Thread Tools
Old November 5, 2003, 10:48   #31
Tall Stranger
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
Warlord
 
Tall Stranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Civ3 is laughable in comparison. A conveyor belt system to resolve battles. As if generals have a gentlemans agreement to each send one unit forward to fight at a time.

Its not simplicity. Its stupidity.
There's absolutely no reason to get this hostile. No one is forcing you to play Civ 3.

And, of course, the CTP version makes SO much more sense. As if generals send evey single unit into a battle at exactly the same time and don't have the ability to redirect their forces based on how the battle develops. It's not realistic. It's ridiculous.

I make the same point I made earlier: if one uses a 3:1 attacker advantage against roughly equal units (i.e. a unit with an attack strength of 2 vs. unit with defense strength of 2), you can GENERALLY expect to win. This roughly resembles "real life."

But you don't seem to care about having a reasoned discussion. You'd rather rant instead. Fine, but don't expect to win over any converts or impress anyone.
__________________
They don't get no stranger.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." George W. Bush
Tall Stranger is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 11:13   #32
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 12:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
It isn't even a conveyor belt system, since each battle the toughest defender (or the most healthy, if all are the same) is taking over. I think you're right, he's just out to troll. I think he should better use more of his time to improve the AI of his beloved game now that the source code is out. Which means to add one, since Activision forgot about it.
Harovan is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 11:39   #33
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Quote:
Originally posted by Sir Ralph


What's the point behind your rant?
The statement was merely responding to the point of the prior poster who said CtP2 combat was lossless. Which it clearly isn't.

CTP2 also has calvary modifiers, and zones of control. There is pre-bombardment, and counter bombardment (in turn).

Force composition is the means by which you control how you fight, to some degree, but the synergy between the units allows for far more complex situational war than Civ3.

The game has a frontline plus a ranged row for the combatants, and, as you've mentioned flanking. Thus CtP2 generals don't send everyone in at the same time. There is a system of reinforcement, battle fronts, and thus flanking.

You simply can't implement such a fundemental battle concept as flanking, if you have a conveyor belt.

And... Sir Ralph, I challenge you to play and beat the current state of CTP2 at the highest difficulty level. The FrenzyAI mod has made for an intensely challenging game.
MrBaggins is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 12:03   #34
yin26
inmate
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Born Again Optimist
 
yin26's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
Quote:
it's like sending 1 person against an entire castle/city by himself
Wow! I guess this explains the new wallpaper!

__________________
I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001

"Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.
yin26 is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 12:38   #35
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 12:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
The statement was merely responding to the point of the prior poster who said CtP2 combat was lossless. Which it clearly isn't.
Granted.

Quote:
CTP2 also has calvary modifiers, and zones of control. There is pre-bombardment, and counter bombardment (in turn).
I would like some of these features added to the Civ3 combat system, as I pointed out many times.

Quote:
Force composition is the means by which you control how you fight, to some degree, but the synergy between the units allows for far more complex situational war than Civ3.

The game has a frontline plus a ranged row for the combatants, and, as you've mentioned flanking. Thus CtP2 generals don't send everyone in at the same time. There is a system of reinforcement, battle fronts, and thus flanking.
I actually like the CtP2 combat system better than the Civ3 one, so you're barking up the wrong tree. Fact is, most of us know all these things ourselves and have said so repeatedly. Thing is, we don't want it to be mentioned by you. "You" meaning regular players of other games who stop by just to troll or trash a game they don't even play. Look, after Civ3 came out, a lot of CtP2 regulars trolled here, trying to bait players into their forum, which was drying out due to the hype. I then launched a couple of countertrolls in the CtP2 forum, addressing among others the crappy as hell map generator, the stupid (better: non existant) AI, the flaws around trade and piracy, the crappy diplomacy (no treaties are kept longer than 2 or 3 turns) and others. I was flamed and insulted to death. Well, maybe I deserved it, but as quintessence I was told, that all I said was basically true and well known, but they wouldn't want to hear it from an outsider like me. Analogically, you would be wise not beat dead horses here, but to concentrate your effort to iron out the flaws of your own game now that you have the opportunity.

Quote:
You simply can't implement such a fundemental battle concept as flanking, if you have a conveyor belt.
It isn't exactly a conveyor belt, as you in every single combat face the toughest defender, which is the more likely a fresh healthy unit, the larger the stack is.

