Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 17, 2003, 16:36   #121
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeem
It all depends on how many archers you use. If you use enough, you'll eventually win against 3 fortified Mech Inf on a mountain. It seems to me like a lot of 'sane' players thought archers would have no chance against fortified pikes. I don't see any of them retracting their statements or apologising, do you? As I don't need apologies, I'm not looking for any.
Actually, that's not how it went. You said...

Quote:
Originally posted by Jeem
Catt - there is an issue here which I'm sure you are well aware of.

That issue is higher quality defensive troops constantly losing out to massed numbers. We both know that archers can rush through spearmen, pikemen and muskets with a similar level of ease.

Although I'm sure you understand the full reasons for the change, let me suggest one that hasn't been brought up yet.

You rush a city with 12 archers. It's defended by 3 Pikemen behind walls. You *know* you're going to take it.


The real random factor comes into play only on which of your 12 units will get lucky. If your first 3 get lucky, you can take the city and still be left with all 12 units. More often than not, you'll lose 5-6 and take it with the 5th, 6th and 7th. Or maybe the 10th, 11th and 12th?

The changes which Firaxis are going to bring in will still allow 12 archers to rush 3 pikemen behind walls - it's just that you'll be forced into taking high casualties in order to do it. The way the system is now, you could quite easily take no casualties (esp with horsemen who can retreat), because it's just too random.

It makes so much sense I'm not surprised that there is opposition to it.
I 'knew' your main argument to be quite false. I took the time to prove it.

40% of the time the pikes held out, even in a grossly misbalanced fight (240 to 90 shields).

Be that as it may, you seem to have a bit on the ball, Jeem. It would be good if you stick around and bring more of the builder POV to forums that have a lot of war-mongers. However, keep in mind that we discuss just about everything to death, and the surest way to cause controversy is make statements of fact without having your facts lined up first.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
notyoueither is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 16:49   #122
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
And, if I may make another observation:

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia." But only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against the 'poly regulars when Civ3 is on the line."

At least not without a heck of a well laid out and documented argument as well as some flexibility.
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 17:36   #123
Antrine
Prince
 
Antrine's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 676
I think this issue needs another perspective or the view of additional considerations. Like that of ‘color’ or ‘fire of the experience’ when playing the game now CIVIII et al.

Consider the wonderfulness of the addition of ‘volcano’ tiles. This is brilliant and beautiful! It gives a feeling akin to the early ‘sim’ titles where ‘natural disaster’ blew through your preciously built city. I like it and mod many in places on my maps where it is most enticing to build a city, however, there also lay a sleeping, lurking volcano.

Next, for the ‘color’ of experience in battles I would present this idea: When something unusual in ‘combat’ occur an advisor-screen pops up (randomly cycled on topic of course). Here are some choice examples:

“Bad news Emperor, our elite units were wiped out by some one lowly nondescript unit that happened across our carefully scripted battlefield!! It seems by best accounts that a ‘gaggle’ of nymphs met our trustworthy elite troops and nefariously enticed them. Then this uncivilized lowly nondescript unit had the gal to attack when our formally faithful troops had their pants down.” (End of message)

another,

“Your holiness, bad news!! You missed last month’s public tribute to the great God Neptune and He has taken it out your entire siege fleet with all troops aboard lost! This will no doubt set us back fifty years! Shall we make quick amends and publicly schedule your repentance?” (End of message)

You see, I stayed up playing the game all night again…

Sincerely,
__________________
The Graveyard Keeper
Of Creation Forum
If I can't answer you don't worry
I'll send you elsewhere
Antrine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 18:23   #124
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeem
If the number is low enough, the chances of it having a major impact are small. The weaker unit first has to win a round, and only then does it get 10% for the next round. If the 10% bonus made it stronger overall, then the other unit becomes the 'weaker' unit and would get the 10% bonus if it won the next round. It's just adding a small random factor in order to help retain some interest, and was only a passing idea I had.
However strong it is, the only possible effect is to increase streakiness.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 18:24   #125
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
Originally posted by Tiberius
So now those who think that the current system is too random and would like to see some kind of change are stupid?
The current system cannot be "too random" - the system behaves with EXACTLY the "correct" probability, that is, attack/(attack+defense). His arguments are stupid.
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 18:43   #126
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Tall Stranger Nonsense. You present your opinions as fact, and then get upset when people a) point out your mistakes or b) suggest that the changes you favor are foolish and unnecessary. You are mistaking criticism for harrassment.
LOL. Why not go tell Firaxis that their proposed changes are foolish and unnecessary? It's them who'll be changing it after it.

