 |
| |
|
|
jbird
|
|
"Are you playing a different version of Civ3 than me? Because all combat happens one unit at a time. There is no giant battle where 40 units have at it, there are 40 battles."
First, I don't understand your vehemence. Making accusations of not having played previous games in the series won't make me convert to your school of thought more easily, but perhaps you're more interested in the arguement than the subject, and that's fine by me.
As for it being 40 battles, yes, of course it is. However, if it's my 2 tanks and one infantry against his 4 knights, and I lose a tank, I just lost 33% of my force, and 50% of my offensive units. However, if it's my 20 tanks and 10 infantry, and he's got 40 knights, and I lose even 3 tanks, that's only 10% of my force, and 15% of my offensive punch.
My point is that when the number of combatants is smaller, and an unlikely result occurs, it is much more jarring than it is when there are large formational battles.
"What kind of nonsense is that? I swear you guys actually haven't played another other game in the Civ series - a technology allows you to field new more powerful units. This in turn gives you an advantage in combat. Discovering mobile warfare doesn't "determine" the combat in any game..."
Mobile warfare *does* give you an edge in Civ3. I'd much rather have a force of cavalry than a force of knights. I'd much rather have a force of mechanized infantry rather than riflemen. However, the advantage in civ 3 is an edge, not a determination. My units, no matter how advanced, will not be invincible in combat.
You hate this.
I don't mind it.
If I want my units to be able to roll over other units, i'll play a real wargame (heck, I still play Panzer General, the original one, just to watch my FW-190's mop the floor with those pesky Spitfires, and just scorch those Yak's).
Now, I'm not entirely opposed to a compromise position, where the industrial age units get a bit of a boost over their ancient counterparts.
One statement though, saying that "A bowmen unit should not beat cavalry 50 percent of the time, PERIOD" is not entirely an honest assessment. A cav unit defending against bowmen without terrain modifiers or support and of equal experience will lose a bit more than 50% of the time. Why leave your cav unit exposed? Why not support him with cannon? Why not garrison the city with an infantry-type unit instead of cavalry? Why rush in to take an objective that unit type can't hold? Personally, I use my cav as my breakthrough unit, and to secure important terrain, as well as to counter-attack quickly. Leaving them unsupported or in small numbers in isolated positions is just asking for them to be massacred, imo.
Jbird
|
|
| |
|
|
|
davwhitt
|
|
Raleigh, NC
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dexters
Looking at the last few pages of posts, it looks like we have forgotten the point of the thread.
the thread has lost its point anyways. If you hate the combat system, go home. Stop whining. |
What's the point in having a forum if everyone is going to agree with one another? Our point isn't to just b!tch and moan for no reason but rather to raise valid points about a broken system which we hope will be fixed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
davwhitt
|
|
Raleigh, NC
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dexters
I can tell you the point of forums isn't for people to close their minds and log on to make whining noises then get angry when people disagree.
|
I have an open mind to ideas but not so open that my brain falls out. Most of my posts have been about the fact that in Civ3 it is far more common for ancient units to defeat more modern units than the historical record indicates. I am open to the opinion that in some rare cases a musketman may defeat a rifleman but I'm not gullible enough to believe it should happen 50% of the time.
quote:
When you want to present a dissenting opinion, expect other people to answer back. And for all involved, an open mind to discussion doesn't hurt either.
|
Funny how you say that and then get into a diatribe about those who disagree with you. Who is closed minded again?
quote:
All I see are people, especially the people complaining about the so called "broken" combat system getting angrier and angrier with each post. Heck, half of the last page's post was made by one person, saying some very unflaterring things about people who disagreed.
|
Pot Kettle Black
quote:
I would say people who come here just to argue and refuse to discuss openly are worse than having a forum where everyone agrees. At least you have some peace and quiet with that. |
One of the primary uses for a forum is for those with different views to debate them (you use the term "argue"). I do not know what you mean exactly when you want open discussion unless you mean you simply want concurrent. Perhaps you and I should agree to disagree and leave it at that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
|
|
 15-11-2001 09:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#215
|  |
|
If GP dropped dead in a forest, would he still make a post?
|
Tired of ads?
