 |
| |
|
|
SieGermans
|
|
After my 10th infantry man died at the hands of a ****ing longbowman and every civilization seemingly getting advances every other turn on regent and warlord levels, I have figured that this game is impossible to play unless you are on the chieftain setting. I still don't get why the **** those morons at firaxis haven't figured out that there is no ****ing way in hell a dipshit with a bow and arrow can kill a man wearing ballistic armor and carrying a high power rifle. it's like the designers give the other computer civs attack and defense bonuses against every unit you have, no matter how much more advanced or more powerful it is unless you're playing on the chieftain setting. how the hell does a ****ing ironclad get sunk defensively by a caravel? how come my infantry gets severely injured taking out a spearman only to get equally ****ed up when defending against a longbowman? how does my tank always get destroyed by enemy infantry when making an attack, but their tanks mow through my troops like a field of grass? how the **** can a galley do ANY damage to a battleship!?!?! the whole "percentage" victory **** should not be applied to every unit (or at all for that matter, it's retarded, especially since your enemy is always favored in every setting but cheiftain). if you have an industrial age unit, it should kick the living **** out of a medieval or ancient unit and get mowed down by a modern unit as occured in real life. when indians went charging into battle with bows and arrows against men armed with rifles, they fell like flies (until they got rifles themselves and made the battle even). when spearman went charging into a wall of gun fire, they got mowed down. this is how it occurs in real life, and in history, yet the retards at firaxis have failed to recognize this. I can see if your knight gets kicked by a pikeman when trying to attack because it has an attack of 4 and the pikeman has a defense of 3. but when your infantry with a defense of 10 gets killed by a ****ing knight with an attack of 4 more than the expected victory percentage (killing 4 FORTIFIED infantrymen) that can be calculated (which is 28% in this instance) it is just plain ridiculous and makes me want to go back to Civ II. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sachmo71
|
|
de Tejas
May 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
/end of rant
If these things are happening in EVERY battle EVERY time you play, something is indeed wrong.
While some seem to agree that they want firepower back in the game, what you are sacrificing at that point is your ability to possibly catch up with some of those races who are aquiring tech every other turn. It gives everyone a fighting chance, however unrealistic.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
"I have figured that this game is impossible to play unless you are on the chieftain setting."
Would it help if I posted a screenshot of my Hall of Fame?
If you're nice, we'll help you win.
I might even tell you how to evade the cuss filter.
I don't believe you about the knight that killed four fortified infantry units, BTW.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tuberski
|
 |
ACK!!! PTHBBPPPTTT!!!!
Feb 2002
time: 23:17
|
|
This is my first post. I have been reading these posts for weeks now and it seems to me that something should be obvious to everyone, but I haven't seen anything mentioned like this. How about this for combat. If you have a tank attacking a warrior, spearman, etc.... why not simply take the difference in the age of the troops: tank=modern age, spearman= ancient, the difference could be a combat bonus for the tank, say 1 per every technological age difference. So this would be a difference of 2, every point of difference 25%. seems like it would work and also give everybody their firepower, at least somewhat.
Oh and that ancient era spearman COULD still win, just a lot, lot harder.
Oh, I am a newbie. The combat system doesn't bother me, irritate-yes, bother to the point of quitting-no.
Last edited by Tuberski on 20-02-2002 at 06:25
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Terser
|
 |
Imperialist Running Dog
Nov 2001
time: 23:17
|
|
I'd like to see Firaxis make a game based on evolution. In it, Australiopithecines would be given razors, three piece suits, houses and cars so that they can never "fall too far behind" modern Homo sapiens sapiens. It would really be the only fair solution.
I don't think people expect a "Hisotrical Sim." Some of us just aren't capable of abstracting units and combat results to the Nth degree in the way others apparently are. No, those speamen aren't militiamen armed with AK-47's and RPG's. They're spearmen, just as you find today in parts of South America, Africa, and South east Asia. Those spearmen don't conquer cities, and the ones in CivIII should not, either.
Bringing back firepower or some sort of graduated combat bonus system like Tuberski mentions is a must.
Wasn't going to reply to this thread, as this really is a tired argument. But seeing y'all pounce on this newbie got my juices flowing...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
paulmagusnet
|
|
Boulder Creek,CA,USA
Nov 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
There shouldn't be just a small chance for a spear chucker to knock out a tank, there should be NO chance. Why not give them a chance to knock out F15s, that would be balancing.
The tokens in the game don't just represent one spearman or one tank, those are armies. So there is no consideration of odd hiccup that would affect the interaction of just two individuals.
I will take a Sherman Tank vs Napoleon's whole Waterloo army any day. Even when it has shot all its ammo, it just runs around the field turning infantry squares into axel grease.
Now, take that same Sherman and match it against an M1 Abrams. There is zero chance the Sherman can hurt the M1, except possibly at point blank range up the ass. But thats not the kind of thing you count on in a mass battle.
