My Elite tanks defeated by a veteran pikeman

[doc mabuse]

if there's no use in producing units, you could try a "non-military" variant

then i can just as well go play the SIMs or other nerd game

 

[morchuflex]

While we are at this kind of things, I'll tell you what just happened to me:

I've just completed building a vet battleship; its first target is an enemy std ironclad. And... you guess it, my battleship sinks without doing any damage.

Now, the probability of such an outcome is 00.5 %. So, if my math is good, it should happen about once in every 200 such encounters. Why has it to happen on the very first?

(Not to mention the fact that in the real world a BB would typically sink an ironclad in one salvo without even having to come within visual range).

I still love Civ3, mind you. But sometimes, it feels like Civ doesn't like me.

 

[Cataphract887]

battleships could beat ironclads by rolling over em.havnt read the rest of the thread,but surely someone has already covered things like increasing stats by ages...

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I've never had much of a problem with CIV3 combat myself, having some military experance IRL I tend to use a combined arms type warfare in the modern age.

Air+Ground+Arty and if the situation warrents it, Naval forces. I've done some devistating damage to the enemy with this combo just about every time... cept that one time I landed in Romam turf and found out the hard way they had 235 units of modern armor... and the will to use them.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

We're talking about a computer game here, not "realms of possibility." You took all of what I said completely out of context. Its not even worth arguing with you anymore about it because you seem to be mentally constipated, unable to accept that the holy civ just *MIGHT* have a flaw. I don't want to play your crappy online nerd game wesnoth, I just want to play civ with a decent combat model. Aside from stack kills, the civ 3 combat model is a huge step back from civ 2's. They could have made it better, but they didn't have the time. They also could have included scripting for scenarios, but they didn't have time. They could also have bothered to play test the late industrial/modern era (in the original civ 3, fighters didn't work... at all), but I guess they didn't have time for that either.

Get over yourself and see the facts. The combat system sucks, they were lazy about it, but now we can just hope they fix it for civ 4. What really amazes me, is that you try to defend their apathy with "oh, its *supposed* to be this way." Ya, good luck with that, you seem to be complacent with mediocracy.

Completely out of context? And you're saying I'm mentally constipated for arguing with you?
Civ is not holy. It does have flaws, such as your reputation being ruined if a civ you are trading with dies. But I do not consider the combat system one of its flaws.

Riiight. You want to accuse me of being a "mentally constipated fanboy"?? Well you are to Firaxis what Michael Moore is to Bush. A fat stupid ******* who complains a lot, does nothing, and brings up statistics damning from your point of view, but expected from another. You post, you call your enemies ********, and anyone who disagrees with you must be a nutjob.

"crappy online nerd game wesnoth"? How about "crappy stupid nerd called Grav".Cut the rethoric. Make serious points and I'll listen. Whine that they patched the game rather than delaying it and I'll tell you to insert heavy implements in certain regions.
And take a flaming look at Wesnoth before you make an ass out of yourself. It's free, stable and has developers who listen. Aren't the last two factors you keep wanting? Go and download it. I'm a developer, so I'll be happy to show you just how flaming wrong you are.

It amazes me how mindless you are.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

SH*T HAPPENS.
(Calling someone with ten times as many posts as you "********" demonstrates newbieness in the extreme, too. And I *like* randomness.)

 

[Cataphract887]

number of posts does not mean anything towards your worth in an argument.i guess we should as worship perfection cause he has 12000 posts?

and the combat system sucks,from civ2.i think its downsides have been adequately ocvered here though

 

[Tomoyo]

I agree with Erik Mesoy minus the fine print.

EDIT: And yes, we should worship Perfection. Curtsibling too.

 

[doc mabuse]

@ Erik Mesoy I see u worship your most diplomatic of all boys Bush as well. That can count for major retardness

 

[Erik Mesoy]

@ doc mabuse you really eloquent but I hate Bush and now I hate u too. Your also major ******** (note parody )

@Cataphract887: If you feel like it. But Perfection is a known spammer with several bans on his record and is trying to develop a cult around himself. I'm just a veteran.
Sheer number of posts is, in itself, not worth anything. But postcount is sometimes an indicator of experience. While I disagree heftily with Curt on matters of religion, I still agree with him on several other areas, and he is IMO one of the people here with a great grasp of the world.


