The Next Patch after 3.13

[Willem]

The only mistake they made with the army was giving them 3 capacity. The fact the AI would send off with only 1 or sometimes 2 equipt mean they knew this was just powerful, unrealistic and so were just tryin to play fair! lol

It wasn't just how the AI was filling them that was a problem, it also didn't know how to put a more powerful unit to good use. I modded my game to only use 1 unit as well, but so many times I would see the AI just park it's armies in the capital and never put them to use. Very rarely would I see one out in the field wher it would serve the best purpose. It gave me a distinct advantage in battle since when it came time to take the capital, all I had to do was bombard the crap out of all those armies until my own could just clean up.

 

[Underdawg]

It wasn't just how the AI was filling them that was a problem, it also didn't know how to put a more powerful unit to good use. I modded my game to only use 1 unit as well, but so many times I would see the AI just park it's armies in the capital and never put them to use. Very rarely would I see one out in the field wher it would serve the best purpose. It gave me a distinct advantage in battle since when it came time to take the capital, all I had to do was bombard the crap out of all those armies until my own could just clean up.

Let's all just forget the mess that is Civ III mkay?

Every iteration it's been like this.... Civ II --> Civ III: "Civ III Sucks.... Civ II > Civ III....... RAH RAH RAH RAH Down w/ Firaxis!......... That's it, back to Civ II...."

And now ladies and gentlemen..... Civ III --> Civ IV: "Civ IV Sucks.... Civ III > Civ IV....... RAH RAH RAH RAH Down w/ Firaxis!......... That's it, back to Civ III...."

Man those "epochs" of Civ throughout the ages were ever so radically different.

Blegh, oh video game forums..... it's like history.... the same crap over and over again.

 

[T.A JONES]

It wasn't just how the AI was filling them that was a problem, it also didn't know how to put a more powerful unit to good use. I modded my game to only use 1 unit as well, but so many times I would see the AI just park it's armies in the capital and never put them to use. Very rarely would I see one out in the field wher it would serve the best purpose. It gave me a distinct advantage in battle since when it came time to take the capital, all I had to do was bombard the crap out of all those armies until my own could just clean up.

I guess you never saw any of my linked evidence. I don't bother postin unless I can back it up on video or settle for photo. You can say all these photos were staged if it makes you feel better. What counts is what I say is true to my case. IM the one playin the game and reaping the reward of better balance if it is.

The pictures I present show latest units eqipt with army in all cases contare to you claims. Sorry I showed only 6 or 7 photos, all cases that were in battle, not in citys but Its all from the same epic as you can see. I stopped takin photos cuz it an ordinary event like anything else now. I can give you more if you like?
Its just to bad this wasn't what happened in yours case. Im happy you Enjoy civ4 but That dosn't change the fact the Army patch works with AI as ive clearly shown.

But hey IM not callin you in to question. Im sure anythin is possable.
If a civ has not gone to war then genrally they have a greater chance of stuffin a decrepit unit off into army formation. Mybe their lies your answer. As for Army hidin in their citys, you sure your not confusing games? Mybe the city only had defence units when the army leader showed up to work?

Bhruic...
ABout the assumtion Warlord is not releated, I disagree.
I presume the army is just leadership based on the wonder that spawns it(leader school). Spendin your resources of a GREAT WARLORD gives the unit a higher chance of victory in combat. The lifebar just measures your chance in battle. This can be further confirmed by looking at a normal ELITE life bar. It dosn't mean more troops have joined since it was classified as VET unit right?) Sure the leader arrives with his personal guard so more troops are positioned compared to average but its the leader they protect, they are there for him so more lifebar is warrented - this is all my opinon of course and with only one unit attached, this is how I and many others play Civ3 'patched' today

 

[T.A JONES]

Let's all just forget the mess that is Civ III mkay?

Every iteration it's been like this.... Civ II --> Civ III: "Civ III Sucks.... Civ II > Civ III....... RAH RAH RAH RAH Down w/ Firaxis!......... That's it, back to Civ II...."

And now ladies and gentlemen..... Civ III --> Civ IV: "Civ IV Sucks.... Civ III > Civ IV....... RAH RAH RAH RAH Down w/ Firaxis!......... That's it, back to Civ III...."

Man those "epochs" of Civ throughout the ages were ever so radically different.

Blegh, oh video game forums..... it's like history.... the same crap over and over again.

