Civ III: Conquests Patch Notice

[Padma]

You should be able to load an old game with the new patch, but you won't necessarily get all the changes made in the patch available. This is because the save includes at least *some* of the rules of the curent game. This is what allows Succession games with varient rules to work, for instance.

 

[nihil8r]

hmm well i'll just have to see what happens!

 

[Ridgelake]

I probably should not post this, but I shall anyway.

Commander Bello: You state that the proposed combat changes would require new strategies. Well, a lot of people have already made new "strategies".

- Play the Persians, Vikings, Iriquois, or any other civ with a dominant A/R UU.

- Make sure that you have iron. Horses will be about useless until you can make knights. And knights are only effective when attacking pikes, forget muskets.

- Forget about archers, they can only realistically win against warriors.

- Better grab the Pyramids. Growth will be everything. You want to grab as much land and resources as possible. Don't worry, a couple of fortified spears will protect you until MDIs come along.

- Get that Great Library! Gotta keep up in tech, lest a superior unit comes available to walk over you.

The game would be end up being one of pure luck and one fateful choice: The luck would be whether you get iron, salt, rubber, and oil. Lose any of those and you will be killed rather easily. The one fateful choice is the civ you play. Choose one with a super attack value relative to its age and you walk over everyone.

Bello, does that sound like a fun game to you? If it does, then play chieftan. You can make sure to have superior units there to your heart's content. For most of the rest of us, we like being able to use horses or archers and actually survive if we don't have iron.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Commander Bello

....yeah.. exactly the first seems to be the very point. Some people have learned how to survive with the current combat system. And now something new shall come up? Iiiiiiik!
A unit having double the strength of the defender, really shall win? Oh my god, come on...

Some of us actually like the current combat system, and don't want one that even Firaxis has said was totally unbalancing the ancient age.
Maybe you want a game where immortals is a guaranteed win against spearmen, but I prefer games that aren't so easily calculated and exploitable.

You defend the fact that there has to be a six to one superiority for taking out an entrenched spearman (notice: you think, that six swordmen shall be needed!). Well, exactly this is, what makes the current CIV combat system that weak. If you translate this concept into single points then you have to have 18 attack points against 2 for defense to be successful.... bah....

You must have totally misunderstood this. One vet swordman vs a fortified spear has 55.7% chance to win, so normally one is enough. If the spear is fortified inside a city, the swordman only has 38.7% chance to win, so you'll normally need 2.

What you may need 6 swords for is to be sure beyond any doubt that you'll win.

I can understand that some players don't like the unceratinty: 2 swords is normally enough, but in extreme cases, 5 or 6 is needed. But this is both (IMHO) realistic, and makes for interesting gameplay. I like to play with a bit of uncertainty which calls for the need of back-up plans, and the need of knowing when and where to take chances with one or two sword, and when to build of a force of 6. If I was sure to win with 2 every time, the game would be much more shallow.

Any change here wouldn't ruin the game at all. Maybe, it would ruin some old habits in combat. Maybe, it would require the flexibility of creating new concepts to be successful.
And that is, what I miss when I read the complaints about the new combat system. It just have been complaints of a very, very conservative fraction of players, who obviously felt more than uncomfortable with the thought, that there could be changes. Most probably, changes which couldn't be used for exploits.

DO you know what I miss? I miss any arguments about how the strategy will be deeper by this change. New strategies for the ancient age is not hard to work out. They simply involve being Persian and build immortals en masse, or otherwise being the first to mass upgrade to swords. But how this makes for a better game is still mysterious to me. Please enlighten me...

Tings are not necessarily better, just because they are old and common.

Agreed, but they're not becoming better by rushing a flawed chnge either...

Again, I state that the whole community of players missed a chance here. The whole issue could have let to an improvement of the whole combat concept.. even, or especially, if we would have learned about the necessity to redesign individual combat values.

Yes, we missed a chance to play with a totally unbalanced ancient age. We do get the chance to play with a better thought out change in a later patch though, which I welcome.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
DO you know what I miss? I miss any arguments about how the strategy will be deeper by this change.

Nice One - your point here does seem to sum up the entire argument (or more to the point, lack thereof) on the subject

 

[Apricorn]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
. On the battle field, the stronger unit (taking all the "modifiers" into account) WILL win. This is proven by war history. The rare occasions when a "weaker" unit (aka a weaker army) has won the battle have been triggered by individual mistakes (of the military leader in charge) or by very, very exceptional circumstances like weather influence and the like....

Actually weaker armies have beaten stronger armies on many occasions in history thanks to better tactics, better leadership or better morale amongst the troops. Not just mistakes and weather.

 

[TheNiceOne]

I agree with Apricorn.

The way I see it, no commander had ever exact knowledge of the battlefield, his own army and the enemy army.

Therefore, the commander cannot know for sure that his army, which seems to be twice as good as the enemy, will win. Thus a good commander must know when to take chances and when not to etc, and how to recover from mistakes or something that may look like bad luck.