Quote:
The fundamental point is that BALANCE MATTERS. It is entirely appropriate to "worry about how it might affect balance." The reality is that the changes you want to see will make your style of play (defensive, builder) more effective/ easier. It will demonstrably hurt other styles of play, particularly warmongering. The best part of Civ is that it allows people to win, at any level, the way they want. That balance needs to remain.
Do you have any facts to back up your claims that a new combat system will automatically imbalance the game? Why will warmongering be hurt? So long as you warmonger with better units, it'll be even better for the warmonger.

Quote:
You're comparing apples and oranges here. Changing the traits of a civ is nothing compared to fundamentally changing a major element of the game, combat.
And you know this how? Are you stating this as a fact? (something you've just accused me of doing). I think changing the traits for some civs could have huge repercussions for the game. But it doesn't seem to be.

Quote:
Once again, you need to prove that statement. If there is a problem with the RNG generator, prove it. Run several hundred of the scenarios you developed and see if the results are what should be expected based on the A/D ratio. IF you can prove that RNG generator is screwy, I'll wholely support a fix from Firaxis. Until then, you're just whining.
What, like this you mean?

Jesse Smith said...

Quote:
* Modified combat calculations to make combat
appear less "streaky." Combat results are now
calculated multiple times before determining a
result. This should reduce spearman defeating
Tanks and other extremely frustrating combat
results.
And also...

Quote:
This forces the combat system to be more accurate and less "streaky"
Mike Breitkreutz said...

Quote:
This makes the combat results be more in line with what you'd expect them to be. It will reduce the luck factor because it eliminates most wild, "unnatural" runs. However, the luck is still present and it even makes lucky wins more meaningful since they are more rare.
Firaxis thinks the combat is streaky. They are correct, because it is. This is why they want to change it. Sorry to tell you but anything you've accomplished while warmongering has probably been all down to the streaky combat system, that Firaxis don't want anymore and are going to change.

As for whining? Well, I'll let others decide who's doing it most. Quite why I'd be whining about a change I want to see is beyond me, but if you say so Stranger.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:10   #127
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Catt
My own view, and to my eyes the view of most who came out strongly against 4-roll-combat, arises from the opinion that the proposed system would unbalance the game as a whole, putting aside any discrete changes to the combat system viewed in isolation. It is not at all incongruous to argue that more determinative combat outcomes would greatly enhance the Civ 3 combat experience but that such changes would greatly degrade the overall game experience. Opposition to the 4-roll-combat does not equate to opposition to more determinative combat results.
Gimme some examples of how changing the combat is going to 'greatly degrade the overall game experience'. Then, consider that it might not degrade everyone's 'overall game experience' just because it might do it with yours.

Do you even understand that many players 'overall game experience' is lessened simply due to the randomness of combat? Now, your methods for coping with it might be honed to perfection and you are happy with the choices the combat system allows, but others are not.

Quote:
Put another way – in a game as complex as Civ 3, focusing all discussion solely on the effect of proposed changes to combat is missing the larger picture. Combat is but one aspect of the game. We could offer up all sorts of changes to combat that might represent an improvement on the present system depending on personal preferences, but if looked at in isolation, they could fundamentally change the game in ways both good and bad.
Landing on Mars *could* be a bad idea. Should we not try it anyway? You aren't giving any examples of how this *could* break the game Catt. I hear a lot of noise, but no firm statements - C'mon Catt - tell us how other non-combat aspects of the game could be broken through a change in combat.


Quote:
But it does not address the fundamental issue of the effect of such principles: how will the overall game experience be affected?
Maybe, instead of assuming it'll be bad, you could assume it will be good. Do you think the new traits and unit costs are bad for the game? I know that they fundamentally changed one of my favourite races - the Aztecs (surprised? There is nothing quite like a Jaggy rush straight from the off in my experience - or WAS, until Firaxis saw fit to up them to 15 shields. )

Combat is being built up as the be and end all of the game. It isn't. I've played games where I've never shed a drop of blood. It's just another part of the game - no greater or lesser than building or researching. It's players who feel that combat is the be and end all of the game that are most set against the changes.

Quote:
At worst, they are answered with responses focused on combat outcomes only, as if combat outcome is a discrete event within the game without interconnected effects in other aspects of the game.
I personally think that every single thing you do has an outcome in the game, and combat is no better or worse than anything else.

