artillery....what's the point? And other ?'s

[Prometheus_666]

Comments heard.

Truth be told guys I never really did get in to Civ III as much as I had with Civ I and Civ II (ESPECIALLY Civ II).

Why?

As I said above. Fine, the artillery/catapults I can live with, but "bad luck"? No way! Not ALL the time. This dice roll system is nuts. The AI is using loaded dice for sure. I'm not talking about a Civ I catapult defeating armour on a one off fluke, this I can live with. I am talking about me CONSTANTLY loosing battles I should be winning at LEAST most of the time. The play balancing is oh so wrong.

And now having found out about this issue where the AI knows all and hears all, it just plain sucks.

Anyhow, while I wait for Civ IV I'm starting another game of Civ III up. See how damned addictive this game is? Some of it infuriates me and is downright not fair, but I still cannot help it.

 

[Beamup]

As I said above. Fine, the artillery/catapults I can live with, but "bad luck"? No way! Not ALL the time. This dice roll system is nuts. The AI is using loaded dice for sure. I'm not talking about a Civ I catapult defeating armour on a one off fluke, this I can live with. I am talking about me CONSTANTLY loosing battles I should be winning at LEAST most of the time. The play balancing is oh so wrong.

You are oh so wrong.

The combat engine is 100% fair - the AI gets NO hidden bonuses of any sort, and all the victory probabilities are exactly what the A/D ratings (with applicable bonuses) say they should be. This has been rigorously proven time and time again.

All claims to the contrary are generalizations from a statistically insignificant number of battles, selective memory, and/or complete lack of understanding of the combat system.

Or, in short - you are oh so wrong. Both on the combat issue and with most of the rest of your ranting.

 

[Willem]

I'm not talking about a Civ I catapult defeating armour on a one off fluke, this I can live with. I am talking about me CONSTANTLY loosing battles I should be winning at LEAST most of the time. The play balancing is oh so wrong.

Well that's probably your problem right there, you're still fighting battles like you did in Civ 1 and 2. Civ 3 requires a totally different approach. You can't just waltz up to a city with a few Swordsman and expect it to fall at your feet. The AI is much tougher to beat than in previous games. Try doing what militaries do in real life, attack with a 3 to 1 advantage. Then you might start winning some battles. The play balancing is not wrong, it's just different. You can't just walk all over the AI anymore, you have to work at war. And be prepared.

 

[azzaman333]

IMO, bombers are the best bombard unit up to and including Monarch in C3C. They can potentially cause 3 points of damage to any unit, and with lethal bombard, you can easily just tear through a civ's defenses. And Stealth bombers are even better. more powerful, larger range and harder to detect. if only bombers could be upgrade to stealth bombers... I would be in heaven.
Of course, if the enemy has large masses of fighters, and you dont want to risk your bombers, you bomb with some of your own fighters to take the fire, the bombers away!!!
I dont know how this kind of strat would work on Emp or higher though, as the only gamews i've played on levels higher than monarch are G/COTMs, which arent your average games.

 

[azzaman333]

As I said above. Fine, the artillery/catapults I can live with, but "bad luck"? No way! Not ALL the time. This dice roll system is nuts. The AI is using loaded dice for sure. I'm not talking about a Civ I catapult defeating armour on a one off fluke, this I can live with. I am talking about me CONSTANTLY loosing battles I should be winning at LEAST most of the time. The play balancing is oh so wrong.

I hate the way i lose waves of units to the super spear, but its part of the game. We dont hear you complain when you attack an elite Mech infantry fortified in a metro on a hill with a redline spear and you win ( and yes, i relise that this is one heck of an over-exageration)

 

[Prometheus_666]

Well that's probably your problem right there, you're still fighting battles like you did in Civ 1 and 2. Civ 3 requires a totally different approach. You can't just waltz up to a city with a few Swordsman and expect it to fall at your feet. The AI is much tougher to beat than in previous games. Try doing what militaries do in real life, attack with a 3 to 1 advantage. Then you might start winning some battles. The play balancing is not wrong, it's just different. You can't just walk all over the AI anymore, you have to work at war. And be prepared.

I am not talking about overal war fighting tactics.

I am speaking about the fact that one off battles-encounters I should be winning at the vert LEAST most of the time I loose with regularity to inferior opposition.

The how I take cities and such is irrelevant. I am quite aware of the fact(s) I have spoken above so I attack in force.

But no one can tell me that loosing 3x Medieval Infantry units to their 1x archer has to do with me not being able have the AI Civs 'fall at my feet'.

I am speaking about the fact that their hoplites and their swordsman seem to perform much much better than mine in one off battles, with extreme regularity.

This is not a fault of my tactics, as I usually compensate for this gross exageration of their unit power, but of play balancing.

 

[Prometheus_666]

You are oh so wrong.

All claims to the contrary are generalizations from a statistically insignificant number of battles, selective memory, and/or complete lack of understanding of the combat system.

Or, in short - you are oh so wrong. Both on the combat issue and with most of the rest of your ranting.

Look below.

I don't need to be told by you I am wrong. I am also NOT THE ONLY one who has noticed that AI units perform much better than my units.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Look below.

