The thing is that in general a human player will no longer be playing the game if they have spearmen whilst the AI has tanks... But I see your point a lucky victory that favours the player is seen as acceptable whilst the result is the AI cheating.
Overpowered Spearmen
- Thread starter GrandSultan
- Start date
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
Thanks god for the introduction of the concept of IGC(invincible grassland cavalry)
It may help us escape the nightmare of the IMS(invincible mountain spearman) ....
at least until the UOC(unsinkable ocean curragh)
It may help us escape the nightmare of the IMS(invincible mountain spearman) ....
at least until the UOC(unsinkable ocean curragh)
Th situation like that (7cav vs 1 cav) happen to me quiet often. One thing i hate is that whenevr i trey to kill one of their units, and take just one hp, they usualy get an upgrade (from regular to veteran) so its basicky as if i didnt do any damage, than i attack again, taking one or none hp, and they get upgraded to elit....even if the civ is not militaristic.
Maybe we tend to remeber only bad situation ( like loosing 7 units to kill one) but i really have the filling something is wrong with the calculations. It happened to me way too often to attack a fortified spearman with 10+ archers, only to get them killed and make him elit (invincible). AI though dont seems to have this problem. His archers, heck even wariors have much less truble killing my spears.....or any othe defending unit.
Maybe we tend to remeber only bad situation ( like loosing 7 units to kill one) but i really have the filling something is wrong with the calculations. It happened to me way too often to attack a fortified spearman with 10+ archers, only to get them killed and make him elit (invincible). AI though dont seems to have this problem. His archers, heck even wariors have much less truble killing my spears.....or any othe defending unit.
Khift
Prince
I try to keep track of this, too. And yes, sometimes it does go in my favor. Usually it's just where a cavalry of mine attacks and kills a cavalry of theirs without taking any damage, but sometimes a defensive unit takes out several opponents when it should've died the first time.Longasc said:
I tend to respond to that in three ways. First, I am relieved that I no longer have to worry about the enemy's troops. Second, I am glad that luck swung my way and at least attempted to counterbalance some of my less lucky experiences. Third, it reassures me that this combat system needs a small overhaul.
Although statistically this randomness should balance out and be fair to all players, the severity of the randomness really needs to be reduced.
Also, I think it's a little ridiculous how some of the troops numbers line up. A crusader is just a bit behind cavalry in offense? Since when? And who decided that a group of epileptic madmen with great axes from about 1000 AD (Berzerkers) should have the same attack as an organized shock troop whose use began in the 1800's (Cavalry)? It doesn't add up. There have been giant leaps and bounds in military technology since 4000 BC. I doesn't make sense to think that one of our M1 Abrams tanks is equal to twenty four (24) stone age warriors. I don't know about you, but if I was in that tank, and I saw twenty four (24) guys with hand axes and furs run up to me, I wouldn't even use the main gun, I'd just run them over.
Some stuff with the combat system needs an overhaul.
Remember a unit represents a group of people so a warrior doesn't just represent one warrior... But still a group of tanks should still easily be able to win and thats why I feel that in Civ4 units should automatically upgrade in some way so the only way to fight ancient units is by finding a backwards civ.
Khift said:
I could not agree more!
But one thing, you are right that 24 stone age warriors should not be able to destroy an Abrams, they would need some clever tricks to kill the crew, but hey... you cannot portray this on the scale of Civ3 combat.
I think the lowly warrior should still have a chance to do 1 damage or so -> this is for playbalance, the advantage of being ahead in tech and having better troops is already very important.
But the random streaks that kill dozens of fresh veteran troops on a redlined spearman, yes, this should not be so extreme... see above, I absolutely agree to Khift's statement.
Dell19's idea also sounds interesting!
GrandSultan
Full Time Hypocrite
I have to agree with the poster above who said that it seems that it happens to them all to often, even though I occasionally have my redlined swordsman or what have you take out a veteran or two, but that has happened maybe, 4 times, where as, having 4+ veterans killed by a spearman, or needing 10+ units to take on a single spearman in a grassland/plain/desert town happens all two often, it really bugs me as I usually do most of my fighting in the late ancient-medival ages and that is when the spearman is really annoying, it just shouldn't be such an extraordinary feat, infact, just today, playing as the Mayan, i had just reasearched Code of Laws , bringing me into the mideval age, I started researching Fuedalism, when I launched an attacck on the Iroquois who were trapped on the lower half of the continent between the Inca and I. I sent 9 Jav. Throwers and 6 swordsman to take a oil springs, it only had one spearman guarding it and that spear took out 3 of my Jav. Throwers and 2 swordsman before dieing, it was redlined when it kille the last Jav. Thrower and Swordsman. 
I just hope the next megalomaniac dosn't discover the spear.
I just hope the next megalomaniac dosn't discover the spear.