AGreed Whats true about civ3 and civ4 being the same is they are both "History" in more then once sence, atleast in the developers mind

 

[antracer]

Some of us think it's OK to pay good money for buggy game, and some don't.

The reality is, as long as anyone is willing to buy it, it won't change. The game companies figured out that if they can get the load screen to come on: Get you to the place you can move a few guys around and have a little fun... well then they can sell it.

If this was new game franchise, would you all be so happy you could kind of play the game? Would you be so forgiving when it failed you? How long do you think that new franchise would last? Even an established name goes nowhere now... Trains anyone? Sim City Societies?

But alas... this is Civ. Steeped in history and tradition... and as has been the case for the last few incarnations, also steeped in bugs a plenty.

It's been getting worse and worse... and yet we still pay out for every new iteration and expansion because it's Civ.

How bad are you willing to let it get? How bad does a game have to be before you say enough? Are you able to separate yourself from your "favorite game" and look at it from outside? Are you able to comprehend, understand or sympathize with those who don't accept what you do because you can play... kindof? Does the fact that someone else can't play, or has problems or issues with game play make any difference at all?

Just as a comparison within the computer world: My windows XP has had at least a hundred patches since I loaded it. They were all timely, and they were all free. Do I expect it to be perfect? No. Do I expect it to work? Yes. My copy of XP does what it says, and is performing to expectations, even though there is an occasional glitch or crash or BSOD. ( It's only when they get it stable and right they decide it's time for another version... but that's an argument for another day... )

Somehow this game company has lost that. They have demonstrated a clear imperative to cash in rather than fix what is already made. Their interest lies in your wallet, not in anything else. Do I begrudge them the motive to make a profit? Hardly. Without it they cease to be. But I do take offense to the fact that the product is not of good quality. That it requires excessive patching and expansion paks to make it work, and even with those requires the unofficial work of fans to correct obvious, glaring errors. Thats not what i paid for... or so I thought.

What of those who want to continue playing 1st release vanilla? Or continue playing Warlords? Will they ever see a patch to fix the problems in their games? Unlikely. The company has made those games irrelevant by way of the expansion pak. They are no longer obligated to support them because they aren't the current version. It's like Ford saying "we're not going to make parts for the 05 Mustang anymore..." I can understand not making parts for a 75 Mustang anymore... I can understand a company not wanting to patch Civ 3, although releasing the code to allow someone else to do it would be nice... They won't do it though because it's their property, and it's valuable... but not enough to actually fix it or make it right. How many of you would proudly display your name on a shoddy product? Somehow, because it's a computer, and it's a game, we accept painfully obvious imperfections without question.

The fact is, some of us don't want to take the ride anymore. Some of you do. I don't begrudge you because you make the choice to spend the money, but I do take offense to being told it's not OK to have this opinion. That this one did this, there's an unnoficial that over here and I should should just shut up and be thankful and "play" the game.

The fact of the matter is I'm not happy with the game. Nor with the company that made it. And after watching repeated flamings of persons who express this opinion, I'm fast becoming unhappy with being here...

But I'm just one person, yes? Who has a few measly posts on a forum of a hundred thousand or so. I won't be missed.

But how long until the next one feels as I do? and the next?

McDonalds had the fast food world by the testicles for decades, and it lost half it's market share practically overnight. Why? because people got smart. They stopped accepting crap and took their money to places that were better.

As much as I would hate to see it, it will happen to Civ if firaxis continues to release and minimally support their product, relying instead on fond memories and fans who can make the product playable.

 

[SLM]

1. I was rather dissapointed with Civ IV Vanilla
2. I was as much and maybe even more dissapointed with Warlords :'(
3. I am quite pleased with BtS

After Vanilla I said I wouldn't buy those EP's and I didn't. Someone bought them for me . Seriously, if it had been up to me, I wouldn't even know BtS and wouldn't have played CivIV since a couple of months after Vanilla came out.

Vanilla: was/is in my opinion an unfinished low grade game as compared to what once was and what could have been
Warlords: FireAxis should be ashamed to call that one an EP
BtS: a real game with a lot of options, civs, wonders and units.

I really wonder how FireAxis got Civ4 Vanilla be called game of the year (or something like that) and who would be fool enough to do that? Had those people even played the game?

Anyhow, I sure hope that a new official patch won't be long now, because the damn bugs are almost multiplying Luckily for me, the bugs are just annoying not game breaking but I guess for others they are.

 

[Willem]

If a civ has not gone to war then genrally they have a greater chance of stuffin a decrepit unit off into army formation. Mybe their lies your answer.

