Sam_Catchem
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2001
- Messages
- 350
Man..that does stink. 3 systems it don't work on..that blows chunks!
I am just amazed it works on this crappy Gateway Solo.
I am just amazed it works on this crappy Gateway Solo.
For all the complaining about bugs/missed features.
- Thread starter techy
- Start date
Malys Faisent
Croissant King
Kimi you probably know this, but just because you've looked at your driver information and you've seen that you don't have any conflicts this doesn't mean that you are scott free on it being a driver issue. Make sure you download and update your latest driver files for sound & video at a minimum, if you have wiped and reloaded those boxes then the drivers are going to start out as old (if not older) than the OS that you installed. Also reload directx, exspecially after you update your drivers.
Now, as to the BS about a unit of swordsmen not actually 'being' swordsmen, don't kid yourself. This is a simulation game about the evolution of science/technology, culture/diplomacy, and military units. When I build swordsmen in the Ancient Era that is exactly what I am using...a bunch of guys with metal arms and armor that can hold an edge and resist a blow better than those guys I built when I had bronze working. Guess what, there are places in the world today where they don't even have the level of technology...and if our modern armor or mobile infantry showed up we'd still wipe them out 3/2/1 units or not. It is understandibly silly that an AI (or gasp, a Player!) would be running around with swordsmen in the modern age, and I totally believe that any nation so naive should be and would be (and in fact is!) wiped out. Units do not represent a bunch of numbers in my game, they represent exactly what they stand for, a bunch of men trained and equipped with a certain level of technology and ability (based on their rank). You are saying the numerical representation of a unit is its only representation, which is completely against the spirit of any graphically based computer game...the numbers are used to represent the in-game concept, not vice versa...so a unit of swordsmen being able to fight off a unit of mobile infantry is just plain wrong...it should be so incredibly impossible that it might come up once in a hundred games...programmed in such a way that your military advisor pops up crying and begging for a demotion!
You see, thats why you have the ability to upgrade your units in the game, to modernize your armies, if you lack the ability to upgrade, you obviously lack the ability to fight off a superior force...because you don't have access to the necessary equipment...
Now, as to the BS about a unit of swordsmen not actually 'being' swordsmen, don't kid yourself. This is a simulation game about the evolution of science/technology, culture/diplomacy, and military units. When I build swordsmen in the Ancient Era that is exactly what I am using...a bunch of guys with metal arms and armor that can hold an edge and resist a blow better than those guys I built when I had bronze working. Guess what, there are places in the world today where they don't even have the level of technology...and if our modern armor or mobile infantry showed up we'd still wipe them out 3/2/1 units or not. It is understandibly silly that an AI (or gasp, a Player!) would be running around with swordsmen in the modern age, and I totally believe that any nation so naive should be and would be (and in fact is!) wiped out. Units do not represent a bunch of numbers in my game, they represent exactly what they stand for, a bunch of men trained and equipped with a certain level of technology and ability (based on their rank). You are saying the numerical representation of a unit is its only representation, which is completely against the spirit of any graphically based computer game...the numbers are used to represent the in-game concept, not vice versa...so a unit of swordsmen being able to fight off a unit of mobile infantry is just plain wrong...it should be so incredibly impossible that it might come up once in a hundred games...programmed in such a way that your military advisor pops up crying and begging for a demotion!
You see, thats why you have the ability to upgrade your units in the game, to modernize your armies, if you lack the ability to upgrade, you obviously lack the ability to fight off a superior force...because you don't have access to the necessary equipment...
Galen Dietenger
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2001
- Messages
- 42
I think perhaps my point was perhaps a little to subtle for you, so ill rephrase it somewhat.
Heres your rejoinder -->
A mech inf has 12 attack, a rifleman has 6 defence. So a rifleman would win 1/3 of the battles on average with no other modifiers in play. Any yet you seem totally suprised that Rifleman win at all.
If they are fortified they get 50% bonus!
Well in one sense of the word, yes your correct, I am suprised, but not for the reasons you think. A mech inf unit, or any other, while abstracted, should not mearly represent a string of numbers that are simply calculated against another set, If that was the case(and in civ3 your statement are far as the combat model sadly carries some valildity) then really, why upgrade or even have differernt tech levels at all? To use my example again, when I see the results I do, unlike you I dont do a mental calcualtion and say 'o'well thems the breaks'. I ponder the likelehood of trained mech infantry, useing modern weapons and communications, with vastly superior mobility and firepower, being driven off with 80% loses to what amounts to a unit of blackpowder era riflemen, useing 17-19th century tactics. whos mobility =how fast they can run. I hope you can understand that a little better. To add, I know 'why' its like this. Firaxiss has made it that way by design, in there own words "They moved more towards 'fun' rather than realism". It was also to 'ensure low tech cultures wernt overrun because they lacked resources. That explains why my Ive lost nuclear subs to wooden ships or ironclads(others have as well and are generally-not impressed) whatever justification Firaxiss uses-dont you agree?
