 |
| |
|
|
tinyp3nis
|
 |
compensate this!!
May 2002
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7
Tinyp3nis, the thing you have to realize is that the RNG in Civ3 is the same as that in Civ2. If they were different, they wouldn't be random.
The entire reason you get different results is because of hit points and firepower.
Obviously, firepower makes better units more powerful in Civ2, so its removal in Civ3 has an effect.
The main difference is that in Civ2, I belive, each unit had 10 or so hit points for each actual hit point level. Since Civ3 has far fewer hit points, results tend to be more streaky than Civ2.
All I'm saying is that the combat system is not profoundly different from that of Civ2; in fact, the only changes are fp and hp. The RNG that you seem to like to demonize is not the culprit here; hit points are.
I will make the concession to you, as I tried earlier, that MP poses some problems for the obvious solution of modding, but also as stated I really am not in a position to comment on that. |
Sorry if I sound like an ass but... I don't know how many times I said about the HP, clearly not enough times, since what in fact you are telling me is I knew already  .
quote:
The RNG that you seem to like to demonize is not the culprit here; hit points are. |
When there are only few HP, the RNG has huge effect. So, it kind of is the demon. But the HP increase will hinder the effect of the RN, in battle atleast.
You are probably right, the RNG may have been exactly as varying in civ2 as in civ3 because the units had as many as 20-40 hp if I recall correctly, and inspite of that there were still _some_ healthy variance in the results.
quote:
I will make the concession to you, as I tried earlier, that MP poses some problems for the obvious solution of modding, but also as stated I really am not in a position to comment on that. |
We'll see what future holds...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tinyp3nis
|
|
compensate this!!
May 2002
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Today I was one turn away from building Smith's Trading Co when the Chinese build it. Obviously I was pissed but not that surprised since this has happened on many occasions, even earlier in this same game. So I reload a few turns back, establish an embassy with the Chinese and check their progress on this wonder. 32 turns away. Okay you say - they used a leader right? How did they know to build it one turn before me? They have no embassy. Could they have spied on my city some other way? Just bad luck? Happens way too often for that. Anyway, there's my rant. |
Since you didn't mention it, I have to assume you already checked it or didn't consider one possibility at all. They may have been building it in two cities. Maybe they were building something else (copernicus, magellan, or whatever) and switched, because someone finished those wonders, so they would have been construction it for a long time allready in another city... just a possibility. I don't know how the city they are building it is determined in the wonders window, maybe it's not the city that is closest to completing, but the city that first started the particular wonder. Or maybe it's your leader theory, I don't know... check if you can.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Action
So, I recently decided to get PTW and fire up Civ 3 again. I had originally quit in disgust before all the patches came out and had been playing Alpha Centauri again.
So anyway, I'm the Carthagians neighboring the Indians and I decide I will need to take them out. I have iron they don't. They have horses I dont.
I build roads right to the edge of their borders, and mass up a bunch of swordsmen and a few numidian mercenaries to defend strategic points and captured cities (2/3/1 carthagian special unit). All they have are a few archers, spearmen and horsemen. My troops were all vets, his were all regulars.
Should be easy right? Not with Civ 3's combat system.
Suffice it to say my attack failed miserably. Why?
One reg archer defending on plains beat two vet swordsmen.
One reg archer defending on woods beat two vet swordsmen.
A reg horsemen defending on grassland beat an elite swordsman.
A vet warrior defending on hills beat two vet swordsmen.
As well as a few swordsmen losing to spearmen, which is expected.
So anyway, my attack stalled, and as I was bringing up more guys using my large road system a few of their horsemen were able to attack my cities. Since their horsemen were only regulars and I have veteran numidian mercs (2/3/1) fortified in all my cities I'm not too worried.
Three times in a row a reg horseman beats a vet numidian merc fortified defending in a city.
At this point I close the program.
This wouldnt happen in Civ2 or SMAC.
This is just one of the reasons that while I've spent 95 dollars on Civ 3 products I've played them for about 1/10th as long as I played Civ 2 or SMAC.
