Ode to Soren Johnson

[jimmytrick]

The title of this thread is to get the attention of someone from Firaxis.

The following comments are based on playtesting 1.17f.

I am hoping that an adjustment can be made to the following elements of gameplay that are incomplete or broken:

1. Artillery

The artillery unit cataput and cannon are so ineffective in relation to other available units that they are worthless in every sense. The only purpose they could serve in the game is handicap human players who make the mistake of building them.

Soren, ignore anyone who tells you differently because they are wrong.

This problem cannot be corrected in the editor because improving the artillery without having a way to instruct the AI to build more of them breaks the game.

2. Fortifications

Fortifications are useless in the game right now. Like artillery, I know that Soren is aware that fortifications are broken, because his AI does not build them. Fortification were incredibly important throughout history and must be represented in this game.

3. Tech Trading

While some confused gamers have reported that the newly patched AI behavior that leads the AI to trade techs at the speed of light makes the game too hard, it actually makes it too easy.

It is no longer necessary for the human player to research at all during the majority of the game. Once a tech is discovered and traded by the AI the human can trade for it at a fraction of the research cost. This leads to the absurd situation that the optimal play strategy is to avoid research.

4. Colonies

Since colonies are not colonies in any sense of the word, rename them accurately as resource centers. Eliminate the cost of a worker but assign a turn cost as in terrain improvement. This is all logical.

5. 1.17f new bug "j-goto command"

This command will move both fortified and unfortified units, it will empty out an army, but it will not move workers of different national backgrounds. This is highly embarrassing as it shows clearly that little or no testing was done before the patch was released.

Summary: Soren, I understand that fixing these fatal flaws in game design will take you a lot of time (and there are other things that must be done to finish the game as well). I realize that you don't have to do this.

Going the extra mile to complete the design implementation will however do much to enhance your reputation and future as a game designer.

I will be editing this post to add other gameplay glitches from time to time.

Thanks for your time.

 

[markv]

1. Artillery
I disagree with your assesment that artillery is totally worthless. I use them to 1) knock down the population size of difficult-to-capture cities, so that the city gets a lower defesive bonus 2) soften up enemy units stationed in mountain or hill terrain, or fortified within a city.
In my most recent game, I noticed that in the pre-gunpowder era, catapults had about a 50% effectiveness, while post-powder, my simple catapults had about 10% effectiveness (when used against fortified city units). Perhaps the problem here is you are using out-dated technology?

2. Fortifications were important in civ2 because of zones of control. They are less important in civ3, because zones of control work differently. I don't mind the AI not building them; I hardly ever build them either. I only built forts to 1) block off access to a landmass, such as two continents connected by a bottleneck and 2) protect resources if the AI is being pesky and is pillaging.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by markv
1. Artillery
I disagree with your assesment that artillery is totally worthless. I use them to 1) knock down the population size of difficult-to-capture cities, so that the city gets a lower defesive bonus 2) soften up enemy units stationed in mountain or hill terrain, or fortified within a city.

Absolutely correct. Bombard is one of the best features of the game. Against difficult targets you have to properly plan your attack; build bombard, move bombard with defensive units into position, have patience while the bombard does its job, then attack.

Bombard units are also good in open warfare and has often given me the advantage in a tight spot. In addition, it leads to more Great Leaders, as your Elite units do not have to struggle and die to destory those "killer spearmen."

 

[Marzipan]

The AI has built some fortifications in the game I have going now. They built at least two on some fur locations. I've seen them use artillery, from catapults to artillery, extensively in this game too.

 

[Zachriel]

2. Fortifications
I agree that fortifications could be improved. However, historically most fortifications were in towns, or near towns, anyway.

3. Tech Trading
I have found tech trading to be quite fun and with some historical justification. It is certainly possible to survive by buying your techs, but you can never lead in technology unless you research.

4. Colonies
Colonies could be improved.

5. 1.17f new bug "j-goto command"
A minor annoyance which would be nice to have corrected.