Consider this. If a battalion of modern, well trained and motivated mech. inf met a regiment of napoleonic era\US civil war soldiers on the battlefield, would the MI lose 1/3 or even 1/2 of the time. IF so why? Feel free to cite real sources and explain what would cause such a unlikely outcome. Would a officer in any modern army(or navy to use the sub example) today assign his unit a 1/3 or 1/2 chance vs that sort of oponent?
I await your reply /cheers
Heres your rejoinder -->
A mech inf has 12 attack, a rifleman has 6 defence. So a rifleman would win 1/3 of the battles on average with no other modifiers in play. Any yet you seem totally suprised that Rifleman win at all.
If they are fortified they get 50% bonus!
Well in one sense of the word, yes your correct, I am suprised, but not for the reasons you think. A mech inf unit, or any other, while abstracted, should not mearly represent a string of numbers that are simply calculated against another set, If that was the case(and in civ3 your statement are far as the combat model sadly carries some valildity) then really, why upgrade or even have differernt tech levels at all? To use my example again, when I see the results I do, unlike you I dont do a mental calcualtion and say 'o'well thems the breaks'. I ponder the likelehood of trained mech infantry, useing modern weapons and communications, with vastly superior mobility and firepower, being driven off with 80% loses to what amounts to a unit of blackpowder era riflemen, useing 17-19th century tactics. whos mobility =how fast they can run. I hope you can understand that a little better. To add, I know 'why' its like this. Firaxiss has made it that way by design, in there own words "They moved more towards 'fun' rather than realism". It was also to 'ensure low tech cultures wernt overrun because they lacked resources. That explains why my Ive lost nuclear subs to wooden ships or ironclads(others have as well and are generally-not impressed) whatever justification Firaxiss uses-dont you agree?
Consider this. If a battalion of modern, well trained and motivated mech. inf met a regiment of napoleonic era\US civil war soldiers on the battlefield, would the MI lose 1/3 or even 1/2 of the time. IF so why? Feel free to cite real sources and explain what would cause such a unlikely outcome. Would a officer in any modern army(or navy to use the sub example) today assign his unit a 1/3 or 1/2 chance vs that sort of oponent?
I await your reply /cheers
Malys Faisent
Croissant King
Heh, you make me chuckle.
See thats the whole point...moving away from realism reduces the fun for me. If you want to play a real-world simulating game that doesn't stick close to the real world more power to you I guess, but myself I'd rather play a real-world simulating game that sticks closer to the real-world.
Its not like we're playing, Civilization of Middle Earth or something. We're playing a game rooted in how the different civilizations of the world developed...and the whole reason we don't have any Babylonians, Persians, or Iroquios running around is because they lacked the military and technology...
Heh, this is exactly my point...why the heck should I be required to do exactly this? Regardless of how much a technological lead I manage to get over the AI I have to resort to not much better chances than what you describe. This is a problem with the game. And when you take the gloves off so that you are facing a huge technological gap between the AI and yourself, the penalty for instigating a war should mean that you are finished...I wouldn't want my civil war-technology soldiers being able to hold off waves of Modern Armor...if I cannot stand up to him militarily I better make sure I run circles around him in diplomacy...why did they expand all those options anyway?
I didn't mention a thing about riflemen, it is far more likely and realistic that a rifleman is going to be able to inflict damage against mobile infantry than a swordsman. The way the game handles this is by additional defense points...all well and good except when the system the game uses ends up effecting the ideas behind the game.
I don't do a mental calculation along those lines, I think you are misunderstanding me here. I do a mental calculation along these lines: "What the heck was Firaxis thinking when they programmed in this possibility?" And then I keep playing the game because I recognize that the spirit is still there, even if the mechanism is flawed.
And herein lies the problem, the game is based on real-world situations and I think it is safe to say that the closer they get to the real world (without too many complications) the closer they will get to 'fun' with the largest portion of their fanbase. It is realistic that low tech cultures get overrun by high tech cultures, this is a good thing...if they didn't want it to happen they could have added even more realism into the diplomacy screens and added in some diffusion of technology. The first an option that a player could do proactively, and the second an event that would not only help a player in a bad position, but also keep the game challenging for those that usually end up with a huge technological lead and end up being in the situation where their tanks are fighting pikemen. They should not have made the decision instead to provide low tech civilizations with a military out by increasing the power of lower tech units vs. higher tech units...not only is it unrealistic, but it is also not nearly as 'fun' as evidenced by the amount of posters on this board and others that complain about it.
-Fais
See thats the whole point...moving away from realism reduces the fun for me. If you want to play a real-world simulating game that doesn't stick close to the real world more power to you I guess, but myself I'd rather play a real-world simulating game that sticks closer to the real-world.