Anyway, theres my rant, I'm sure you don't care.
 |
hi ,
give it a try with the patch 
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ducki
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
this is all bollox, the only time in Civ3 I EVER had a succesful military was in a war against the romans who still had spearmen and legions (i had tanks and more modern stuff).
|
It's random.
I had a war against Persian Immortals (4/2/1) where I was able to judiciously use terrain and my "weak" Archers(2/1/1) and Horsemen(2/1/2) to consistently defeat Immortals.
Randomness is just random. Granted, on a computer, it's not "truly random", but streaks are just as common in randomness as non-streaks.
And we've all seen the immortal Spearman before. It happens. If it bugs you that much, reload from an Autosave and wait one extra turn before attacking.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
I did forget to mention stealth fighters/bombers with my howitzers. But aside from those units the combat wasn't too bad.
|
I absolutely loved Civ2, don't get me wrong. But anytime you have units as unbalanced as Howitzers (and others) were in Civ2, it really decreases from the overall fun factor of the game. Especially when the AI was inept at using them the same way. Civ3, despite some of its really irritating bugs, has managed to addict me in a much, much greater way than Civ2 ever did.
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
But even though there weren't very many problems with civ2 combat imho I actually do seem to like civ3 combat a little more. I just wish combat was a little more complex and with more units. And yeah I do get upset at the screwed up results. |
How are they screwed up results? Rare maybe, but not "screwed up". We were by far the superior force in Vietnam (both technologically and otherwise), but we lost. Yes for many reasons, but the point is that our military, despite the fact that it didn't lose a key battle, still had its ass handed to it a few times.
And we won the Revolution. Talk about crazy odds! In all seriousness that was an amazing victory.
So how are the combat results "screwed up"?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Major Guz
That was indeed one of the first things I noticed (not being able to be in the same square as your allie) in contrast with AC, but then again I realised I should not compare this game with AC.
If you see CivIII as a different game you will much more like it.
(otherwise you keep in the circle "governments suck, I want social engineering etc. etc. etc. like I read in some of the threads). |
I dunno, I really liked SMAC's way of doing certain things. One of the things I thought cool was that allied cities could heal your units. And your units could park themselves in allied cities. I love Civ3, but SMAC had some diplomatic and military implementations that were far superior (IMO) to Civ3. But I would never trade Civ3 for SMAC.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
 |
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hanksname
Well, in Civ terms America never lost ... it simply withdrew. A million casualties versus 50,000 ( or whatever the actual non-Westmoreland numbers may be, still overwhelming ) is a tactical win though obviously not a strategic one.
|
American casualties were about 350,000 (deaths were about 50,000). Other nations suffered casualties, including Canada and Australia. The Vietnamese casualties are harder to measure, but were probably about 2-4 million.
The Americans lost the battle, nearly suffered a political meltdown, and went into debt to fund the war effort. However, Vietnam did pay an even higher price in terms of human suffering. Just in the 20th century, they fought the French, the Japanese, the French again, then the Americans, before finally securing their independence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hanksname
|
|
1) Conjecture.
2) Conjecture.
3) How exactly did you test it?
quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7
Wrong. Firaxis wanted to balance unit strengths to a) give lower tech civs a fighting chance and b) give civs without access to a certain resource a fighting chance.
It was a gameplay decision.
Wrong again. "It" happens no more often to one side as any other.
And again, wrong. We have tested the RNG over many trials and concluded that it is indeed random. Why would you belive otherwise? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
swagled
|
|
In a way, I'm surprised at how much hullabaloo there is about the combat systems. I think the Civ2 system worked OK, and I think the Civ3 system works OK.
Civ2 had the more "realistic" attack-at-weakend-strength-from-a-long-march feature, which is removed in Civ3. This is the only thing I really noticed.
And, you know, I kind of like that. I felt like in Civ2, it didn't matter what kind of unit I was using... they needed to be one square away to be any good.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-12-2002 04:49
I mean, really nobody is forcing you to find people on forums who "whine" and then you start whining about their "whining". How long have you been holding that inside you? Let it all out. I don't think you suck, give yourself a break.
..or maybe it is a coincidence? 
|