[another rant]Civ III...

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2003-04-13 10:47pm

...just seriously pissed me off. I have no idea why I had the urge to reinstall it. So there I am, playing Rome and expanding fairly rapidly, when my iron source runs out. There's only one other one I can see, so I send out a settler, but before he gets there, the Americans take the damn place. I need iron, so I send out what few Legionaries I'd made with a horde of Archers to support them (all Veterans). I manage to raze Denver (where I live

) and clear the iron source for my settler, while fighting their pissant Regular Warriors and Archers. They then launched an offensive on the city I established there as the remainder of my Legions and Archers were gathering nearby. So one of their Regular Archers (2/1) attacks the city. A city defended by an Elite Legionary (3/3). Who was fortified. And, get this, the Archer wins, with no damage. W. T. F. So I launch counterattack after counterattack and take massive casualties, and finally manage to reclaim the city with my one remaining Legionary, who has acheived Elite status in the process. I build more back in my core cities and bring them up, but to no avail. They are intercepted on some plains in between by a bunch of Archers, who I attack since I have a massive advantage. Evidently, the game disagreed, and my attacking Legionaries were slaughtered by lesser numbers of Archers. Then my iron city is attacked again by more magic Archers and is razed. Shift+delete.

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-13 11:15pm

Shit happens.

seriously though, that can happen in the game...sometimes stupid improbable luck will succeed. the tales of heros

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-13 11:37pm

For some unfathomable reason, probably because pansy-ass bitch boys couldn't handle all the complexity, they removed the firepower statistic that made it virtually impossible for things like that to happen (the infamous "that phlanax just sank my battleship!" syndrome).

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-04-13 11:56pm

Removing the firepower aspect made no sense to me. I put Civ3 down not too long after buying it simply because the combat system allowed for outragous combat results like losing at tank to longbowman.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-14 12:54am

It's really too bad they did that. Civ III did a lot of things better than II or Alpha Centauri, but the combat system was fucked so hard it made the game worse than its predacessors.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-04-14 01:02am

RedImperator wrote:It's really too bad they did that. Civ III did a lot of things better than II or Alpha Centauri, but the combat system was fucked so hard it made the game worse than its predacessors.

You've obviously never played the original then, because the combat system is essentially identical. Like I say to everyone that doesn't understand the combat system though, why exactly are you surprised by those results? The most technologically advanced army is never guaranteed to win in the real world. Especially when dealing with ancient armies where the differences are very small. Archers are going to beat legions 25% of the time and the odds work that even in more extreme cases it will happen farily often. They got rid of firepower because it was unnecessary and because it's not realistic to prevent units from damaging others when you are dealing with year long campaigns in a single attack.

Brother-Captain Gaius · Post by **Brother-Captain Gaius** » 2003-04-14 01:05am

In the case of Legions vs. Archers, then yes it would be realistically possible for the Archers to win. But... Elite Modern Armor vs. Regular Hoplite? How exactly is a half-naked formation of spearmen supposed to wipeout a platoon of M1A2s?

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-04-14 02:31am

JediNeophyte wrote:In the case of Legions vs. Archers, then yes it would be realistically possible for the Archers to win. But... Elite Modern Armor vs. Regular Hoplite? How exactly is a half-naked formation of spearmen supposed to wipeout a platoon of M1A2s?

Where does the game tell you how many people are in each group? A group of hoplites can take 100+ years to build, which would be on the order of tens of thousands of troops. Put 10,000 soldiers in a very large city, and even if they don't have modern technology they can kill a few tanks off once in a while. On the open field it just means that the tanks got caught without support and the drivers were killed in their sleep.

This situation is so incredibly rare in the real game anyways, that there's no real reason to worry about it. A defending hoplite has a 1.5% chance to beat MA, assuming that there aren't a whole bunch of terrain modifiers involved. The worst it can get is a 36% chance to win if the tanks are attacing across a river into the mountains and the hoplites are fortified in a metropolis. Needless to say that won't ever happen.

