10 Reasons Why Conquests Went Wrong

[planetfall]

next thing you know the world was mine. Armies 10 times more powerful than mine lost with great ease.

Bombers have 12 attack, and 3 hits. they are leathal. 2 bombers will take out almost any unit, with no risk to themselves.

Humm, I have not tried a come back from that far. When I have played with a huge AF, they didn't seem cost effective as the AI was using fighters/flak and the cost of bomber was greater than the cost to the AI of the numbers they lost.

Maybe the issue is when the bombers are used. I tend to wait until middle/late MA. It sounds like you used them in the late industrial era. Bombers have an advantage until jets, and then they are not as valuable.

If you want balance for AI, you could slightly increase strength of fighters and jets.

Interesting, thanks for your post.

PF

 

[planetfall]

Short story: The AI doesn't have a clue how to defend against large numbers of bombers.

All civs? The F-14's get build by the basketfull in my games and they really wreck havoc on bombers. I have given up air strikes against F14's.

PF

 

[planetfall]

what made vanilla Civ3 so fun to play because I knew the AI could do everything I could do (not all equally well but they knew how to use features).

Ah, now you are at the key reason C3C went wrong. All the other comments would be immaterial if balance was restored.

PF

 

[planetfall]

Funnily enough, I seem to've seen fewer AI bombers in C3C than in PTW or Vanilla. Hopefully just a glitch, or something prompted by some change in my playing style.

I see more bombers from carriers and fewer from land than [PTW]. Usually about 2 carriers running long distance bombing attacks. 8..12 bombers always hitting one city is very annoying.

Oh, and is it just me, or does the AI never use aircraft against 1HP units? Seems it still "thinks" that it cannot kill units off with aerial bombardment.

I see AI kill 1HP units if in coastal city, but they do ignore single units.

PF

 

[Longasc]

If the AI uses bombers, it tends to bombard unimportant cities and absurdly unimportant targets. It has no strategic thinking WHAT to bombard to have a real effect.

BTW, the F-15 is perhaps better than the normal Jet Fighter, but 1 Jet Fighter or F-15 is still not a problem at all!!! The AI does not use them better than the bombers.

 

[planetfall]

Granted for land based bombers. Only partway is for carrier based bombers, but here it is more of a harrassment than real effective strategy. It will select one port city and keep on bombing and bombing.

In my games Amer had 2..3 F15's in each city and would move in more when bombed. I only tried with 10..15 bombers and did not try with huge stack simply because it was better to mount an invasion and ignore the F15's. They are only good for defense vs bombers.

Agreed the problem is not with the units or any unit balance but the AI just does not know how to use Air Power. Even cruise missiles are often just thrown away.

PF

 

[The Last Conformist]

There's no such thing as being attacked unfairly by the AI unless the AI can escape rules the human must follow (like the way AI nukes could go anywhere in CivII).

 

[The Last Conformist]

All civs? The F-14's get build by the basketfull in my games and they really wreck havoc on bombers. I have given up air strikes against F14's.

I can only recall going against the Americans in the Modern Age once in C3C, and it may simply have been to early for them to have built alot of F-15s. Anyway, they fell like scythed grass before my Arty and Bombers, and did not seem to build any F-15s during the war. I figure they were desperately building defenders.

 

[Akka]

Well, after reviewing what people dislike about Conquest, I end with the conclusion that these critics aren't for me.

Most of the critics are about the game being easier because of new things the AI can't handle. In other words, the tired same argument about "challenge". Ok, having challenge is fun. But having varied options about what you can do is funnier. I do like having more possibilities, and I'm not so bent on "gimme challenge" that I'm ready to sacrifice content and stuff just to allow the computer to keep pace.

If people want a challenge, they should just avoid abuses and exploits. Then we'll see if the AI still can't cope with then at Semigod or even Emperor...

As for me, I liked Civ 1, Civ 2 and AC, even though the AI was completely lost into the countless options. At least, I could DO something beyond producing units and waging war.

