05-11-2001 11:49									#1
	Still Frustrated Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Okay, I'll try again, and I'll try to be more constructive. First off, Civ III IS worth the trouble, and a lot better than most of the other dreck out there. But I still question some of the design decisions made.

- Corruption. There should be more ways to control it. Tax collectors, roads, police stations, and military police should all have some kind of influence. How about this- as you expand, using these measures to control corruption gets tougher and tougher until your empire is so large, it's not cost effective anymore. Sort of like Imperial Rome. It is unrealistically high, even with better gov types. This is not a challenge, it is a flaw. How about, for example, massive corruption in a captured city that eventually diminishes as things settle down. As far as I can see, this is only there to control ICS. There's no logical, satisfying "in game" reason to set it this high. There's got to be a better way to control ICS.

-Culture. Maybe I'm off on this one, but I have a hard time telling what my specific risk of city defection is. Sure, you can tell in a general sense, but I'd like to see some kind of civil disorder or complaint before they jump ship. And units in the city should have a chance to fight or evacuate, instead of just vanishing. Enemy civs plant cities in untenable locations, and all you have to do is build cultural improvements and wait. Inevitably, cultural influence will give it to you. That's silly.

- Trade. It would be great if the AI were as aggressive about trade as it is about expansion.How about a diplomatic option asking a civ to build roads, harbors, or airports. It's a bit silly sending "commando workers" into enemy territory to connect to his capital, or hook him up to resources just so I can trade for them. And personally, I wouldn't cry if strategic resources were a little less "strategic"- in other words, how about spreading them around a little more freely when they show up? Maybe put "abundance of resources" in the game setup menu as an option.

-Technology. Most people agree, the tech tree in SMAC was a bit much. IMHO, they've overcompensated with this one. Personally, I thought the Civ II tree was about right. It had plenty of complexity and choices, but wasn't intimidating once you got used to it. In Civ III, my research is almost on autopilot. As often as not, it really doesn't matter which direction I take. And for no reason I can figure, research is a painful crawl in the ancient era, and it hums along in industrial times. This is more historically accurate, but somehow, for Civ, it just doesn't feel right. I'd like more options to control my research.

-Combat. The animations are fun, the units look good, and I personally like the hit point system for conscripts through elite units. But it wouldn't be a tragedy to bring back firepower, or something to make it tougher for older units to compete with modern ones. As it is, the combat system yields silly results too often.

Anyone agree/disagree? (I've got my asbestos long johns on, so save your flamethrower fuel.)

	05-11-2001 12:25									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ok... Most of that sounds reasonable. I'll add my two cents in each area.

Corruption: I don't have too much trouble until I passed the 25 city mark or so. Then it just gets a little nuts. And while I understand the problem of ICS, I don't think I've ever conquered the world in any of the other civ games with that few cities. I don't use ICS, but the simple fact is if you have five continents with five cities each you've hit your limit. And the AI builds a LOT more than five cities... all of which have to be captured. Do I have to destroy all of his cities just to play?

Culture: yeah, a better guide when a city will defect (both mine and opponent) would be a nice feature.

Trade: nice ideas, but not the top things to fix this time

Tech: I actually likes the SMAC tyree, so this is a big downer for me. It goes slower though, so at least you can't zip through the tree too quick.

Combat: Ok... here's one of my gripes. When my tanks roll down on pikeman... there should be very, very little chance my tank would be damaged... let alone DIE! I mean... where do you stick the pike for the tank to blow up? Or do you just starve the tank crews out? Come on here! Seriously... a little of the firepower rules from before would be appreciated.

	05-11-2001 12:46									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combat: Ok... here's one of my gripes. When my tanks roll down on pikeman... there should be very, very little chance my tank would be damaged... let alone DIE! I mean... where do you stick the pike for the tank to blow up? Or do you just starve the tank crews out? Come on here! Seriously... a little of the firepower rules from before would be appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do people think Tanks are invulnerable? Because it's a big hunk of metal? Speaking from experience Tanks are not anti-personnal weapon systems. Sure they usually have a coaxial machine gun on the turret for troops, but the main gun is all but useless against something small and mobile. And unless they are dug in, they're not that good on the defensive.

Tanks have very limited visibility (especially for the driver) so tracking troops is hard. If a track busts (not rare at all) it's not going anywhere.

Tanks are really only good on flat open terrain. And their main function is to destroy other armor.

	05-11-2001 13:01									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

But a pikeman?

In all seriousness more damage would be done to the tank simply through travel wear and tear than a bronze or iron pike would do.

	05-11-2001 13:05									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Maybe the pikemen are getting stuck in the tracks after the tanks rolls them over.

	05-11-2001 13:08									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

Sure, tanks aren't invulnerable. I'm okay with the occasional unit getting lucky. But even with WWII tech, a tank on the field is a MAJOR threat to infantry. That's why Panzerfausts and Bazookas had to be developed so fast. The Zulus stomping a 19th century British army is one thing. But those same Zulus taking out a bunch of Panzers? Don't make me laugh.

	05-11-2001 13:09									#7
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Auslander Tanks have very limited visibility (especially for the driver) so tracking troops is hard. If a track busts (not rare at all) it's not going anywhere. Tanks are really only good on flat open terrain. And their main function is to destroy other armor.

Good sir, you are truly an outlander, you belong to the Combat Mission forum. Combat Mission is an excellent wargame set in WWII where limited visibilty available to tankers is a factor. Or, going by the discussions in that forum, the tripod availability of light machine guns available to the British.

But, this is NOT a wargame. This a strategy game that spans 5000 years of history and surely, you'll agree that a tank army (which DO include, by the way, lots of infantry in the scale of the game) would defeat a pikemen army from 1000 years ago!

	05-11-2001 13:26									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you'll agree that a tank army (which DO include, by the way, lots of infantry in the scale of the game)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's mechanized infantry. An actual tank has no where to put infantry-i.e. the Abrams. Which is why they are supported by mechanized infantry-i.e. the Bradley-that has a place for infantry to ride along.

As goofy as it seems I think a tank losing to a lesser opponent simply accounts for mechanical failure rate. (Which I think should be lessened with the advent of modern armour.)

Guns jam, tracks break, ammo is delpleted-and no this isn't a combat simulation, but the game works with percentages.

If better technologies always wins then what happened to the US in Vietnam and Russia in Afghanistan?

Maybe losing to Pikemen is a stretch but how often has this happened to you?

	05-11-2001 13:38									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Herr Auslander: the tanks you produce in the game are represantative of divisions at the least. Now, even when a division is an Armor division, it includes a lot mech. and other supporting infantry, am I wrong?

	05-11-2001 13:51									#10
	Tired of ads?

I never imagined the units represent divisions. Which are huge. They would include everything from scouts, to air defense, to cook. If that were the case I think the US only had 4 armour divisions at one time. And I think there are two armour divisions right now.

I imagined the units represents battalions at most. A battery (or company) has about 10 tanks. The most I have ever seen in a battalion is 5 companies (1 of which is headquarters.) I always imagined a tank unit to represent around 40 vehicles, supported by HMMWV's for logistics and scouting.

What can I say? I'm a wargamer at heart.

	05-11-2001 14:31									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I was thinking more along the lines of WWII, where Germany had 10 to start with. If I am not mistaken, they organized Tank armies. And Russianks went with multiple Tank corps.

	05-11-2001 14:39									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The one thing I hated about Civ2 (besides the AI) was the fact that I knew who was gonna win before each battle started... Now I don't know my butt from a hole in the ground.



I like the uncertainty, it makes regent level much more difficult than I anticipated...

So far I'm 0 for 2.

The Egyptians will die...