Quote:
And... Sir Ralph, I challenge you to play and beat the current state of CTP2 at the highest difficulty level. The FrenzyAI mod has made for an intensely challenging game.
It's not going to happen. I played it for a year, between Civ2 and Civ3 (along with SMAC, which I however didn't like much), but now I won't install this game again. The AI is not a challenge at all, and the mods are instable and don't work so good with localized versions. Actually, I may install it and play around with the source code for myself. Maybe I can get it rid of that uncivish PW concept and gloriously reinstall workers?

Oh and btw... @ yin.
Harovan is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 13:19   #36
bongo
lifer
PtWDG2 Mohammed Al-SahafPtWDG Neu DemogypticaCivilization III PBEMC3CDG Blood Oath HordeIron CiversC4DG The HordeC4WDG éirich tuireann
Emperor
 
bongo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: MOOHOOHO
Posts: 4,737
MrBaggins , you are just trolling, I feel ashamed for ever swallowing your bait
__________________
Don't eat the yellow snow.
bongo is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 14:45   #37
TheArsenal
Apolyton University
Prince
 
TheArsenal's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 900
I play and like both CtP2 and PtW. The combat system in CtP2 is clearly superior, and the game overall – as modded - is definitely worth a play. But that doesn’t really help here as its apples and oranges and certainly a matter of preference.

Within the confines of the combat system in CivIII, which is not going to change radically, there are a few things I would like to see done better, and hopefully were changed in Conquests:

When I click on a stack, I would like to see the units arranged in the list according to unit type. The lack of list cohesion is particularly annoying when you bring bombardment units to a point of attack with a large stack and have to figure out and wade through the list to bombard before launching an attack.

The ability to attack by moving all units at once, or all units of one type against a target/city, was a great improvement from Vanilla. The only thing I would like to see done here is if you use the move all/move unit type to automatically attack, that the units automatically attack (a) from units with highest attack points to lowest, and within each unit type attacking, a subgroup of (b) highest hit points to lowest. The current problem with the “attack all” is in between throwing, say, Cavalry at a city the occasional Spearman or Cavalry with one hit point will slip in and get quickly mauled. Yes, I know there are ways around this by fortifying units (which would be easier with a “by unit” list), but it would still be a nice fix.
__________________
"Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription is ... more cow bell!"
TheArsenal is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 14:45   #38
oetkenjc
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 20
lol... okay, well since I started this thread I'm hoping I'm not getting accused of trolling.. especially since I just figured out what it is.... I was more coming here initially to see everyone's tactics in this game or modifications to the game that might have been made since civ 3 has imo a horrible combat system.

Bongo:
It's my nature whenever I play this game to keep up to date units. When musketeers come out... I methodically begin training enough musketeers to defend each city... and then all of my knights are then my attacking army. Which even at that point an army of 12 knights is a force to be reconed with.... besides... at that point to me they are cannon fodder. I send them in with little care of whether or not they survive, if they did great... if not, that same round I'll send the musketeer army in there to mop up... (since I'm such a science geek, I normally always have gunpowder first)... The musketeers still get messed up pretty heavily if I do this without first weakening the town up with the knights.

Another example... a way win the game in CTP is basically the first person to discover the tank unit, and is able to mass produce them quickly. A pack of 12 flankers just like the knights is definitly a force that can take out several cities.... and while my production had been suffering because I'm putting so much into science, it finally pays off. But even though I do have this edge on them (a unit with high armor, damage, and range, and flanking omg) I still slip into a city that has catapults, cannons and arti among other things.... I still take losses, even though I'm am technologically superior.

So to be honest... I have no clue what you're saying.

As far as the Warrior / Archer combo versus those 5 barbies.... I dont really care who would have won... I just wish they would have been able to work together.

Tall Stranger:
lol... you're killing me.
"And, of course, the CTP version makes SO much more sense. As if generals send evey single unit into a battle at exactly the same time and don't have the ability to redirect their forces based on how the battle develops. It's not realistic. It's ridiculous."

It's not like that. It's tactics... it utilizing your units and their abilities to compliment each other. Generals sending units to attack at the exact same time ? What's wrong with that ? How hard, or how much intelligence does it take for 2 units in real life to plan their attacks together... to plan to advance together... hell to even set up base camp together? I really dont understand what you mean about redirecting your forces.... because in Civ 3 it seems they determine what units you're attacking, as if you could just magically decide...

Attacker: "Oh... I want to attack this warrior here, even though him and 4 mates are standing right next to each other in the same square."

Defender: (used to CTP rules) "Hahah.. me and mates will destroy you!"

