Totally understand, but do you understand that it is a very rare occurance, and if it never happened, then it really would be too predictable, i am willing to lose the odd battle with my advanced army, as then i still have to make sure i don't take the fact i will win for granted.
Veiws on Civ3
- Thread starter Tripa
- Start date
Tripa
Skaven Clan Head Council
yes i also in a way like to loss units but as i said earlier not a 3 tank army from hills attacking one bowman on plains. this just removes all stratigy from the game. what was the point in me placing them on a hill if it is going to make no diffrence. What is the point in placing citys in certain spots if it makes no diffrence. Whats the point in researching new techs if the old units are betta. It completly removes all logic and purpose of playing the game.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Originally posted by 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.
That's completely different.
They had the Force with them
Akka
Moody old mage.
Why people need to be so caricatural and ALWAYS resort on twisting words to prove anything ?
Are you so blind/insincere/simplistic that you can't make a difference between two differently backward units ? An infantry and a phalanx are both of inferior tech than a tank, would that means they are at the same tech level ?
If you can't make the difference between "tanks should never lose to a non-gunpowder unit" and "tanks should never lose to any unit that is not as modern as them", then you just show you're as brain-dead as Zachriel who consider that Al-Qaida is a barbarian tribe just because they are not the latest "unit" available in the world.
Stop the caricature and get a brain dudes.
Heffalump
Proboscidea Heffalumpus
History is full of instances of low tech armies beating higher tech armies. I don't think there are any disagreements about that. Terrain, training (e.g. conscript infantry vs elite longbowmen), luck and numerous other factors have had a role in history on various occassions.
What this thread boils down to is that certain low tech units (like longbowmen) are beating high tech units (like tanks) and that just doesn't "seem right". But this is just an argument about graphics. When it's 1990 I try not to think of those longbowmen guys as literally wandering around in tunics with arrows.
To be fair though i think this was kind of sloppy of Firaxis. At some point in the modern age all those old units should be obsoleted by a sort of all purpose partisan unit. Maybe 5/5/1.
What this thread boils down to is that certain low tech units (like longbowmen) are beating high tech units (like tanks) and that just doesn't "seem right". But this is just an argument about graphics. When it's 1990 I try not to think of those longbowmen guys as literally wandering around in tunics with arrows.
To be fair though i think this was kind of sloppy of Firaxis. At some point in the modern age all those old units should be obsoleted by a sort of all purpose partisan unit. Maybe 5/5/1.
OK lets put it simple shall we, Give one of the Hong Kong SAS a little knife, and give an american rifleman and see who is still alive after a one on one seek and destroy ok.
Oh i never met a real ancient ninja, but using folk law as my knowledge, i think the same would apply, let a ancient era ninja take on a simple american rifleman and see who wins.
both instances starting at night ofcourse
i am sure in both cases the rifleman would lose.
Oh i never met a real ancient ninja, but using folk law as my knowledge, i think the same would apply, let a ancient era ninja take on a simple american rifleman and see who wins.
both instances starting at night ofcourse
i am sure in both cases the rifleman would lose.
Zachriel
Kaiser
How 'bout Don Knotts as the Conscript shooting himself in the foot, while John Candy as the Ninja falls off the balcony.
In real life, there are so many variables that it is impossible for the Supreme Leader to anticipate all contingencies, and all decisions made my lower level commanders, and by actions of individual soldiers. Otherwise, if everything was predetermined, what would be the purpose of heroes?
In real life, there are so many variables that it is impossible for the Supreme Leader to anticipate all contingencies, and all decisions made my lower level commanders, and by actions of individual soldiers. Otherwise, if everything was predetermined, what would be the purpose of heroes?
Zachriel
Kaiser
And by the way, the Conscript and the Ninja mentioned above ARE heroes. They fight for right reasons, and they don't give up.
They shoul;d bring back the partisans, esp. when taking over a city so you can personally deal w/ "resistors"
Usually I just read the posts in this thread but the statement about not seeing longbowmen as just that longbowmen over a certain amount of time bothered me.