Quote:
So long as you focus only on combat outcomes, and I and others focus on overall game balance effects, we’re discussing two entirely different things (and really talking to ourselves).

Catt
Maybe you should start giving us some examples then Catt. So far, I'm still waiting to here how the game experience is automatically going to be 'greatly degraded' just by changing the combat system to be 'less streaky'.

There is too much emphasis still on the 4-rolls also. I'm pretty sure this is not going to happen so we can all probably relax on that front.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:21   #128
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeem
Do you have any facts to back up your claims that a new combat system will automatically imbalance the game? Why will warmongering be hurt? So long as you warmonger with better units, it'll be even better for the warmonger.
Here is, I think, the heart of the matter.

We have a game that has been playtested for over two years now, but tens of thousands of people here at 'poly and at CFC and other sites. That "testing" has been discussed *extensively* and in full view / including Firaxis / Breakaway.

Both 'poly and CFC FLIPPED OUT when this proposed change was posted by Jesse Smith.

Mike B's reaction was telling... they had NOT fully thought through this change in terms of overall game balance, and they pulled it.

My point is, as others have so much more eloquently put it: This is a huge change, whether you want to admit such or not. Therefore, the onus is on YOU, not those defending the status quo, to successfully make the argument... and you are most emphatically NOT.
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:26   #129
Aeson
Emperor
 
Local Time: 08:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: orangesoda
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
Do you have any facts to back up your claims that a new combat system will automatically imbalance the game? Why will warmongering be hurt? So long as you warmonger with better units, it'll be even better for the warmonger.
It's not the balance between warmongering and not warmongering. It's the balance between how you can warmonger effectively, specifically, which units you can use. This change won't make warmongering any less effective, it will just narrow the list of acceptable units. Increasing the gap between effective units and garbage units.

I like playing variable styles. It's nice you can fight with fast moving armies comprised of Horses, or slow moving but powerful armies of Swords. You can even play combined arms, bring along some Cats, and really beat up on the AI.

The more the results are averaged though, the more imbalanced those options will become. The Horseman Hordes will be unplayable except as the Iroquois. Swords armies will have problems with higher difficulties except for the Persians. Everyone else, get used to catapults, and lots of them. Enjoy being forced to play with an uncounterable unit where there is no more variation in gameplay. Every battle is the same: bombard each unit down to 1 HP, kill the unit with a Sword, rinse, repeat. Oh, and pray you don't start next to Carthage and/or Greece!

If you want to warmonger, that's the formula averaging will sponser. The more results are averaged, the wider the gap will be. I find playing that way enjoyable from time to time, like everything else, but I don't want to have to play that way every time I want to expand my borders.
__________________
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Aeson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:28   #130
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Catt
Not sure how many times this needs to be said, but I and others on the “no 4-roll-combat” side of the ledger are not interested in making the game easier or harder, nor in impressing others with our wins. I and most others are interested in seeing an engaging and balanced game, and our opinions are almost uniformly based on arguments relating to game balance. Why does “making the game easier” or “making it harder” seem to keep popping up every so often?
I keep hearing all this noise about game balance Catt, yet you haven't offered a single example as to how the game *might* be adversely affected by the combat changes. All that banging of your head against the wall seems to be preventing you from offering some viable examples as to why by simply making the combat 'less streaky', the whole game might fall apart at the seams.

Quote:
Because the developers thought that they were elegantly addressing the spearman-tank issue (an dindeed described this in the Read Me). Then they saw the math and examples given on the forums. Then they saw the in-game hypotheticals derived from the math. Then it dawned on them that the supposedly elegant solution to spearman-tank might have some unintended consequences in other spheres of the game. Then they decided to test some of the posted hypotheticals (mainly focusing on the ancient age) to see if the forum posters might be on to something that they had overlooked (i.e., those unintended consequences). Then they posted the examples, and noted there conclusion that the Ancient Ange would need significant rebalancing, to explain why the hard-coded 4-roll-combat was being pulled from the patch in favor of a later-introduced optional and configurable combat system change.

My take on it is that some instant whining from well-known posters made them rethink their stance. As to making it optional, I believe that is a mistake for the simple reason that it will further factionalise MP games. The change is big enough that players would start to ask - "Are you playing streaky or non-streaky combat?"

