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

[satchel]

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?

Indeed. And I believe that Civ is in the middle. There is a random combat system, with the randomness tempered by factors like attack and defense strength and hit points, and where the remaining randomness can be handled with good tactical and strategic decisions like using artillery and not hinging one's entire strategy on the outcome of a single battle. To me, that does a pretty good job of striking a balance between mathematical certainty and pure randomness. What more do you want?

 

[WackenOpenAir]

Many people say luck is a needed factor in games to make them fun.

I disagree.

Many good games, like multiplayer strategy games do not have luck involved. Chess is also an example of this. So is starcraft or Warcraft.

Luck or better, statistics can form a strategic element however. You need to have a good strategy to get best out of the random factor. This is the case in civ where you have to use stacks big enough to defeat the RNG, this is the case in Magic the Gathering where you have to build your deck so that you don't depend on drawing the exact right cards and in many more games in many ways.

To convert luck into statistics usefull for strategic depth, you need to make sure there are not a few huge luck factors, but many small luck factors that will even out statistically over the whole game.

So luck by itself is not what makes game fun. I hate luck in games. Luck converted into statistics however can help creating strategic depth.

 

[punkbass2000]

Still, a small degree of luck ads spice, IMO. Having played thousands of quick online chess games, IME, unless someone plays a fairly unusual opening, most games quickly become similar in nature. Yes, there are subtleties arise that are interesting and keep the game flexible, but the simple fact that GM's (and others) can plan their first 20+ and play them in under a minute (primarily a time-saving device). In fact, when Spassky played Polgar (World's highest ranked female, at least at the time), Black (I can't remember which) mained a ridiculous error that would have lost them the game immediately by transposing two moves (move ~15). Neither player noticed and the game continued normally. Don't get me wrong, I love chess (as well as other "pure" strategies like 'Chinese Chess' and 'Go'), but they all have that element of predictability. This can be good and bad, of course. Beyond that, there are many brilliant games that are almost pure strategy yet have small degrees of luck. Sometimes in A&A you lose your battleship (even if it has two HPs) to some pissy sub on the defense. It would suck, but it's very unlikely. That's why you don't just bring the Battleship, you bring the fleet

EDIT: Oh, and I disagree that WC and SC are "pure" strategies. They are certainly not on the same level as chess, at any rate. In fact, I would generally call them tactical games. Yes, there is some strategy involved, but it's not too hard to learn the most effective build orders generally. The best players are the ones who can do these ordes effectively and efficiently, IMO. YEs, every once in a while a tactical genius finds something revolutionary, but at this point if you visit SCU you can pretty well play the game as well as anyone. The same cannot even be said for Civ, IMO, let alone chess.

 

[Whomp]

I will say this....IMO I am convinced my elite units have monsterous egos and the RNG knows!! I rarely see my elites win a green to green battle....let the grizzlied old vets go before the big headed elites. Unless that defender is red lined or is the last defender....go vet!

I think most of us understand there are some people are just ANGRY in life for whatever reason (lack of prozac or no dyes in the box or marketplaces built in the core or whatever).
IMO there is a big difference between being critical of unfun elements of Civ3(corruption) and just trying to stir the pot (Dragon whatever blah blah).
Personally I can't think of a game that puts all the real world/real life twists and turns Civ offers. No levels to start over and over and over again to acheive results. You plan well...you win...you don't...you lose. Simple. I think it's time to move on to more interesting topics.

Go Vet!!!
Cheers!