And tell me, someone, why is reasonable randomness (and yes, it is reasonable that this happens, especially when the number of Civ players is as large as it is) worse than micromanagement to the level of

"Enemy has 2 riflemen at 3 and 4 hp, 1 pikeman at 3 and 1 infantry at 4 plus 1 drafted at 2, that is a total of 3.54^6 defense points, so I will need 5.3^4 attack points, which is exactly 12.2 tanks, so if I send 12 tanks and one infantry the infantry will take the city, not lose any hp, and will be able to defend it perfectly."

 

[doc mabuse]

Again: i love to play civ3, it definitely has more outcome options. And again: as long as my units come from the same era as my opponent there is no problem, the chances are more or less equal. But from the moment you make a scientific leap ahead of the AI and the units are much "stronger", the AI makes you bend over and does things that some men like to do other men. And at least in the games i played so far the winning does not match the effort and superior units i put in it. Don't know about the defence but the offence sucks really hard. And again: i'm not talking about once every 20 turns, i'm talking 1 out of 2 units. It just doesn't seem worth the effort. That's all.
So now i know, if i want to make conquests, i make 'm before the industrial age

 

[wilbill]

So now i know, if i want to make conquests, i make 'm before the industrial age

If you've reached that conclusion, you've really had a streak of bad luck. After the Ancient era, the use of bombardment units becomes much more important. Build them in large quantities and use them extensively.
You can conquer a lot of territory with cavalry, lots of artillery, and infantry to garrison your conquests. If you master the proper tactics, an occasional bad result from the RNG really is no big deal. Use one of the combat calculators. It's all about the numbers, not the graphics. It may seem like a cavalry vs. pikeman battle should be "automatic victory" but if the pike is fortified on grassland, you'll lose 1/3 of the time.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

Well, I wouldn't play a game where the stronger unit won all the time. It SHOULD be random. It may not be fun for you, so what? The changes you suggest would make it unfun for me. So mod it however you want but realize that other people have different opinions.

 

[Grav]

Completely out of context? And you're saying I'm mentally constipated for arguing with you?
Civ is not holy. It does have flaws, such as your reputation being ruined if a civ you are trading with dies. But I do not consider the combat system one of its flaws.

Riiight. You want to accuse me of being a "mentally constipated fanboy"?? Well you are to Firaxis what Michael Moore is to Bush. A fat stupid ******* who complains a lot, does nothing, and brings up statistics damning from your point of view, but expected from another. You post, you call your enemies ********, and anyone who disagrees with you must be a nutjob.

"crappy online nerd game wesnoth"? How about "crappy stupid nerd called Grav".Cut the rethoric. Make serious points and I'll listen. Whine that they patched the game rather than delaying it and I'll tell you to insert heavy implements in certain regions.
And take a flaming look at Wesnoth before you make an ass out of yourself. It's free, stable and has developers who listen. Aren't the last two factors you keep wanting? Go and download it. I'm a developer, so I'll be happy to show you just how flaming wrong you are.

It amazes me how mindless you are.

You're a developer and you don't see the glaring holes the combat model? You can't see it was lazy programming so they wouldn't have to spend more time on the AI? You don't understand that its only defense is the fact that the computer is lousy at combat? You can't comprehend that maybe you're just being a corporate sheep to Firaxis, and that your arguing in favor of this horrid combat model is counterproductive to future products, because you're allowing them to set the bar that friggen' low and get away with it? And to top it off, you think you're right because of your POST COUNT?