Xavier Von Erck
Warlord
- Joined
- May 12, 2003
- Messages
- 144
Exactly. Most video gamers are pretty whiny when things don't go their way. A lot of people on this board are extremely whiny about such things. For the record, a tank shouldn't be that effective attacking something on a mountain, unless the mountain has a road through it. I chalk up tank losses on mountains by figuring that the spearman brigade pushed a boulder off the mountain onto the tank.
But nobody complains when their rifleman takes out two cavs and a tank. I had a pikeman wipe out five cavalry before, and I was happy. Nobody posts when they're happy. Just when they're whining. I was quite glum about the impending doom of my city, but the pikeman held out. I'm quite certain such things happen to the posters on this board fairly often, they just don't come here to talk about it.
The focus on negativity about Civ3 is a major reason that I hope Firaxis doesn't put too much stock in the suggestions here.
GrandSultan
Full Time Hypocrite
Xavier Von Erck said:
Xavier, why not improve the game? We wouldn't be playing if we thought this was a horrible game but there is nothing wrong with saying that the game is not perfect. The reaseon for not seeing any posts titled "I love this game!" or "I love the graphics in this game!" is because there is no need to say that, if we share what we dislike about the game, then maybe Firaxis will change it and make the game even better, tell me exactly what is wrong with that?
Forgive me if I did not understand your post but I thought it was very rude. You told us that all we were is a group of people who are never satisfied, whiny, and pesimistic. I do not appreciate that because it is blatantly unfair and extremly rude. If you arn't going to post anything constructive, do not post at all.
Edit: I do agree with you about a tank not being able to kill a spearman on a mountain unless their is a road running through it, but things like that are a little too complex for a game, in a story about a game that would be a fine way to explain a spearman killing a tank but otherwise, things like that are difficult to put in a game.
Xavier Von Erck
Warlord
- Joined
- May 12, 2003
- Messages
- 144
No, there is nothing wrong with it. However, look around these forums. I've been reading them a year. A good percentage will post things like "OMG a spearman killed my tank it makes the game unplayable!" These sorts of overreactions are dumb. So there's an element of randomness, and you can't play the game?
Well play chiefton, if you're so concerned about being to win everytime.
Plenty. Pretend you made the game. You put a lot of work into it. You love the game. So you come here to posts of "I can't play this there is randomness!" Insulting the game is stupid, we all play it, we all love it... if you don't, you're in the wrong forum. The posts don't have the air of intellect that your post to me has, it's a lot of *****ing without measure.
That's very good advice. People shouldn't post things that are blantantly unfair and rude. That was my point to begin with about people complaining about the game in arrogant or abrasive manners. If you're not going to post anything constructive, don't post at all. Posting "OMG my cavalry died when I ran them across a field, this game is unplayable" isn't constructive.
It doesn't have to be put in the game. You should know that units aren't going to fight too well when attacking a mountain. I just add a mental justification for some of the more extreme circumstances involving mountains. Not too hard to do.
These forums are great, but some of the malcontents/ignorant make reading the threads hard at times.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
Losing a Tank to a Spearman is usually a signal you're winning the game anyway.Xavier Von Erck said:
Garbarsardar.jr
subtitled
People that are not content/knoledgable will be executed!!!
People that insult the game will also be executed!!!
Non intellectuals will be definitely executed!!!
Non constructive critisism will not be tolerated.And critics will be anyway executed!!!!
Finally units attacking mountains or other geographical features without permission (guess what)
will be executed!!!
general_kill
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2003
- Messages
- 2,870
ITs not only the mighty spearman, its also the mighty warrior! a barb warrior(conscript) was fortified on a mountain inside my base. I waiting for 5 turns for the warrior to come down so i can attack it with my tanks, when it move to a plain square, i used my tank to attack it and it took off 3 hit points off my veteran tank b4 dying. i was in the mist of a war also, the lost of that tank in my push really annoyed me
Gogf
Indescribable
Garbarsardar.jr said:
Okat, this is pure spam, and is ridiculous. It's people like you that (I presume) make him think the forum is hard to read.
GrandSultan
Full Time Hypocrite
Xavier Von Erck said:
The intent of my original post was to determine if this has happened to other people and was not just an isolated incident. I never once said that I would stop playing the game because of it and never did I say that it made the game unplayable, I was simply trying to dtermine what, if anything, was wrong.
Xavier Von Erck said:
I agree, some of these posts are insulting towards Firaxis, there only purpose is to be insulting, mine was not intended to be, stating that the randomness in combat needs to adjusted is not an insult, Firaxis should be happy to recive constructive comments about their game, it will help them make it better, something that I assume, they wish to accomplish.
