Cool Swordsman Distroys Tanks !!!

[jghoo]

I do not understand what the point of new techs and upgrading are if a bunch of unadvanced hand weapon trogledites with sticks can defeat a tank. Apparently no one remembers when china ran over the protesters. Arrows, stones, or whatever hand weapons simply put have no ability to FIGHT against tanks. For all you (what if the the archer or stone thrower or what ever is in a tree or has a magic arrow folks) its dumb and it ain't gonna happen. Personally I think this is as big of bug as the apparent legion of other bugs. IMHO it makes the game a farce and takes out most of the fun of advancement. It was also fun to watch enemy sailing ships take out my aircraft carriers, and distroyers. I am new to the civ series, and am awhere of their
success but can't beleive 1&2 where no better than this.


P.S Yes before bought the gameI did read the butt kissing reviews on serveral web sites.
unfortunitly i did not find these forums till after I bought the game. Is the game fun? Does it have staying power? not in this
state. I still play Alien Xfire after How long?

FLAME ON EVERYONE.

 

[ironfang]

I have to agree. I was totaly pumped about CIV III and was more than willing to accept the initial bugs because good companies usualy release patches the week after the release. No big deal...

Ok companies release patches less than 2 weeks later.

Crappy companies, they release patches less than 3 weeks later.

What kind of company is Firaxis then???

I guess the reason they havent released a patch yet is because of the sheer volume of bugs, and I am pretty sure that they had coded themselves into some DEEP holes pushing this klunker out the door.

ironfang

 

[Mike C]

It wouldn't be half as bad if they would atleast come out and say to the public, "ok we screwed up. We're sorry. Here is a list of the bugs we know about and we are working on them."

But no. We have a wall of silence.

 

[lc3man]

Well said and well put.

About the reviews - What is up with these websites giving Civ3 stellar reviews? I mean the game isn't 'horrible' but by no stretch of the imagination is it great. If anyone finds a good website that gives non-biased reviews please post it here. Gamespot is usually where I go to get my reviews (the viewers' tilt is mostly what I look at). When they gave Black & White a 9.3 I about flipped.

 

[Yasz]

I think if swordsman had a 0% chance of success against a tank, the game would not be worth playing. If a civ was to fall behind by a couple of techs, they'd be pretty much finished. Anything can happen, even against a tank...this is where hero's are made...ever see "Sergeant York?" There's always a chance, no matter what the odds...

 

[ironfang]

Yes. Swordmen have 0 chance against tanks. I am sooooo sorry you feel other wise. CivIII isnt based on "movie" probability, it should be based alot closer to fact. There is no reason that my tank briggade should lose to a Legion. There is simply NO reason. There is nothing a Legion can do to stop a tank on the open battle field. Swords, shields, horses, greek fire... all completely useless.

By the way, if you consider "Swordmen" a few technologies away from "tanks" you need to take a VERY HARD LOOK at your manual again.

Tank = Industrial
Swordmen = Ancient

Advances in between??? Alot.

ironfang

 

[Dwarven_Megalomaniac]

I agree... there is always a chance... but I find the "chances" significantly more in favor of the underdog than in any other Civ game.

The best way to describe my reaction to playing that first time was damn near shock at just how well low tech units stood against my significantly higher tech units.

Where I found this most evident was in Naval combat. I found that to fend off 20 galleons (or whatever cannon weilding wooden ship is the heaviest) I had to have at least 5 Battleships. And what REALLY made me drop my jaw was that these ships get a FREE SHOT when defending against my battleships. One question. WHY!?!?! A galleon would be lucky to even SEE a battleship before voltswagon sized shells started smashing through its WOODEN hull.

I mean... look at the birth of the Ironclad. Not sure which was first... the Monitor or the Miramac. But whichever one rolled out first positively annihilated FLEETS at a time. The only thing that evened the odds was the introduction of a rival ironclad (and when they met... it was a draw... cannons simply weren't powerfull enough).

I believe, if I'm going to take some risks, dedicate resources to get me ahead by 5 or 6 techs (reasonably this is what it takes to separate late game techs from mid game techs) PLUS dedicate enough production to build one or two battleships or what have you... I had BETTER have a razor sharp edge over the competition.

Yes... there SHOULD be a chance. That chance should be small. Much smaller than what it is now.

 

[Yasz]

Ironfang... the movie I referred to is based on a true story...check it out...it's a classic...

Never did I say swordsman and tanks were only a few technologies away (i know my CivIII as well as the next guy)...what I was referring to is the fact that if a civ was to fall behind in tech they would have no chance to compete...saying zero chance is wrong, there's always a chance...

 

[ironfang]

As dwarven had mentioned, superior tech almost always wins. There are some extreme cases, but I believe we cant take the extreme and make it the rule (but that is sooooo very common these days isnt it?).

If you look at the Spanish-American war. The Spanish Armada completely outnumbered the American Fleet, but because the American fleet had Ironclads, they sunk the entire spanish Armada without suffering a single loss. That wasnt much of a technology gap either. Imagine if the spanish would have had Ancient Rome style Galleons... the battle wouldnt have made it into the history books.

While I DO admit that there are extremely remote possibilities... does it warrant a 1% chance for the sake of playability? And lets be real about it then, I believe that a Cavalry unit stands a 1% chance against a tank... what would you consider a mounted Knight??? Much less a stone club warrior crawling out of a cave!

ironfang

 

[Akka]

There is already a BUNCH of discussions about it on Apolyton. You would not believe your eyes if you would read how so many people can explain you why it's acceptable that a warrior is able about 1% of the time to kill a tank

Last-ditch rationalizations and completely out-of-reality explanations, it's sometimes fun sometimes depressing to see what people can say just to be sure to contradict others

 

[Dwarven_Megalomaniac]

Hell right now I'd deal with a 1% chance!
I'd say right now... a much lower tech unit has much more than 1%.... especially when we're talking a naval battle.

