 |
| |
|
|
mintaka_au
|
|
Hi
I don't want this to be too much of a rant, and I am wrong, someone please tell me (politly!), but...
Stealth Bombers can't sink ships. The ships get down to thier last health point, then when I get the next bomber ready to deliver the coup de gra the game refuses to let me bomb it. I have to send a Battleship or Destroyer to finish it off. As anyone who has studied the Pacific in WW2 will atest, planes CAN sink ships. Note to Faraxis, planes CAN SINK ships. Coral Sea, Pearl Harbour, Midway are just some of the examples of sea battles when the main fleets never saw each other. The damage and SINKING (sorry, but I expected better) of ships was done by carrier aircraft.
I can understand why a bomber can't totally destroy a land unit, as it rarely happens. But, aircraft CAN and DO sink ships! Fraxis please fix ASAP!!!
Other than that:
-The AI is much harder - Good
-Resources - Dissapointing. I was looking forward to the feature, but it is such a game breaker (who ever fought a war aver something as common as Aluminium!?!?)
-Interface - very minimal and I feel it will be good when I get used to it, but there should be a File Edit windows type drop down menu bar for beginers.
-Auto workers - dumb as ever, so back to managing them manually - painful in big games.
- No units linked to cities -Yes - The whole empire sopports the units - as in reality.
- No Celts!!! - Boo Hoo (guess I will just have to use the editor!)
- Map Editor - Can't understand all the grumbling about it on the boards - seems good to me.
I may put in a further 2 cents later if anyone is interested.
Thank you for letting me go on.
Damien
"Swark, flip flip, Honk, HOnk!" - Swark - Conversations with Penguins.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mintaka_au
|
|
Godspawn
Sorry to bug everyone, I didn't relise how extensivly it had been talked about. I just got mad, Iwanted this game to be so good. It has spoiled a very large part of the sort of thing I expect from a Civ type game. Overall, Civ3 seems a step back from SMAC and (God forbid I even say it!) CTP II.
Damien
"Thy breath in vain!" - Sheakspear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Johnny_Was
|
|
Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
*bump*
Fabulous Thread!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kmj
|
|
The purpose of leaving it like that for ships, according to Soren I believe, was that they felt in order to achieve naval dominance, a player should at least have some kind of navy. Hence, you should make some ships to go out and clean up the messes your bombers leave behind.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mintaka_au
|
|
ello all...
Have read the many many comments on this subject now it seems clear to me that Farxis just made the wrong choice. The advent of the carrier in modern naval warfare completely changed the way navy's and nations approached sea warfare and defense. That is just a fact.
I accept the fact that in Civ 2 carriers and bombers could be abused, but that was more down to the AI being unable to use them effectively. So what to do? Well, the air units as handled in Civ 3 is a better idea. They are no longer superfast ground units that hang around for a year. And reducing the number of aircraft per carrier is also a good idea.
Maybe what's needed is a Carrier Strike aircraft. A unit all on it's own. Can only operate from Carriers or sea cities and can only completely destroy sea units, not land units. These would better reflect the situation for many island and small costal nations (such as my home, Australia and nations like Japan etc.) It works like a Jet or Stealth fighter in all other respects.
Can't afford carrier's? Fine. Your destroyers should gain a level of anti-air defence when you get the missile tech. Same with your battle ships. AGEIS cruisers can be added to your fleet for the late game. This would reflect nicely the development of naval weapons over the last 100 years without making things overly complex.
Some other things I've noticed being talked about;
- Sub V any wooden hulled ship - should be walk over for sub, no question about it.
- Sub V unescorted transport - See above. (I think this has already been suggested.)
(As you can guess, I like modern battles rather that ancient. I tend not to battle the AI until I have tanks, bombers etc. I do like the AI to have the same weapons though. My tanks V AI spearman isn't that exciting. (Or shouldn't be, but thats already been discussed to death.))
On a slightly different note, I was shocked to find that my mechanised units couldn't use the AI railways. "WHAT THE ****! How dare they, I mean it's it's ..." That was my initial reaction. However, on reflection (and a good nights sleep :-P) this is a good improvement. Makes sense as the rolling stock would be destroyed, workers missing, signals out etc. However, it seems as if you can't use the AI's roads either. Can somone confirm that? Would be very silly if that's the case.
For those how say "The games not supposed to be realistic, etc" I disagree. One of Civ's big attractions is that you can recreate history. (It was the only thing SMAC lacked) Therefore I expect things to work similar repeat similar to history. It dosen't have to be 100% true to history, but that should be the aim so long as it's fun too. So while I don't expect to redo Midway or Coral Sea or Leyte Gulf in every detail, not being able to sink ships with bombers is NOT fun.
Again, I thank one and all for indulging me.