If I'm marching on a civ's capital and seeing all those armies, then obviously we are at war. So why didn't it use those mighty units to try and halt my advance?

As for Army hidin in their citys, you sure your not confusing games? Mybe the city only had defence units when the army leader showed up to work?

No, there was definitely more than just defensive units in them. In fact I rarely ever saw the AI use defensive units in it's armies, which was another way that it didn't know how to use them. I used to put a defensive army on top of bombard unit stacks, and the AI would rarely go after them. I could waltz through it's territory with near impunity. Yet it never did the same with it's bombard stacks, making them easy pickings for my troops.

 

[T.A JONES]

If I'm marching on a civ's capital and seeing all those armies, then obviously we are at war. So why didn't it use those mighty units to try and halt my advance?

Right, I guess you havn't heard of unit turnover. I won't get into it. It seems your desprate to try and find quams with whatever sidetracks from the truth..unless these photos lie (in which case accuse me of doctering and I'll give you better support)

How bout we dispute this?

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Here we have mulitple AI armys stack attackin

Spoiler :

Ok now how bout you show us what your talking about.

You say you use a stack of cannons to wear down the AI armys that won't leave their city. How did you know they were there? Did you spy on the city and chance upon them?
WHy are the AI attackin another civ in the pictures I show? They are also choosing the best offence unit. These all are taken from the same epic and not random occurances from variious games. Do you think im not tellin the truth ? One of us is lying or providing disinfo.

DId i tell you in civ4 the AI never leaves their citys. Yes and im sayin all its units stay turtled up. This means the game is broken or can you prove me wrong? See same thing. Atleast I have somethin to show besides a grudge

No, there was definitely more than just defensive units in them. In fact I rarely ever saw the AI use defensive units in it's armies, which was another way that it didn't know how to use them. I used to put a defensive army on top of bombard unit stacks, and the AI would rarely go after them. I could waltz through it's territory with near impunity. Yet it never did the same with it's bombard stacks, making them easy pickings for my troops.

Your right It was a joke. Just like your well know HOF tactic when lowering the army size to one. Ive never seen def units in armys but nor have I seen army stayin in cities for that matter. I thought you said you used the Unoffical Army patch" was that true when you snuck the arty stack up to the capitial unopposed?

Im not sure if it works when only one unit is guarding your investment in artys. You make it seem like its so easy You take the capital now what? How do you hold it with no troops, artys aren't troops you know right? They got another 40 citys just like it all surronding you, mybe more. This is civ3 after all and no lag so feedom to go real size.

What size maps do you play? The logistics in bring order and supplimentin the backlash revolt comes in to play with large nations. A small civ can be put down this way but not a normal using army patch-and lets face a small civ can be out done in many easy ways. In civ4 you poisen the water or spur riot before attack right? WHo needs any weapon but arty and spys in civ4 right?....um no, n' same goes for 3.

Hey besides if you feel your whole game was an arty cheese fest served on the back of an expliotive army, then you never had the civ3 'artillarty patch' in play.
That unoffical patch raised the cost of 20% or so. Just enough so the true industrialized citys could only pertake in producing artys to any good effect required for the 'arty only tactic' to be effeciant.

Of course again, to be succssfull this has to be on unreal sized maps. Huge maps made the amount of arties needed a freakin waste ....and then their was always bad luck and what that could do production estimates. The city sizes of the opponent is growing while you sit and stack what you though was enough artrys. By the time you get their the odds have gone down in your favour.
Terrain plays a part to. Nations with hilly county side mean more artys required and maintence costs can kill you while other civs on the other side of the world are cleaning up with a slim budget yet lighting fast takeover of land due to calvery luck and wickedly fast unit replacment if they do die..Goes to show just some of many variables you forget to facter before weighing in what you call explotive. It sounds good on paper but practice shows your plan is cheasy and flawed with the proper patches patchs applied.

 

[Woody1]

Bah! Civ4 is a far less-buggy game at this stage than any of the prior releases of Civ.

I can remember how buggy Civ 1 was. Broken goto algorithm, disappearing units, all kinds of loopholes, etc., etc., etc. And that was after all the patches. Sid came up with a good game concept, but he is a horrible coder!

I can also recall the horrible mess Civ 2 was when it was first released. Brian Reynolds did provide rapid patches, which made it much better, though.

Each Civ release has gotten much better.

The trick with Firaxis is never buy their games when they first come out.