I've I'm going to work my Civ's little heiny off to make sure I'm a good 10 to 20 techs ahead of my opponents, then the situation (the MILITARY situation) SHOULD be borderline hopeless unless they can through hordes and hordes of units at me (which they do... and very frequently )

Now for those of you who ask "what if its the computer that is 10 to 20 techs ahead of YOU". Well... we all know now that military engagement isn't a necessity now. A couple of my friends have gone entire games with nothing but the occassional skirmish.

 

[Ghengis Brom]

Originally posted by Yasz
Ironfang... the movie I referred to is based on a true story...check it out...it's a classic...

Never did I say swordsman and tanks were only a few technologies away (i know my CivIII as well as the next guy)...what I was referring to is the fact that if a civ was to fall behind in tech they would have no chance to compete...saying zero chance is wrong, there's always a chance...

Gobble-Gobble-Gobble!

 

[Dillo]

I am sorry, I have to say. I dont care. There is no lone swords man with only a sword gonna defeat a tank. period. He could evade, climb on it,climb under it, but ultimatly he would lose. Or neither would receive damage. But no man armed with only a sword is gonna do much to a tank. especially when he runs up to climb on it and the commander pops out and pumps 2 or 3 9mm rounds in his chest. It aint gonna happen. But for continuity of the game they should give a 1% chance about 1% of the time. It can be done, Say your tank commander didnt lock the hatch. Take the Tank that went rampageing through L.A. a few years back for example. Police officers, armed only with 9mm were able to finally end the rampage when the tank got stuck and the Idiot driveing forgot to lock the hatch down. They climbed on and shot him in the head with their pistol, then dragged the body out, so there is the possibility I guess.Due to the Tank commanders stupidity. But I have seen it happen too many times, especially a Eleite Warrior vs a normal tank. Thats Just insane. It happens too much is my only complaint.

 

[ironfang]

Yes, i love beating this dead horse, but its not just ONE tank. Its an entire Military unit!!! If there were a SINGLE REMOTE POSSIBILITY for one persone to take out one tank.... well... ok. But for a WHOLE group of sword wielding guys to take out a whole brigade of tanks... NO!

ironfag

 

[jim1013]

I agree very much with your posts about this ironfang.

However, i myself would simply like to see civ 2 style chances of ancient type units winning (or doing lots of damage) against modern units..

IMHO civ 2 was perfectly balanced. The "excuse" they've given us for the current farce of a combat system about not being able to build because of a lack of resource X is rubbish (and therefore the game being hopeless) is rubbish, since riflemen dont require any resource.. and in civ2 they are a reasonable sort of stop gap, so this excuse is debunked.

i'm sure everyone who played civ1 was thrilled with civ2's combat system, and im sure there was nobody complaining that civ 2's combat system was "too powerful for moden units"

Anyone saying that if civ3 had a similar system, it would make it unbalanced is not thinking. The suggestion that the "first civ to get tanks will crush over everyone's pikemen" is not sensible.

it's not as though you go from pikemen to tanks, and then crush everyone. Its likely you'd be up against musketmen or riflemen.
If the enemy is so far behind in tech that you have tanks and they are still unable to build gunpowder units, then sorry to say but if they are that far behind the situation IS hopeless and they should fold like superman on laundry duty.

The civ 2 combat system balanced realism and gameplay. some inexplicable things could still happen, but this wasn't too extreme.

The real issue with the combat in civ3, although the chance of a single unit taking out a modern was fairly low, multiple attacks where deadly

I lost a veteran carrier to 2 or 3 (probably vet) man of wars (they attacked my carrier). Now the chance of one of those man of wars attacking the carrier and winning is quite low (cant remember the exact numbers.. but i think for elite vs elite it was 9% - or maybe that was vet vs vet) In anycase, even though its winning chance was low, the chance that it would AT LEAST take one HP off of the Carrier was very high.. and so the next one attacks and this one HAS a significantly higher sucess chance (even more so if 2 attack each removing one HP etc).. WHY becuase 1 HP equates to (in the case of the vet) 25% damage.

Firepower is not needed, nor higher A/D for modern units (although i might make a mod with the latter since i doubt this issue will be adressed).... what is needed IS
1) More HP for all units.. Civ2 used 10,20,30,40 HP.. much better this number of HP was enough to even out the freak occurences.
2) More HP for Modern Units (eg 2,3 or 4 times depening on the unit)
3) Healing rate would have to be increased a bit too i think for balance.

 

[Mike C]

Great Post.

 

[pagh80]

Anyone played ctp2???

Anyway the combat system in ctp2 is MUCH MUCH better
than the JOKE of a combat system here in civ 3.

Furthermore you can put your units together in a lot of different
and strategic ways in ctp2.

Here in civ 3 you can make an army..... and what is so briliant by that???

Well you dont have to attack 3 times with 3 units. Instead you can attack only one time with an army of 3 units.... wow good to have an army then... Veeery strategic.... or what??

That was a bit of my thoughts about the combat system After my MODERN tank lost to a ****ing swordman

 

[Akka]

Firepower is not needed

Yes yes yes yes FP is needed !
At least for the sake of modding !
GIVE US BACK FP/HP FOR EACH UNIT !