 |
| |
|
|
Dante_X
|
|
After playing Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri for many years, I've decided to give Civ 3 a chance. (version 1.29F)
I'm playing on the easiest level, trying to get my feet wet, and learn the new features of the game. Anyway, one of my border towns, equipped with city walls, was fortified with one VETERAN knight, and 1 regular pikeman. Both of them were killed by a solitary regular Russian swordsman who attacked the town.
I'm confused. Statistically, this should have been a suicide mission for that swordsman. Instead he ends up razing my town the next turn, after defeating a pikeman and veteran knight behind city walls. I decided to call this a fluke and continue playing.
Four turns later, another of my walled cities, fortified by 1 regular archer and 1 veteran spearman, is conquered by two regular Russian warriors.
Becoming upset, I attacked one of his towns (without walls) with three regular Legionary troops, one regular knight, and 1 veteran knight. His town had two regular swordsmen. I was promptly massacred.
Is this common? How is it even possible to make a defensive strategy when the computer pulls off feats like this? How am I supposed to go on any type of offensive when even on the easiest level I lose despite statistical superiority?
Is this one game a fluke, or can I expect more of this?
Thanks, all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tiberius
|
 |
Europe
Jan 2000
time: 06:22
|
|
Go quickly and buy some lotto tickets! With such a bad luck in civ3, you will probably win!!! 
Seriously, it sometimes happens and it is very annoying when it happens to me, but then, sometimes I am the one who win a battle or two by luck. There is a random chance in every battle, and it is OK, IMHO.
If it is too annoying to you, disable the "preserve random seed" option and then you can reload the game to obtain different results. It is a kind of chieting, but WTF, fun is the more important than fair-play (playing against the computer, I mean).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sean
|
|
Auckland, New Zealand.
Jan 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
You should of taken the swordsman out with the knight!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Demerzel
|
|
quote:
Quote from Brian Reynolds
I was the one in Civilization II who said no, no thank you, we're not going to have phalanxes beating tanks
|
gotta think that Brian Reynolds was onto something there though....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Mostly it was bad luck. But only mostly.
quote:
Anyway, one of my border towns, equipped with city walls, was fortified with one VETERAN knight, and 1 regular pikeman. Both of them were killed by a solitary regular Russian swordsman who attacked the town. |
Thats bad luck. Odd that the AI even tried. Sure it was only one? I ask because the effort itself is at least as odd as the results. Were either of your units down on hits? Other wise AI would not normally make an attack like that. Not with just one swordsmen.
Possible error on YOUR part. Why a regular pikeman?
quote:
Four turns later, another of my walled cities, fortified by 1 regular archer and 1 veteran spearman, is conquered by two regular Russian warriors. |
Walls don't help all that much. A size 7 city is much tougher than a walled city. Archers suck especially on defense. Why didn't you use it for attack? Why was it a regular?
Are you leaving things out? Like were your units down on hits? Thats all it means to be a veteran. A vet down to two hits is much weaker than a regular and I have noticed that people that make these kind of posts tend to leave things like damaged units out of their rant.
quote:
Becoming upset, I attacked one of his towns (without walls) with three regular Legionary troops, one regular knight, and 1 veteran knight. His town had two regular swordsmen. I was promptly massacred. |
How big was the city? Walls aren't worth building and when a city gets large enough its has better defenses than a wall. Walls are a complete waste unless you are about to get hit with a raging horde of twenty barbarian horsemen. Even then a second spearmen is probably a better use of shields than a wall.
What the heck were you WASTING shields on walls instead of building barracks and then sending out out lambs to the slaughter with REGULAR legions. NEVER build regulars. They will get their killed way to often. Same for that knight. What a bloody waste of shields to build a regular knight.
