Veiws on Civ3

[Kastchei]

God damn it stop making these logical errors in your arguments!
-The game is not a representation of reality-
So any comparison to reality(or history) is quite irrelevant in the context of how the game is(should be) built up. I can understand if some weak minds in here can't scratch the surface of the superficial historic similarities of the game(and reality), but I think that anyone who actually knows some history might do better than to base their argumentation about an ingame imbalance on far to complex historic events(such as out dear little Hannibal).

ehem.

Might have been a little to harsh in my words. But I hope someone gets my point(and my spelling).

/Kastchei

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Changed your mind? Scared are you?

Of course, you are, because you know that the superior units win most battles, and the superior civilization will win most wars. In real life and in Civ3. You're just upset because occasionally you lose an expensive unit to a cheap one, usually I'm sure, due to frontal assaults on fortified positions.

Funny. The French King was quite upset after Agincourt. He did everything right. Sent his best units with his best Knights, against a worn down, outnumbered, poorly supplied, unarmored adversary --- and lost.

Last time I checked, knight and longbowmen were still about the same tech level. At Azincourt, French cavalry used very poor tactics, rushing frontline toward a fortified opponent armed with ranged weapons.
Now, give me tanks, keep the longbowmen, and I bet that though the tactic will be as lame as before, the results won't be the same...

Superior tactics, organisations and strategy give the victory when you are confronted to opponents that are about the same strenght as you, and even an opponent that has a tech edge on you. But tech gap give the victory unless overwhelming superior numbers.

No, in reality, is more likely to consist of bloody stalemate, rotting away in some trench and drowning in mud because you can't "break out" and sweep to glorious victory. We wouldn't be fighting wars if that was the case.

In reality, wars are a bloody business which cost a hell of lives, money, ressources and will. Unless you have a big tech advantage, where then the war is more like an expedition when you come, slaughter all is against you, then claim the land as yours (colonial wars anyone ? Yes, the ones with these Zulus killing the english riflemen in ONE battle because they were ten times more than the english, then being butchered for the rest of the war).

Strategy. By the sounds of the way you use your tanks, I would have good chances of winning with a spearman

Ok, but then it's Starcraft and your spearmen are zealots

 

[Gruntboy]

Originally posted by Kastchei

God damn it stop making these logical errors in your arguments!
-The game is not a representation of reality-
So any comparison to reality(or history) is quite irrelevant in the context of how the game is(should be) built up. I can understand if some weak minds in here can't scratch the surface of the superficial historic similarities of the game(and reality), but I think that anyone who actually knows some history might do better than to base their argumentation about an ingame imbalance on far to complex historic events(such as out dear little Hannibal).
/Kastchei

Is this aimed at me? What logical errors? I never said the game was a representation of reality. Indeed, I was arguing against someone who seems to think the game should be more realistic.

Please don't question my knowledge of complex historical arguements after one post. I was merely using them to illustrate an example. If you want a 10,000 word dissertation, tough, I only have time/room for a few hundred words and you ain't my school teacher.

 

[Gruntboy]

Sorry, never played Starcraft.

"In reality, wars are a bloody business which cost a hell of lives, money, ressources and will. Unless you have a big tech advantage, where then the war is more like an expedition when you come, slaughter all is against you, then claim the land as yours (colonial wars anyone ? Yes, the ones with these Zulus killing the english riflemen in ONE battle because they were ten times more than the english, then being butchered for the rest of the war)."

Exactly. And how many times are such battles/wars fought? How many times has one civilization had such an advantage? How many battleships/tanks are you talking about losing here in this game? 1 or 2? This is unacceptable?

This is indeed not reality.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Sorry, never played Starcraft.

Doh ! You don't know what you're missing. This is one of the mythics games (kinda like Civilization, Monkey Island, Eye of the Beholder...), the kind that never get old and are still played years after their release.
And it's a nearly completely bug-free game for a change

Exactly. And how many times are such battles/wars fought? How many times has one civilization had such an advantage? How many battleships/tanks are you talking about losing here in this game? 1 or 2? This is unacceptable?

This is indeed not reality.

Hu, no, of course it's not unacceptable. At least when I'm facing musketmen. I admit that even the loss of one undamaged tank against a phalanx or a pikeman does bother me. Any unit without gunpowder should be able to at best deal 2 damage points to a tank.
I can live with it, but it does bother me.

 

[Gruntboy]

No. Spend most of my time playing Half Life and the Baldur's Gate/IWD series.

