Defensive Order handled by poor AI, Option needed for player control

[Neomega]

I don't get how you can come in here and whine and complain about something that most people don't seem to have a problem with, then attempt to insult me because you don't like my suggestions and follow that by admittingthat you have never won. Instead of sticking with your same whiny complaint, try taking advice from people that don't seem to have the problem you do and maybe you could even become a good player. If you can't play the game on Monarch, try a lower setting.

I don't want to play a lower setting, and have quit many games I was winning, as explained in previous posts.

Oh.. and I've been arounfd this internet thing long enough to know a flaming troll when I see one. trying to escalate discussions into arguments by putting words in peopels mouth, and making them look like extremists.

Even if someone mods the game to allow you control, you would come back in here with another complaint about the game being too hard.

so says the uber-1337 teh civ masta. mad pwnage on chieftan.

 

[Vulpes]

One complaint to come out of this thread is that the AI doesn't take first strikes (and counters for them) into account when selecting the 'optimal' defender. Can anyone confirm or deny that this is the case?

 

[Ranos]

I don't want to play a lower setting, and have quit many games I was winning, as explained in previous posts.

Oh.. and I've been arounfd this internet thing long enough to know a flaming troll when I see one. trying to escalate discussions into arguments by putting words in peopels mouth, and making them look like extremists.

twit.

I haven't flamed a single person in this post. I made suggestions that would halp you and got flamed in return. I have put no words into anyones mouths, maybe I misunderstood Kolyana earlier, nor have I made anyone look like an extremist. I really can't understand why you are getting so mad over me trying to point out ways that you can make the AI choose your defenders over your attackers.

I also doubt that you would throw such a fit as you did in this thread if you had done the same thing to the AI. Rather than freak out about the way the game works, try and figure out how the game works and use it to your advantage.

One complaint to come out of this thread is that the AI doesn't take first strikes (and counters for them) into account when selecting the 'optimal' defender. Can anyone confirm or deny that this is the case?

I could be wrong, but from what I have noticed, it does calculate that into the numbers. That is just from ingame observation though.

[EDIT]

so says the uber-1337 teh civ masta. mad pwnage on chieftan.

After the third change to the final line of your post, it is quite clear who the flamer and troll around here is. Feeding time is now over.

 

[Neomega]

I haven't flamed a single person in this post. I made suggestions that would halp you and got flamed in return. I have put no words into anyones mouths, maybe I misunderstood Kolyana earlier, nor have I made anyone look like an extremist. I really can't understand why you are getting so mad over me trying to point out ways that you can make the AI choose your defenders over your attackers.

So innocent, I just don't understand....

I also doubt that you would throw such a fit as you did in this thread if you had done the same thing to the AI. Rather than freak out about the way the game works, try and figure out how the game works and use it to your advantage.

I wouldn't the AI is ******** by default, because it's brain is silicon.

After the third change to the final line of your post, it is quite clear who the flamer and troll around here is. Feeding time is now over.

What, I don't know what you are talking about, all I am doing is making some observations, and you are saying I am whining... I, like you, am so innocent and misunderstood.

 

[Dairuka]

Ranos has made a lot of good points.

Some things would make the game too easy - The ability to choose your primary defender would be one of them. We already get the huge benefit of long-term strategic thinking over the computer in troop positioning, city growth and empire expansion. Now you want the ability to micromanage your battles too?

Why not ask for an "I Win" button to go with every battle, that way you could click it, and win every fight.

 

[Neomega]

Why not ask for an "I Win" button to go with every battle, that way you could click it, and win every fight.

Because I do not want to play prince or noble.. I would win every time if I did.

 

[Dairuka]

Because I do not want to play prince or noble.. I would win every time if I did.

Then don't get mad just because something is beyond your control causing you to lose a menial battle in a game...

Anger leads to irrational thought. This thread is proof.

 

[Neomega]

Then don't get mad just because something is beyond your control causing you to lose a menial battle in a game...

Anger leads to irrational thought. This thread is proof.

What is irrational about wanting more control in a game? Especially over essential battles? Am I supposed to listen to some newb tell me how it is, and then call me a whiner? I think not.