I will be editing this post to add other gameplay glitches from time to time.

I'm sure they would appreciate any feedback.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Soren, ignore anyone who tells you differently because they are wrong.
. . .
This is highly embarrassing as it shows clearly that little or no testing was done before the patch was released.
. . .
Summary: Soren, I understand that fixing these fatal flaws in game design

It isn't necessary to discount other people's arguments if your own arguments are sound.

Embarrassing? Fatal flaws? Hyperbole has a tendency to weaken, rather than strengthen, arguments.

 

[jimmytrick]

On Artillery

by Markv
I disagree with your assesment that artillery is totally worthless. I use them to 1) knock down the population size of difficult-to-capture cities, so that the city gets a lower defesive bonus 2) soften up enemy units stationed in mountain or hill terrain, or fortified within a city.

In my most recent game, I noticed that in the pre-gunpowder era, catapults had about a 50% effectiveness, while post-powder, my simple catapults had about 10% effectiveness (when used against fortified city units). Perhaps the problem here is you are using out-dated technology?

That is an interesting dismissal of my views Mark. Unfortunately, you are incorrect.

First of all my comments are to the point of only catapults and cannon as these are the only artillery units I have tested to any significant degree with patch 1.17f.

Lets take a look at your second paragraph. You seem to be suggesting that there is some magical moment (discovery of saltpeter?) at which the game mechanics that control the use of cannon changes. This is pure speculation and unsupported by any evidence.

Or perhaps I have missed something somewhere? I would love for you to share any concrete information you have on this.

I will admit that my statement that these units are worthless might be a tad over the top. If you are attacking cities with something less than cavalry, using cannon to reduce the population of a city below 7 might be worthwhile in the odd case. There are exceptions to prove every rule.

To test the effectiveness of cannon I stacked 8 cannon against a size 10 city and fired each on eight successive turns. The result was a reduction of population to one, the loss of five defender hit points, never more than one per turn.

Contrast that to the result of using eight cavalry against the city. Based on civulator percentages the eight vet cavalry would have a 57% chance of success in each attack against the two conscript riflemen that was present in this case. The City would have most likely fallen on the first turn. Reducing the City to size six would give these units only a 70% success rate.

I would argue that given the value of time, it is extremely poor tactics to wait until you can move cannon into place and effect a long siege when you can build units that can move three times as fast, due vastly more damage, and can actually capture objectives.

Some have argued that since cannon cost less shields that they are somehow a reasonable alternative. This argument ignores the fact that cannon and cavalry have the same maintenance cost and cannon move at one half to one third the rate of the common offensive units.

The units simply do not do sufficient damage in comparison with the other units available to be viable alternatives.

Zachriel's argument that using bombard units gives a greater chance of yielding a great leader is ridiculous on its face. Given a stack of eight combat units versus four combat units and four support units, the stack of eight combat units has eight chances of promotion versus four for the "combined arms" stack. Its just math.

In my 1.17f game I have gotten five leaders by the early industrial age, but none of those came out of the stacks I was testing cannon in. Again, it is plain math, as the chance of promotion is present only when attacking with combat units. Zach's patience theory is flawed, as it would lead to far fewer attacks.

I made the comment to Soren to ignore posts on the virtues of artillery because it only clouds the issue. I am a good tactician, I have tested the game, and I find the issue crystal clear. If we had multiplayer I could demonstrate this convincingly. Any competent player not building artillery will beat any player who relys on artillery 100% of the time (other factors being equal).

These two units are unbalanced and need to be fixed.

I challenge Soren to get some testers working on this if he has any doubt.

jt

 

[jimmytrick]

Marzipan,

Can you send me a file? Are you using 1.17f.

Thanks in advance.

jt.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I really want them to do stacking properly especially for the A.I play...Mao Tse Tung and his 100 Cavalry of dead individually moving past my city takes SO long! If it could all just move as one that would be terrific.