If units automatically change the type of weaponry they use, then what's the point behind "upgrade unit?" Sorry, but a longbowman is a longbowman and a spearman is a spearman until you give him a gun. Now if there were advances in armor in the game that allowed you to up the defense of certain units, maybe from a defense view an "improved" bowman is possible.
Meglomania
Chieftain
Well, I'm not a Firaxis plant and I can defend this. The reason that the same result happens after you reload is because of how the algorithms for random number generators are used today. They are (usually) based on the internal cronometer of your computer. By attacking with another unit you are using a different variable (unit) in the algorithm so the result is different. Yes, it is "pre-determined" but will only be so from some point in the turn when all the calculations are made. If you can come up with a totally "random" number generator that creates a unique result every time with exactly the same variable then good luck and I'll be your financial backer!
I have no idea what algorithms that they have used and I have not personally experienced major "unfair battle results". I am just as annoyed as everyone else when my elite tanks falls apart due to some guy using his spear like a screwdriver, but the vast majority of the time the tank runs over the guy with minimal damage. If people REALLY are getting these unfair results 40% of the time (which I doubt), then maybe it's a problem with the algorithms and your computers (not very likely).
Anyway, theres my 2 pence....
Heffalump
Proboscidea Heffalumpus
No one would pay to "upgrade" to a partisan. So no the system would not be broken. If you want to upgrade your partisan unit to infantry then ....... pay.
Partisan units are just guys with guns. At something like 5/5/1 it's wouldn't be meant to compete with infantry. But it reflects the fact that even a bunch of rabble with guns will have an edge on, say, pikemen.
Or what other theory do you have that accounts for us not seeing pikemen, swordsmen, etc in the modern world?
I didn't have a prob w/ re-introducing the partisan unit, I just had a prob w/ assuming that all obsolete units just pickup guns and continue under the name "longbowman." It would be one thing if that longbowman could check into a barrack and get a gun (something similar to upgradng the unit, think of it as buying the gun for the bowman) to become a crazed gun toting partisan (heh, let's give them all tiles treated as roads for guerilla warfare purposes).
ladies, please...
Everyone cheers when the underdog hero wins in a fantasy environment until they're the enemy. Then they look at someone to point the finger at. Hell just the fact that the enemy CAN win makes battles worth watching.
How the hell did that conscript warrior kill my swordsman? /glare
Truth is you wouldn't appreciate anything if it always happened the same.
Everyone cheers when the underdog hero wins in a fantasy environment until they're the enemy. Then they look at someone to point the finger at. Hell just the fact that the enemy CAN win makes battles worth watching.
How the hell did that conscript warrior kill my swordsman? /glare
Truth is you wouldn't appreciate anything if it always happened the same.
Bob Hitchen
Chieftain
Replying to Meglomania - now that was a fun game on the Nintendo.
It isn't about random number generators although date time gives a different base especially if utilised correctly. The issue here is one of how much disadvantage the AI would have by losing. I played one game where there were 33 German Knights stacked up which were on grassland unfortified and I attacked with 4 different types of unit infantry regular mostly won veteran about even and elite lost most. Cavalry were largely useless except for finishing off; Longbowmen mostly won (they must have imported them from Agincourt); archers mostly won. Very strange!
The situation is even stranger with fortified regular spearmen I suspect they would survive Nukes. I would expect a different result every time there was a battle between the same 2 parties after reloading even if that was only damage to the victor. That's why I smell a rat.
I wasn't really into combat deficiencies in Civ3 they are just irritants my beef was corruption which kills huge maps except for the AI I suppose I could spy on their far flung cities to see what effects they are incurring none suspected. I repeat my original contention this game is one big bore no matter how you play it is designed to ensure all civs keep up and is so bloody slow on developing a nation that only masochists should think of indulging. The Forum is about 1000% more fun than the game which after playing some more I would put at 38% and most of that is for graphics. It's a lemon full of bugs design deficiencies no working editor and crap interfaces; there are many games out there that one can buy for a tenth of the price of this which beat the crap out of it and that's my last word on Civ3.