Xavier Von Erck said:
Once again, I agree with you, posting OMG my cavalry died when I ran them across a field, this game is unplayable." is not the same as posting "I think that the randomness of combat, if fixed, would make this game MORE enjoyable." is constructive, it gives something for firaxis to improve upon in Civ4, or even in a patch.
Xavier Von Erck said:
I understand what you mean by your original post completly now, I am sorry if I was being very testy and angry but your first post made me feel that way, I did not understand your position on it fully then.
I am sorry for being so harsh in my original post.
[dance] 
[dance] OK, even if 99% of all Civ-players are just whiners - ceterum censeo RNG needs to be... 
Some here are very good in math and statistics. I think they can come up with examples of streaks of pure bad luck that are far too often to be just bad luck and biased reports of whiners. Civ's combat system AND it's RNG are not strong, robust enough to deliver more "suitable" and predictable results.
I do not want to go in depth, but there are possibilities for Civ 4 to make things better:
e.g. higher values: The jump from 1 to 2 in attack or defence is 100% more, all further increases from 2 to 3 or 3 to 4 are only 33% / 25% more.
How about a 10 attack strength warrior and a 15 defence strength spearman e.g.?
This would also apply to shipping: Right now, Privateers, Galleons, whatever... it is nearly always 1 Attack vs 1 or 2 Defense, and this means the risk and unpredictability of sea battles is very great! I always try to bombard enemy ships before getting into melee, you might lose whole fleets. On the other hand, a lucky privateer or Man o War can create a really large fleet in no time.
I want also to add that this forum is perhaps the best I have read so far, regarding the level and way of discussions. People are usually constructive and there are really interesting discussions in a civilized manner. I also think that Firaxis is not bashed here too much - they also get lots of support from here, real hardcore fans.
This is not usual, take a look at various newsgroups of the usenet, it is incredible how low level and insulting discussions there are by far too often!
I dislike that you complain about the forum, people and whatever else, Xavier van Erck - you are basically doing what you are criticizing. Do not show the same ignorance that you cannot stand to read from others.
Some here are very good in math and statistics. I think they can come up with examples of streaks of pure bad luck that are far too often to be just bad luck and biased reports of whiners. Civ's combat system AND it's RNG are not strong, robust enough to deliver more "suitable" and predictable results.
I do not want to go in depth, but there are possibilities for Civ 4 to make things better:
e.g. higher values: The jump from 1 to 2 in attack or defence is 100% more, all further increases from 2 to 3 or 3 to 4 are only 33% / 25% more.
How about a 10 attack strength warrior and a 15 defence strength spearman e.g.?
This would also apply to shipping: Right now, Privateers, Galleons, whatever... it is nearly always 1 Attack vs 1 or 2 Defense, and this means the risk and unpredictability of sea battles is very great! I always try to bombard enemy ships before getting into melee, you might lose whole fleets. On the other hand, a lucky privateer or Man o War can create a really large fleet in no time.
I want also to add that this forum is perhaps the best I have read so far, regarding the level and way of discussions. People are usually constructive and there are really interesting discussions in a civilized manner. I also think that Firaxis is not bashed here too much - they also get lots of support from here, real hardcore fans.
This is not usual, take a look at various newsgroups of the usenet, it is incredible how low level and insulting discussions there are by far too often!
I dislike that you complain about the forum, people and whatever else, Xavier van Erck - you are basically doing what you are criticizing. Do not show the same ignorance that you cannot stand to read from others.
I think that if it comes to a point where a spearman is taking on a tank after being bombarded by Artillery, the spearman should surrender instead of fighting...
or at least have like a 50% chance that the spearman will surrender instead of fight
or at least have like a 50% chance that the spearman will surrender instead of fight
DragonRunner
Certified Band Geek
You know, that's a decent idea, mark. Having the last unit have a chance to surrender would make things more interesting.
The Last Conformist
Irresistibly Attractive
@Longasc: The RNG is as good as anyone can reasonably ask for. This has been tested a verified any number of times.
Your A=10 Warrior, D=15 Spearman example makes one wonder if you've understood the combat system, since it would have attacking Warriors kill off Spearmen more often than they do now.
The simple way of decreasing the frequency of odd combat results is to increase HP counts.
Your A=10 Warrior, D=15 Spearman example makes one wonder if you've understood the combat system, since it would have attacking Warriors kill off Spearmen more often than they do now.
The simple way of decreasing the frequency of odd combat results is to increase HP counts.
I agree with most of comformist at this thread.
IMO,
1. Losing tank from spearman. At least u know that enemy is in trouble, otherwise they will defend with pikeman at least!. U will win.
2. The best way for odd combat is increasing HP. It might not be the best, but it would give us better results.
IMO,
1. Losing tank from spearman. At least u know that enemy is in trouble, otherwise they will defend with pikeman at least!. U will win.
2. The best way for odd combat is increasing HP. It might not be the best, but it would give us better results.
Similar threads