Plus I would love it if it were possible to have certain techs making certain resources OBSOLETE (i.e diappear) as for modding I could do SO MUCH with that!

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
On Artillery
That is an interesting dismissal of my views Mark. Unfortunately, you are incorrect.
jt

Cavalry is not very effective against fortified infantry. I generally avoid war in the industrial era, at least until the invention of tanks, but sometimes we have no choice of when to fight our wars.

In addition, a good defense against cavalry can be made with combined arms (rifle, cannon, and a few cavalry). I have fended off very large cavalry armies with combined arms.

That is what is so interesting about discussions about Civ3. Some people say attacking is next to impossible and that spearmen kill their tanks. Other people say attacking is too easy. Obviously, the answer is somewhere in between, and depends heavily on the position, and the relative strengths of the Civs.

 

[Marzipan]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Marzipan,

Can you send me a file? Are you using 1.17f.

Thanks in advance.

jt.

Send you a file of what? A game showing AI fortifications? Yes, but I'm sure you will see them yourself if you keep playing.

 

[jimmytrick]

Marzipan!

I was hoping actually to catch a glimpse of this extensive deployment of AI artillery.

Soren has gone on record as explaining the reason that the AI does not use artillery extensively is that its value is "debatable".

Therefore I thought you might have stumbled onto something significant. If the AI does build artillery in significant numbers then I can perhaps "fix" the artillery in the editor.

But if the AI doesn't build them, and can't recognize changes in the editor, said changes would benefit only the human player. I am not in favor of that at all.

I am after better gameplay.

As to your admonition to continue playing to see forts, I have probably seen the AI build fortifications about once or twice a game. I will stand by my statement that Soren Johnson's AI does not build fortifications (the odd fort on a resource being the exception that proves this rule rather than repudiating it.)

jt

 

[jimmytrick]

Zach,

I agree that cavalry is not effective against fortified infantry but massed cavalry is effectve against fortified riflemen. You are going to see the AI use two of these units per city. Large numbers of cavalry can take that out.

If that were not true, then cataput and cannon still would be worthless because they do not do enough damage. They are too weak, they cannot do their job QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY enough to warrant their existence in this game.

If this were not true Soren would not have admitted as much by explaining why the AI does not build them (in significant numbers).

Why are you defending the usefulness of these units when the guy who designed the game admits their weakness?

The reason I am posting on this is to convince Soren that there is sufficient passion out here about this GAME FAULT to justify him spending his time to fix it.

Argh!

 

[BillChin]

Since the topic of this thread is an Ode to Soren Johnson, let me say that I think Mr. Johnson is doing a good job overall, especially with the AI.

In my opinion, the faults with 1.17f that are high priority:
1) The huge remaining loophole for pop rushing by joining workers to junk cities for the purpose of making units. This is very powerful when using captured workers or having worker farms feed these processing cities. I believe this is an exploit that the programmers did not see and is 90% as good as pop rushing on version 1.16.

2) Navies. Navies are still basically irrelevant. A player can have a dominant navy, but it does not translate into much except some fun. A few escort ships to protect transports is usually all a player needs. More than that is just for show. It is easier to smash any ground forces that land than having a big enough navy to prevent the landing. Unfortunately the best ideas I have for navies involve a lot of new coding. Things such as pirating trade for gold, blocking movement (more than one square), disrupting fishing (food). A modest fix might be to increase the movement rate for modern navies and beef up the Aegis cruiser. The movement rate is really a joke when railroads can send tranport units a hundred tiles in one turn, while it takes ten years for a destroyer to go 60 tiles.

As for the original post, man, how can anyone be so wrong, and so sure of their wrong opinion. I see no one agreeing with this flawed opinion and a couple of respected posters lining up against it. At one level, I can agree that if a player has a big tech lead, and a large military advantage, bombard units of all types are extra fluff. However, in competitive games, bombard units are a great way to leverage force onto a target.

