Die stinking battleship!I am a caravel!

PanaGo

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 15, 2001
Messages
44
Location
Athens, Greece
I got my ELITE battleship sunk to the bottom of the sea, by a tiny,outdated,fragile,AI caravel! UNBELIEVABLE!!! Couldn't they fix the technology-compatibility-match ?Old units should have a huge penalty when fighting with modern units. This would force the AI to actually build barracks and spend some gold on upgrading...
 
Welcome to the club!
An advice for you: don't attack Man-o-wars with nuklear submarines... :rolleyes:
 
You should also look out for rabid Galleys. I had one take out a veteran frigate. When those fellas get to paddlin'. . . Frigates Beware!







"do or do not, there is no try."
 
I can't even believe they would do this to me. Why take my favouite game, improve it, and then wreck the combat system? I haven't yet purchased CIV III and i will NOT be forking over $50 until this has been fixed.

People can come up with all kinds of wacky ideas to support WHY it happens - but c'mon... we all know it's unrealistic. If you can deal with it then fine... all the better to you. I however can NOT.
I KNOW that it will stress me out and I'm not paying money to become frustrated (stress is FREE at work!)

When Civ II was released, the "phalanx versus battleship" problem was something they had "fixed". It was considered a "flaw" and the new combat system was considered a feature of Civ II. Civ players touted this new system as so much better. We HATED it when our modern units got beaten by ancient ones.

Well if this was a "flaw" at the time then logic states that if the game (civ III) has the same problem then it is STILL a flaw.

I refuse to take a step "back". I love Civ 2 and will continue to play it.

(Edited: It sounded like i didn't BELIEVE that the problem is occuring when that wasn't what I meant)
 
Originally posted by RedWolf
I can't even believe this. I haven't yet purchased CIV III and i will NOT be forking over $50 until this has been fixed.

People can come up with all kinds of wacky ideas to support WHY it happens - but c'mon... we all know it's unrealistic. If you can del with it then fine... all the better to you. I however can NOT.
I KNOW that it will stress me out and I'm not paying money to become frustrated (stress is FREE at work!)


I'm not coming up with reasons WHY it happens. I __rarely__ see something like that happens. So either I'm living in fantasy-land or those who experience it are living in nightmare-land (or both ;) )...

When Civ II was released, the "phalanx versus battleship" problem was something they had "fixed". It was considered a "flaw" and the new combat system was considered a feature of Civ II. Civ players touted this new system as so much better. We HATED it when our modern units got beaten by ancient ones.

Well if this was a "flaw" at the time then logic states that if the game (civ III) has the same problem then it is STILL a flaw.

I refuse to take a step "back". I love Civ 2 and will continue to play it.
 
Yep, there is a long list of people who've been in your shoes on land and in sea and even by air (hell I've had AI fighters do a number on my missle toting JET FIGHTER). There is also a list of people swearing up and down about how it doesn't happen of why it should happen (I mean maybe Gunter the Warrior Great and the other stone age bastards moved a boulder into the path of that tank or maybe it just flat ran out of gas or ammo) Bottom line, above all else sea warfare needs revamping. You'll hear lots of complaining about the "Invincible Fleet", unsinkable by planes...so send some frigates/ironclads.
 
If caravels had Exocets... Wait a minute!!! That MUST be the answer!:D

Seriously, add me to the list of folks who think this is the biggest remaining problem in the game.
 
I got my ELITE battleship sunk to the bottom of the sea, by a tiny,outdated,fragile,AI caravel! UNBELIEVABLE!!! Couldn't they fix the technology-compatibility-match ?Old units should have a huge penalty when fighting with modern units. This would force the AI to actually build barracks and spend some gold on upgrading...

I've had a caravel sink my battelship, but that was after I had attacked a gazillion other ships and my battleship had only one hit point left. I've never lost to Caravel one on one with full hit points. When someone writes a statement like that, you have to put it into context.
 