Try those same Napoleonic troops agains one guy with an M16 on open terrain. How much of that unit do you think will survive to get within range to shoot their muskets?
There is an exception to this, and that is unsupported armor in a city. In that situation even a boy scout troop has a chance.
My objection is a basic one, doing something wrong (ignoring reality, ie lying) to achieve an end (game 'balance') is bad practice. Why give someone a chance they don't deserve? And its not necessary, civilizations and nations survive in the real world without 'balancing'.
Set the AI right and don't let IT cheat so much then you don't have the problem of trying to compete with run away AI tech advances. Then you can play with a rational strategy.
This is a strategic not a tactical game, so there are other factors more important than the fact that you have superior weapons that hold back aggressive expansion. It adds more value to the game experience if brains are used for balancing rather than lies.
Make the units rational, and let the chips lay where they fall.
etc:
The nuclear sub is severly under rated in the game, it should be a real menece and be able to attack with a chance of not being detected who did it. There should be a hidded or stealth flag for units that allows an attack of hidden origin. This could apply to land special forces units or terror units.
Tanks are faster than horses.
Monitor class boats sink in open seas.
Give the Pirate ship to the Barbarians. Every age should have a type of Barbarian typical to that age.
A special unit for each age for each culture could be interesting.
Artillary, bombs, rockets torpedos icebergs and exocets sink ships very well. I mean really, there's no place to go but down. There is no way a viking galley can find, let alone sink a 688 class sub, most Japanese fishing trawlers will agree.
Modern infanty can evade artillary fire very well, but older square formed units can not. There should be a flag for units that indicates how suseptable to artilary and what kind.
Why not adapt (and improve) the CTP type combat resolution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Minuteman
|
 |
Brooklyn, NY
Jan 2002
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paulmagusnet
There shouldn't be just a small chance for a spear chucker to knock out a tank, there should be NO chance. |
I guess that comment was for the "brothas who ain't here".
Last edited by Minuteman on 20-02-2002 at 06:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Encomium
|
|
I've posted this before and do so yet again.
What Civ III needs is a combat bonus if a military unit is of a different Age than the opponent. 25% sounds fair.
In otherwords, a longbowman attacking a cavalry unit suffers, say, a 25% decrease in combat effectiveness. Yes, I have seen a full strength longbowman destroy a full strength cavalry (with no escape route) even though the cavalry was armed with rifles.
Combat bonus, or differentials, between units of different Ages would help a lot of these problems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Terser, I was being nice. I said I'd help him win, didn't I?
This could well be a drive-by rant, so I don't really think we need to fight over it. Nice pot shot on Enco, tho, MM.
That solution would probably work, tho. Just crank up the medieval units by 25% on A and D, industrials 50%, modern 75%. No more spearmen beating much of anything but horsemen and swordsmen. Maybe we should just let Enco answer these sorts of rants instead of offering to teach people how to play with the default rules. Of course, they better play on chieftan because if the Chinese or Japanese ever make it to chivalry while they're still using spears and swords, they're a grease spot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
steelehc
|
 |
Alaska
Dec 2001
time: 20:17
|
|
quote:
There shouldn't be just a small chance for a spear chucker to knock out a tank, there should be NO chance. Why not give them a chance to knock out F15s, that would be balancing.
The tokens in the game don't just represent one spearman or one tank, those are armies. So there is no consideration of odd hiccup that would affect the interaction of just two individuals.
I will take a Sherman Tank vs Napoleon's whole Waterloo army any day. Even when it has shot all its ammo, it just runs around the field turning infantry squares into axel grease.
Now, take that same Sherman and match it against an M1 Abrams. There is zero chance the Sherman can hurt the M1, except possibly at point blank range up the ass. But thats not the kind of thing you count on in a mass battle.
Try those same Napoleonic troops agains one guy with an M16 on open terrain. How much of that unit do you think will survive to get within range to shoot their muskets?
There is an exception to this, and that is unsupported armor in a city. In that situation even a boy scout troop has a chance.
My objection is a basic one, doing something wrong (ignoring reality, ie lying) to achieve an end (game 'balance') is bad practice. Why give someone a chance they don't deserve? And its not necessary, civilizations and nations survive in the real world without 'balancing'.
Set the AI right and don't let IT cheat so much then you don't have the problem of trying to compete with run away AI tech advances. Then you can play with a rational strategy.
This is a strategic not a tactical game, so there are other factors more important than the fact that you have superior weapons that hold back aggressive expansion. It adds more value to the game experience if brains are used for balancing rather than lies.
Make the units rational, and let the chips lay where they fall.
etc:
The nuclear sub is severly under rated in the game, it should be a real menece and be able to attack with a chance of not being detected who did it. There should be a hidded or stealth flag for units that allows an attack of hidden origin. This could apply to land special forces units or terror units.
