them out otherwise they pillage...

BUT I cant keep them out... Why is there no ZOC?

And whats that nonsense about fortresses firing on passing units? My units never do it... Or only after gunpowder?

Originally posted by MWA
the sollution is to wait with major wars until you have longbowe archer units and maybe even cavalry. It seems like you can't do much harm with archers and horseman, but just wait till you have better attacking units and you'll be able to capture cities almost like in Civ 2.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. The Germans have a size 11 city that I can't seem to take, though I've been trying to overrun 3 spearmen units with infantry, cavalry, and cannon. Those little buggers won't give up.

I think the city size really influences combat a LOT.

I can understand your frustrations about getting your archers wiped out by warriors and such. Here is the thing, IMHO. You really cannot start waging war right away. Warriors and Archers are good for attacking barbs, and horseman are good for exploring. They all suck for waging war. But, then again, just consider the new combat rules.

An archer with an attack of 2 is not guaranteed to beat even a warrior with a defense of 1. But a warrior with an attack of 1 can very likely kill an archer with a defense of 1.

The best earlier army tactics I have found include using longbowman, pikeman, and knights to roll over anyone who gets in your way. Sounds simple I know, but with the pikers defending and the LBman and knights attacking I have had no trouble rolling over people early on both C, W, and P levels.

Before that though, just expand-defend your cities with spearman and add some bowman to attack those who attack your cities.

As to the fact that when you attack you actually move out of your city (where it is more likely your archer, LBman, rifleman, etc will get killed) either use a "fast" attacker who can retreat if damaged or use extra defensive units to cover your attackers.

In my border cities I try to have two or three defensive units (spear, pike, rifle---whatever) and an attacker. That way if I have to attack a unit outside my city I can always move a defensive unit out to cover them (unless they can retreat on their own). But this also varies based on what the enemy is attacking with.

As to all the pillaging units, there is no one best way to stop them-other than wiping them out. The tactics will vary with each players individual situations. My goal is to stop them before they ever enter by boarders, so I try to set up choke points with fortresses or I set up sea patrols etc... While the AI no longer just throws units away on these fortresses, they do give you a good heads up as to way is coming your way. Now, if you have some of the better mounted/mobile units (knights and up..) build a decent force to patrol your empire and route out anyone pillaging your road systems. You need to have units out protecting you workers anyway, so just have them serve a double duty.

This is definately not Civ2 in the sense that combat is very different. At first, I was frustrated by the changes in tactics that the AI employed. But, all in all I am really getting into the game now because it is much more interesting. The best strat that I can recommend is don't be so gung ho to get into wars early on (if you really want to do this then play a civ that has an early special unit like the Zulu, Iriquios(?), Persians, Babs, etc-not only do you get an early Golden Age-you can usually mop up the AI's rabble quickly). Expand and defend, and try to capture as many resources as possible. They can't kick you butt if you have all the iron and are throwing tanks against their horseman you know... By the same token, when you do get units that are capable of good attacks, make sure you give them some support (ie a defensive unit) so that they don't get wiped out before they can start the carnage. And think about this, if the AI is annoying you by pillaging your roads, create a few cheap horseman and return the favor. Cutting off their resources (both strat and lux) is a quick way to turn the tide to your favor. Well, that is my 2cents, back to work for me...

I'm not sure whether combat AI should be improved or toned down, I find it's really difficult to do anything military-wise until I get swordsmen. The AI is pretty good early on, but they start making some terrible mistakes once you get into industrial times. Like losing entire fleets to 5 artillery and an ironclad, or leaving 6 (count them) 6 bombers in a town defended with a war-chariot. As for archers, I never bothered using them, defending units, on average are worth around 175% of their stated amount meaing they are usually fortified and usually get some sort of terrain/city bonus. That being the case, never attack anyone but Barbarians with archers, or horsemen for that matter. Actually, I found the best strategy was expanding until I got swordsmen, attacking, then waiting until I got catapults and longbow men, then waiting for cavalry. It's 1400 and my cavalry are kicking some serious ass

Archers? Come on PrinceOfDenver, stop your whining. Jeez. If you were talking about tanks, then you might have a case. But archers are so low on the totem pole. I've been playing Civ3 for about a week now, and I've had problems with spearmen taking out my calvary, but that's okay. You don't see me cursing to God and the universe at how unjust civ has been because I lost combat. I'm sure people have worse experiences. I heard someone say he lost a battleship to a frigate. Its part of the fun and part of strategy. I think the AI is fine. Its challenging - and for me - that is a good thing. Better to struggle against hard AI than the game left on the couch after a week's play.

