Civ3 has got to be the worst version ever...

[DBear]

Civ 3 is a LOT different from Civ 2, far more than just prettier graphics. I thought Vanilla Civ 3 was just horrible at first. The more I played, the more I learned the differences--culture, terrain bonus, TRADING, using artillery. The expansions simply made the game better and better.

But if you keep trying to use your Civ 2 strategies in Civ 3, you WILL be disappointed.

 

[YNCS]

"To those who say this is not a military conquest game, they are just plain lucky."

I can consistently win at Deity without capturing a city I did not found. How can you possibly construe that as luck?

I just won a RaR Demigod game with a cultural victory. Large map, continents (I shared my continent with two other civs) and 8 civs.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Also, for every time the pRNG foiled your plans, there is just as likely to be a time that you were the unlikely beneficiary of a string of lucky rolls. Those times don't stick out in our minds as dramatically.

I don't know if I'm a psychological exception, but the outrageous pRNG results that have really stuck in my mind are mostly ones in my favour.

 

[Tomoyo]

I don't know if I'm a psychological exception, but the outrageous pRNG results that have really stuck in my mind are mostly ones in my favour.

I usually remember the good ones too. They are mostly "Yay my swordsman killed five archers before going down" ones, in AWs.

 

[sabo]

Hmm, so why do you only have 1 post? Oh yes, you're a Troll. And an obvious one (quite an insult to a sophisticated Troll).

So true Raj, I don't have any problems with the combat system, everything works pretty much the way I expect it too. Maybe dood is just a "bad General"

 

[satchel]

I don't know if I'm a psychological exception, but the outrageous pRNG results that have really stuck in my mind are mostly ones in my favour.

I think you and Tomoyo probably are exceptions. And yet, somehow, I don't hear either of you proclaiming that the pRNG ruins the game.

I remember the lucky ones too, but mostly because I have trained myself to do so, as a reminder for when I am frustrated that the pRNG giveth and the pRNG taketh away.

 

[Tomoyo]

Come to think of it...

 

[ljossberir]

I'm confused. I really don't understand what you're saying. Whenever I play on chieftan level, battles seem to be way too easy. I've never had this problem...very strange. The only time something like that has happened to me is when I play on *at least* monarch level.

Did the AI have the great wall or just plain walls, at least?

 

[FinnMcCool]

I'm not going to take a stand on the godd-or-bad question, suffice to say that perhaps I feel the frustration so accutely because I spend so much time on my turns micromanaging, that when things turn sour it really bites...

But the RNG question is interesting. It reminds me of an urban legend I heard that has the ring of truth: when Tanks were introduced in WWI, there were Russian peasants defending a town with virtually no military units at all (conscripts) but some enterprising smithy ground flat the points of metal CROSSBOW QUARRELS, then smeared pitch on the tip. These quarrels were capable of piercing armor, and some tanks fell... When asked if it was magic, he said, "no, just science..." Seems that the pitch keeps the metal tip in contact just long enough for ALL the kinetic energy to transfer and pierce the steel, instead of slipping off as it would without the pitch...

Then, there are all those Molotov cocktails, that make life impossible inside a tank, and when the crewmen escape, "off with their heads!"...

Now that I think of it, it IS possible for a Warrior to kill a tank...

 

[klopolov]

Actually, I've heard (from the history teacher) that during Russian civil war (1920s) there were cases, when, I believe British, tanks were stopped (due to the weather conditions, or a road block) and flipped over by groups of people using lots and lots of leverage...

P.S. sorry for being off the topic

 

[punkbass2000]

@punkbass2000 & WhackenOpenAir:

You are forgetting that a civ3 unit doesnt represent ONE unit, but a fairly high number of them.
Do modern powers have 80-100 infantry to protect they borders? Or do they have 80-100 thousands or even more?
Eight horsemen may lose against one warrior. Eight companies of them against a bunch of brutes... well....

I don't recall mentioning anything about realism.

 

[tR1cKy]

I don't recall mentioning anything about realism.

