1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

modern age=game killer

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by trickofthehand, Oct 22, 2007.

  1. trickofthehand

    trickofthehand Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    310
    I find that I can't play CIV in the modern age or beyond anymore. My jet fighters are being intercepted by fighters and airships. My carriers and submarines are being sunk by ultra-precise, space-based , destroyer launching sattelite weaponry, even if they are in the middle of the ocean, with NO possible way of the enemy seeing them. My transports are being sunk by harbor based naval units which I can't even retaliate against. My wounded units are hunted down with extreme precision and destroyed on a constant basis, and even if I cruise with a stack of 100 ships, the transports/carriers/wounded units get targetted first.

    Basically my only option is to play a pangea map because CIV 4 naval combat is Teh Suk. It's seriously a game killer, the AI is horribly flawed and I don't see how Firaxis didn't pick this up during testing. Unless ofcourse they assumed it was perfectly ok for the game to play this way.
     
  2. Mylon

    Mylon Amateur Game Designer

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    1,013
    I agree that naval combat sucks. This is partly because doing anything requires such a huge naval stack which one can be hard pressed to invest in and also because of collateral damage from cruisers. Attack subs also get a pretty huge advantage in their 50% withdrawal chance.
     
  3. pi-r8

    pi-r8 Luddite

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,508
    Location:
    Babylon
    For me at least, the real problem with the modern age is that it's unnecessary. In 99% of my games, by the time I reach the modern age I already know whether or not I'll win, and playing just feels pointless.
     
  4. Thanny

    Thanny Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    I prefer modern-age warfare. Everyone has the same tech, so you can't roll over your enemies with cheap brute force. You need to use either expensive brute force, or intelligent play.

    For example, leave your Jets for interception duty. Use Stealth Bombers to attack, since they have a 50/50 chance of evading interception, which is considered after it's determined whether or not the enemy unit will intercept. Plus they do collateral damage.

    I haven't yet played a modern war in BtS, however, so there may be some legitimate gripes I don't know about. One thing I'm curious to see is how badly crippled war is by the extreme air unit limits (4, or 8 with an airport), since I'm accustomed to using dozens of SB's to soften things up before attacking.
     
  5. bhinso

    bhinso Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    126
    Location:
    Lincolnshire, England
    im not a big fan of the modern age at all, it's too slow, game takes too long to play with the pause between turns. Just not a great fan of BTS because its put so much more into the modern age. When a game on Normal speed took me about 8 hours, now it takes 3 times as long due to this
     
  6. Party

    Party Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    176
    Many of my games are decided by a modern age war. I have many fond memories of making lighting raids on an enemy and capturing a few cities to get the extra 3% or so I need to win a domination victory in litterly the last ten tuns of a game. Or to capture their capital and raze it to the ground before they can launch their spacship which if far ahead of my own for completion. Modern age war is much harder then fighting a war with archers and swords fighting it out but it can also be much more fun!
    Just use the same tactics the AI is using against you right back at them.
    I was also quite concerned about this as I usually use masive amounts of stealth bombers (think fifty!) but I find the introduction of guided missles compensates for this nicely. On of my industrial cities can pop one out each turn and they do deal quite a bit of damage.
     
  7. trickofthehand

    trickofthehand Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    310
    i'm glad we all agree then. modern age combat sucks due to serious exploits by the A.I.
     
  8. wkndwrrr

    wkndwrrr Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    155
    Are you refering to modern war in BTS only, or in Civ IV in general? Because, if it is the latter, I have to disagree with you. I find nothing unduly "cheap" about how the AI wages war in the later eras in vanilla; some of the most brutal, well balanced wars I have fought were post-infantry. Naval warfare seems fine to me in all aspects, and aerial combat...well, I'll admit that I don't like how they handled it in this game (it seems to have been more of an afterthought), but TBH air warfare is rather uncommon in the game anyway; most of it is on the ground or sea, so usually I have no reason to gripe.

    Another thing I like about modern warfare in this game is that it is more like, well, actual modern warfare, in the sense that wars last more realistic amounts of time (in earlier times one can be at war for 800 years). Also, they usually involve lots of field combat, and little in the way of massive sweeps that take over huge swathes of territory, like in the earlier eras. It also usually involves more combined armes and more variable strategies. Also, by that time, it is much more difficult to isolate a conflict: it will invariably spread into a world war. :)
     
  9. rabidveggie

    rabidveggie King

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    697
    Modern age is <really cool> because because you no longer tech and to me thats one of the most rewarding parts of the game to see your arsenal grow and evolve, all your units are basically upgraded so no more deciding which unit deserves a promotion. Air units are semi annoying and production in all cities are high at this point so wars take forever. Naval combat is fairly boring. Airports negate supply problems in defense. Unhappiness and health issues are a thing of the past, literally. Finally all your cities are fully developed and most cities are at their culture peak. Also no more wonders.