You are guaranteed to win anyways if you're opponent has only that level of technology, and if those are just the leftover units from an otherwise high-tech defense then any losses are just representing land mines, molotov cocktails and other such things.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-04-14 03:27am

Never did like civ III, but civ II Test of Time is still one of my fav PC games.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-04-14 10:09am

Fun game...but I understand combat blows.

And claiming outside resources?

WTF...literally you are civ level ahead the guy has muskets vs your tanks(I've actually had this) and he WINS?!

Sorry...shit like that should never happen...and the modifiers almost make it so that literally warriors in installions on mountians are damn effective when they shouldn't be.

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-14 10:20am

Tanks have exhausts don't they?...one blockage later....

KA-BOOM!!

It's possible to destroy modern stuff with ancient stuff, even in rl. That's why you simply use swarm tactics until you simply control all the world.

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-04-14 10:22am

Yeah but the way they play...you have a battalion of tanks vs a thousand guysa with muskets at 1000 m.

Literally the combat is one side shots another until death...and of course their...Wind sail ships versus Iowa Class...and the IOWA LOSES?!

Ugh seriously they should've tweaked combat a bit more...the game is easier to beat on Culture or Space Race then conquering.

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-14 10:25am

Ghost Rider wrote:Yeah but the way they play...you have a battalion of tanks vs a thousand guysa with muskets at 1000 m.

Literally the combat is one side shots another until death...and of course their...Wind sail ships versus Iowa Class...and the IOWA LOSES?!

Ugh seriously they should've tweaked combat a bit more...the game is easier to beat on Culture or Space Race then conquering.

I believe battleships can ...oh...bombard..it's a good tactic to soften your enemy up first. consider this for a moment. big fuck off battleship. tiny little barge thing....oh, what's that on the deck of the barge?...two metric ton of explosives

Tell me that's not going to put a dead in el iowa class

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-04-14 10:29am

It's getting that close.

The problem is that you're giving them the means and weapons and tactics the game doesn't even begin to extrapolate.

I mean the game literally is shoot at twenty paces, and that it.

If I had manuverability and such not...Hell Modern Tanks wouldn't be just standing there shooting.

That's why I have a problem with the game.

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-14 10:31am

Use overwhelming and superiour odds then....and if in doubt....kick back and nuke the fuckers.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-14 10:47am

Coaan wrote:Use overwhelming and superiour odds then....and if in doubt....kick back and nuke the fuckers.

In one game, my opening move for war was a bombardment with about six IRBMs and a couple ICBMs that targetted major troop concentrations

I was careful to make sure that their railways were more or less intact, though.

Coaan · Post by **Coaan** » 2003-04-14 10:49am

Oh that's sick and evil.....

I love it!

Now to find a copy of civ 3

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-14 10:54am

Graeme Dice wrote: Where does the game tell you how many people are in each group? A group of hoplites can take 100+ years to build, which would be on the order of tens of thousands of troops. Put 10,000 soldiers in a very large city, and even if they don't have modern technology they can kill a few tanks off once in a while. On the open field it just means that the tanks got caught without support and the drivers were killed in their sleep.

Gentleman- here we have the worst case of Civ III apologetics that I EVER did see. Good God.

This situation is so incredibly rare in the real game anyways, that there's no real reason to worry about it. A defending hoplite has a 1.5% chance to beat MA, assuming that there aren't a whole bunch of terrain modifiers involved. The worst it can get is a 36% chance to win if the tanks are attacing across a river into the mountains and the hoplites are fortified in a metropolis. Needless to say that won't ever happen.

I beg to differ. I consistently went for a technological edge in Civ III and ridiculous combat results from fighting the AI's obsolescent hordes on open fields abounded.

You are guaranteed to win anyways if you're opponent has only that level of technology, and if those are just the leftover units from an otherwise high-tech defense then any losses are just representing land mines, molotov cocktails and other such things.

Yeah, nothing like losing your Main Battle Tank force to molotov cocktails and mines

Civ 2 is a far superior product. It also has the advantage of not having ludicruous 'corruption'.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-04-14 11:09am

Vympel's double-post deleted.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-04-14 01:51pm

Ghost Rider wrote:Yeah but the way they play...you have a battalion of tanks vs a thousand guysa with muskets at 1000 m.