So, is it ok with you if combats have totally unrealistic results?
8 horses vs 1 warrior, and the warrior win. This is likely to happen in the ancient age, where, expecially at higher levels, an event like this may completely ruin the game.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I've never seen a Warrior on flat ground defeating 8 Horses in a row.
A fortified Warrior in a walled town, or city on a Hill across a River, maybe even with an Archer as backup, isn't unlikely at all.
Not even unrealistic - Horses are not exactly experts in climbing walls .

 

[punkbass2000]

So, is it ok with you if combats have totally unrealistic results?

Yes. This is an abtract game. I want an interesting, strategic game. It's already unrealistic in a ridiculous number of ways. If you tried to play through mimicing early civiliations, you will probably lose.

8 horses vs 1 warrior, and the warrior win. This is likely to happen in the ancient age, where, expecially at higher levels, an event like this may completely ruin the game.

Many parts of the game arguably ruin it for many people. SGLs, for example. CultureFlipping too. You have to plan for the pitfalls. This example is not even proven, and the thread-starter has not even posted a second time. And even if it is true, I think the only real downside is situations like this, where it happens to a new player and destroys one of the first few games. Sadly, things like this can make a game unfun, but that's a risk with any strategic game.

 

[JonathanValjean]

punkbass2000, you and I are definitely on the same page on this issue. We stand united.

One thing I want to throw in is the fact that I appreciate the randomness of some events. It makes the game more exciting in my opinion. What fun would it be if you were assured absolute mathematical victory before you even attacked? Besides, in the history of the world, there have been plenty of occurences in which the underpowered, less technologically advanced opposition pulled off an unlikely victory. Just look at the Scottish rebellions of the early 1300s and the Africaaners victories during the Boer War in the early 1900s. Those are but two examples. I say long live the RNG, as it adds surprise and variation to what would otherwise be mathematical certainty! Now THAT would be boring.

 

[tR1cKy]

Yes. This is an abtract game. I want an interesting, strategic game.

Too much randomness = interesting, strategic game ?!? It should be the opposite. Unless you call a slot machine or a coin flipping a "interesting, strategic game".

It's already unrealistic in a ridiculous number of ways. If you tried to play through mimicing early civiliations, you will probably lose.

What's the point then? It's already unrealistic in many ways, so it's ok to add even more un-realism and randomness?

Many parts of the game arguably ruin it for many people. SGLs, for example. CultureFlipping too.

Again, are you ok with that? Wouldn't be better if games are not destroyed by pure random events? Since you mention them, SGL are borked, as well as the Culture Flipping thing.
CIV3 in its whole is awesome, i'm hopelessly addicted. But it has its imperfections, bugs, negatives etc. I find strange that you actually defends them.

I say long live the RNG, as it adds surprise and variation to what would otherwise be mathematical certainty! Now THAT would be boring.

I agree. A game full of mathematical certainty is boring. And a game where pure randomness decides if you win or lose is boring and moronical. Perhaps the best is in the middle?

 

[Vegasgustan]

It is so funny how the person who started this thread has not bothered to come back and reply to anything that anyone else has posted. You know, if you start something you should finish it. If this is how they play their Civ games then no wonder they don't enjoy it. Sure it sucks when you have something like that happen. Sure it sucks when you lose a game. However, every time you lose you should take something away from that game and learn from it. This is life.

 

[user37852]

Maybe they are too busy playing the game, now, Vegasugstan?

 

[punkbass2000]

Meh, this argument bores me. Your grasping at straws and generally misreading my statements.

 

[Desertsnow]

@DragonEmpires: Firstly, welcome to our forum.
Anyway, in any game (or other endeavour) that requires both skill and luck, it is not about managing the skill but about managing the luck. You have to be prepared and ready for any possible outcome. Yes, sometimes it does get riduculous, even so. The first time I saw a situation, I thought it could never happen again. I actually defended my last city that way, once (for one turn anyway). Also, know your goal. If it's not military conquest, still have a particular goal in mind, be it cultural, space, diplomatic or whatever, and have a backup plan, if possible. I have not won a conquest victory yet, and would not attempt it unless all my rivals turned hostile. As a side note, try playing with more than two civs not necessarily with max civs (though that's good), but at least five or six; you'll have a more dynamic game.