The same is, and should be true for CIV3. Since no spearman regiment was identical in real life, I have no problem with imagining that some enemy spearmen units win because their fighting ability is superior. Always knowing that my A=3 unit will beat their D=2 unit seems both unrealistic and boring.

 

[IluDeR]

Thanks

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Apricorn


Actually weaker armies have beaten stronger armies on many occasions in history thanks to better tactics, better leadership or better morale amongst the troops. Not just mistakes and weather.

To cover this, in CIV3 all modifiers work for the defender, not for the attacker.
In real life, the attacker is the one who will have the advantage, since he is the one to determine location and time of the battle. That is, what any military commander will learn in a military academy - and it is true.
Now, in CIV even plains support the defender, not to mention other landscape. By the way, I don't complain about this and agree to that feature, since it makes it a little bit harder to fight the AI.
Nevertheless, the fact of weaker armies to have beaten stronger ones is not *that* common. And "better leadership" is just a synonym for "mistakes" - mistakes being made at the side of the opponent.
The saying "God will be on the side of the stronger battalions" has been ascribed to Napoleon Bonaparte - for sure one of the best military leaders of his time - for some reason!

 

[Aggie]

Dragging "real life" into this discussion doesn't interest me. I want an epic game and I don't want to be limited in my gameplay, in the way Ridgelake excellently decsribed.

FIRAXIS admitted in this thread that they choose the wrong way to solve the tank-spear issue!! Why are we still debating this solution???

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Aggie
Dragging "real life" into this discussion doesn't interest me. I want an epic game and I don't want to be limited in my gameplay, in the way Ridgelake excellently decsribed.

FIRAXIS admitted in this thread that they choose the wrong way to solve the tank-spear issue!! Why are we still debating this solution???

Since Civilisation to some extent tries to simulate the "real life" a short look to what happens (has happened) there is not that wrong, I guess....

And even, if this was not the right way to solve the tank-spear issue, than still it would be very very good, if the combat system would be improved in the course of time....

Since it has become obvious that those guys do some reading in the forums, for me it seems to make sense to discuss the pros and cons of a change which at least is somewhere on the shelf.

 

[JustBen]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
In real life, the attacker is the one who will have the advantage, since he is the one to determine location and time of the battle. That is, what any military commander will learn in a military academy - and it is true.

Time for someone to call you out, dude. I demand source citation. Exactly what textbooks are you reading where they tell you to attack, attack, attack? (It is my belief that you're confusing the strategic concept of initiative with the tactical disadvantage of attacking. As of now, initiative is critical in Civ3, and the combat system complements this nicely -- in spite of our poor, beleaguered Modern Armor losing to Warriors.)

But like Aggie said, we should be less concerned with history and more concerned with the effect on gameplay. You may not believe that Persia would be disproportionately strong under this new system (and here, "You" is not meant to specifically refer to Bello), but I do, and here's why:

Arathorn's eXtreme Persian SG

If that can be done with the current rules, what horror would Modified Immortals unleash upon the world?

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
In real life, the attacker is the one who will have the advantage, since he is the one to determine location and time of the battle. That is, what any military commander will learn in a military academy - and it is true.

I have to question this assertion, CB. What I learned in my military history classes was that the balance of power tends to shift from the offense to the defense and back based upon technological developments and improvements in tactical doctrine. There have been historical periods during which no effective defense was available for certain technologies. The reverse has also been true - perhaps you can tell us about the advantage the attacker had during WWI at Ypres, the Somme, or Verdun.

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne

Some of us actually like the current combat system, and don't want one that even Firaxis has said was totally unbalancing the ancient age.
Maybe you want a game where immortals is a guaranteed win against spearmen, but I prefer games that aren't so easily calculated and exploitable.

I prefer interesting games as well. Do you have played the Napoleon Ages conquest as a Prussian?
There you are surrounded by potential enemies who all have better units than you (French Imperial Guard 8/8/1 vs. Prussian Fusiliers 4/4/1, to give just one example). Nevertheless you can win. Even if you face a two-fronts situation, that is if you have to fight the French and the Russians (having conquered half of Austria) simultaneously. And some Ottomans just attacking your open flank at the south..
And you can do it without the help of the RNG - you just have to analyse the strategic situation and make up your plans accordingly.

You must have totally misunderstood this. One vet swordman vs a fortified spear has 55.7% chance to win, so normally one is enough. If the spear is fortified inside a city, the swordman only has 38.7% chance to win, so you'll normally need 2.

What you may need 6 swords for is to be sure beyond any doubt that you'll win.

I just replied to the posting of someone else and for that used his arguments.

I can understand that some players don't like the unceratinty: 2 swords is normally enough, but in extreme cases, 5 or 6 is needed. But this is both (IMHO) realistic, and makes for interesting gameplay. I like to play with a bit of uncertainty which calls for the need of back-up plans, and the need of knowing when and where to take chances with one or two sword, and when to build of a force of 6. If I was sure to win with 2 every time, the game would be much more shallow.