Attacker: (pulls out the civ 3 manual) "Well technically no... your other buddies will have to sit and watch you and me duke it out and not interfere whatsoever because of reasons I have no idea.. but I'm sure drugs or alcohol had to do with it. In fact.. I dont know why I'm talking so intelligent because I'm too stupid to know how to advance into this attack square with others to back me up."

Sorry for the sarcasm.. but damn. Isnt it blatantly obvious ? There is nooooo reason why this up here should happen. It's crazy... and for all you people thinking something so simple as to this makes Civ 3 a war game... oooh, omg... what are you talking about ? It's not going to become any more of a war game if this is implemented than it already is. I still cannot comprehend the logic behind the current system.

Again.. I'm not ragging on the game.... I soooo SOOO much want to get into this... but it's already so much of a pain to build units and it takes so long (why should it take 12 turns to build a warrior whenever each turn is like 20 years?) already, to up it even more just because the way combat is handled in this game.
__________________
You're always going to have a problem lifting a body all in one peice. Apparently the best thing to do is cut up the corpse into six peices, and pile it all together. And once you get your six pieces, you have to get rid of it... because it's no good to put it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do.. is feed them to pigs. You've gotta starve the pigs for a few days, then the sight of a chopped up body will look like curry to a piss ant. You've got to shave the head of your victims and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggies digestion. You could do this afterwards of course, but you dont wanna go sifting around in pig **** now do you? They will go through bone like buttah. You'll need at least 16 pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about 8 minutes... that means each pig can consume 2 pounds of uncooked flesh.. every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig." -Bricktop in Snatch
oetkenjc is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 16:01   #39
Tall Stranger
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
Warlord
 
Tall Stranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally posted by oetkenjc
lol... okay, well since I started this thread I'm hoping I'm not getting accused of trolling.. especially since I just figured out what it is.... I was more coming here initially to see everyone's tactics in this game or modifications to the game that might have been made since civ 3 has imo a horrible combat system.
So you claim. Yet rather than ask further questions about how the Civ 3 combat system, you continue to harp on how unrealistic Civ 3 is. If the system is so horrible, don't play it. My patience with this thread (and you) is wearing very thin.

Quote:
Tall Stranger:
lol... you're killing me.
"And, of course, the CTP version makes SO much more sense. As if generals send evey single unit into a battle at exactly the same time and don't have the ability to redirect their forces based on how the battle develops. It's not realistic. It's ridiculous."

It's not like that. It's tactics... it utilizing your units and their abilities to compliment each other. Generals sending units to attack at the exact same time ? What's wrong with that ? How hard, or how much intelligence does it take for 2 units in real life to plan their attacks together... to plan to advance together... hell to even set up base camp together? I really dont understand what you mean about redirecting your forces.... because in Civ 3 it seems they determine what units you're attacking, as if you could just magically decide...
It's been a long time since I've played CtP2, so my memory may be faulty, but I recall that once you put units into an army and ordered that army to, for example, attack a unit in one square, all the units HAD to attack that square. That is also not realistic.

Furthermore, to claim that CtP is more "tactical" than Civ3 is true, but also irrelevant. Neither one is even marginally capable of even remotely capturing the complexity of true combat. Your claim is roughly the same as saying that Michelob is better than Bud. True, but neither comes close to a real beer.

CtP may have a better combat system, but Civ3 is (IMO) a better game.

Quote:
Sorry for the sarcasm.. but damn. Isnt it blatantly obvious ? There is nooooo reason why this up here should happen. It's crazy... and for all you people thinking something so simple as to this makes Civ 3 a war game... oooh, omg... what are you talking about ? It's not going to become any more of a war game if this is implemented than it already is. I still cannot comprehend the logic behind the current system.
Then you're not trying. It's really not that complicated. I have a 10-year old nephew who can understand this. (I'm not sorry about the sarcasm.)

For the third time I will point out that the outcomes in Civ3 battles generally make sense in terms of general 3:1 attacker to defender ratio. Yet you have refuse to even acknowledge this fact. That further suggests to me that you are a troll.