No. For one thing most people don't build regulars except at the very beginning of the game, regular units should only be built at very earliest part of the game and legions and knights are not that early, bad idea even with archers. For another, yes fertilizer does happen.
quote:
Is this one game a fluke, or can I expect more of this? |
Mostly it was a fluke but you helped it along by using regulars and wasting shields on walls. Be carefull about how you attack. Don't defend with archers. They should be used actively on offense and horsies are MUCH better even though they cost more. They can attack at their convenience and they retreat some of the time as well. Don't attack across rivers unless you must and then you will need a serious advatage of Attack vs Defense. If a city is on a hill its harder to attack. If the population is six its harder to attack
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
I know people post about this kind of scenario all the time, but in all my Civ3 days I have never encountered anything even remotely close to this sort of bad luck. Sure, I've lost the 60/40, or perhaps 70/30 battles, but nothing like the example in this thread. Which actually takes me back to my days of Civ1, where my Settler of all things beat a Nuke (I wish I was lying, but it definitely happened, a bit south of the Sahara). Although the Nuke still went off, cuz apparently it goes off whether it wins or loses.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
I've had bad runs of luck like that. But I've also had good runs of luck that are comparable (like my regular swordsman who whacked a fortified conscript rifleman).
The best insurance against bad random number rolls is to build more troops than you think you need, and make sure that any that you actually use in battle are veterans (or elites). Regulars suck, because only having 3 hp makes them more vulnerable to a bad string of random numbers.
EDIT: I forgot to mention bombard units. Bombardment can really help, particularly when used against enemy units that are NOT in cities. Cities provide a lot of bombard defense, and until you can put together a large stack of artillery units (as in the ones you need replaceable parts to build), don't bother trying to bombard them. Instead, using catapults or cannon to assist in the defense of a city, or simply bringing them with a stack of troops, will increase your chances of victory. For instance, in the case of your pikeman & knight that were killed by a swordsman. If you had a catapult in that city, you could have fired at the swordsman as soon as it came next to your city, potentially damaging it. If not, when it attacked your city on its next turn, the catapult would again take a shot (automatically) again potentially knocking off a hit point. Also, that reminds me, why didn't you attack the swordsman with your knight???
So, to answer your question, I'd say that the type of luck you described isn't common, but lucky combat results (good and bad) are. Plus, as Planetfall mentioned, you didn't factor in terrain, which can make a big difference.
-Arrian
p.s. Traelin, the worst single combat defeat I've suffered in CivIII was the loss of a veteran tank to a regular musketman (fortified in a size 3 town on plains, no river crossing involved). **** does indeed occasionally happen.
Last edited by Arrian on 01-10-2002 at 01:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
zeh
|
 |
Brazil
Aug 2001
time: 02:22
|
|
If you wanna know the probabilities of win a battle, go and see the Civ3 Combat Calculator.
It'll help you deciding if it's a good idea attack or not a unit, but they not tell you why strange things happen sometimes in combat.
Last edited by zeh on 01-10-2002 at 01:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Also, that reminds me, why did you attack the swordsman with your knight??? |
Why the heck shouldn't he? Knight has an attack of 4 and the swordsmen has a defense of two plus any defensive bonuses and if things don't go well the knight may retreat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
I thought that might be the case but Planetfall had claimed that swordsmen have some sort of advantage against knights. So far all indications are that combat is entirely based on Attack vs Defense plus the known terrain and city bonuses. Nothing special for swordsmen or pikes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dante_X
|
|
Thanks, all.
The town I was trying to seige was poulation 4, no walls, on a desert square. In all instances (attacking and defending) my soldiers' health was full. I attacked this towns with three regular Legionary troops, one regular knight, and 1 veteran knight. His town had two regular swordsmen. I was promptly massacred. He suffered one casualty, and the last swordsman had 1 bar of health left.
The reason some of my troops were regulars was because only my border towns had barracks. I was trying to keep costs down, and build more cultural architecture, in the hopes of avioding riots and increasing my influence, and therefore my borders. I really thought even a regular Knight, behind city walls, should have no problem fending off a minor invasion of 1 or 2 swordsmen. Obviously I was wrong.