Sorry, but this is just the argument, which already made me sick in this thread. Here, a single battle is taken into account and not the whole situation. Even, if the 2 attackers would have a 99% chance to win, the counter-attack would blow away the surviving 1 attacker (because you needed 2 attackers, it is clear that one would have died).
So, the 99% don't make you win the war. You still have to have reserves and - even more interesting - have to check, what reserves your opponent might have and how soon he can bring them to the theatre.

DO you know what I miss? I miss any arguments about how the strategy will be deeper by this change. New strategies for the ancient age is not hard to work out. They simply involve being Persian and build immortals en masse, or otherwise being the first to mass upgrade to swords. But how this makes for a better game is still mysterious to me. Please enlighten me...

And this seems to be the most obvious difference between your attitude towards the game, and mine.
I don't look for the nation with the "best" units. I choose one and then I try my very best to make my way. If at a given point of time, my opponents have better units and war cannot be avoided, then I have to develop a strategy which allows me to win anyway.
If chances are better for the "better" units, the need for this successful strategy of mine becomes more urgent - it will be crucial.
If this doesn't prove for deeper strategy than I just don't know, what will....
To simply check the nation with the best Ancient Age units in my eyes is some kind of exploit. Maybe, some people have a different opinion. Maybe, these people think that they are really doing a hard job by choosing the "best" nation, possibly playing on a modified map which they know and so on.
According to my view, this is just simple.

Agreed, but they're not becoming better by rushing a flawed chnge either...

If it would have been a flawed change... Thanks to the complaints of many people, we will not know about it.

Yes, we missed a chance to play with a totally unbalanced ancient age. We do get the chance to play with a better thought out change in a later patch though, which I welcome.

As you stated above the ancient age is unbalanced anyway. Nevertheless, people manage to survive, even if the Persians are around.
To be honest, people seem to have been hypnotized by the mathematics but have missed to take into account that it is not just one battle which will be fought.

 

[The Last Conformist]

A couple of things which are bugging me about this discussion:

i) Alot people seems to be more interested in the Tank vs Spearman matchup than in Tank vs Inf or Spearman vs Swordsman. Get frikken real!

ii) A number of posters seem to believe that we who think the "new combat system" was deeply flawed are consistently able to exploit the greater impredictability of the old one to achieve unrealistic successes. Get real; good and bad luck does average out over time.

CB: That there, most of the time, is more than one battle to be fought is pretty irrelevant if everyone's practically a guaranteed win.

And if the impact of attack-bonus UUs ought to be increased, then just why should that be done by introducing bizarrely opaque changes to the combat engine rather than simply by increasing attack values? Mod Immortals to an attack factor of eight if the resultant balance is more to your liking.

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
DO you know what I miss? I miss any arguments about how the strategy will be deeper by this change.

Exactly. We're talking about a significant change to one of the core elements of the game. I don't think it's up to anyone to defend the current combat system (it has, after all, worked well enough to make Civ3 and two expansions quite succesful), but for those who support the proposed changes to the combat system to give some very strong, credible arguments that it would be an improvement. I don't think that's been done.

 

[Ridgelake]

Originally posted by Commander Bello
To be honest, people seem to have been hypnotized by the mathematics but have missed to take into account that it is not just one battle which will be fought.

CB, you are on the right track to understanding the point that so many of us are trying to make. Charis and others have been trying to point out precisely how many more battles will have to be fought under the proposed system to accomplish a similar goal. His point is that it would take a significantly greater number of contemporary but modestly-weaker units to yield the same overall results of a series of battles. It is the accumulation of those additional units that would break the balance of the game.

Under the proposed settings, the game would revolve around the luck of acquiring necessary resources. If, in succession, a civ were to not have iron, salt, rubber, and then oil, they would be doomed.

Notice that I left out horses. Horsemen would be near useless. Even knights would struggle against fortified pikes. Forget attacking muskets with knights. But woe be the nation without iron. Their spears get run over by knights, MDIs, or longbows. The point of Charis' math is that it would take an obscene number of spears to hold off a modest number of attack-4 units. Or likewise, it would take an obscene number of archers or horsemen to capture iron from a spear-defended city. And forget about going after a pike-defended city with archers and horsemen, it would be near impossible.

CB, is that the kind of game that you want to play? That is what you would be getting.

On a related subject, increasing the number of battles (combat trials) will only serve to bring the aggregate results closer to the expected outcome. So the superior unit will still win a majority of the time, as it should.

 

[Ragnar_84]

I still haven't heard an answer to the question, does anyone know exactly or approxiamately what day the patch is due?

 

[MrGone]

If I remember correctly, the past patches have come out on Fridays. I could be wrong there, though. Either way, they did say the plan was to release it this week. Sooooo......everyone keep their fingers crossed for tomorrow.

 

[Jaybe]

If I remember correctly, the past patches have come out on Fridays.

Except for one that came out on Thursday (please)!!!