So far, PTW added close to nothing (some maps from Internet I could have downloaded if they were worth it, a multiplayer that didn't work, and some civilizations that were barely above the level of what you find on Internet).
Conquest added REAL content (the same than PTW, plus MP being actually playable, new terrains, new rules, big scenarios). I find laughable to hear that PTW was actually anyhow better than Conquest...

 

[Gen]

Well, I also don't mind all the additions and in that regard I agree with you: C3C is definitely better than PTW. Many of them are also easily configurable through game options or editor (scientific leaders, lethal bombard, new terrain) so if somebody doesn't like them he can switch them off or adjust to his liking. However, some of new features (worse - some old, too) just don't work or work poorly because of bugs... and these aren't minor bugs. SirPleb's post summarized these well.

PTW is superior to Conquests here: it was fully patched. Conquests are not and probably aren't going to be

 

[genghis_khev]

Major bugs aside its the AI that lets the C3C down. The developers took a weak AI and worsened it. I'm not saying I would or could make it better but most the changes seemed to be directly aimed at the human players and not the AI, who just gets insane bonuses at higher levels, not smarter. To be fair Civ3 / C3C is not the only game where this kind of poor coding is everywhere. I recently took back Diver3 when I witnessed a bike I was chasing crash straight through 2 cars while the bike I was chasing them on threw me off if I so much as clipped a curb. Program them to be expert riders not give them absolute imunity to everything!

I never really rated Sci Leades unit my current game where I believe I witnessed the AI use one to rush the Pyramids. 1 turn they got a new science, the next they built the Pyramids. Again I don't have dates or saves but it seemed very early in the game (may be if they were pre-building from 4000BC?). I see Sci Leaders as free, quick wonders, and as long as the AI sees and uses them the same way they are not a problem IMHO. As for the Scientific golden age - Pants!

Finally I haven't turned off lethal land bombardment though from the arguemnts above I'm very tempted. Personally I tend to go all WWI tactically (huge Inf/Arty stacks) once I get Replacement Parts. This lasts unit I get Modern Armour.

 

[Akka]

Well, PTW wasn't "fully patched". PTW was, in fact, a big patch sold at retail price.

 

[Gen]

Well, PTW wasn't "fully patched". PTW was, in fact, a big patch sold at retail price.

That's right, I should write eventually fully patched. Can't consider PTW as a patch with so many initial bugs

 

[Speaker]

If people want a challenge, they should just avoid abuses and exploits. Then we'll see if the AI still can't cope with then at Semigod or even Emperor...

Sullla, who started this thread, is a long-time member of Realms Beyond Civilization, a community who agrees to play without "abuses and exploits." And many of us at RBC have found the game to be too easy up to and including Sid archipelago. The newest changes have almost entirely made the game easier for the human player. I find your statement to be funny. Can you really imagine SirPleb having trouble with any start on Emperor?

 

[bradleyfeanor]

Nice thread. I am in total agreement on the C3C problems. I find PTW to be a more fun game than Conquests. I also noted this lovely tidbit:

I proposed that they farm out the job of producing a patch for a "good" version of Conquests to me, at a price of $15,000, to be paid only if I successfully completed the task.

What a Christmas present that would be! [dance]

In addition to fixing the problems listed in this thread, I would love to see a few changes made to the core game. I cannot imagine how much more fun the game would be if the AI could make better early build decisions and more intelligently use/develop tiles. I suspect it would lead to a very challenging game even on Emperor level.

 

[warpstorm]

It would be a great Christmas present, but I don't think it'll happen.

 

[Sword Dancer]

IMO, The Roman Legion is superior to MDI, since it is an all-purpose unit. 3/3/1 vs. 4/2/1 really isn't all *that* different in ability, but it sucks if you suddenly have a bunch of MDI in cities that you have just taken as a defensive screen. I'd much rather have the option to build Legions than MDI.