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
Venger,
if you're going to make the argument that the game is being unfair* in favor of ancient units, even according to the stated combat system, you'll have to back this up with statistics. The burden of proof is on you. |
I HAVE shown you. It doesn't require anything more than looking at the combat values and at the units themselves. A 4 attack bowmen can regularly defeat, in fact often more than 50% of the time, a defense 3 cavalry unit. This, as the french say, is LE BULL$HIT.
The problem isn't that a 4 attack unit should defear a 3 defense unit more often than not. The problem is a new expensive unit costing untold amounts of research and two resources representing a modern era cavalry unit is defeated by a cheap ancient unit that requires no resources and hardly any technology. This doesn't balance gameplay, it unbalances it...
quote:
*This is a very childish view and lots of the pro-FP people don't hold it. But it is evidence of the wimpiness of the combat loser whiners. |
Your story is becoming tiresome. Do you just post to have something to do, or is your life support system powered by your keyboard? Because all you've added to this thread is your "whiners" line, over and over and over.
Go to the store, take out your wallet, and buy a clue.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orc4hire
Sorry, cyclotron, you're wrong right down the line.
The internal combustion engine is just another way of moving a vehicle. Taken your car for a good push lately? |
Owned. Argument over.
Venger
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
Guess what, if you can prove this, I'll give you full credit. What were the conditions? How often did you test it. (Need both control of extraneous variables and statistical relevance.) |
Hold up four fingers on one hand. That's the longbowmen. Hold up three fingers on the other hand. That's the cavalry. Which hand has more fingers up? That's the one that will win more often.
Jesus, are you that daft that you don't get simple math?
Venger
P.S. According to the combat rules a veteran 4 unit attacking a veteran 3 unit without modifiers will win 66% of the time!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Monoriu
|
|
"Hold up four fingers on one hand. That's the longbowmen. Hold up three fingers on the other hand. That's the cavalry. Which hand has more fingers up? That's the one that will win more often.
Jesus, are you that daft that you don't get simple math?
Venger
P.S. According to the combat rules a veteran 4 unit attacking a veteran 3 unit without modifiers will win 66% of the time!"
That's not a valid comparison and you know it Venger. All you are talking about is longbowmen attacking a cavalry, what about the other abilities of the cavalry unit?
-The cavalry unit, when attacking the longbowmen, has a much higher chance to kill it (6:1) than the other way round (4:3).
-The cavalry unit can attack the longbowmen, then withdraw to a friendly city after winning. The longbowmen, however, will advance and be exposed in the next turn.
-The cavalry has a chance to withdraw if its is losing the battle. Can the longbowman do that?
There, those are the benefits due to technology.
Besides, is cavalry vs longbowmen a valid comparison in the first place? A cavalry unit is never intended to defend itself against longbowmen, anybody who do that is a bad commander. In my games, I always defend with infantry (6-10-1). How often can a longbowmen 4-1-1 kill my 6-10-1 fortified on good terrain? There, that's the benefit of technology.
Who says technology doesn't make a difference? Technology gives you an edge, if you know how to use it. If you insist to drive your Ferrari through rugged mountains it won't do you any good, but that's not the fault of the Ferrari. If you insist to use cavalry as city defenders and then complain, that's not the fault of the cavalry, its the user's fault.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jbird
|
|
Well, now that the discussion has devolved into masking profanity and using "Jesus" as an epithet, I don't think it has any chance of being a mature discussion.
Jbird
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aendolin
|
|
*pokes head above counter*
I think the point Venger is trying to make is that given a normal archer and a normal cavalry on normal terrain, it is not realistic for the archer to be able to out-fight the cavalry when the archer attacks it. Correct me if I'm wrong...
*ducks back behind counter*
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7
Yeah, like that extra "zing" packed by the transport or engineer that was left in the city. 
Really, Civ2 judged defense order by defense values, so hp/fp was not used (i think) to judge who defended first. So it's possible that your lowest D unit has a high hp and that would be a tough final defender, but there was no actual feature in the game that stipulated that the last defender had to be better than its predecessors, or that made the last defender stronger on simple cirtue of being last. |
Come on I'm not talking about units like that. Pffff. Must I spell out the entire situation?
Example: City holds 3 vet. riflemen, nothing else. 4 tanks attacking, killing the first two riflemen... THEN the last rifleman always seemed to hold it's ground a bit better than the two others... because it was the last defending unit.
I am fully aware that there was no line in rules.txt saying so, but it is my strong experience that the hardcoded combat system in Civ2 did in fact have this small bias.
