Firaxis explanation on why tanks lose to killer phalanx

[Bugg]

[Soren_Johnson_Firaxis] having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2. This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X (Comments from yesterday's chat 11-7-02)

I don't like it but at least I can understand why it happens

He also gave us insight on some other things:
Expansionist scouts- better goody huts = no barbarians

He said that if you bought a tech for let's say 100 gold from the Chinese, then the Chinese wouldn't take less than that from any other civ. To me it means that it is imperative to start trading early. If you are the first civ to trade that tech you will get the best bargain.

It was a pretty good chat to read it seeems that must of our concerns will be dealt with. Corruption, Million Dollar Bug

Unfortunately he was not allowed to talk about MP

 

[Julian I]

So instead of making resources more available, they just nerfed the modern units?!?!?!?!

Forget about pikemen killing tanks and galleys sinking frigates.... THIS is the new nominee for the 'WTH!!!!' awards this year.

Good god... and I thought *I* was ****ed up...

Peace...

 

[Suvorov]

I would suggest making something using the Great Leader protocol - don't know how possible it would be, but something like if an inferior tech unit defeats a superior one (i.e. spearmen defeating rifleman) you get a unit of "partisans" to simulate the use of captured weaponry, instead of this weakness of late game units.

 

[slothman]

Isn't that the point of streg resourses. The way he says it they are less important than real life. They should be all or nothing, or better yet all or only a little. Imagine how America would fight a war without oil or iron. All we'ed have are like marines and artillary. Only a little better than the the current Afgans. And we would have no chance to win WW2 or even the Spanish-American War.

 

[jim1013]

I assume this means that Obsolete units can still be build (I also read a post from someone saything this was the case and they were wondering why)

So what it seems like firaxis was worried about was say a modern empire, not having any resources to build modern units and so therefore they could build ancient units (many which don't require resources). and thus the ancient units should not be a complete walkover, not because they wanted to balance up ancient and modern Technology, but because they didn't want a resource shortage to make your position completely hopeless

It's good to hear an explanation why they apparently took a step back from civ2. It seemed very strange indeed that a development team of their calibre would do that for no reason.

However, i think that this is not necessary, since
after looking through the unit list Riflemen 4/6/1
(which would have had 2 hitpoints in the old civ2)
do not seem to require any special resource, and so therefore, as long as the player is always allowed to build riflemen. (in fact obsolete units SHOULD be made unbuildable, if there is a MORE modern EQUIVALENT unit, which DOES NOT require a resource)

Perhaps there is a mistake in the unit list for riflemen?? maybe they do require saltpeter or something. (those who have civ3 please clarify this)

Since a modern civ with no resources would still be able to produce riflemen, they would have no need to build phalanxes and so therefore there is no reason why we shouldn't have the old 10 hp for ancient, 20 for gunpowder troops, and 30 for armor. There is no need to bring back firepower, as units that used to have firepower now have bombard. And also in the case of veteran and elite +5 hp for each would be fine (an elite phalanx would then only have as many hp as a non veteran gunpowder troop which while still a little out, would i think be reasonable, and definantly a huge improvement over the current situation)

Just in case there was a mistake in what i've read and riflemen do require a special resource, the answer is simple.. remove that requirement.

 

[donsig]

I think the intent was for a civ to have saltpeter to build riflemen but in the game as released it is not required.

 

[terrylo]

Riflemen do NOT require saltpeter.

I believe I read somewhere that Firaxis intended this. The thinking is that once you are advanced enough to build riflemen, you have discovered ways to build gunpowder units which are not dependent on having saltpeter.

 

[jim1013]

Thanks..

condradicting info on if firaxis intended it or not.. if they intended it, it would explain the combat.. if they didn't maybe they forgot that you wouldn't need to build ancient units if you could build riflemen

Also Artillery do not require any resources either according to this sites section on the units,

so i reckon thats enough to mean they can fix the combat, and providing you have the tech you can at least build riflemen and arty.