I at least consider Civ tank to be tank division rather than single tank (show me a tank in RL that takes over a few million people city. Oh they are sending tank against my 10 million citizen city, I'll play safe and blow it up with nuke!) and all other land units large multi man groups (division, legions, what ever, usually consisting 1000-20000 or even more men, tanks, apc's etc) and fighter/bonber's as squatrons rather than single crafts, so ancient unit defeating modern one's should never ever happen what ever anyone else says.
 
If you can't accept that an older unit occasionally beats a newer unit for better playbalance, and if you're fine with a caravel being around 500 yrs. without some bright thinker toting a few missiles aboard, then you can use the included editor to make the newer units progressively tougher.

The defualt BB has an attack of 18, IIRC, and the Caravel has a defense of 2. If that 0.00001 chance (if I did my math right) of the BB loosing is too much for you, just up the BB's stats.

I said "better playbalance" above. In this case I mean "Less realistic, but more challenging." And its not like Civ is "realistic" anyway. It isn't a wargame, and it isn't a sim. Part of the fun is that it feels a bit like both, but you can't have a game be as simple and broad as Civ and expect it to also be as accurate and realistic as, say, TOAW or Decisive Action.

In CivII I usually won through a military victory, and much of that was because I could get a tech edge and just roll over my less-advanced foes. I like the way it works in CivIII better - much more challangeing. A tech edge still makes you very tough, but you'll have a real fight in front of you.

I've fiddled with the combat stats of most of the modern units myself, but so that the realtionships between the modern units is more to my likeing. An old unit will still rarely beat a more advanced unit - just part of the game. Groan, curse, and accept it - If anyone goes to the trouble to revamp the combat system so that it's "realistic" I've got a copy of TOAW I'd like to sell you - I also want to see your redone economic system for CIv3. ;)
 
Originally posted by Tarquelne
Groan, curse, and accept it - If anyone goes to the trouble to revamp the combat system so that it's "realistic" I've got a copy of TOAW I'd like to sell you - I also want to see your redone economic system for CIv3. ;)
Just be sure to that its not TOAW 1. It had Tigers being destroyed by armies of jeeps. :crazyeyes
 
I have siad it once I will say it a million times. Its not an accasional occurance it happens all the time and in every game I have playe dthe units dont matter. it seems to be the norm, Old units especially Spearman and Pikeman are able to beat modern troops about 85% of the time.YOu dont think its true, It works in the players favor as well, Just dont build upgraded units.
 
To all those who say wacky results only happen occasionally.

The probability of a man-o-war say of beating a carrier, is relatively low (much higher than it should be, but nevertheless)


HOWEVER

consider 2 english man-o-wars, sailing up to a carrier and attacking.

by my calculations there is a 47% probability that the man-o-wars will sink the carrier (keep in mind anywhere from a single man-o-war left on 1 hp to both man-o -wars with no damage will result)

ie... sure the carrier will have a good chance of killing the first one, but the second one has a much better chance.

why is this so?
because of the very small number of HP (and lack of HP bonus for modern), the man-o-war. has a very high chance of taking off ONE HP from the carrier (in the case of both regular) this equates to 1/3 damage!!!!!!!!!

thus rarely will a full HP ancient kill a full HP modern, BUT FAR TOO OFTEN they do significant damage, thus allowing the next ancient to kill of the modern
 
Yeah, it happens, but it doesn't happen all that often. Plus, with the way warfare is in the game, it's much more effective NOT to attack outdated enemy units, seeing as how they're next to useless and the computer always has a ton of them. Destroying 80 obsolete computer units just means that the computer now has 80 more gold per turn to spend (assuming democracy). ALSO, if you actually have an effective military, losing a whole battleship really shouldn't matter worth a damn. IE buck it up and quit your whining.
 