Incidentally, is there any way to turn on a "ratio-to-win-battle" toggle, like the one seen in Alpha Centauri? (Your knight has a 3 to 1 chance of winning this battle....)
I also have one other small criticism, which I know has been repeatedly addressed. I was unable to mount a successful offensive, because after only building 4 knights and 3 legionaries, my iron ore was depleted. Meanwhile, the Russians, who also had only 1 mine, had already pumped out 16 swordsmen, and these were just the ones in the field. I have no idea how many were behind city walls. Being thrust back to having only longbowmen, horsemen and archers, I had no way of seiging his cities, equipped with swordsmen and pikemen. I really wish you had some way of estimating how much ore was left in a mine.
I'm not giving up on the game, and do enjoy many aspects of it, but I feel that combat heavily favors the computer. thanks for all your comments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dante_X
I really wish you had some way of estimating how much ore was left in a mine. |
It doesn't work that way. Its a per turn chance and the chance is always the same for a given resource. Different resources have different odds of depletion. Getting and keeping resources is part of the strategy and sometimes you just won't be able to manage it.
quote:
I'm not giving up on the game, and do enjoy many aspects of it, but I feel that combat heavily favors the computer. thanks for all your comments. |
Combat doesn't favor the computer. Its been shown time and again. Tests have been run and they always fit the stated odds. The only bias is in the eye of the player. Humans naturally remember the things that don't fit our expectations and forget about things that do fit them. Con men and profesional gamblers have been making money on this bit of human nature for a very long time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
civjunkie
|
|
From another thread:
quote:
What the heck were you WASTING shields on walls instead of building barracks and then sending out out lambs to the slaughter with REGULAR legions. NEVER build regulars. They will get their killed way to often. |
Disagree. Regulars and obsolete units are good for policing conquered cities, and you don't want to waste shield building barracks in every city, just your big resource producers.
Which reminds me: I don't see the point of Leonardo.
So it saves you some money: great, go for it if you have nothing better to do; but there are lots of uses for weak/obsolete units (e.g. camping on RRs to keep the baddies from cluttering them up, or on resources to keep them from building colonies until your workers can get to them; you can use them to bash barbarians, or to explore. Finally, in a pinch you can disband them to rush a key improvement). And having to haul everyone's glutes back to a city with barracks to upgrade them is tiresome, Leo or no Leo.
In civ2 it was indispensable; in civ3, ho hum.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
One time I had three spearmen wiped out by three warriors in the same turn. I was P O'd, but what can you do? The PC made up for it on a later turn, when two of my warriors defeated two swordsmen in a row. I managed to keep the defending city.
The RMG will give strange results fairly regularly, but in the end they balance out. I still yell at the screen when it happens, though.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by civjunkie
From another thread:
Disagree. Regulars and obsolete units are good for policing conquered cities, and you don't want to waste shield building barracks in every city, just your big resource producers.
|
I produce nearly all my units in cities that have nothing else to build and that includes the barracks which after the core cities comes last in my builds. I use obsolete units that can't be upgraded as a source of shields in newly conquered cities unless they are elite. I hold on to the elites.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Raion
|
|
Walls are only for barbarians. Not Civ's.
Is Russia a military Civ? Can't remember.
If you are playing a non-military Civ, you will need better units by having elite units guard your city.
Was terrain favorable for the swordsman?
Other factors, like the culture of the Civ better, more advanced in technology, better in economics, (people happier)?
It's the entire Civ in that unit, not just the unit?
Hope that helps!
How many times do you think a Ax Man can attack barbarians with only a single hit point left?
If you were a Roman, you might say 'several times' and they will win all the battles?
Your Civ, if not military, maybe not even 'once' but maybe, even once, but I doubt it!
Different Civ's for different folks!
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-09-2002 12:01
You know what I wanted to say.
|