 

[kokoras]

First off all i don't think that C3C didn't go well as far as the marketing,bacause there are a lot of people who don't know.As far as C3C development well we all know that Atari is intersting in one thing only,make money-make easy money with the less effort.They have concetraded more one the advertisment of the game than the game itself,they wanted an early release ( as they want for CIV4 ) without thinking of the problems that this would generate.Many of you have said that the lack of Art work ( Aerial view-new G.W ) isn't important for the game,and i agree,but this decission shows the way this game was developted,not to mention the numerus Bugs ( we have spoked already to much for this unacceptable issue that don't seem to have a solution ).
As an expansion pack since it included PTW it wasn't bad at all,there where some new stuff that could increase the fan & interest of the game,still these changes where made so fast that they were incomplete.
So i think that C3C for Atari went realy well,for us in the worst way it could.
The only thing that still bothers me is why they don't try to see it from our point,but then again the answer is probably in our words

 

[Nad]

Sullla, I agree with the majority of your points. If even half of your points were sorted the game would be so much better and more people might still be playing it.

Lethal land bombard, armies, and the new wonders (not just Zeus, I HATE all the wonders that give free culture buildings, such as the Internet and Artemis) are simply criminal. Whichever idiot came up with those deserves to be hanged, drawn and quartered.

Things like scientific leaders, civil engineers/policemen and volcanoes are BAD I agree with that, but I do not consider these as broken as the criminal list. I can live with these for single-player games, which is what I play, I understand the trouble is more in multiplayer.

I disagree with you on the new emphasis on exploration and the MDI unit...I think MDIs are a good addition to the game, the problem is with longbows, who should be spruced up (I've always seen archers/longbows as primarily DEFENSIVE units anyway, I would have liked to see them as weak stat units but with bombard abilities, eg an archer could be a 1/1/1 with a small bombard power (say bombard 3), while a longbow might be 2/2/1 with bombard 6). I don't like the guerilla or the TOW units, they just see misplaced, and I detest the "everything upgrades" philosophy...as you said, having units NOT upgrade adds a whole new strategic dimension, I even accepted the old rule where UUs could not be upgraded to/from. I think the "spear" upgrade path should be interrupted at pikes, with muskets built from scratch then starting the new upgrade path. MDI and longbows should not upgrade to anything.

I also agree with a lot of points made by other people. Since I'm a known troublemaker, I'd like to finish by throwing a spanner into the works. I am annoyed at Atari/Firaxis/Breakaway for some of the crap they have given us and for their blatant disloyalty to the hardcore fans, and I know that many others feel the same way. So my proposal is that if every disgruntled fan stated the below, it might give the moneygrabbers a bit of comeuppance.


Moderator Action: Warned - Piracy. Text deleted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[genghis_khev]

"FAO Firaxis/Atari et al: I bought Civ3. I bought PTW. I bought Conquests. But after the way you have treated hardcore fans and your wanton disregard of game balance in favour of gimmicks, when Civ 4 comes out I'm going to download it from the innumerable internet sources and not give you any more of my money."

Yeah Nad! Damn the Man!!!

Seriously though, in a world where obtaining illegal copies of a game is as easy as it is, surely it makes sense for the games companies to avoid irritating the fans to the degree they have here. I would not call myself "major league hardcore" (I'm happy at regent level 'cos I'm too lazy to micromanage!) but I'll be checking out fan-sites like this before I buy Civ4 and if the verdict is bad I won't bother getting it (illegal or otherwise).

For me the final croth-kick is 1 patch, and I repeat ONE PATCH, to fix the as many as possible of the most criminal bugs (SirPleb's now infamous Hit-list) would solve what is otherwise turning into a bit of a PR disaster.

I appreciate that some bugs will be unfixable without severe hassle / work (AI issues for example) but a patch with a list of what has been fixed and a brief (e.i. 1 sentence) explanation of what hasn't and why (too complex / impact on other game mechanics / whatever)... Well it would restore my faith!

1 final thought. I wonder what Mr Meier thinks about the fans feelings? After all if it were my name on the box and people felt this stitched up I would be concerned.
(by the way this is not some dodgy threat OK! I won't be placing any horse's heads in beds. Not after that last time!)