GRRR, add me too...I started a thread in the Strat Folder. I am fighting hte Zulus and kicking their butt Tech wise. But, their knights are holding thier own vs. my tanks!??!?! With each age, the units built within that age should get a progressive bonus over units built within the age before it. A 4th Age unit should have 4x's the chance to kill an Ancient one, on TOP of the attack/defense values. I don't mind tanks losing to riflemen, it could happen and it's still fun. But knights defending against tanks and WINNING?! Something is wrong, and needs fixing. It just isn't fun. I spent WAY TOO much money upgrading all of my spears to pikes, muskets, rifle, infantry to lose to nonupgraded units. Seems like a waste...

Great game though and happy conquering.
 
It happenned before. It happens now. And it'll keep happenning until the designers realize the following :

a) 1 hp of a spearman (man - leather armor - shield) is NOT the same as 1 hp of a tank (vehicle - 5 cms. reinforced steel plating). I'm not talking about the amount of hp, I'm talking about the TYPE of hp. I WISH I had the same type of hp that a tank has.

Practical real-life experiment : Acquire a spearman. Acquire a tank. Acquire a variety of weapons. Use them against both. See which one, spearman or tank, lasts longer.

Hint: It's the tank. But not because the tanks has MORE hps than the man, it's because the tank has another TYPE of hps.

b) 1 'hit' of a spearman (long pole - sharp metal tip) is NOT the same as 1 'hit' of a tank (105mm cannon - high explosive shells - machinegun on top).

Practical real-life experiment : Acquire another spearman. Use the same tank (since it's still in perfect condition unless you used explosives in the last experiment). Have the spearman hit the tank with his spear. Pay no attention to the blank stare the spearman gives you when you give him the order. Count how many hits it took for the spearman to destroy the tank with his spear. Have the tank attack the spearman. After the single cannon shot ot the short burst of machinegun fire, gather the pieces of the spearman. Repeat until you run out of spearmen or you're not amused anymore.

Hint : It's precisely what the designers need.

Armor class/Weapon class/Unit class combat system. That's the ONLY way to avoid stupid results.

As a final note, and before the barrage of irrational and magical excuses defending the combat system finds its way to this thread, I'd like to point out that rooting for the underdog, trying different rules or even game balance... all this DOES NOT justify a system that allows stupid results. The FACT is that, many times, thing (A) won't do CRAP against thing (B). That's precisely why thing (B) was invented in the first place. And also, that's precisely why the inventors of thing (A) came up with thing (C), that actually damaged thing (B). And so on. It's fact. It's history. And it CAN be applied to a strategic game such as Civ if you really want to. And things will start to make sense again...

Peace...
 
Jesus H christ people QUIT SAYING IT DOESNT HAPPEN THAT OFTEN!!!! Say "It doesnt happen to "ME" that often." because for some of us it happens all the time in every game!!!! I havent played a game yet where it hasnt happened and they can destroy 20-50 modern units with just 4 spearmen defending a town with a low population.
 
Maybe those spearmen are carrying molotovs?

Let's try to justify this from a pure numbers point of view. 1 division of tanks versus a horde of spearmen, that's about 500 tanks vs the equivalent number of crew as spearmen (1500-2000). I suppose even given a pure attrition scenario (2000 idiots charging a group of entrenched tanks or vice versa) there is a chance that some of those tanks may be overwhelmed and or destroyed in the process. With a closed hatch, even a modern battle tank has considerably limited visbility and antipersonnel capability. If you allow for some imagination and craftiness on the part of the spearmens' chief, there might even be a chance of victory - albeit a small one. That is, unless you consider the Gulf war...

hmmm, let me rethink this.
 
more like a stalemate. And there is no modern war that has any comparison to spearmen. All wars fought since like the 1950's have included small arms. Spearmen have only pointy sticks they could be a million, They would still retreat from 500 tanks. You cant do anything with a spear to a tank.Period. We have specialized rounds to take out tanks because sticks dont work.We have a plane A-10 desighned to take out tanks because sticks dont work. We have a flame round that lands on a tank and burns through to the inside, Its so intense you cant even look at it. Because stiscks dont work. I would at best give you a stale mate.Why havent I encountered stalemates in civ 3? Its either do or die!
 
Back
Top Bottom