    Thats why the modern age is boring. :)
     
  10. Desert-Fox

    Desert-Fox King

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Messages:
    667
    Location:
    Estonia, Laagri
    Modern age is nice to see units like modern armor, mech. infantry but usually the winner is decided. When Mansa Musa for example have 2 legendary cities and 3rd is coming the other AI civs sit down and do nothing... I would like to see more action... Sometimes it seems that AI plays in N-1 hands(N=number of civs in game and you are the 1). Also when Joao has launced spaceship nothing happens... you are the only one who can stop him. So the game may have 2 different solutions. You win or AI win.
     
  11. trickofthehand

    trickofthehand Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2007
    Messages:
    310

    so it seems fine to you that the enemy AI hides it's destroyers in harbors where you can't touch them, not even with air units, and then waits for your transports/weak units and sinks them. Or better yet, your aircraft carriers. Want to defend them with a stack of units? Too bad the AI ALWAYS attacks the transport or aircraft carrier in any stack of units, this problem alone makes aircraft carriers utterly obsolete for any serious naval power. That seems fine to you though? The computer was pulling the same cheap tricks pre BTS and post BTS.
     
  12. T.A JONES

    T.A JONES Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,471
    If what I bolded in you statement is true you have brought up a major expliot and I must say Nice response.

    THese things in my mind makes it painfully obvious designers played the shell game. AI hasnt improved for the sake of greater gameplay. No, its just moved its deficiencys to other aspects and hinderd repay value on differant levels.
     
  13. Kesshi

    Kesshi Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,415
    Hello trickofthehand,

    I've never experienced this, but I might have an explanation. You may already know this, but I'll explain it for those who want to learn. When you attack a stack of units, the computer (not the AI) chooses which unit to defend based on which unit is best fitted to defend. For example, a maceman might have the most power, but if a knight attacks a stack with mixed units, the pikeman would be chosen to defend.

    What I think is happening in the situation you described, is your sea fairing units are being air bombed to the point where they have less strength than the transport. Once the transport is the "strongest defender" then the AI attacks with the sea units (which can kill, instead of just damage like the air assaults.) Or perhaps the AI is just mass suiciding their sea units into your units, using the same strategy of weakening the "strong" units until the transport is the strongest, then taking out the transport. The computer does have a tendency to stack naval units quite a bit.*

    The human can micromanage like this as well because you can see which unit is going to be defending by selecting the unit you wish to attack with (before you even more the unit). The best defender might be a maceman vs your pikeman, and might be an archer vs your calvery. You just have to select your pikeman or your calvery unit, and see which unit is displayed. This very useful for air bombing purposes. It shows which unit will take the damage of the bombing. Of course bombers do collateral damage, but if there are 15 units defending a city, you will never do collateral damage to them all with a single bomber.

    *These are just guesses, trickofthehand. I'm not 100% but just throwing things out there. If this definitely not the case, then it could be a bug one of those 'unfair advantages' that the computer gets during higher levels. Regardless, good luck with your war, be them by land, by sea, or by air. :)
     
  14. Tirse

    Tirse Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Messages:
    36
    I think Kesshi's interpretation may be right on the spot - I surely never witnessed AI "picking" my units from an undamaged stack, not in vanilla, not in Warlords and not in BTS.

    Regardless, I think naval combat in Civ4 DOES suck in general, and big time. The "rock - paper - scissors" system, working so well in land warfare, in naval battles is almost nonexistent; with lack of specialised promotions/units and no terrain bonuses, it's a simple matter of whoever has the largest fleet. This gets boring real fast, and grossly unrealistic too. Personally I think that naval warfare recieved no love in developement stages, and was supposed to merely supplement land combat in a very simplified way. Thus extremely simplified mechanics, ships that have no specific roles and ridiculous power rating (a WWII - style destroyer has 3/4 generic firepower of contemporary battleship... come on...), jumping straight from age of sail into mid - XXth century vessels, not to mention inability to sink anything with air strikes (now, really...), questionable usefulness of carriers or possibility of sinking a battleship by piling enaugh galleons on top of it. Naval combat system is just an oversimplified version of system used for land battles, and it doesn't work, IMO.
    Pangea all the way.
     