I'm still asking where it lists the number of troops in a single unit.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-04-14 01:53pm

Vympel wrote:Gentleman- here we have the worst case of Civ III apologetics that I EVER did see. Good God.

And here we have another civ 2 fanatic that doesn't realize that technological superiority doesn't mean an automatic win.

I beg to differ. I consistently went for a technological edge in Civ III and ridiculous combat results from fighting the AI's obsolescent hordes on open fields abounded.

The random odds do not, and cannot lie. You are seeing a pattern that does not exist.

Yeah, nothing like losing your Main Battle Tank force to molotov cocktails and mines

It happened to the Germans.

Civ 2 is a far superior product. It also has the advantage of not having ludicruous 'corruption'.

Civ 2 is a piece of crap compared to civ 3.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-04-14 02:01pm

I like manyof teh concepts of Civ 3 but it just cannot match the sheer addiction that was Civ 2. There was nothing more satisfying than seeing your horde of armor move against a foe just getting musketmen and watching the slaughter ensue as his civilization was wiped clean in a few turns by the massive blitzkrieg.

You just can't do that in Civ 3 because as supposedly rare as the archer beating an infantry men is, it happens and happens in every campaign I have ever fought.

I usually build up my forces to at least double what I think I will need to win to deal with these funky lopsided results. Becaue invaraibly there will be that city with a spear man that kills several infabtry men before it finally falls, etc.

The combat system in Civ 3 sucks, but corruption is FAR worse. In Civ 2 you could have a civilization that spans the globe. Now, if you get over ten measely cities they're begging for a Forbidden palace. I like to expanp, in an Earth map, if I get a starting spot in Europe, I want cities spanning the European continent, through Russai all teh way to the Pacific and if I get away with it the Middle East and Africa. THAT is an empire.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2003-04-14 02:05pm

Stravo wrote:The combat system in Civ 3 sucks, but corruption is FAR worse. In Civ 2 you could have a civilization that spans the globe. Now, if you get over ten measely cities they're begging for a Forbidden palace. I like to expanp, in an Earth map, if I get a starting spot in Europe, I want cities spanning the European continent, through Russai all teh way to the Pacific and if I get away with it the Middle East and Africa. THAT is an empire.

Empires that span the entire world aren't realistic, and there has to be some limitation on them.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-14 02:07pm

Graeme Dice wrote:And here we have another civ 2 fanatic that doesn't realize that technological superiority doesn't mean an automatic win.

On the level of Civ III, it does. This is not a tactical combat simulation, it is grand strategy, and your laughable, downright ludicrous "they caught tank crews sleepin" doesn't change that.

The random odds do not, and cannot lie. You are seeing a pattern that does not exist.

The 'odds' shouldn't exist. It shouldn't be random at all. If your enemy is incompetent enough to still field spearmen when you have combined arms, they DIE. Period.

It happened to the Germans.

No, it didn't.

Civ 2 is a piece of crap compared to civ 3.

No mention of the ludicrous corruption system eh? Concession Accepted. Civ 2 owns it. You are the 1% who thinks otherwise

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2003-04-14 02:08pm

Graeme Dice wrote:
Ghost Rider wrote:Yeah but the way they play...you have a battalion of tanks vs a thousand guysa with muskets at 1000 m.
I'm still asking where it lists the number of troops in a single unit.

So someone who DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE TECH TO BUILD LANDMINES or hell barely explosives...is beating my Tanks how again?

It's just using raw numbers and probability and in the end...that can work against me even though reality/or even wild fantasy I should be mowing down that ass-backwards empire into the dust...and no not one Tank company...I've made literally double numbers and a variety of cities HELD.

I've dealt with Civs that are in the Middle Ages...have inferior numbers, and HELD AGAINST MY TIGERS?!

Fuck that...numbers don't mean shit when they have things they can't hurt me unless my tank jockeys are sticking their head's out the canopy.

And Stravo brings up another great point...corruption is so goddamn rampant ...20 cities and hell why do I have them? They have half or more of their resources in the red...under any government and heck every corruption related items trying to work against it.