That's all I wanted to say... and it still happens in Civ3, where the last pikeman fends off 3 knight whereas the previous pikeman was killed by a single knight.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GP
Grim Legacy, you seem like a whimpy whiner. Civ2 was easy!! And the comp did not cheat on combat. If the others are like you, that is useful info to judge their arguments. |
GP. Thanks for the ad hominem attack.
I don't think Civ2 nor Civ3 is hard. I've never even played Civ2 below Deity level and I haven't had much problems winning, even long before the advent of gunpowder. As for cheating on combat in Civ2: on Deity, combat odds were definitely stacked against you. Not that that helped the 'AI' much.
I also don't think it is an outrage that the last pikeman packs an extra punch, or that the older units seem to be more effective than the newer... it's just a feature of the game, and in fact I can live with it quite well. There are even rationalizations at hand (see this thread) as to why these things (seem to) happen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Can you provide any documentary evidence about this? Anywhere? An Apolyton thread? Civ2 has been pretty rehashed so it should appear somehwere other than this thread. Can you provide some proof? Cause I've played the game literally a hundred times, on Deity, large maps with 8 Civs, all bloodlust, and have never, EVER noticed a problem killing the last member of a stack.
Venger |
Not a stack, a city defender. See my post above. I guess it's my experience and word against yours if you still disagree with the situation I described in that post.
I must add that I find it very odd that I'm met with such hostility on the mention of this AI bias (not particularly your reply, but see how others reacted). It's almost as if it's heresy...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BlueO
|
|
I think the combat system works just fine.
Look at the American indians, they don't have the technology to make guns. Yet they managed to acquire guns.
The afgan fighters don't have the technology to make heavy machinguns or stinger missles, but they got them too.
When a swordsman defeats a tank, don't think the swordsman just ran up to the tank and chopped it to pieces. They probably have a few bazookas or mines in their swordsman unit... Its the combat values that should matter. A swordsmen unit of a modern time won't just be consisted of swords.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ranulf
|
|
Oregon
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Transcend
Zulus with only spears and arrows wiped out an British Army of several thousands at Isandlwhana in 1879.
Afghan Tribesman destroyed an British force of 12000 in 1842.
Ethiopian warriors armed with primitive rifles destroyed an Italian Tank Division in 1934.
A Morrocan insurrection of few thousands tribesmen destroyed a Spanish Army of at least 30,000 men, killing as many as 19,000.
|
Grr. Finally got my registration to work. So, now I can reply to this. Of course it prolly has no bearing on the latest posts..
Which Morrocan insurrection are you citing here? The Rif War? IIRC, (I did a slipshod term paper on this a year or two ago =) the Moroccan resistance to Spain and France's colonization in the 1920s was due to several factors. One, they had modern weapons, rifles (bought from Spain and France itself) and stolen arty etc.. The terrain was to their advantage (guerrila warfare) and Spain's army was totally and I mean totally inept. Their was widespread CORRUPTION in Spain's officer core and their army was not trained in how to use their WW1 type weapons. Still, in the end due to massive troop amounts and airpower France and Spain were able to defeat the Moroccans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
davwhitt
|
|
Raleigh, NC
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BlueO
I think the combat system works just fine.
Look at the American indians, they don't have the technology to make guns. Yet they managed to acquire guns.
The afgan fighters don't have the technology to make heavy machinguns or stinger missles, but they got them too.
When a swordsman defeats a tank, don't think the swordsman just ran up to the tank and chopped it to pieces. They probably have a few bazookas or mines in their swordsman unit... Its the combat values that should matter. A swordsmen unit of a modern time won't just be consisted of swords. |
Your analogies are flawed. The American Indians aquired guns through trade and theft, neither option are available in Civ3 unless you count the capture of artillery. The Afghans got their stinger missiles and machine guns from the United States - again no such concept in Civ3. You can give another Civ the technology to produce such weapons but not the actual weapons. You say when a swordsman defeats a tank you don't think he "just ran up to the tank and chipped it to pieces" yet when it happens in Civ3 that's exactly what you see him do. A swordsman uses a sword, not a bazooka, or did I miss that part in the Civ3 manual? If so, when does the low-tech civ's swordsmen aquire bazookas and can they only use them against a high-tech enemy's tanks or can they also use bazookas against another low-tech enemy's archers? Perhaps the archers should be equipped with laser-guided titanium arrows?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|