Tanks are faster than horses.
Monitor class boats sink in open seas.
Give the Pirate ship to the Barbarians. Every age should have a type of Barbarian typical to that age.
A special unit for each age for each culture could be interesting.
Artillary, bombs, rockets torpedos icebergs and exocets sink ships very well. I mean really, there's no place to go but down. There is no way a viking galley can find, let alone sink a 688 class sub, most Japanese fishing trawlers will agree.
Modern infanty can evade artillary fire very well, but older square formed units can not. There should be a flag for units that indicates how suseptable to artilary and what kind.
Why not adapt (and improve) the CTP type combat resolution. |
True
True, and false. Entire armies can fall to the same "hiccups" that happen to individual soldiers.
You bet on the tank, I bet on the Napoleonic army, I win, you owe me money. A 24-pound bronze cannon would not make a hole in a Sherman, or blow it up, but it could knock off a track. A 188-pound field mortar would leave a big hole. Napoleon used both of those weapons.
Match one M4 Sherman against one M1 Abrams, not a fair fight. However, the Sherman might be crewed by Rommel, Patton, Montgomery and Guderian, and the Abrams might be crewed by my five year old nephew. Fair fight? Training could even out the differences. In WW2, German Panther, Tiger and King Tiger tanks were the best on the Western Front. But by the end of the war, they were losing more men then the Allies, all because of training.
One guy with an M-16 against 200,000 men with muskets, cannon, mortars, and cavalry. The M-16 gunner could take down 30, tops, before reloading, if he never missed. In that time, the 200,000 troops charging him would have bayonetted him, and moved on. 200,000 guys with M-16s, though, would be different. Tactics and training, in addition to numbers will often make more of a difference then you expect.
Unsupported armor in a city stands roughly the same chance as unsupported armor in the countryside, which in turn stands roughly the same chance as a snowball on a hot day in hell. I'm exaggerating, but unsupported armor anywhere is generally fuqued, and chances are, has crappy leaders.
Skipping a few....
Skipping a few more...
Tanks were not always faster then horses. In WW1, the Mark 1, the first production tank ever, had a top speed of about 10 miles per hour. If you drove it this fast for long, the engines would burn out rather quickly. The German A7V was even slower, with a top speed of about 5 miles per hour. I can walk faster then this, let alone ride a horse (if I knew how to ride a horse). WW2 tanks could be clocked at about 30 miles per hour, with some extremes. The Sherman, at almost 45, and the JS-3 (Joseph Stalin) at about 20. Modern tanks are different. They can indeed go faster then horses, as an M1 Abrams can go more then 60mph with the engine governor removed.
"Monitor class boats." First of all, they do not always sink in open water. They have poor handling characteristics, but they do not arbitrairily sink. Second, the image in the game represents (to me) all of the "iron-clad" warships built between 1855 and 1910, when France ceased production on the last of her Ironclads.
The barbarians have the Privateer, thats very much like a pirate ship, it even has the skull and crossbones.
True.
True. Bombarding, at least from the air, should sink ships. Artillery, a little different, but stil possible. Subs shouls be invisible to anything older then a destroyer, and hard to find for those that come after it (except destroyer, AEGIS, and possibly aircraft), and if anything finds a sub, only ships newer then ironclads should be able to fight one. Iron shot from bronze cannon would not do anything under water, it would require explosive shells to deal with subs.
I think this exists... Doesn't the defense attribute relate to a unit's vulnerability to bombarding?
This has been a long post. I am tired. I apologize for tearing your post apart, but I liked and hated almost all of it, so I had to respond.
Steele
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
 |
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paulmagusnet
1. There shouldn't be just a small chance for a spear chucker to knock out a tank, there should be NO chance.
2. The tokens in the game don't just represent one spearman or one tank, those are armies. So there is no consideration of odd hiccup that would affect the interaction of just two individuals.
3. I will take a Sherman Tank vs Napoleon's whole Waterloo army any day. Even when it has shot all its ammo, it just runs around the field turning infantry squares into axel grease.
|
1. That is incorrect. Even spearmen have the technology of fire and pits. Fire, pits and mistakes by the tanks are sufficient to give a small possibility of a "strange" result. Do not expect the enemy spearmen to line up to be slaughtered by your tanks.
2. The game units are certainly bigger than single spearmen or tanks, but they are not armies, but a much smaller unit. The size is abstract and certainly changes from era to era. A big army in the Middle Ages would not even make one Legion in the ancient world.