Its not like we're playing, Civilization of Middle Earth or something. We're playing a game rooted in how the different civilizations of the world developed...and the whole reason we don't have any Babylonians, Persians, or Iroquios running around is because they lacked the military and technology...
Heh, this is exactly my point...why the heck should I be required to do exactly this? Regardless of how much a technological lead I manage to get over the AI I have to resort to not much better chances than what you describe. This is a problem with the game. And when you take the gloves off so that you are facing a huge technological gap between the AI and yourself, the penalty for instigating a war should mean that you are finished...I wouldn't want my civil war-technology soldiers being able to hold off waves of Modern Armor...if I cannot stand up to him militarily I better make sure I run circles around him in diplomacy...why did they expand all those options anyway?
I didn't mention a thing about riflemen, it is far more likely and realistic that a rifleman is going to be able to inflict damage against mobile infantry than a swordsman. The way the game handles this is by additional defense points...all well and good except when the system the game uses ends up effecting the ideas behind the game.
I don't do a mental calculation along those lines, I think you are misunderstanding me here. I do a mental calculation along these lines: "What the heck was Firaxis thinking when they programmed in this possibility?" And then I keep playing the game because I recognize that the spirit is still there, even if the mechanism is flawed.
And herein lies the problem, the game is based on real-world situations and I think it is safe to say that the closer they get to the real world (without too many complications) the closer they will get to 'fun' with the largest portion of their fanbase. It is realistic that low tech cultures get overrun by high tech cultures, this is a good thing...if they didn't want it to happen they could have added even more realism into the diplomacy screens and added in some diffusion of technology. The first an option that a player could do proactively, and the second an event that would not only help a player in a bad position, but also keep the game challenging for those that usually end up with a huge technological lead and end up being in the situation where their tanks are fighting pikemen. They should not have made the decision instead to provide low tech civilizations with a military out by increasing the power of lower tech units vs. higher tech units...not only is it unrealistic, but it is also not nearly as 'fun' as evidenced by the amount of posters on this board and others that complain about it.
-Fais
Kimi, If you are still having lock-ups try this. CTRL ALT DEL then close all programs except Explorer and Systray. I was experiencing that problem and that helped.
The best thing about your tank losing to a swordsman is that you are probably well ahead in technology.
GOOOOOOOOOOO ARMYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! BEAT NAVY!!!!!!!!!!!!
The best thing about your tank losing to a swordsman is that you are probably well ahead in technology.
GOOOOOOOOOOO ARMYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! BEAT NAVY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jezner
Warlord
We all like this game and we are all passionate about it. The fact remains, Firaxis is working on a patch. It's in their interests to get it out to the marketplace as fast as possible, but its also in their interests to make sure it fixes the problems, and not create new ones.
My company produces audo software for the PC. If we make even one change as superficial as splash graphic, the software must undergo rigerous testing on multiple configurations. This process can easily take over a month.
Personally, I think Firaxis is doing its customer base a disservice about keeping mum. When customers are kept out of the loop of what is going on, they often produce answers for themselves. These answers are typically overstated and often doomsday scenarios.
My advice, sit back and chill. And enjoy the game. A patch will arrive. Just be patient. And please try to remember, Civ3 is actually pretty good for a gold release. WW2 Online was a nightmare scenario and take a look at any Win 9x box.
Just my 2 pennies.
My company produces audo software for the PC. If we make even one change as superficial as splash graphic, the software must undergo rigerous testing on multiple configurations. This process can easily take over a month.
Personally, I think Firaxis is doing its customer base a disservice about keeping mum. When customers are kept out of the loop of what is going on, they often produce answers for themselves. These answers are typically overstated and often doomsday scenarios.
My advice, sit back and chill. And enjoy the game. A patch will arrive. Just be patient. And please try to remember, Civ3 is actually pretty good for a gold release. WW2 Online was a nightmare scenario and take a look at any Win 9x box.
Just my 2 pennies.
1) I have had no major or unsurmountable problems running CIV3. Installing the newest Nvidia driver and not running antivirus protection have stopped the few freeze problems. These are problems with my computer that were solved by my normal maintenence. CIV3 is not at fault for these. Clearing the task bar has done wonders for most people having problems. If the game won't run fix you computed before blaming the game.
2) AI seems better, head and shoulders , than CIV2 or any other game I have played.
3) History is repleat with "primitive" forces gaining unexpected victories. Polish lancers stopping Germanies best for 6 hours and inflicting many casualties. Philipine tribesmen armed with sharpened bamboo poles and machetes destroying, demoralizing US troops (1912) armed with rifles and machineguns. Vietnamese tribesmen killing troops by firing through the sides of APCs (2" aluminum) with bamboo crossbows. It happens.
2) AI seems better, head and shoulders , than CIV2 or any other game I have played.