  15. ConanDBarbarian

    ConanDBarbarian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    18
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Fl
    I dont think the AI is "cheap"........you are playing against a computer, it is supposed to be able to make a move with every one of its units without getting tired, messing up, forgetting to move someone.......and honestly I dont think naval warfare is that bad. You dont get terrain bonus's, but air units are factored in. If you know how to mix it up with fighters and bombers on your coast you will be fine.

    When your as good as me though, you wont spend much time in the modern age anyways.........;) just kidding (sort of)
     
  16. Thanny

    Thanny Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2006
    Messages:
    265
    It's actually quite a bit different than this in BtS.

    I consider it a bug, but here's how the defender seems to be chosen in naval combat:

    1) Ignore vessels not visible to the attacker.

    2) Choose the strongest empty vessel.

    3) If no vessels are empty, choose the strongest non-empty vessel.

    It took me a little while to understand that this was happening. Here's what I saw that lead me to this conclusion:

    1) I lost a Work Boat to a Submarine, even though a Stealth Destroyer was on the same tile (the Submarine can't see the SD, so it can't attack it).

    2) I had a stack of loaded MC's, SD's, and both empty and loaded Carriers and Transports (I was building up for a war when I was attacked by Saladin). The empty Transports defended first, and lost. Then the empty Carriers, which also lost. This with full-health MC's and full-health SD's sitting there.

    3) Later, in the same stack, there were several empty MC's that were severely damaged (by Guided Missiles launched from enemy Submarines). There were even more loaded MC's at full health. The empty MC's defended and lost, though the loaded MC's would have easily won (and let the empty ones heal eventually).

    I do consider this is rather extreme bug, which should be rectified by adjusting the defender selection to this:

    1) Pick the strongest defender that can be seen by the attacker.

    2) In the event of a tie between empty and loaded vessels, choose the empty one.

    Picking the strongest empty vessel, as is done now, is just wrong.

    To work around this bug:

    1) If all MC's are loaded, make sure there are no empty Transports or Carriers.

    2) If not all MC's are loaded, make sure the empty ones are healthy and towards the bottom on the unit list (so they'll be down the list when attacked by aircraft and missiles).

    Or, build a lot of Battleships and Destroyers, and never upgrade them, so you can keep them in a stack for strong defense. The latter have the advantage of seeing subs, which SD's stupidly cannot.

    Beyond all that, remember that no stack is complete without Stealth Destroyers and either Destroyers or [Attack] Submarines.
     
  17. LemonJello

    LemonJello Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    The Crossroads of the Marine Corps
    I haven't seen this happen in BtS, the AI only seems to attack undefended transports and single destroyers/submarines/battleships that I use for coastal defense and early warning. My "war fleets" (mix of destroyers, carriers, battleships and transports) may take some hits from air units, but nothing bad enough to slow or stop the invasion. I need to work missile cruisers into the mix more.

    I wish that subs (of all kinds) could somehow be given an option to select the target of their attacks - irl when you have a choice of targets in your periscope, you pick the one you'd want to sink first; maybe the carrier, maybe the transports that are preparing to invade your civ.
     
  18. DeadCities

    DeadCities Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2007
    Messages:
    11
    Kesshi and Thanny both win cookies for being right.
    i also fail to see airships intercept jet fighters.
    this is a case of poor gameplay by the op. :crazyeye:
     
  19. xan66

    xan66 hey!

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    Rapture
    i like the modern age on civ 3 why? because i like the music
     
  20. aragami_frog

    aragami_frog Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Messages:
    53
    What I hate about the modern era is that you can be really kicking but points wise and be taking out two of your annoying pesky neighbors who unfortantly declared war on you and are on the verge of being over taken by you and then what happens suddenly????

    ...you lose the game because someone launched a space ship. A mere spaceship launched by an AI's who's usually in 3-4 place will suddenly win.

    I don't like the space ship win or the UN vote win either. You could be the best nation and doing the best and by all accounts if the AI is lucky enough the worst Nation can suddenly win. It doesn't seem fair and is very annoying when you've invested several hours into the save and actually have it going pretty good for you.

    I know you can undo the "how to win" thing under Custom Game but I wish there was under the normal play now process where you select map, your civilization etc...

    I've tried the custom game and it seems to want to make my game crash more then playing normally. Which under the Custom game... game... I have to save more often.
     

Share This Page