 |
| |
|
|
Sn00py
|
 |
From New Zealand
Aug 2001
time: 13:15
|
|
Played 3 games so far.
Sorry if this has been said before but;
The 1st game I played, A LOT of my stronger men were losing to weak men, I just hmpfed and moved on.
However on my 3rd game, I am playing as English, I have the most powerful units (knights, musketmen,etc) in the game, and yet 1 out of 5 will actually win against their not-so-powerful units (warriors, swordsmen). They are not on mountains, infact, more often than not, I am the one on the mountain and attacking! AND LOSING! EVERY TIME!!
I might aswell invent nothing and just build frickin' warrior's to win wars!!!!!
wtf were they thinking at firaxis? what a load of bull****
I'm sickovit, someone release a patch PLEASE so I can actually play a decent game for once.
It gets so bad, that I just say screw this and stop the game half way, coz I seem to get no where with any of my unit's. It's just completely screwed.
Oh and btw, they kept rambling on about their new battle system, where the heck is it?
bastards
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
my battles have been going fine...
if you want to killl units outside youre city, get fast units, you can always move back inside the city after theyre done.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Stuie
|
 |
Have a beer!
Sep 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dainbramaged13
my battles have been going fine...
if you want to killl units outside youre city, get fast units, you can always move back inside the city after theyre done. |
Mine too. In my current game, I had a huge war in the Middle Ages and the Modern Age has pretty much been non-stop warfare. I can only think of two times in my entire game that combat results were somewhat ridiculous, and I chalk them up to the fortunes of war.
That said, combat definitely favors the defeneder. Being on a mountain isn't the only thing that increases defense value - units also gain advantage from being behind a river, being on hills, in forest, etc. etc. Also, the attack values of early units (up until you get cavalry) are relatively flat, so the swordsman retains its value well into the industrial era.
I've learned to appreciate the liberal use of artillery (catapults/cannon/etc.) to soften up enemy targets prior to obliterating them. Don't scoff at the artillery!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mbarloewen
|
|
Los Angeles, CA
Nov 2001
time: 21:15
|
|
In my experience (A weekend of non stop addicive play) I think the combat system is great. I think a VERY important factor that doesn't get mentioned much when people are whineing about the system is whether or not your units are regular/veteran/elite. I find my regular units are always struggleing in battles I think they should win while veteran units do well. I always lead off my large offensives with my Elite units as they tend to get the upper hand.
Mike
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mister Hand
|
|
I agree with mbarloewen. I've found that that playing a Militaristic civiliazation really pays off when it comes to combat. An Elite unit will have a nice advantage over a regular one that's only a step or two more advanced. There are a lot of factors involved in every combat and if you think that just having the more advanced unit is enough to guarantee victory most of the time, you will find yourself on the losing end of the war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Valant
|
|
In Civ3 there are many changes to the combat system compared to Civ2. For instance...
1) Removal of firepower value of units
During turns of battle, the losing side of the turn only losses 1 hp.
2) Removal of HP of unit depending on the units technology
Now units have 2-5 max HP depending on their skill level conscript, standard, vetran, elite. Furthermore the units skill level does not change their attack/defense power.
3) Removal of ALL attack bonus percentages
Zero, zip, zilch
4) Addition of MORE defensive bonus percentages
The people at Firaxis did the following to balance these changes:
1) Increased the attack power or more modern unts to compensate for them becoming weaker by removing firepower and extended HP
The problem with this approach is that Firaxis removed more power than they put back in....making more powerful/modern units less significantly powerful in Civ3.
Extra info:
Do you know how many possible bonuses that defenders can get?