I would just like to weight in on this situation...

In the anchient era I have been verey sucessful with small armies of troops. My typical armies consist of 4-6 elite swordsman and 2-4 catapults.

Pound the living crap out of the city first with the catapults, usually about two turns worth. The city is then very "soft" (ie low pop and weakened spearman). Then attack with the elite swordsman (get them elite by attacking barbs, I usually leave a camp area just as a "training ground" for troops).

I, on average, can take an anchient era capital, defended by 3 spearman, with only about two losses. (dif warlord).

Prince of Denver- an ARCHER *defending* vs. a warrior BETTER dangwell lose about 50% of the time! He has a 1 defense! You said he was fortified, and that can only happen if he's defending. If you attacked with him a 2 attack vs. a 1 defense is only 66% man- figure it out.

Oh arg- do us all a favor and stop posting until you've bothered to look up AT LEAST the stats of the units you're whining about. You might go ballistic when you first send a tank into a size 7 city and LOSE it against fortified infantry (which I'd also place even money on). And since you're clearly too lazy to do the math, I'll do it for you: tank 16 off, inf. 10 def.= 16 off (unmodifed) vs. 17.6 defense! (50% city size and 25 fortified) +.1 defender bonus on any terrain at least= 47.62% chance for the tank to WIN each round- whoa those aren't odds I'd take, but someone like you might and then come whining into here about it claiming it was TACTICALLY SOUND! HAH!

Can you make it any more obivous you didn't read the manual at all and that you don't bother to actually think about the battlefield you're fighting on.

Ok, everyone, I'm losing patience with this tired topic- someone else may need to take over here, because I swear you think I'm freaking now, I'll REALLY freak if Firaxis screws around with the BEST (simple) combat system they've devised to date for Civ! It is challenging and rewards you when you make solid choices, elegent, and oh sooo simple to understand...

I have too been quite succesful in the ancient era. Playing with the Persians allows you to built Immortals when you discover Iron Working. Immortals are extremely powerful units in the ancient era! Capturing cities is quite easy with them.

Originally posted by Dearmad
I'll REALLY freak if Firaxis screws around with the BEST (simple) combat system they've devised to date for Civ! It is challenging and rewards you when you make solid choices, elegent, and oh sooo simple to understand...

Click to expand...

I agree 100%!! If they mess with the combat system, I won't install the patch.

As to those having Ancient Era warfare problems, one word: ARTILLERY. You have to use catapults to soften up targets prior to attacking. It's the only way to go.

Po'D, before smashing that CD with a hammer, there are many civvers who would love to have it. Mail it to me C.O.D.!

Things quickly change once you get the knights/pikemen combo. You can go on the offensive if you need to, and station a knight in each city to repel weakened invaders...ie all those pesky horsemen that attack you and retreat at one hit point. I generally crank out quite a few horsemen when I learn the tech and get horses, these can all be upgraded to knights and then cavalry and can be quite devestating if you are ahead of the tech race even a little bit.

Ancient era wars are tough without Iron though...swordsmen (or their replacements) are pretty devestating en masse (pretty much the only way to fight in the first place. Backed up by a horde of catapults and you have a really effective fighting force.

It took me some getting used to...no researching polytheism and stomping all my neighbors into the ground with 3 units, but then again it is so much more rewarding to actually fight a war rather than killing 5 phalanx with one chariot charge. Wars in Civ III actually have the feel of war, rather than a blitzkreig in the early era...if you like being defensive and cultural choose the Greeks, their hoplites (available from the start) will last you until you get gunpowder...they are literally the best defensive unit for the first 4000+ years of the game...as well as cheap and easy to produce, requiring no SRs!

This whole argument/thread is a reaction to the idea that advanced military technology = battle victory. Sure, when you develop a knight, or calvary - you have a greater chance of winning a conflict. But nothing is garaunteed.

This is true in contemporary life. I mean, lets look at Afghanastan. The Russians invaded with far superior technology - tanks, helicopters, planes - and they still lost to what is considered the poorest nation in the world.

So instead of whining about lost units, you should be developing better strategies and methods. 'Cause when Civ3 counter- attacks - ouch. It can hurt.

Originally posted by Bretwalda
I cant be expected to put a line of units on my borders?

Click to expand...

Why not? But them in strategic spots, like say on mountains or across from rivers and when the enemy comes in and tries to attack you will have the advantage. You need to get out of the thinking that all your troops ned to be in your city. That will cause major problems when they decide to start lundering your roads, mines, and irrigation.