Yep fix the hp up, leave the arty & riflemen without resorce requirements (and buildable regardless of obsolesence).. and i reckon combatwise the game should be balanced

 

[Origianl Anon]

In situations where you have the tech but not the resources to make a certain unit, it would have made for better gameplay if they made it possible you to make the unit, but at a snail's pace.

For example, say a battleship will cost 600 shields if you don't have oil, instead of the regular 300 shields if you do have oil. Or something to that general concept.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by terrylo
The thinking is that once you are advanced enough to build riflemen, you have discovered ways to build gunpowder units which are not dependent on having saltpeter.

Nitro-cellulose since sometime in the 1800s.

 

[The_Ironman]

Couldn't someone just make a mod that doubled the A/D of all modern units? Then phalanxes couldn't kill tanks as easy...

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by The_Ironman
Couldn't someone just make a mod that doubled the A/D of all modern units? Then phalanxes couldn't kill tanks as easy...

Yeah. Someone could just as easily make the modern units require no resources or give them x3 A/D. The point is that people want to play an unmodified game or it isn't fun (for a majority of players). Once you start changing the stats of the game the challenge is gone and people will alot of times stop playing (happened to me with Diablo1. When I got the trainer program I stopped having fun playing the game).

 

[RedWolf]

Originally posted by Bugg
[Soren_Johnson_Firaxis] having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2. This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X (Comments from yesterday's chat 11-7-02)

Why not go for realism here? If you didn't play well and couldn't get the resources then you are screwed. Too bad so sad. Thats how it works in the real world.

If phalanxes kept killing my tanks I would become so frustrated that I would probably never play again

 

[Setsuna]

As I've already said, this was a foolish decision. If you fall behind in research or resources, you deserve to lose as much as the person who fell behind in industry and infrastructure. Why should you be allowed to take a lax approach to some areas of the game and still come out on top, whereas you wouldn't last five minutes if you only built one city the entire game?

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I can hardly believe that this combat disaster was done intentionally!

!

We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X

MAYBE, on chieftian level, in order to help newbies, it might help to have this sort of defensive/technological crutch, but please, please let the rest of us play a little more realistically. Ya snooze, ya lose, at least in my books.

 

[Xerxes314]

I feel really bad for all the hysterical weeping of the women and children in this forum. I can only hope that firaxis caves into your demands as quickly as possible. Tanks are losing to pikemen nearly once in every thirty battles! Outrageous! Calamitous! Dear God, what has become of Civilization when you can't just build one tank and take over the earth? Clearly this is a situation up with which we shall not put.

Feh.

Xerxes

 

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by Xerxes314
Tanks are losing to pikemen nearly once in every thirty battles!

If only it were so! I lose ALL THE TIME! (If not prepared with a massive combined arms assault)

Once in thirty sounds pretty good to me.

 

[Craterus22]

I think the resource addition to the game was a good attempt at improving the game - it just appears (from the text quoted in the first message) that they really didn't follow through with testing and play concepts.

One of the posters here mentioned having access to a resource making it easier to build special units. This sounds like it may have been a better path to go down. There would still be an initiative to trade or conquer to get the resource - you just wouldn't be required to throw rocks at tanks if you didn't have a particular resource. Heck the more resources available to your civ 3 irons (for example) would let you build units even faster than the equivalent civ that has 1 iron.

Another possibility... Perhaps a small wonder for recycleables at the end of the industrial age could reduce the requirements for certain resources. This way going into the Modern age civs would have a fighting chance without trivializing the combat system.

 

[starfox]

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk


If only it were so! I lose ALL THE TIME! (If not prepared with a massive combined arms assault)

Once in thirty sounds pretty good to me.

Totally agree. My tanks are afraid of pikemen! I lose about 1 out of 4, and sometimes without damaging it

 

[Julian I]

1 in 30 ?!?!?!

Where do I sign up for that?!?!?!

Peace...