Catapults are important units in almost every game that I play. A player does not need a lot of catapults, but two or four catapults can make or break a successful attack. I play on Emperor, standard size map, random civ, eight players. Catapults help a great deal when attacking legionaires, or hoplites, or pikemen with horsemen and swordsmen. Catapults also help a great deal when attacking musketmen with knights and longbowmen. Cannons help even more against musketmen. I do not know what sort of tests the flawed opinion is based on, but I suggest playing Emperor difficulty, standard size map, eight players, random civ, and try the game with a couple of catapults (10% to 20% of the attacking force). Wait for the catapults to hit before sending in the ground troops. This may take two or three turns but is well worth it, because this cuts my casualties in half. I vote for effective.

Using red text does not help win an argument, neither does saying people who disagree are just plain wrong. It is unfortunate that whiners, especially high volume whiners, do seem to get their complaints addressed, as witnessed by some of the changes for 1.17f. So perhaps these tactics are the proper ones to use to get the attention of the programmers. Sigh.

Possibly the worst thing is that no solution is given, so even if Mr. Johnson takes the time to read through this thread, there is nothing here for him except adding one more item to the long list of rants by fans.

 

[jimmytrick]

Bill,

Sorry if the red text mad you mad.

As to your point number one, I don't use the pop rush myself. I played with it extensively with earlier versions and found it to be too much of an exploit and a bore. I really can't comment therefore on whether or not it still needs tweaking. I wouldn't mind if it got tweaked out.

Point two is well taken. I feel that one of the main purposes of a navy is to protect shipping and shipping lanes but Firaxis has not implemented this. Therefore why build naval units? Now, I am aware that there is supposed to be a way to blockade harbors, but…

I am unsure as to how to do this. Perhaps by blocking all connecting coast squares at every harbor of the applicable civ. I have not tried to do this; almost certainly the AI is not programmed to do it so it would be kind of exploitative.

We already can exploit this by playing the trade embargo game. Far cheaper. Another problem with game design.

Now, I am holding out hopes that in multiplayer this aspect of the game might surface, as humans are smart enough to try a blockade, therefore forcing everyone to take to the seas to protect their sea routes. That would be cool.

Another big hole in the game play is that fact that ironclads become available right after frigates, galleons and privateers. Stupidity! This is worth a new thread and I will do that someday.

As for my original post…. my test games are played on the settings you suggest (except I have been playing militaristic mostly). I am certain indeed that I am correct on this point. The argument is sound. The best offensive military unit you can produce is always better than the catapult or cannon. I am sorry but that is just the way it is. I once would have bought the arguments that you folks are putting forth on where and when these crippled units might be useful, but…having learned how to fight in multiplayer games I know better.

The problem can be fixed by improving the artillery or toning down the other units…cavalry movement of three!!! The change made in the retreat probabilities may have helped some but it is hard to gauge without more specific info on how it works.

I am just after better game play. I want to be forced to use combined arms.

When you miss on 49 of 64 shots with cannon …oh gee, must be that darn random number generator huh?

I am glad that you brought up the point about my not providing a solution. Reminds me of the problem with the editor (all game editors in general actually). Folks love to flame people who request game play changes by saying "you idiot you can change that in the editor", but here is the rub. If you change it will the AI know how to deal with the change?

Mostly no. So, unless Soren includes a setting in the editor that allows us to tell the AI to build more or less of the various unit types we can't fix this problem in the editor. Neither can we fix most other unit problems.

But Bill says I am supposed to tell Soren how to fix this problem? Okay, Soren, increase the effectiveness of these units across the board so that they hit more often and do more damage and instruct your AI to build a higher percentage of these units. And to use them appropriately. Is that good enough Bill?

jt

 

[Carbon_Copy]

I will conditionally agree with your assessment on cannons, since they're really something of the black sheep of the bombardment family. Catas are useful because that's all you've got (and sometimes you need it in the late Ancient/early Medieval for cracking tough nuts like high-pop cities on a hill). Cannons just aren't effective enough to really bother building from scratch when you could be building cavalry, but true artillery is VERY nice and you can't proclaim land bombardment to be useless until you've given artillery a shot (no pun intended).