 

[Dairuka]

What is irrational about wanting more control in a game? Especially over essential battles? Am I supposed to listen to some newb tell me how it is, and then call me a whiner? I think not.

I'm sorry you lost, however that is still no reason to call me names.

Still... If you fail to see the irrationality in losing a battle, coming to the web-boards to complain about why you lost that battle and how you demand to have things changed so you won't have to lose any more battles, while touting your own horn about how you refuse to play on the easier difficulties because you don't want to win all the time?

Well... I'm afraid that I can't help you. I'm afraid that nobody can help you. You will never be happy with a challenge.

 

[Dragonlor]

A suggestion was made to add an option to select a defender. People are just argueing now. Why is this thread still going on? Is no one online just able to walk away from anything?

 

[Dairuka]

A suggestion was made to add an option to select a defender. People are just argueing now. Why is this thread still going on? Is no one online just able to walk away from anything?

I just got here, so nya.

 

[Neomega]

Still... If you fail to see the irrationality in losing a battle, coming to the web-boards to complain about why you lost that battle and how you demand to have things changed so you won't have to lose any more battles, while touting your own horn about how you refuse to play on the easier difficulties because you don't want to win all the time?

Let me show you something....

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=84996

sound a little familiar... notice it was 1.5 years ago.

Alos as working as a beta tester for Firaxis, I gave some angry posts.... and they responded. The game can be better, and can be made better, there is much time ahead in the developement of civ IV.

 

[Psyringe]

EDIT: I don't believe you. I don't think the AI is considering the entire stack, and running thorugh all the possibilities... semms to me it is using the most powerful first, and going down the list.

This was just a side topic here, but I tried to test it and received an unexpected result. If you're interested, you can read about it in this thread. Thanks for the inspiration.

 

[Dairuka]

Let me show you something....

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=84996

sound a little familiar... notice it was 1.5 years ago.

Alos as working as a beta tester for Firaxis, I gave some angry posts.... and they responded. The game can be better, and can be made better, there is much time ahead in the developement of civ IV.

Let me show you something...

Sound a little familiar?

I think Sirian is one of the only Firaxis people who I've seen lurk around here, so your complaints are probably only being heard by other fans of the game. Even if they turn into a huge resounding "Yeah!", it will more than likely be ignored. Your best bet is for a mod to be made.

Anyhow, back on topic. I still feel the option to, "choose" unit sacrifices, will diminish all advantages from Attacking Units. The game will go entirely defensive, as thats where all the battles will be won in Stack vs Stack warfare. Even Catapults and Cannons will be rendered useless against that War Elephant with +25% to Siege Units who gets chosen every time that the enemy decides to try and widdle you down.

If you think about how people are complaining now about how difficult conquering other Civilizations is. Just think of all the angry letters to Firaxis being sent via express mail the moment they even try to put your proposed changes in... Defenders would always win.

 

[Neomega]

Let me show you something...

Seen it before.

You seen my post before?

Anyhow, back on topic. I still feel the option to, "choose" unit sacrifices, will diminish all advantages from Attacking Units. The game will go entirely defensive, as thats where all the battles will be won in Stack vs Stack warfare. Even Catapults and Cannons will be rendered useless against that War Elephant with +25% to Siege Units who gets chosen every time that the enemy decides to try and widdle you down.

Go ahead, the war elephant is not a good defender... it gets no defense bonuses. And why would someone choose a war elephant to defend against a cannon, instead of against knights of horse archers? sacrifice a 25% defense for a 100% defense? Please.

If you think about how people are complaining now about how difficult conquering other Civilizations is. Just think of all the angry letters to Firaxis being sent via express mail the moment they even try to put your proposed changes in... Defenders would always win.

It's not hard to take cities, it's just different than civ III. The concept of withdrawing artillery is awkward.

 

[Dairuka]

Seen it before.

You seen my post before?

Yes I did, it had little to no relation to this topic. It seemed more like an attempt to flaunt your credentials. Namely how long you've been posting on these forums. It instantly reminded me of that picture, so I just had to google it for you. =)

It's not hard to take cities, it's just different than civ III. The concept of withdrawing artillery is awkward.

I agree with you there.