Quote:
You may not agree with my post directly above, but I think you’re arguing for something entirely different and not shooting down any arguments. You’re arguing for less random combat outcomes. Others are arguing for no changes that unbalance the game as a whole.
Unbalance the game as a whole? Do you have ANY facts or examples to back that up Catt. You say it over and over again yet I haven't seen ANY examples.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:28   #131
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally posted by Jeem

Gimme some examples of how changing the combat is going to 'greatly degrade the overall game experience'. Then, consider that it might not degrade

[. . .]

You aren't giving any examples of how this *could* break the game Catt. I hear a lot of noise, but no firm statements - C'mon Catt - tell us how other non-combat aspects of the game could be broken through a change in combat.

[. . .]

Maybe you should start giving us some examples then Catt. So far, I'm still waiting to here how the game experience is automatically going to be 'greatly degraded' just by changing the combat system to be 'less streaky'.
Well there was this comment I made in the Patch thread on Dec 12:

Quote:
Would seem to make for some pretty drastic changes to the game, rippling well beyond combat itself. Does beelining for Navigiation, with the chance to sew up overseas trades for C3C's scarcer resources before others have a chance to trade for them, still make sense when you could beeline for Cavs and take on AI pikes?

Without actually having played with the thing, leads me to speculate that techs that offer combat unit upgrades just became a lot more powerful seducers of one's research budget.
And then there was this "novella" I posted in this very thread, back on December 15:

Quote:
It is my opinion that a 4-roll-combat regime would mess up the ancient age -- only swords would make decent attackers, and even then only within certain constraints. This would radically alter the balance of power based on the location of the strategic resource iron. It would make researching Bronze Working and Iron Working before any other tech the normal start in too many games, reducing variability. It would mean securing BW and spearman so powerful as to demand it. It would encourage the AI, based on its starting bonus units and the comparative strength it enjoys versus an early human army, attack in circumstances in which it had very little chance of doing any real damage. How welcome would an early AI-started war be for any reasonably competant human player? Tremendously, I'd say.

Outside of the ancient era, it is my opinion that the combat change would significantly strengthen defense at the expense of offense. Fortified pikemen in Cities (7+pop) would be decent defenders until tanks. Muskets would be reasonably powerful until tanks. Rifleman would be very strong. And infantry would be almost tough as nails. All of which means (i) that defensive strategies become strengthened, and (ii) use of bombard on offense becomes necessary. Effective use of defensive strategies and "peaceful dominance" by the human already puts the AI at a serious disadvantage (more so than effective human military offense, IMHO). The disparate uses of bombard units between human and AI puts the AI in a no-win situation.

If the goal was only to win, the path would become pretty clear, IMHO -- techs that provide military upgrades become a lot more useful than they are now. Multiple decent defenders on the border cities means AI attacks are nothing to be feared. Even less need than currently for interior defenders -- focus all attention on bombard units, defenders for the frontiers, and attackers for killing wounded AI units (after they've been bombarded, of course). Beeline to cavalry and pick a nearby AI civ without either (1) knowledge of Gunpowder, (2) saltpeter, or (3) the money to upgrade pikes to muskets. With cats upgraded to cannons and Cavs on the offense, march through any such neighbor taking very few casualties. If the above circumstances don't present themselves, focus military builds on strong defenders and artillery units. An artillery unit stack of doom can dominate offensive operations, from catapults right on up through artillery. If content with one's REX, forget investing a whole lot in military -- you can bet that your thoughtful defense will absolutely shred any AI offensive.

None of which the AI could do! Without radically altering AI decision-making, it would launch its hopeless horsemen / archer attacks. It would attack far superior defensive positions. It would continue to research a wide smattering of techs, many of which have effectively been devalued by the inherent strengthening of the military-related techs. It would not understand that absent compelling circumstances (i.e., Cav versus spears or pikes) that it would rarely make sense to go on the offensive. It would blow innumerable shields and gold on wars and battles that it cannot win.
And, as part of that same post, I asked you why you felt it wouldn't be unbalancing:

Quote:
While I acknowledge your example of the archers versus pike above, I am sceptical that it shows any increase in balance. I want to understand how the game would be better balanced overall. A tech lead now is a powerful position; a tech lead with 4-roll-combat would be even more powerful. In my opinion, 4-roll-combat would dramatcially strengthen human play versus the AI -- the game would become both easier and less variable.

Why do you think it would be better balanced? Is it based on the view that a human must regularly take on superior AI defenders with inferior attackers and the present system strengthens this tactic? Is it based on something else?
I concluded with another thought on balance:

Quote:
I'm not sure why the focus on rushes? Rushes are such a small part of the single player game that I can't imagine the demand for a "solution" to rushing. Or are you using "rush" to mean simple concentration of force?