3. A single tank could not destroy Napoleons 100,000 man army, which is in possession of primitive but effective explosives, and by avoid a direct assault could prolong the battle for weeks or months. Your only hope of victory would be through intimidation. Nevertheless, a tank unit is much preferable to a musketman unit, and in Civ3 you would certainly pick the tank because of its very significant combat advantages.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
steelehc
|
|
Alaska
Dec 2001
time: 20:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
1. That is incorrect. Even spearmen have the technology of fire and pits. Fire, pits and mistakes by the tanks are sufficient to give a small possibility of a "strange" result. Do not expect the enemy spearmen to line up to be slaughtered by your tanks.
2. The game units are certainly bigger than single spearmen or tanks, but they are not armies, but a much smaller unit. The size is abstract and certainly changes from era to era. A big army in the Middle Ages would not even make one Legion in the ancient world.
3. A single tank could not destroy Napoleons 100,000 man army, which is in possession of primitive but effective explosives, and by avoid a direct assault could prolong the battle for weeks or months. Your only hope of victory would be through intimidation. Nevertheless, a tank unit is much preferable to a musketman unit, and in Civ3 you would certainly pick the tank because of its very significant combat advantages. |
I already responded to this, but...
A single tank could be dealt with by a "division" of spearmen. But a tank division would completely ignore a "spear division." One or two or even twenty tanks could be immobilized until they could be repaired, but if any would be destroyed, that would be through friendly fire.
I was under the impression that armies have been getting bigger through time. In WW2, the Germans deployed 7 million soldiers at one time, almost as impressive as the Russian army of 20 milllion. There's no way any ancient, mideval, or industrial General had that kind of army.
If you were pitting tanks against Napoleon, one of the greatest strategists of all time, you would need at least (in my opinion) four divisions. Roughly twelve-hundred tanks, against over 200,000 soldiers. The outcome of that would almost ceetainly be in favor of the tanks, but it could go either way. Napoleon had many artillery, and a few hundred field mortars, which could take out a tank (maybe not a modern one...) rather easily.
Steele
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Yeah, I don't get that. Nobody cussed him out or called him a n00b or even laughed. What was so bad?
Tank vs. spearman: round 1027.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
|
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by steelehc
I already responded to this, but...
|
Your additional comments are appreciated and extend your previous post.
quote:
A single tank could be dealt with by a "division" of spearmen. But a tank division would completely ignore a "spear division." One or two or even twenty tanks could be immobilized until they could be repaired, but if any would be destroyed, that would be through friendly fire. |
That is correct. Friendly fire, accidents, natural disasters would be the most likely cause of losses. There is a small chance that the tank commander would take his tanks up a mountain pathway to "catch" the spearmen, and get destroyed by a man-made avalanche, but that gets back to the point about unsupported armor.
quote:
I was under the impression that armies have been getting bigger through time. In WW2, the Germans deployed 7 million soldiers at one time, almost as impressive as the Russian army of 20 milllion. There's no way any ancient, mideval, or industrial General had that kind of army.
|
Caesar used five Legions to invade England. The Normans subdued England with somewhere between 4,000 and 7,000 troops about the size of just one Roman Legion.
The Americans assembled the most powerful army in the history of the world to attack first Iraq, then Afghanistan. They numbered less than 100,000.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Minuteman
|
|
Brooklyn, NY
Jan 2002
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
Caesar used five Legions to invade England. The Normans subdued England with somewhere between 4,000 and 7,000 troops about the size of just one Roman Legion.
The Americans assembled the most powerful army in the history of the world to attack first Iraq, then Afghanistan. They numbered less than 100,000. |
Yes, "power" in this context is judged by a combination of firepower and mobility.
Another example would be the Mongol invasion of Europe in the 1230's. They conquered the whole of Russia, eviscerated the sizable Hungarian army, and destroyed a combined German/Polish army at Liegnitz, all with just little over 100,000 troops.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dida
|
|
The AI surely cheats in combat. My tanks got smashed by their spearmen about 10% of the time, and I never had even a pikemen killing their infantry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
steelehc
|
|
Alaska
Dec 2001
time: 20:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
Your additional comments are appreciated and extend your previous post.
That is correct. Friendly fire, accidents, natural disasters would be the most likely cause of losses. There is a small chance that the tank commander would take his tanks up a mountain pathway to "catch" the spearmen, and get destroyed by a man-made avalanche, but that gets back to the point about unsupported armor.
Caesar used five Legions to invade England. The Normans subdued England with somewhere between 4,000 and 7,000 troops about the size of just one Roman Legion.
The Americans assembled the most powerful army in the history of the world to attack first Iraq, then Afghanistan. They numbered less than 100,000. |
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate that.
I was under the impression that the most powerful army ever assembled was indeed American, but it was in 1945, preparing for Operation Coronet, the invasion of Japan. In any case, I see your point, that numbers do not always mean power. However, I can see two glaring exceptions:Russia (WW1+WW2), and China.
Steele
PS: Sorry for going off-topic like this.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironikinit
|
|
Do me a favor and put Enco on ignore.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-02-2002 04:31
I do smell a D/L around here though........
|