Quote:
Again.. I'm not ragging on the game.... I soooo SOOO much want to get into this... but it's already so much of a pain to build units and it takes so long (why should it take 12 turns to build a warrior whenever each turn is like 20 years?) already, to up it even more just because the way combat is handled in this game.
Actually, you are ragging on the game. I've said this before and I'll say it again: if you have a specific question, ask it. Otherwise, I've got no choice but to treat you like your buddy Mr Baggins (i.e. a troll) and ignore you. And just FYI, it can never take more than 10 turns to build a warrior: they only cost 10 units.
__________________
They don't get no stranger.
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail." George W. Bush
Tall Stranger is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 16:35   #40
Dominae
BtS Tri-LeaguePtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Dominae's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,017
Quote:
Originally posted by oetkenjc
I just got sooo pissed whenever I had a Warrior and Archer sitting at a key spot where a bunch of Barbarians would keep coming from... and I got the little message "Barbarians rampage to the North" (Or something like that) ... and then 5 of them on horseback come streaming down... commenced to wiping out my warrior by his lonesome... then once he was done... commenced to whipping up on the archer.... then sliding carelessly into my city.
Dare I say that you were more pissed off that you lost than at the fact that the Warrior and Archer were not able to "team up". Had your units stacked and defended together, I doubt it would have made much of a difference. 5 Horsemen = 150 Shields versus 20 + 10 = 30 Shields for your units; you were outmatched 5:1 (maybe 4:1 if you consider that Barbs only have 2HPs).

Many comments about the combat system are born out of unrealistic expectations of what the units can do. This is especially true in complaints about the "randomness" of the combat in Civ, and I think this is just another facet of that debate. A stack of combined arms units in Civ3 is a force to be reckoned with, despite the fact that each units fight individually. You need to build the right tools (and enough of them!) to do the job.

This said, it would be cool to stack units into groups a la Call to Power. I personally disliked the way that system worked, but the idea is definitely promising for future TBS games.


Dominae
__________________
And her eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming...
Dominae is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 16:36   #41
Shogun Gunner
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization IV: MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildCivilization III Democracy GameCall to Power II MultiplayerCall to Power MultiplayerC3CDG Team BabylonPtWDG Vox ControliCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Shogun Gunner's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Potomac Falls, Virginia
Posts: 6,258
Not that me jumping in is going to help at all...but a lot of people, myself included, are going to agree with Tall Stranger and Bongo on this issue.

It sounds as if you are trying to visualize in your mind's eye how the combat works. I don't think the visualization of one warrior guy running against the city walls, while his five warrior buddies sit on their helmets and watch is reasonable conclusion -- and I think you know that.

In the real world, when attacking, you focus a lot of energy into a narrow vector while protecting your flanks. You can't commit all six warrior guys to run abreast at the city wall at the same time. That's not how combat is conducted.

Furthermore, Tall Stranger gave a great description of how you can commit a few units, observe the results, decide to bombard some more, change strategy, call off the attack (does that sound like the retreat option in CTP2? - it does to me), etc. That sounds like a battle where you have some tactical decision points. The strategic part was handled when you got all of your units in the same location, the tactical is whether you bombard first, which unit attacks first, etc.

Nothing is perfect, and all games do have limitations, but geez, try to find a way to understand the battle mechanics in a way that's comfortable for you. Try to enjoy yourself. Its a game after all. If you don't like, don't play it.
__________________
Haven't been here for ages....
Shogun Gunner is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 16:40   #42
bongo
lifer
PtWDG2 Mohammed Al-SahafPtWDG Neu DemogypticaCivilization III PBEMC3CDG Blood Oath HordeIron CiversC4DG The HordeC4WDG éirich tuireann
Emperor
 
bongo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: MOOHOOHO
Posts: 4,737
TheArsenal said:
Quote:
When I click on a stack, I would like to see the units arranged in the list according to unit type. The lack of list cohesion is particularly annoying when you bring bombardment units to a point of attack with a large stack and have to figure out and wade through the list to bombard before launching an attack
I totally agree on this one. But it is more of an UI issue than about the combat model.

About realism: I am perfectly aware of the fact that civ3 is NOT 100% realistics. Thats why I like it. It's the blend of exploring, wars, terraforming, city management and diplomacy that I like. If you change things too much you will eventually ruin it, I don't want a 'railroad tycoon' sub-game to put railroads between my cities, nor a 'sim-city' module to control production in my cities, or a 'panzer general' plug-in to wage war and thats what you will get if you add too much 'realism' everywhere.