Maybe you should plan on losing that tank - that way you won't be surprised when it happens.

I have enough stress in my life so I try not to let the bazooka-wielding spearmen bother me. I play games like Civ3 to unwind.

 

[Zachriel]

Gruntboy says, "bloody stalemate, rotting away in some trench and drowning in mud because you can't "break out" and sweep to glorious victory."

How true, Gruntboy!

I'm in a war now. I don't have oil, so no tanks or planes. Infantry will have to do, but the enemy has infantry too. A frontal assault is out of the question.

So I surrounded his city, cutting off all lines of support. Used extensive artillery bombardment. Finally, I sent in the troops. I lost 20 infantry, including a few to obsolete enemy units, and one to a longbowman trying to break the seige. It happens.

In any case, I took the city breaking the enemy's back. The city lay in ruins, its people starving, the buildings destroyed. We will rebuild the city.

What a worthy war! What a great game! Civ3. . . .

 

[Kastchei]

Is this aimed at me? What logical errors? I never said the game was a representation of reality. Indeed, I was arguing against someone who seems to think the game should be more realistic.

1. It was aimed at quite a lot of people.

2. You compared RL to the game, therefor you implied that they had some relevance to each other in this matter. (And as the "short incoherent text" was not aimed at you, I overinterpitaded your arguments to fit the ideas of some other people in the forum... your arguments came in handy on directing my irritation(in my "short incoherent text") so I used it).

3. As I se it, if you want realistic, go do something in the real world, and... if you want to build up an own civilization and rule the world for about 4000 years, you can use the game. Mixing only causes some people to get confused(as we can se in other topics such as "Die stinking battleship!I am a caravel!" , "Why I like unrealistic battle results.... ", etc).

(5). What the whole issue is about, is that the game[civ 3] tend to get very unbalanced at times. I have also had my Tanks crushed under hordes of AI warriors, I however do not try to explain it with "it has happend in real life"(and such arguments).
Instead I complain on the people who complain about the "unrealistic" qualities of the game, or actually, the people who do not see that the game was not supposed to be realistic in the first place.

And all this, makes me a much better person that them.
(I just wanted to point that out).

Regards
/Kastchei

ps. did not spell or grammar check my message this time. hope no big misstaukes vare madde.
ds.

 

[Tripa]

ok if somone can explain this to me i would be most apriciative.
After all these discussions i decided to go give somthing a try.

I put on a large map with great land and put the AI on Easiest. So anyway Im playing along, Advancing at twice maybe 3 times the speed of the easy AI.
I now have tanks they have just got gunpowder but are still using Longbow men for attack atm. Now what i want you to explain is why the hell my 3 tank army attackin from a hill losses to 1 longbow man on plains. Now ive had problems b4 but this is the worst one and its bull ****, espesually seeing as the AI are suposed to be easy.

 

[Cerryl]

I *RARELY* see this stuff and I play the game almost non-stop.

Really, this has gone from a slight concern, to a lot of talk and now it's getting asinine with the nonstop whining.

You might as well start ragging on how a troops can live for 1000 years and so on and so on.

It's a game, it's supposed to be fun, fun dammit!

 

[Zachriel]

Akka wrote: "Hu, no, of course it's not unacceptable. At least when I'm facing musketmen. I admit that even the loss of one undamaged tank against a phalanx or a pikeman does bother me. Any unit without gunpowder should be able to at best deal 2 damage points to a tank. I can live with it, but it does bother me."

The U.S. just lost a B1 Bomber fighting that barbarian tribe, the Al Queda. Now, that bothers me. (I hope our guys got out okay.)

 

[Bob Hitchen]

Seems like all the history in the US comes from hollywood.
Agincourt was actually a rout because the English had better weapons like medieval machine guns. Funny the same thing happened in 1066 with crossbows in reverse.
Ever heard of Rourkes drift the British had a lot less men but not an idiot of a cavalry officer; guess who won.
Comparisons with terroism are hardly relevant since passengers (including young kids) and crew on civilian airlines are not considered military units. I haven't noticed these scum bags doing great against regular military units that's why they are terroists in the first place.
If you fight the AI in this game it mostly wins and if you like experimenting reload the game a few times exactly the same result ie. the result is pre-determined and f the stats. Try something different regular units will win were elite units fail - it's a complete can of worms that's defendable only by the firaxis plants.

