corvinus78
Chieftain
Hi to everybody. I have just subscribed to this forum. I'm italian so please pardon me for the sintax errors.
I have recently started to play Civ3 after having played for years Civ1 and Civ2 as most of you. Before reading further I would like you to know that I think Civ3 is just the best game ever made IMHO.
Anyway I have been a bit disappointed because the defects which were typical of Civ1 and Civ2 had not been corrected.
1) In my opinion is extremely unreasonable that a catapult can wound severely a Battleship. And it happens. As well as it happens that a tank can be wounded by a spearman.
I think that the randomizer should be less powerful in determining the result of a battle. It should be much more important the terrain, the health of the unit and most of all the evolution of the unit.
Many times, when war experts are talking they consider a factor which is the casualties ratio. For example the objective of the new technologies applied to the US military is to reduce the casualties ratio to approximately 1:100 (one marine should be able to kill 100 enemies before being killed).
So I think that Civ should work in a similar way, by centering the distribution of probabilities for the randomizer in a different way. Let's make an example:
attack factor 1 vs defense factor 1=casualties ratio 1:1
attack factor 2 vs defense factor 1=casualties ratio 1:2
attack factor 3 vs defense factor 1=casualties ratio 1:4
attack factor 4 vs defense factor 1=casualties ratio 1:8
attack factor 5 vs defense factor 1=casualties ratio 1:16
and so on...
This would be the center of the probability distribution of the randomizer (in case of equal terrain and equal conditions) so that there can be some flexibility but in this it would be avoided that a tank can be wounded by a warrior. And it would be much more important thwe deployment and the movements of the troops instead of their sheer number (we all know that at high levels of difficulties you have to use so much units to kill enemy units)
2) In my opinion it would be better that the levels of difficulties would be based on the intelligence of the AI, rather than based on other things like: increasing the difficulty in killing enemy units (I think that instead it should be the same for all levels of difficulty), increasing the speed of technological advancing of the enemies (this should be the same for all the civs at any level), increasing the productivity of the enemies (this too should be the same for every civ).
To summarize: I think that civ should take some good things of the chess games, where the level of difficulties are not based on having a horse making different moves, but based on the different "intelligence" of the AI.
I know that a civ game is much more complicated than a chess game but this is something that I would like Sid Meyer to point at (even if I have heard about rumors on his Ancient History degree thesis about the possibility for a trireme to destroy a submarine, is it true???
).
Now I repeat what I have said before: Civ3 is for me the best game ever made. So, take this considerations as something constructive, ok?
bye!!!!!
I have recently started to play Civ3 after having played for years Civ1 and Civ2 as most of you. Before reading further I would like you to know that I think Civ3 is just the best game ever made IMHO.
Anyway I have been a bit disappointed because the defects which were typical of Civ1 and Civ2 had not been corrected.
1) In my opinion is extremely unreasonable that a catapult can wound severely a Battleship. And it happens. As well as it happens that a tank can be wounded by a spearman.
I think that the randomizer should be less powerful in determining the result of a battle. It should be much more important the terrain, the health of the unit and most of all the evolution of the unit.
Many times, when war experts are talking they consider a factor which is the casualties ratio. For example the objective of the new technologies applied to the US military is to reduce the casualties ratio to approximately 1:100 (one marine should be able to kill 100 enemies before being killed).
So I think that Civ should work in a similar way, by centering the distribution of probabilities for the randomizer in a different way. Let's make an example:
attack factor 1 vs defense factor 1=casualties ratio 1:1
attack factor 2 vs defense factor 1=casualties ratio 1:2
attack factor 3 vs defense factor 1=casualties ratio 1:4
attack factor 4 vs defense factor 1=casualties ratio 1:8
attack factor 5 vs defense factor 1=casualties ratio 1:16
and so on...
This would be the center of the probability distribution of the randomizer (in case of equal terrain and equal conditions) so that there can be some flexibility but in this it would be avoided that a tank can be wounded by a warrior. And it would be much more important thwe deployment and the movements of the troops instead of their sheer number (we all know that at high levels of difficulties you have to use so much units to kill enemy units)
2) In my opinion it would be better that the levels of difficulties would be based on the intelligence of the AI, rather than based on other things like: increasing the difficulty in killing enemy units (I think that instead it should be the same for all levels of difficulty), increasing the speed of technological advancing of the enemies (this should be the same for all the civs at any level), increasing the productivity of the enemies (this too should be the same for every civ).
To summarize: I think that civ should take some good things of the chess games, where the level of difficulties are not based on having a horse making different moves, but based on the different "intelligence" of the AI.
I know that a civ game is much more complicated than a chess game but this is something that I would like Sid Meyer to point at (even if I have heard about rumors on his Ancient History degree thesis about the possibility for a trireme to destroy a submarine, is it true???
).Now I repeat what I have said before: Civ3 is for me the best game ever made. So, take this considerations as something constructive, ok?
bye!!!!!