I don't need to be told by you I am wrong. I am also NOT THE ONLY one who has noticed that AI units perform much better than my units.

Just yesterday my redlined horseman survived two consecutive attacks from 3-hitpoint archers on grassland. The odds are astronomical (0.045^2 x 100). I guess in a parallel universe you now could see Shaka complaining about how human controlled units always perform better than those of the AI.

Nah, I just think it is more a tendency of a human player to overlook the good luck he or she has and attribute it to skill.

 

[Willem]

Look below.

I don't need to be told by you I am wrong. I am also NOT THE ONLY one who has noticed that AI units perform much better than my units.

There have been numerous people who have looked into this, testing over and over and again. Your accusations simply aren't true. I certainly haven't seen it and I've been playing the game almost from the time it came out. Yes they get lucky from time to time, but so do I. And just as often as the AI does.

It's rather pointless to be complaining about it at this point anyway, since you've already mentioned that you're going to be getting Civ 4. If you don't like the way it plays, then don't. Do something else until you get your copy of Civ 4.

 

[Beamup]

I don't need to be told by you I am wrong. I am also NOT THE ONLY one who has noticed that AI units perform much better than my units.

You are not the only one who THINKS he has noticed that. Like all the other dozens of times it has come up, you are wrong and that's all there is to it.

If you want to claim that all the people who have studied the question in great detail using controlled experiments are wrong, you need to provide data in support of your contention. "I think so" has absolutely no probitive value whatsoever.

The simple fact of the matter is that every single empirical test that has ever been done has been consistent with a fair combat system. The ones that were well-designed with sufficient statistics to be powerful have universally been inconsistent with any sort of hidden AI bonus.

There are exactly two possibilities for what's going on here.
1. You're actually winning most of the battles where you have the advantage. However, you only recall the ones you lose.
2. There is some part of the combat system (terrain bonuses, fortify bonuses, something) that you do not understand and are not taking into consideration, which is resulting in actual odds considerably different from what you think they are.

The AI gets no hidden combat bonus. Case closed.

 

[Prometheus_666]

You are not the only one who THINKS he has noticed that. Like all the other dozens of times it has come up, you are wrong and that's all there is to it.

Please don't tell me what I THINK.

I KNOW as I PLAY and I SEE what happens. I am fully aware of the modifiers. But something stinks. Where there's smoke there's fire.

There is of course the element of CHANCE in Civ III combat.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005JC8D/103-1880469-8159819?v=glance

http://www.pcgamereview.com/cat/pc-games/pc-games-strategy/microprose/PRD_154749_1459crx.aspx

 

[Prometheus_666]

Also, I did NOT start this thread so don't write like I am a Civ hate monger. I have sunk much money and thousands of hours into Civ.

I just write I agreed with the thread starter.

 

[Beamup]

Please don't tell me what I THINK.

I'm not telling you what you think. You've been telling US, quite clearly, what you think.

I KNOW as I PLAY and I SEE what happens. I am fully aware of the modifiers. But something stinks. Where there's smoke there's fire.

There is no smoke. There is no fire. You are not seeing what you think you're seeing.

There is quite simply no two ways about it. The combat system is fair and the AI gets no bonuses. If you believe otherwise, you are wrong. And that's truly all there is to it.

There is of course the element of CHANCE in Civ III combat.

Which element you are clearly either ignoring or do not understand adequately.

Certainly many people believe the system grants the AI hidden bonuses. But nobody has ever come up with the slightest shred of actual evidence to support such a contention. And the question has been studied in detail by many controlled experiments, all of which demonstrate that there are no hidden bonuses in combat.

Universally, such claims are due to one or more of a few things:
1. Not understanding one or more combat bonuses (e.g. the bonus for defending a Metropolis).
2. Overgeneralizing from a statistically insignificant sample.
3. Selective memory.
4. Trolling.

It appears that what's going on here is #3, perhaps with some elements of #2. Like I said, you're actually winning most of the battles where you have an advantage - you just don't remember winning them.

Go do an actual controlled test where you carefully record the results of, say, 500 combats (it's easy to make a map in the editor to facilitate this). The outcomes will be statistically consistent with those predicted by the straight A/D calculation. There will be no evidence of an AI combat bonus.

Most simply put, "I play and see what happens" proves absolutely nothing. Memory and impressions simply are not meaningful analysis tools, as they are notoriously fallible.

I've said it before and I will say it again. You are wrong. The AI gets no special combat bonus. You have absolutely no evidence to support your contention, and all the evidence demonstrates it to be false.

 

[IATyco]

I lost count of the number of times my red-lined units win against superior full-health units. Really, I swear that the computer is biased in favour of me.

 

[DanGo]

Hey, everyone in this thread is angry except me and IATyco?

 

[Willem]

Hey, everyone in this thread is angry except me and IATyco?

I'm not angry. See?

 

[azzaman333]

I hate the way i lose waves of units to the super spear, but its part of the game. We dont hear you complain when you attack an elite Mech infantry fortified in a metro on a hill with a redline spear and you win ( and yes, i relise that this is one heck of an over-exageration)

That isnt angry. You said everyone i this thread is angry. I'm happy. !