Granted, CTP1&2 had lots of really good ideas and I enjoyed playing them but they never got the strong addiction-like grip on me that civ1,2&3 has. I guess it's just a matter of preferences.
__________________
Don't eat the yellow snow.
bongo is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 17:14   #43
TheArsenal
Apolyton University
Prince
 
TheArsenal's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 900
And CtP2, although a very good combat system, was not perfect either. It only allows for 12 units to occupy a single square, which creates problems moving separate stacked units of both slow movers and fast movers along a single road, and it eliminates the ability to fortify all attacking units on a particular advantageous piece of terrain and to throw all units into attack at the same time from that advantageous terrain.

But, like CivIII, it’s only a game.

And I have seen such nit picking on these boards about realism, that I am surprised no one complains that they don’t get splattered with blood, or that they can’t smell the gun powder when they play. (As I seem to say once a month) I look at these games as nothing more than the greatest chess games ever invented and don’t demand realism over game play. That said, I guess it’s a testimony to game makers that they can approximate realism to any such degree that so many people demand and think its possible that they do even more.
__________________
"Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription is ... more cow bell!"
TheArsenal is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 20:55   #44
oetkenjc
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 20
Oooohkay... everything I wanted to get out of this Topic has pretty much been discussed, buried... dug up again and reburied.

Thanks for those who put in their two cents... it helped out a lot.... just gonna cross my fingers for Civ 4 it looks like...
__________________
You're always going to have a problem lifting a body all in one peice. Apparently the best thing to do is cut up the corpse into six peices, and pile it all together. And once you get your six pieces, you have to get rid of it... because it's no good to put it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do.. is feed them to pigs. You've gotta starve the pigs for a few days, then the sight of a chopped up body will look like curry to a piss ant. You've got to shave the head of your victims and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggies digestion. You could do this afterwards of course, but you dont wanna go sifting around in pig **** now do you? They will go through bone like buttah. You'll need at least 16 pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about 8 minutes... that means each pig can consume 2 pounds of uncooked flesh.. every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig." -Bricktop in Snatch
oetkenjc is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 21:20   #45
Peter Triggs
CTP2 Source Code ProjectCivilization IV Creators
King
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gone Fishin, Canada
Posts: 1,059
Quote:
And CtP2, although a very good combat system, was not perfect either. It only allows for 12 units to occupy a single square, which creates problems moving separate stacked units of both slow movers and fast movers along a single road, and it eliminates the ability to fortify all attacking units on a particular advantageous piece of terrain and to throw all units into attack at the same time from that advantageous terrain.
Could you please expand on this? Preferably in a thread in the CTP2 forum.
Peter Triggs is offline  
Old November 5, 2003, 21:49   #46
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Huh? How am I a troll exactly? I have a view, and made my point. I was simply advocating a viewpoint. It may be contentious, and you may not agree with it, but that, does not a troll, make.
MrBaggins is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 02:42   #47
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 12:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
Quote:
Originally posted by Peter Triggs
Could you please expand on this? Preferably in a thread in the CTP2 forum.
I would strongly advocate not to. I've been there and won't do it again.
Harovan is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 08:03   #48
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Huh?

Won't do it again, huh?
MrBaggins is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 08:48   #49
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 12:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
To correct obviously wrong assumptions about Civ3 stuff is not entirely the same as "expanding on different opinions about CtP2". The tolerance for these different opinions is rather slim there.
Harovan is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 09:05   #50
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
and here..
MrBaggins is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 09:15   #51
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 12:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
Yes. As I pointed out above.
Harovan is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 09:24   #52
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Ah, Sir Ralph, I did not mean to insinuate that you were anything but a paragon of understanding, fairmindedness and inclusion. You have to admit that both games have their blind zealots though.

And for the record, I have played Civ3 (w. PTW) for quite a while, like 3 months. I liked a great deal of it. Even though the combat system was a pain in the ass, as was moving the huge quantity of workers, late game. Plus it was a bit slow (and I have a quick system.) There is a certain degree of polish to it, that you can't help but admire.

However, when I got to the point of wanting to do a mod, I found that it was basically so limited as to be useless, at least based on what I was used to (after being used to civ2 and CtP.) So that was the end of that.
MrBaggins is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 09:33   #53
Tiberius
PtWDG LegolandCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Tiberius's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,496
Automating workers for the late game works quite well.
I don't mean to troll or something, but the PW system was one of the things I hated most about CtP (the only thing I liked was the fact that you could queue tile improvements). It's much more fun to work with workers