It isn't about random number generators although date time gives a different base especially if utilised correctly. The issue here is one of how much disadvantage the AI would have by losing. I played one game where there were 33 German Knights stacked up which were on grassland unfortified and I attacked with 4 different types of unit infantry regular mostly won veteran about even and elite lost most. Cavalry were largely useless except for finishing off; Longbowmen mostly won (they must have imported them from Agincourt); archers mostly won. Very strange!
The situation is even stranger with fortified regular spearmen I suspect they would survive Nukes. I would expect a different result every time there was a battle between the same 2 parties after reloading even if that was only damage to the victor. That's why I smell a rat.
I wasn't really into combat deficiencies in Civ3 they are just irritants my beef was corruption which kills huge maps except for the AI I suppose I could spy on their far flung cities to see what effects they are incurring none suspected. I repeat my original contention this game is one big bore no matter how you play it is designed to ensure all civs keep up and is so bloody slow on developing a nation that only masochists should think of indulging. The Forum is about 1000% more fun than the game which after playing some more I would put at 38% and most of that is for graphics. It's a lemon full of bugs design deficiencies no working editor and crap interfaces; there are many games out there that one can buy for a tenth of the price of this which beat the crap out of it and that's my last word on Civ3.
Just for the record, the Al-Queda are not using 19th century technology. Pretty much all of their weapons are Soviet and US built (AKs, M16s, grenades, RPGs etc.)
How can men be equipped with horses and be "properly entrenched"?
Bottom line in combat debate: Units from a higher era should walk all over units from a previous era. When the tech difference is substantial such as battlehship (or even a destroyer) vs. frigate, the advanced unit should win 99% of the time. A good example of proper unit/tech balance (from what I hear) is in the new "Empire Earth." Advanced units scythe through primitive units. However, the ancient units can prevail over the advanced unit. It just requires buckets of them to do it.
Don't come up with Role-playing-game type examples to excuse the flaws of the combat system such as primitive units recovering advanced weapons from fallen advanced units. Even if you could capture advanced weapons, you still need the advanced technology to service and repair them. Thus, this situation would not work in Civ.
scavenger
Warlord
remember, the USA has lost something like 3-4 men in Afghanistan, how many hundreds or even thousands of Al Queda members have we killed?
nuff said about the tech advantage
nuff said about the tech advantage
Zachriel
Kaiser
Absolutely right! And if I was defending my home country, and all I had was a sword, I would make sure to kill at least two of the enemy, in their sleep if need be, or blow up their ammo dump. They may still win, but not without a price.
Besides, history is full of examples of how armies become overconfident because of their supposed advantages in numbers or weapons, who pay a heavy price for the arrogance of their commanders.
In the context of the game. You make the broad decisions, but once that decision is made, then command of the individual units is given to lower level commanders. The "rabble" might blow up your ammo (French underground in WW2, all it took was a match), your "smart bomb" may fall on your own guys (recently in Afghanistan), your B52's may bomb your own men (happened to Colin Powell in Vietnam), your tanks may run out of gas because of a SNAFU in requisitions, your B1B bomber may just fall out of the sky, someone may take over your commercial airplanes and run them into buildings, they may plant a virus in the computer you use to send out orders, . . .
Zachriel
Kaiser
You are exactly right. They should. But that is not the same thing as saying that they always will.
Arrogance has led to the downfall of many "superior" armies in history. Even if the Supreme Commander makes the right decisions, he must still rely on decisions by lower level commanders that can lead to the destruction of entire Legions. So, send a Legion out to kill Spartacus. Should be a cakewalk, right? Only later do you find out that the commander didn't bother to build a stockade; standard procedure required in the army manual. The entire Legion wiped out by "rabble."
Or how McClelland was forced to retreat by fake cannons in the Pennisula campaign, even though he outnumbered his opponent by at least 5-1.
To paraphrase from Star Trek, the good guys only win when they are very, very careful.
Similar threads