1) Terrain the defending unit is on (even if the unit is in a city...the terrain under the city is used in the calculations) resulting in a defensive bonus of 10-100% always being applied
2) Is the defending unit fortified, 0% if no 25% if yes
3) Is the defending unit in a fortress, 0% if no 50% if yes
4) Is the attacking unit crossing a river to attack the defending unit, if no 0% if yes 25%
5) City defense
Pop under 7, no city walls, civ has great wall = 0%
Pop under 7, no city walls, civ does not have great wall = 0%
Pop under 7, city wall, civ has great wall = 100%
Pop under 7, city wall, civ does not have great wall = 50%
Pop 7-12, reguardless of city walls or great wall = 50%
Pop 12+, reguardless of city walls or great wall = 100%
So best case scenario your attacking an unfortified unit thats out in the open on grassland/plains/desert, the defending unit will get a +10% defensive bonus applied to its defensive power. So for example that spearman who has a base defensive power of 2, now becomes 2.2
In the worst case scenario your attacking a fortified unit stationed in a city that has a population of under 7, but has the great wall wonder and city walls. The city was also built on top of a mountain and the attacking unit has to cross a river to attack the city. The defending unit will get a +250% bonus to its defense power rating. So for example that spearman who has a base defensive power of 2, now becomes 7.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Frugal_Gourmet
|
|
New York City, NY, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:15
|
|
So far, the units seem perfectly balanced to me.
(with the exception of those irritating invulnerable bombers).
However, if you are losing unrealistically, maybe you have the level set to higher than Prince? Just like in previous Civ's, the computer gets better combat odds at levels above Prince.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote:
Firaxis removed more power than they put back in....making more powerful/modern units less significantly powerful in Civ3. |
Exactly. The battle system really NEEDS to be fixed. The defenders have too big of an advantage.
quote:
Has anyone used a nuke yet in civ3? |
Someone said they dropped one on a group of knights... ground zero... and not 1 knight even died. It still gets all the other civs mad at you tho. I haven't heard anyone say it's any good. Hopefully they will fix this in the patch.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
I think some misinterpreted what I wrote...
quote:
Though the system could use some fine tuning by reintroducing Firepower. |
That's all I'm asking for... something to slightly balance things. The pendulum swung from favoring the attacker FAR TOO MUCH to favoring the defender FAR TOO MUCH. See Valant's post above.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Regault
|
|
I have to agree with the sn00pster. I'll be attacking a small town on plains with a swarm of my best attackers of the time and not do any damage to the single spearman guarding it.
It actually gets worse, since the spearman will automatically heal at the end of the turn due to the barracks. He will likely go up levels.
And yet, the computer is perfectly able to steamroller the musketman defending a city of mine with archers.
Both my brothers have had the same experience in their games.
A combat bonus to the AI might not have been intentional, but it's there as a bug nonetheless.
And they really need to tweak the artillery. Having to deploy stacks of six to do one hp of damage to the defender is ridiculous.
This game really needs a way to combine forces without needing armies.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yohan
|
|
Jackson, MS
Apr 1999
time: 05:15
|
|
Ok, combat is definitely tougher probably because, as mentioned earlier, unit stats are so similar in the earlier ages, and defenders get so many potential bonuses which makes attacking a big risk. War should be entered into carefully with a definite plan of attack. None of this "oh I think I'll attack here, or maybe here" stuff. You have to apply overwhelming force and be decisive and selective about your targets. I like it.
On the other hand, there has GOT to be something that Firaxis can do about the warrior vs. tank syndrome. This has been a problem since the original Civ and is still rampant in Civ3. I've had battleships attacking ironclads and losing. WTF?!?! Maybe if I saw it once, ever, that would be reasonable. Flukes do happen after all. But 3 times??? Yes, I've seen this happen 3 times.
I don't understand what the big deal was with firepower and why it was removed. I think it did a reasonably good job of fixing the warrior vs. tank problem, although it didn't eliminate it. Flukes should still be allowed to happen, though not as often as they do now. I would say put firepower back in, but that's such a huge change in the combat system that there's no way Firaxis would even consider making such a major alteration to the game dynamics. Oh well. Maybe pumping up the attack/defense ratings of the modern units would help?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-11-2001 18:13
. Of course you have to move your unit out of the city to attack the enemy. Haven't you heard of something known as a seige 
|