Damien
"Ford, you turning into a Penguin. Stop it at once!" - Arther Dent, Hitchhickers Guide to the Galaxy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mintaka_au
On a slightly different note, I was shocked to find that my mechanised units couldn't use the AI railways. "WHAT THE ****! How dare they, I mean it's it's ..." That was my initial reaction. However, on reflection (and a good nights sleep :-P) this is a good improvement. Makes sense as the rolling stock would be destroyed, workers missing, signals out etc. However, it seems as if you can't use the AI's roads either. Can somone confirm that? Would be very silly if that's the case. |
My exact sentiments - rail gauges are often different in different nations. And I can take out a railway with a crowbar and about 5 minutes. But the roads...ugh.
quote:
For those how say "The games not supposed to be realistic, etc" I disagree. One of Civ's big attractions is that you can recreate history. (It was the only thing SMAC lacked) Therefore I expect things to work similar repeat similar to history. It dosen't have to be 100% true to history, but that should be the aim so long as it's fun too. So while I don't expect to redo Midway or Coral Sea or Leyte Gulf in every detail, not being able to sink ships with bombers is NOT fun. |
Preaching to the choir baby...
Venger
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mintaka_au
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Altuar
Ok, I dont like being a ***** but - OH MY GOD, my good man, please check your spelling. |
Opps! I wrote that at 2 am in the morning after playing all night. Thates mi xcuse an' Im sticcin' too itt, maate!
Damien
PS. I havn't been able to get Precision Bombing working either dispite following PGM's suggestion.
Man 1 "Will your dog bite me?"
Man 2 "No."
Dog bites Man 1 "CHOMP!"
Man 1 "Youch! I thought you said your dog wouldn't bite me?"
Man 2 "It's not my dog."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kruton
|
|
Total agreement on the original point. In fact, I'm going to call bullsh!t on the arguement that it was a "game balance" decision to not let bombers sink ships. I think they ran out of time and just cut and pasted the code for artillery bombardment for bombers.
That is why bombers always move during the beginning / bombardment phase of the turn (at least in my games). That is also why the air superiority doesn't work. I think they knowingly had to cut this corner in order to get the game done in time, and the "game balance" comment was just to save face.
Hey Firaxis, if you want naval superiority to require more ships, let the ships damage the bombers. I'm fine with that. But as it is, one of the most important and *FUN* concepts of the game is largely neutered.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mintaka_au
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by kruton
I think they ran out of time and just cut and pasted the code for artillery bombardment for bombers.
I think they knowingly had to cut this corner in order to get the game done in time, and the "game balance" comment was just to save face. |
Unfortunatly, I think your right.
quote:
Hey Firaxis, if you want naval superiority to require more ships, let the ships damage the bombers. I'm fine with that. But as it is, one of the most important and *FUN* concepts of the game is largely neutered. |
Couldn't agree more.
Damien.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
codemast01
|
|
I like all the changes made to aircrafts, except for that stupid bombardment cannot kill units rule. In fact, it is totally ridiculous that a cruise missile can kill units when any other bombardment cannot. All bombardment should be able to kill. Prehaps artillery can have a lower kill rate than bombers to keep the game balanced. Aside from that I like the redesign of the air units. However, these units should be able to takeoff from one location and land at another location. (ex. bomber takesoff from a carrier, strike its target, and lands in a nearby friendly city) This would slightly extend the range of air units and also add some realism to Civ3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:16
|
|
Maybe what's needed is a Carrier Strike aircraft. A unit all on it's own. Can only operate from Carriers or sea cities and can only completely destroy sea units, not land units. These would better reflect the situation for many island and small costal nations (such as my home, Australia and nations like Japan etc.) It works like a Jet or Stealth fighter in all other respects.
Good idea, but it would insult the "realism" that so many people seem to want. Most carrier/naval attack aircraft are perfectly capable of attacking land targets.
On a slightly different note, I was shocked to find that my mechanised units couldn't use the AI railways. "WHAT THE ****! How dare they, I mean it's it's ..." That was my initial reaction. However, on reflection (and a good nights sleep :-P) this is a good improvement. Makes sense as the rolling stock would be destroyed, workers missing, signals out etc. However, it seems as if you can't use the AI's roads either. Can somone confirm that? Would be very silly if that's the case.
Not so silly (again with the realism!). I have to check on this, but I'm pretty sure that your movement is reduced while inside enemy borders. Think of it as roadblocks, ambushes, etc. You can't go crusing along in column formation when you are expecting to make contact with the enemy, unless you want to die.
For those how say "The games not supposed to be realistic, etc" I disagree. One of Civ's big attractions is that you can recreate history. (It was the only thing SMAC lacked) Therefore I expect things to work similar repeat similar to history. It dosen't have to be 100% true to history, but that should be the aim so long as it's fun too. So while I don't expect to redo Midway or Coral Sea or Leyte Gulf in every detail, not being able to sink ships with bombers is NOT fun.
I agree that airpower should be able to sink ships, but for simplicity sake I would be happy with it the way it is. If you change this, there would be others who would argue that a bomber should be able to destroy ground troops. I don't think that a bomb strike has ever destroyed every man in a unit, but a concentrated strike can reduce a unit's combat effectiveness to zero, rendering it ineffective for a period of time. Both sides have a point, so why not keep it the way it is?
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-11-2001 16:35
|