Yet there are other complaint threads on these forums besides this one.

 

[Neomega]

Yes I did, it had little to no relation to this topic. It seemed more like an attempt to flaunt your credentials. Namely how long you've been posting on these forums. It instantly reminded me of that picture, so I just had to google it for you. =)

Then you missed the point. There is nothing wrong with ideas or criticism. I have said plenty of time before I like Civ IV alot, but I do not like handing over control to crucial battles over to a computer.

And the folks from firaxis DO read AND listen... AND obviously, the only firaxis person you KNOW OF is Sirian... I KNOW of at least a dozen others who read these forums every day.

Now you want to pitch a battle in hypothetical land. Usually the AI defenders choice would be THE STRONGEST UNIT, so the AI would already choose the elephant with 25% bombard, if that was the strongest unit. Your point is moot. You acting like it would be a giant game exploit, when that is the way it already is.

I do not want the ability to choose the strongest unit... The AI already does that for you. Do you know what cannon fodder is? Because that is the exact term I used many many posts ago in this thread. If not, google it. It is a well used tactic in war, but not availabel in this game.

 

[calyth]

AI didn't really pick a choice other than running a max function and picking the hardest hitting unit it has on its stack. And this type of combat has already existed in Civ 3. Basically the combat system picks the strongest defender for the attacker.
There is no good alternative to make a tactical choice on who's defending aganist what unit.
A warrior probably couldn't even land a blow on a knight. the knight has a 10:1 odds of killling the warrior, and I would be surprised if the warrior would even take down one strength of that knight. Not allowing you to choose the defender would definitely speed up a MP game where both plaers would try very hard to outsmart each other in choosing which units to attack. I haven't seen how useful is the 2 first strikes in combat to comment whether keeping the samurai would be a good decision.

 

[Psyringe]

Although this discussion has too many flames for comfort, I still find the topic interesting.

Not true. A little coding could be done. Units can be flagged for "personal command" or something like spacebar could be used to interrupt a battle, so the player can take "personal command".

These are constructive suggestions. We obviously differ in our questions like how large the "problem" is, whether anything should be done against that and, if yes, what. But imho you've shown that you aren't whining, but you experienced something as "not fun" and suggest ways to improve it.

A "personal command" flag would provide the feature you want without lengthening every battle. However, it's a feature that provides an advantage to a player who is willing to micromanage combat. I'm a little skeptical about such features. Many people feel compelled to use them because thes don't want to give up a possible advantage. So you might end up with players flagging every unit for "personal command" just in case they may spot an advantage in any battle. Which is not fun. But many players feel compelled to use these features even though they are actually boring - as around how many players finetuned Civ3 gold amounts in diplomacy down to the single gold piece, and ask these people whether that was fun.

Of course, you can answer that people to whom this feature detracts from the fun just shouldn't use it. And you'd be right, although I fear that they'd use it regardless.

The same goes for the "hit space bar to take control" alternative.

The "primary defender" flag might be the best alternative, because it doesn't lengthen the combat itself. By giving some units a "primary defender" flag, or perhaps others a "protect my life" flag, you can add a means to protect certain units without adding an incentive to micromanage every battle. Possible problems are a further strengthening of the defense and whether the AI could effectively use these features for its units.

 

[Neomega]

A "personal command" flag would provide the feature you want without lengthening every battle. However, it's a feature that provides an advantage to a player who is willing to micromanage combat. I'm a little skeptical about such features. Many people feel compelled to use them because thes don't want to give up a possible advantage. So you might end up with players flagging every unit for "personal command" just in case they may spot an advantage in any battle. Which is not fun. But many players feel compelled to use these features even though they are actually boring - as around how many players finetuned Civ3 gold amounts in diplomacy down to the single gold piece, and ask these people whether that was fun.

Let me ask you a personal questioon... do you use the city governors? Do you automate workers? I sure don't. I like micromanagement. People complain about it like smokers who hate the way cigarettes smell, and always talk about how bad they make them feel.

I want control. This is a TBS... emaning you have all the time you want to make the tough decisions... do you sacrifice your longbowmen, to allow your samauri the first strike hand to hand combat they are itching to fight?