Civ3 Cheating AI totally ruins the game.

I am absolutely notorious on this site for my TOTALLY bad luck. The RNG gods hate me so I do know how it feels to have this stuff happen.

My recommendation for you would be to read some of the succession games played by the best players here from the early days. I learned so much from those games. I am never going to get above regent but I got there by trying stuff that I saw in the best games.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/an-archive-of-the-legendary-games.106017/
 
I've no doubt you have the best of intentions, but that's exactly the kind of post that triggers me right up. If I see one more person try to link me to "succession games" I swear I'll scream so loud every window in the universe will shatter. I know everything I need to know about the game in order to find the kind of enjoyment I like in a civ game, there is no more 'advice' that I 'require', in any shape or form. I always tend to play the same kinda way, most people do once they get in a rhythm. As a result I notice things that get repeated in all the games I play, things that another player might not experience in a lifetime of playing their way. Unless someone shows me a video where the game is actually showing me the calculations that the game itself is making when two units fight then... I aint interested. I aint interested in half-theories, extrapolated theories, hearsay theories or even suggestions on how to make the chaos work for me. I am really and truly quite happy to completely ignore that aspect of the game entirely unless I'm in a situation where I can use combat in a way I find enjoyable.

I've said it before, and no doubt I'll say it again, any system where the best unit in the game can lose hit points when one-on-one to the weakest unit in the game (let alone the second best attacker actually dying to the second worst defender) is an appalling system, no matter how you spin it, and its simply not worth my time investing in it, no matter the convoluted and bizzare work arounds that the more... masochistic, for want of a better word, are willing to bare.

If I can have an Infantryman, Fortified on a Hill inside a Metropolis that has within it a Civil Defence... and a Cavalry unit can just walk up to it and even take one hit point off it, let alone on a regular and consistent basis, then the numbers the game presents the player with simply aren't worth knowing about in the first place. I know how to defend well enough the way I play, I know how attack well enough the way I play, and I have no interest in learning how to be 'more effective' in this regards as 1) my games do not require it and 2) my game will not be improved to the same degree that the extra effort to go that one step further into exploits and min/maxing will require.
 
So if you are happy to ignore information and play the game the same, repeatedly, then a skewed confirmation bias sounds like the most likely explanation for your experience.

But if you disagree with the fundamental linear odds that define the game's combat system, then yeah, that's one reason why they made civ4.
 
I absolutely agree that you are not likely to learn anything. My mistake to suggest it.
 
What has "learning anything" got to do with this thread? I could say the exact same thing to you. ie: fine, ignore me, go on continuing to believe whatever skewed info you believe from only following one source.

Well, that was productive to the thread topic wasn't it.
 
Top Bottom