That being said, the civ3 combat system surely could be much better. If nothing else, I am dreaming to have a combat system that is (slightly) less random. I can survive some bad rolls against the AI, but against humans it can be crippling.
__________________
"The only way to avoid being miserable is not to have enough leisure to wonder whether you are happy or not. "
--George Bernard Shaw
A fast word about oral contraception. I asked a girl to go to bed with me and she said "no".
--Woody Allen
Tiberius is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 09:40   #54
MrWhereItsAt
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameCivilization II Democracy GamePtWDG RoleplayAlpha Centauri PBEMSpanish CiversCall to Power Democracy GameCivilization II Democracy Game: Red FrontPtWDG2 Latin LoversACDG The Cybernetic ConsciousnessCivilization III PBEMC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamACDG Planet University of TechnologyACDG3 GaiansC3CDG The Lost BoysCivilization III Democracy GameInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton Team
Deity
 
MrWhereItsAt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: That's DR WhereItsAt...
Posts: 10,157
oetkenjc - I'm listening, as I listened to all those who disliked some aspect of Civ3 when it came out and I had yet to play it - none of those earlier threads were as well-discussed as this one, so I thank you for that.

I did agree with a lot that was posted, such as the combat system, but I found that the more I learned about what you COULD do in the game, the less I looked at the aspects like this. If you can force yourself to really get into a game or two you may well find that, although you are conscious of what you might ideally like in combat, you learn to live with what we have and to make the most out of it.

/me shrugs

Worth a try, right?
__________________
Consul.

Back to the ROOTS of addiction. My first missed poll!
MrWhereItsAt is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 09:43   #55
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Even with automation (which wasn't a panacea,) they were an unnecessary late game distraction.

It always seemed to me that PW have been a good abstraction. I mean, whats the downside? Hardly realism, or game balance, and if anything its easier for the AI to handle. It improves game speed. Plus it reduces micromanagement. Whats not to like?
MrBaggins is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 09:46   #56
Tiberius
PtWDG LegolandCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Tiberius's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,496
The abstraction exactly I don't want to have everything abstracted in a civ game, and turn it in a war game evertually.

PS and PW doesn't reduce micromanagement.
__________________
"The only way to avoid being miserable is not to have enough leisure to wonder whether you are happy or not. "
--George Bernard Shaw
A fast word about oral contraception. I asked a girl to go to bed with me and she said "no".
--Woody Allen
Tiberius is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 09:50   #57
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
but the game is ABOUT abstraction. Why is this abstraction good and others bad... if there are problems with it in the first place?
MrBaggins is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 10:02   #58
Peter Triggs
CTP2 Source Code ProjectCivilization IV Creators
King
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gone Fishin, Canada
Posts: 1,059
Sir Ralph,

I remember the first flaming event that you refer to above. Poly is an open site: we can't control who posts here, we just have to take the good with the bad. (Someone once advised me though: "There's a lot of idiots out there. But if you just ignore them, eventually they go away.)

The reason I remember the event that you refer to is that it was so out of place. Alexnm, who's been around a lot longer than almost anyone (I'm Poly member #4933, he's IIRC #54 ! ) once said that the CTP2 forums are so polite that it's almost like visiting Switzerland.

Last edited by Peter Triggs; November 8, 2003 at 12:16.
Peter Triggs is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 10:05   #59
Tiberius
PtWDG LegolandCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Tiberius's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,496
Why not abstract combat then? Why do you move units around, when with a mathematical formula you could decide who wins and who loses? Because it's fun.

There are elements of the game that are fun to play with and workers are such an item for me. They already removed two non-combat units, the spy and the caravan, so let it keep at least one of them. (uhh, and some of those CtP units )
__________________
"The only way to avoid being miserable is not to have enough leisure to wonder whether you are happy or not. "
--George Bernard Shaw
A fast word about oral contraception. I asked a girl to go to bed with me and she said "no".
--Woody Allen
Tiberius is offline  
Old November 6, 2003, 10:41   #60
MrBaggins
CTP2 Source Code Project
King
 
MrBaggins's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:46
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 1,528
Ah, but there is a critical difference between combat units and worker units.

The combat units are in conflict, and that happens in a dimensional setting too. You couldn't abstract this and still have resolution of combat.

Worker units are there to simply fulfill a means to an end; placement of tile improvements, which is not contenteous. You can abstract this and still have exactly the same result. You also reduce micromanagement. Something you should be glad of in Civ3, given the expanded map sizes, number of cities and number of opponents.

What is the UPSIDE to having a couple of hundred workers, instead of the same ultimate outcome without the tedious work and system burden involved?
MrBaggins is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:46.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team