Go back to school bucko, you loose.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

I'm a developer at Wesnoth.
You program an AI and tell me you can come up with a better one to handle the billion variables it has to account for (read: terrain tiles) that a human does almost subconsciously. And don't go reading anything at CFC; we have the benefit of several thousand extremely dedicated players who can devote their time to picking holes in the AI. That's beyond the capabilities of Firaxis right there.
Another defense for the combat model is its simplicity. The chance of winning a round in a combat you started is (attack / (attack + enemy defense)). This continues until one side has no hitpoints. That's all! There isn't even a miss chance.
Again: If you want realism, the game gets more complex, harder for the AI, and spearman beat tanks.
Exactly how does a poor combat model make the AI take less time? I could write simple instructions for the AI (build tanks. Build infantry for defense 1/city.) and have a wonderful combat model thet perfectly simulated the way combat worked.

I'm not "right" because of my POST COUNT. If you simplify it to that level, you could as well sum up Darwinism as "All animals have three very different children. The worst one dies. This makes the next generation better". Go back and read my post again, I'm a veteran, you're clueless, post count is evidence that supports this.

I am not a corporate sheep anymore than you are a corporate terrorist. Now there's a caricature for you. I already pointed out a different flaw in Civ3. Go back and read it. Maybe it'll enter your brain and you will realize how wrong your stereotype of me is.

Saying "go back to school" in a sentence with spelling mistakes is fairly embarassing, don't you think? You lose.

Cu Chulainn's post, above, is a nice summary: Your changes make the game less fun because it is more predictable.
In war, nothing is ever given. The best plans only last until the first round of combat.

 

[Longasc]

Could you please calm down?

If you are a developer, fanboy, whatever, regardless of that, both of you need to show more respect to other posters opinions.

This is for both sides, stop accusing the other one of such things. This is killing the whole sense of a debate, if you cannot agree on anything, better stop before this ends in flaming.

 

[doc mabuse]

@ Erik Mesoy: you still don't think that watching 70 airraids of stealth bombers to kill off 2 units is boring?
In Civ2 one bomber usaually killed one unit in one turn, now i'm on an average of 15-20 bombers for one unit.
I still think that as player one you have a better chance when the AI is as advanced as you and upgraded their units. Cos in my games the AI has MORE chance to win a battle than they would have with upgraded units. It still sounds like a twisted logic to me.
I now play on monarch lvl, and it took me 4 turns and two armies (one Gallic Swordsmen and one Elite archers) to take Englands capital, which was build on a hill and defended with 1 swordsman and 4 spearman. Furthermore i captured 3 other cities with no more than 2 Gallics per attack.
When i played my first chieftain lvls though it takes me about 20 airraids and 4 elite tanks to take a city with 3 spearman. Doesn't this somehow seem a tiny little bit off course?????

 

[punkbass2000]

Cheiftain level vs. Monarch level makes no difference in combat. The fact that were able to take a city defended by one swordsman and four spearmen with only a GS and an archer shows that the combat can go either way.

I agree with Mesoy, generally. Civ2's combat model was not very good, especially coupled with a few other game breakers. Build Leo's, discover tech for dragoons, steamroll. Discover tech for Cavalry, steamroll. Discover tech for howitzers and bombers, game over. Boring as hell, IMO. Civ3 has much more interesting combat, even if it's not the best. Combined arms at least has a bit of place in C3C, but not really in Civ2. Also the arguments that the Civ3 cpmbat system is bad because of, 'the glaring holes the combat model', and it's, 'horrid combat model' are kinda circular, don't you think? In addition, yes the AI is not great, but it's not that bad. Show me a game comparable to Civ3 with a better AI. Many reasonably intelligent and otherwise familiar with strategic principles play and lose at or have challenging games at Regent. I'm currently running a Training Succession Game at Monarch level with two players who seem to have a goos grasp on all the game mechanics, etc., yet still haven't quite put all the pieces together to be successful on Monarch 100% of the time. To me, this is quite indicative of the complicated nature of the game and the competence of the AI. And if you play higher levels, let me know whether spearmen defeating knights and pikemen defeating cavalry is a crutch for the AI or for the human.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Grav - Warned for trolling.

Erik Mesoy - Warned for flaming and language.

People - calm down.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

Turner, maybe you oughtta just close the thread. It's getting pretty long, and someone else will post about another RNG outrage soon enough.