 

[Zachriel]

The soldiers who were to fight at Agincourt expected that the French would have an easy win. That is a matter of history. The french heavy cavalry would normally have destroyed the outnumbered, and exhausted English archers. But rain, morale and the intangible changed the outcome.

As far as the current conflict, Al-Quada hit two embassies in Africa, a military base in Saudi Arabia, an advanced destroyer the U.S.S. Cole, the Pentagon, and we just lost a B1 bomber worth $250,000,000. We will win this conflict, but not without losses.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel
Akka wrote: "Hu, no, of course it's not unacceptable. At least when I'm facing musketmen. I admit that even the loss of one undamaged tank against a phalanx or a pikeman does bother me. Any unit without gunpowder should be able to at best deal 2 damage points to a tank. I can live with it, but it does bother me."

The U.S. just lost a B1 Bomber fighting that barbarian tribe, the Al Queda. Now, that bothers me. (I hope our guys got out okay.)

...
I don't know if I must flame you for your ignorance, flame you for your stupidity, flame you for being a fanboy, or just give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'll take the later, and just laugh when hearing you consider people trained, with machineguns, small arms, bazookas and some Stinger being a "barbarian tribe".

 

[Zachriel]

Akka wrote, "I don't know if I must flame you for your ignorance, flame you for your stupidity, flame you for being a fanboy, or just give you the benefit of the doubt. "

What does that have to do with it? Does that help you feel better to put others down?

In any case, the point is that the U.S. sent a high sophisticated unit into a war zone against obviously inferior units and lost it anyway. Not that they shot it down, but it is lost in any case.

Must be the combat system is screwed up. I think Bush should have a talk with Sid about this problem.

 

[Tripa]

Sorry but noone still gets it all of you keep saying in 1066 and in 1000 and in 1400 and all this **** the point is it is a diffrence of 4000 yrs not 60 not 100 not 500 but 4000 yrs of tech.
Im sorry but all of yous are just trying to justifie all these big companys for there stuff ups i think that it is redicules and all of yas need to get ya own mind.
i could accept my tank lossing to a cavelry man, but a tank to a archer is rediculess u put an archer in the feild now with a tank.
the archers arrows would break as they hit the tank.
Once again sorry but u r all ****ed in the head if u think an archer can beat a tank

 

[Jezner]

This "realism" debate is getting soooo tired. If you can't take the fact that an ancient unit beat your modern one, go into the corner and cry yourself a river.

Cause really, I don't care.

 

[Sam_Catchem]

Heck, it's a game. All Games are unrealistic in some fashion. I have played a ton and have not seen the same results as some have. I have lost modern troops to primitive ones on occasion..but nothing to get nuts about. That has been my experience.

When I do lose a rifleman to a swordsman or something..I like to think of the Ewoks kicking At-At buttocks in Star Wars.

 

[cutiestar]

Well I don't mean to degrade anyone here.

But I feel anyone that whines about their modern unit being beaten once every 20 odd times against an ancient unit is a person that really hasn't got the mind capacity to be playing strategy games.

Afterall if it was a set fact that the newer unit must always win, why even have battles in the game, just say i have all units better than yours, so your civilisation is now finished. That will take 1 minute, and ofcourse since he can never possibly beat your units with his, it is a forgone conclusion anyway.

In fact as soon as you declare war, anyone on the same island that hasn't got units equal to yours will now just be automatically killed, as why waste the time to do what is a certain conclusion anyway.

Oh how easy that would be, no tactics or thinking required, yes awesome strategy game that would be.

 

[Tripa]

look i didnt say old units not beat new ones, if u all read properly i played easy game to prove a point. I dont mind if a cavelry beats my Tank or if a infantry man beats my plane, im saying it is stupid even to think a archer can beat a tank. I know its not real, but why else would they use real old and modern units in the game if they wernt trying to make it realistic???
I played this on easy to prove that it is a problem, not to whine about it. I dont usually have the problem becouse i put high enough that the AI keep up with techs. but what is going to piss me off is if i start playing on Deity and my archers are killing tanks.
Becouse this removes the hole point of the game. What good is a game thats not hard. I supose most of you r the ppl that play with cheats. I never play a game with cheats untill i finish it properly. This is a problem that needs to be fixed. If it is not fixed then u might as well just call it CTP2 all over again. altho its diffrent bugs its still a problem and i for 1 wont play it online if i can go around killing my enemys with archers. whats the point in advancing when u dont have to, ill just work on money and piss my tech off, that way i can still win by killing all with archers.

I hope People now understand y i am complaining.