3) History is repleat with "primitive" forces gaining unexpected victories. Polish lancers stopping Germanies best for 6 hours and inflicting many casualties. Philipine tribesmen armed with sharpened bamboo poles and machetes destroying, demoralizing US troops (1912) armed with rifles and machineguns. Vietnamese tribesmen killing troops by firing through the sides of APCs (2" aluminum) with bamboo crossbows. It happens.
You guys are stupid. Beyond stupid. Most of you have never coded before. And of those who have, most of them have never worked on a large project like civiii. Calling a product that has bugs false adveratising is laughable!
Even small projects have bugs, and not small ones like these. Big ones. Fat ones. And if you think that they should have waited and released a bugfree product, not only would you have to ***** and complain, but it wouldn't have been bugfree, and the company would have lost money.
This is an incredible game, and all this stuff is going to be fixed next patch. Have some patience.
Even small projects have bugs, and not small ones like these. Big ones. Fat ones. And if you think that they should have waited and released a bugfree product, not only would you have to ***** and complain, but it wouldn't have been bugfree, and the company would have lost money.
This is an incredible game, and all this stuff is going to be fixed next patch. Have some patience.
Akka
Moody old mage.
People often rationalize when a modern unit loose to an older one, that either "it's not a tank, it's a 16-8-2 unit that they called a tank" or "it happened a lots of times that inferior units were able to destroy superior units, by luck or outsmarting their opponents".
For a tank not being a tank but a 16-8-2 units, well then people, if you just care about the stats and not about what the unit stand for, perhaps that a Excell sheet would be able to provide you with a passionnating game. For me it's not the case. What I like in Civ is the feeling that I'm leading a civilization, rewritting history, and changing the world. I don't play with 16-8-2 units, I command to tanks. I'm sorry if you've such a lack of imagination that you just can't represent yourself being the commander of an army but rather only a man clicking to move it's 16-8-2 graphic icon to start another calculus (and this comes from the one who bothers calculating the odds that a pikeman would destroy 4 modern armors).
The correct way is not to say : "well, I need a unit that got 16 in attack, 8 in defense, 2 movements and require oil and rubber. What should I use ? Oh, let's take the tank, it could fit here !"
The correct way is to say : "ok, now time to put the tanks. What should a tank have in A/D/M ratings and what ressources should it need ?"
You make the stats according to what you want to put in the game, not the reverse.
History is not repleated with these feats. It's just that they are so UNLIKELY that when it happens, they are very surprising. Just BECAUSE they happen very rarely. Talking about the nearly 100% times where units with a better tech won is surely much more boring and less surprising.
And for the Vietnam stuff, I don't remember crossbows being the main weapons of the North, but well perhaps I was mistaken and that they were just some primitives bowmen. All the MODERN weapons that the Russians and Chinese gave them (and all the still modern though a little less that they already had) are probably plain propaganda.
For a tank not being a tank but a 16-8-2 units, well then people, if you just care about the stats and not about what the unit stand for, perhaps that a Excell sheet would be able to provide you with a passionnating game. For me it's not the case. What I like in Civ is the feeling that I'm leading a civilization, rewritting history, and changing the world. I don't play with 16-8-2 units, I command to tanks. I'm sorry if you've such a lack of imagination that you just can't represent yourself being the commander of an army but rather only a man clicking to move it's 16-8-2 graphic icon to start another calculus (and this comes from the one who bothers calculating the odds that a pikeman would destroy 4 modern armors).
The correct way is not to say : "well, I need a unit that got 16 in attack, 8 in defense, 2 movements and require oil and rubber. What should I use ? Oh, let's take the tank, it could fit here !"
The correct way is to say : "ok, now time to put the tanks. What should a tank have in A/D/M ratings and what ressources should it need ?"
You make the stats according to what you want to put in the game, not the reverse.
History is not repleated with these feats. It's just that they are so UNLIKELY that when it happens, they are very surprising. Just BECAUSE they happen very rarely. Talking about the nearly 100% times where units with a better tech won is surely much more boring and less surprising.
And for the Vietnam stuff, I don't remember crossbows being the main weapons of the North, but well perhaps I was mistaken and that they were just some primitives bowmen. All the MODERN weapons that the Russians and Chinese gave them (and all the still modern though a little less that they already had) are probably plain propaganda.
redtom
Proudhonist
I was playing on the game and the Persians were pissing me off, so i decided to extract loads of money off of them so I suggested $1000000000 a turn, to my amazement they accepted. That kinda pissed me off, in a way, because it spoilt the game.
Anyway if anyone can tell me how to put links to the game so they can be the richest civ ever, I'll be very interested.
Bye,
Comrad Redtom
Anyway if anyone can tell me how to put links to the game so they can be the richest civ ever, I'll be very interested.
Bye,
Comrad Redtom
Similar threads