You've obviously made up your mind that artillery pieces are useless and refuse to be swayed so I'll just use them in my games and you can just not use them in yours. But what happens if you lack saltpeter and are drug into war versus riflemen or (God forbid) infantry? What good is your cavalry in attacking cities defended by infantry prior to tanks? You don't always get to pick the time and place of war, and you're not always on the offensive, especially in Emperor and Deity. Artillery pieces aren't stellar on the offensive (for the reasons you gave, compared to your main attacking force, they're awfully slow, and they don't do a whole lot for you unless you have a whole lot of them). But put them in a contested front line city and it will be much easier for you to defend it, even to an invading force with superior numbers and superior tech.

 

[jimmytrick]

I haven't played enough with the artillery (third era) unit under the new patch to voice an opinion.


I am having a hard time believing you guys. So, you have four defenders are you telling me that you would rather have two pikemen and two cannons than four pikemen????

Or, that you would rather have four cannon to soften up a city than say, four longbowmen????

Are you playing the same game I am????

I will alow you this. Cannon may be more effective on the defense than on the offense. I will have to test that out.

 

[Carbon_Copy]

It's not usually a question of whether i want 2 pikes and 2 cannons or 4 pikes. Consider instead whether I'd rather have 8 pikes defending a city or 4 pikes and 4 cannons. With the 8 pikes, it's unlikely that any one assault could take down a city. BUT, I'd likely lose 1 or 2 pikes every turn if they tried. With 4 and 4, it's still unlikely that i'd lose the city, plus the cannons make it much more difficult for the attackers to finish off any of my pikes (if any survive the initial assault, I can fire all the cannons offensively during my turn, then mop up with fewer casualties to me...very few attacking forces survive to attack the city a second time).

Also think about value over time. Throwing a longbow against a city to soften the defenders will net you about 2 or 3 hps of damage on average over the lifespan of the longbow, maybe less and maybe more depending on terrain factors, unit matchups, or plain dumb luck. The catapult line is useful throughout the game assuming you upgrade, and every unit you build can cause potentially dozens of hps of damage over its lifespan and you tend not to lose them unless you leave them undefended. Those four longbowmen might not even survive to take the city, while you can use the same cannons to bombard away dozens of cities.

And the final straw is the great equalizer: rails. On rails, bombardment units move just as fast as anything else, so all you really need is a flying squad of 10 artillery pieces to zoom around your territory and whittle away loose enemy units or incoming ships. If I go on the offensive, of course, I build more to take along with my foot soldiers.

 

[Mapache]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I am having a hard time believing you guys. So, you have four defenders are you telling me that you would rather have two pikemen and two cannons than four pikemen????

Yes, it's simply math. You can do some easy calcs and see that artillery units are worthless right now as they are. The need to be stronger and cause more damage. It's probably difficult to write a good A.I. routine for artillery units so Soren decided make them toys.
But there is a fix: You can forbid the A.I. to build artillery units with the help of the editor and thus improve the A.I. I did so with the French and the Romans and it seems that they play slightly better.

With Fortresses it's the same. Maybe artillery should have double strength when in a fortress. Finally a fortress is high and gives a high position. And units which attack out of a fortress should stay there and not move out. Fortresses are broken right now.

Same with Colonies and Spies.

 

[Ironikinit]

Yes, I'd rather have the cannon in most cases. Cannon upgrade, longbows I usually don't even bother to build.

It depends on the situation. If it's a size 2 city that hasn't expand its culture boundary and you don't want it destroyed, don't bombard it.

I agree with Bill that it's sad that there may be a greater chance of compulsive whiners getting their pet peeves dealt with. It makes them puff themselves up with their own self-importance and whine more.

I also agree that a flat "they're wrong" fails as an acceptable argument. That should be obvious.

Jimmy knows it, he's just trolling.