 

[Willem]

It seems your desprate to try and find quams with whatever sidetracks from the truth...

It seems you're desperate to prove that Civ 3 was actually a good game.

I thought you said you used the Unoffical Army patch" was that true when you snuck the arty stack up to the capitial unopposed?

'
No, I just modded my game to use only one unit in an army. Though I can't see how that patch would affect the AI back then. An SDK wasn't available to change AI behaviour.

What size maps do you play?

I don't play any size maps, I gave my Civ 3 discs away as soon as I started playing Civ 4.

DId i tell you in civ4 the AI never leaves their citys. Yes and im sayin all its units stay turtled up. This means the game is broken or can you prove me wrong?

I'll be sure to tell Monty or Shaka they're supposed to do that next time they arrive at my doorstep with their SoDs.

Hey besides if you feel your whole game was an arty cheese fest served on the back of an expliotive army, then you never had the civ3 'artillarty patch' in play.

I shouldn't need to rely on thrid party patches, or even modding, in order for a game to work the way it should. It hasn't really been necessary with Civ4, but with Civ 3 I was probably spending more time modding it to work right than I was actually playing.

 

[Methos]

Moderator Action: Don't turn this into a / flamewar. Discuss it all you want, but no flaming/trolling in the process. These threads tend to go bad very quickly.

T.A. Jones: Keep your arguments based on your evidence and don't use insulting and accusatory questions to belittle others.

 

[T.A JONES]

It seems you're desperate to prove that Civ 3 was actually a good game.

You do see what everyone sees. Photo evidence disputing what you say is true. I want to discuss how these slighty get in the way of what you say. Army works fine as the rest can see. Ive shown AI knows how to use it. Ask for more proof or End it.

No, I just modded my game to use only one unit in an army. Though I can't see how that patch would affect the AI back then. An SDK wasn't available to change AI behaviour.

THe 'army patch' is something I just made up, a play on a mod by a civ4 member that fixes expliots yet called a patch to sound more official. In CIv3 AI tends to attack the weaker units or citys or civs. Im thinkin the chances go up with the 'army patch' just the same. A weaker army by 200% mean better chance they get attacked over a stack of other units positined nearby (yours or allys)

I don't play any size maps, I gave my Civ 3 discs away as soon as I started playing Civ 4.

I know you don't. When you gave off some text book HOF attack strategy thinkin its a fool proof expliot you gave this away. Try it on realistic maps and you lose. Some use larger maps instead of braggin about playin on a higher difficulty then Monarch where expliots are needed to win. If your more a 'I beat sid player' thats ok but don't say your cheats work for all ways of play. Check a poll how may prefer bigger maps to average .

I'll be sure to tell Monty or Shaka they're supposed to do that next time they arrive at my doorstep with their SoDs.

RIght, and where are they the rest of game or %90 of the time? Sittin in their city waitn for you to attack? Besides you forgot to quote this part: "WHo needs any weapon but arty and spys in civ4 right?....um no, n' same goes for 3." Kinda key in tellin I was mimicking your angle that comes with no proof but your word against my pictures

I shouldn't need to rely on thrid party patches, or even modding, in order for a game to work the way it should. It hasn't really been necessary with Civ4, but with Civ 3 I was probably spending more time modding it to work right than I was actually playing.

What do you call Bhruic's patch? With civ3 how long did it take you to lower the armys count , both in units per army and say armys per city? Hmm you had to change two numbers in the editer? Sounds like this might have taken a lot of time modding or like most who talk ill of civ3, you havn't played as much as you say.
By actually believing their was a real 'army patch' it seems the latter is true. It copuld be you are only regurging what some other civ4 player has said on a civ3 hate thread but I won't say thats for sure.

Lets not forget before BtS everyone was saying Go get Blakes mod or the combat sucks. Wait! DOn't forget the Better AI mod, the AI is dumb ass without it. This was for 2 years! . Whats the differncenow that its included with BtS? Does that mean the game is better now that you save 5 minutes not having to add what used to be on the net as amatuer content?

 

[Willem]

You do see what everyone sees. Photo evidence disputing what you say is true. I want to discuss how these slighty get in the way of what you say. Army works fine as the rest can see. Ive shown AI knows how to use it. Ask for more proof or End it.

If you think that Civ 3 and it's Armies are so great, then go play it and hang out in the Civ 3 forums. This whole line of discussion is getting rather tiresome frankly since I have absolutely no interest in playing that game again, and even less inclination to discuss it further.