Now I remember why I hate Civ3...

[GeneralZed]

I tryed to start playing civ3 again, cause my laptop is so slow and I lost civ4 so........ the damn battle system. It's based on mere luck. I keep losing fights between e.g. the swordsman normally loses against a spearman (when I attack). But then, the AI always wins with the same unit and situation. And the ancient era is too long, while the industrial era is too short.

GOD, this makes me angry. I thought of bringing a mod to make the units strengths and defences rise exponentially to stop this fluke. And sometimes I lose 10 swordsman to 1 spearman. Anyone feels the same?

 

[Bluemofia]

Meh, RNG. That's why you whould always launch attacks in SODs.

Besides, Swordsmen against Spearmen.

Assuming that the Spearmen are in a city, and using the combat calculator, (both are regulars) you will have a 46.978% chance of winning.

Well, it's just plain bad luck.

Also, you tend to notice bad luck more than good luck. You don't go complaining "My spearman won against 2 whole tanks! Talk about unfair!"

 

[vmxa]

Swords are suppose to lose some Vs Spears in cities. I would be shocked if it "always" won. I have had games where it look like it. I am wrappin up a game form here where the RNG was so kind, it was silly.

Almost never lost a battle, admittedly it was mostly armies, but even straight up MA's lost only one fight with infantry. Bombers were very lucky and mobile sams as well.

I have had it go the other way, but you tend to remember the bad over the good.

 

[Afr!Ca]

GeneralZed - you have sth messed up... ancient era is waaay to short...
Ancient era - from the apperance of Homo Sapiens to the fall of Roman Empire...
Industrial era - end on 18th century to the beginning of 20th century...

In civ they are absolutley the same lenght...
Industrial era only passes quicker because your science is very high by the time you reach Industrial age.. it takes 4-7 turns to complete Industrial age techs... while in ancient era, it takes you ~15-32 turns...

as to these unfair battles... I too hate it... Sometimes you can send enourmous amounts of lets say cavalry to 1 defending musketman.... it always pisses me off...

The undefeatable spearman is known to every1 I think...
Civ just isnt advanced enough to make things realistic in that part..

 

[thetrooper]

I keep losing fights between e.g. the swordsman normally loses against a spearman (when I attack).

Never underestimate the power of artillery. *Always* bring huge amounts of artillery to a siege.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

I heard someone had a good idea in a mod (i'm sorry - i can't rememer which one) to add a 0 to attack and defence - in other words speraman would have 10 atack and 20 defence . He said the battles were more realistic - maybe it's a good idea to do this for our mods...

 

[ellie]

Swordsman losing to spearman doesnt sound to bad.

Its losing to units from a previous Era that annoys me, because i struggle to envision it.

Not a big deal, while preferred civ 2 figures the odd bad roll doesnt spoil the game, if your far ahead enough to have weps from a different era, then 1 bad roll wont stop you winning.

 

[Padma]

Heretic_Cata: The better method is to increase the *hitpoints*, so a short string of unlucky rolls will have less effect on the overall outcome. (I think this is what you actually read in some mods. )

 

[garyg]

Never underestimate the power of artillery. *Always* bring huge amounts of artillery to a siege.

I'm glad someone brought this up.
Artillery from any era will take all the 'luck' out of an attack.
I never try to take a city without it unless it's at the very end of a campaign and the AI is gassed.

 

[LoopyLewis]

And the ancient era is too long, while the industrial era is too short.

Yep - that is exactly why I've come to dislike Civ III too now that CIV is out. I rarely finished a game of Civ III because I got bored half way - in fact, I've finished more games of CIV than I did with Civ III already!

the damn battle system. It's based on mere luck. I keep losing fights between e.g. the swordsman normally loses against a spearman (when I attack). But then, the AI always wins with the same unit and situation.

Maybe you should start using more cats and artys. I find that it's the only counter to bad luck

 

[steview]

Well untill today ive never experienced it.

Then the puniest civ in my game 'invaded' (no idea why as id been gifting them for UN vote).

I laughed at the hoplite, artilleried it to 1 hp to be safe then attacked with a vet guerilla..and watched in disbelief as it lost every round.

 

[classical_hero]

RNG is a fickle Mistress.

 

[silver 2039]

You must sacafrice virgins to the RNG gods to gain favour and appease them.

 

[thetrooper]

I'm glad someone brought this up.
Artillery from any era will take all the 'luck' out of an attack.
I never try to take a city without it unless it's at the very end of a campaign and the AI is gassed.

I wouldn't even think about attacking cities and metros fortified by great defenders without using artillery first (unless you have superior units or an army or two or ten).

classical hero: you got lost? A rare sight in CIV3 GD.

 

[gunkulator]

IMHO, catapults are a waste of time. You can't even get them until midway into the AA. I'd rather have 4 more swordsmen or horsemen than have 6 more catapults. 6 cats may plink off 3 or 4 hps. I'd expect 4 swords to do better. Better yet my swords and horses can enter all terrain. Swords can defend both themselves and a captured cities while horses can retreat out in the open. Cats are sitting ducks. Usually by the time I get mathemetics and build up a good force of catapults, the AI is just a couple techs away from Feudalism and pikes.

The way to take AI cities in the AA is with 10 or more massed attackers while all your cities build reinforcements. At most the AI might have 3 defenders although typically they'll only have 2. If you don't have iron or horses, build 15 archers instead.