In any event, the proposed change would seem to weaken the effectiveness of an archer or horseman rush, but it would almost certainly greatly strengthen a sword rush -- indeed, a sword rush would be exceedingly powerful. And only a human can conduct a sword rush. Even if rushes were weaker, do you really think that this proposed change is focused on rushes, or that many of those who have voiced concerns about the proposed change are focused on rushes?

In other words, I am frankly a lot more concerned that 4-roll-combat would dramtically weaken the AI; I am not at all worried about losing some human-only advantage. I am worried that the game would become even more linear and straightforward in terms of "best strategy." I am concerned that the game would more quickly become stale, and lose a lot of the replay value it now has.

Can you explain why you think the change would provide better balance? Is your view limited to the presumption that humans routinely attack AI civs with inferior units and the proposed change would make this more costly? Are there other reasons for the view?
You ignored this post and its questions and instead went on and on about how three archers could defeat pikemen behind walls -- I still have never once seen you address game balance with anything more than "As to the overall game balancing effects, I honestly don't know."

Catt
Catt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:32   #132
Catt
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton University
King
 
Catt's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Location: California - SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,120
@ Jeem: D'oh! You crossposted with me and you might want to edit both the inaccuracy and repetitiveness out of your last post. Or shall I add the additional "SHOW SOME EXAMPLES!" blather to my first response?

Catt
Catt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:38   #133
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
My point is, as others have so much more eloquently put it: This is a huge change, whether you want to admit such or not. Therefore, the onus is on YOU, not those defending the status quo, to successfully make the argument... and you are most emphatically NOT.
Au contraire - I most emphatically AM, and that's exactly why so many in favour of the status quo have got their backs up.

LOL! The onus is not on me one bit - This change is happening whether you like it or not! I suggest you start considering that, and start considering how it can be made balanced instead of scaremongering with claims that 'the whole game will be broken if this happens'.

So, until I see some decent examples of how exactly the whole game is going to go to sh*t just because of the combat change, I'll continue to treat those comments with the contempt they deserve. The onus is on YOU to prove that the game will break down. So far, I've seen the grand total of 0 examples that show this.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:40   #134
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
Re-iterating one of my posts in the patch thread, there is another issue that would ruin game balance:

Resource distribution (or the lack thereof)

Specifically, there *has* to be a meaningful ability for lesser units to overcome the stronger, otherwise the resource-challenged, whether human or AI, are screwed.

And that, my friend, is a Royal Flush, end-of game arument about how combat can overly affect balance.

Again, after a lot of time (and heartache) this game is just about there in terms of polish and game balance... you want to change it to better fit you game style? Not until you can prove that the change will not ruin what has been so hard-achieved.
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:45   #135
Kuciwalker
Deity
 
Kuciwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
Quote:
LOL! The onus is not on me one bit - This change is happening whether you like it or not! I suggest you start considering that, and start considering how it can be made balanced instead of scaremongering with claims that 'the whole game will be broken if this happens'.
Actually, the change ISN'T happening. So the onus IS on you to prove that it SHOULD.

__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
Kuciwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:47   #136
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
Yup.
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:56   #137
DrSpike
Civilization IV: MultiplayerApolyton University
Deity
 
DrSpike's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Enthusiastic member of Apolyton
Posts: 30,342
I think Catt's tome above sums everything up pretty nicely. Jeem, we can't say for sure the change would break the game, but we are not being hysterical for the sake of it.........our views come from deep thought and much civving.

Thinking back to the early posts on the beta patch the first thing I posted after was hang on that combat change looks a little hasty. And many many others reacted exactly the same. You can impugn our motives if you want, but honestly I believe most people that posted concerns have the game's interests at heart.

I am so glad Firaxis pulled the change, and maybe after seeing the opinions of gamers and statisticians they will reconsider how they implement any changes they want to make. Because leaving aside my subjective opinions on the change completely, I can tell you flat out that their stated method is not the best way of attaining their stated goal.
DrSpike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 19:59   #138
Aeson
Emperor
 
Local Time: 08:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: orangesoda
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
The onus is on YOU to prove that the game will break down. So far, I've seen the grand total of 0 examples that show this.
That's because the game won't break down. It will become a more narrow, and less variable experience. Tactics will become more narrow and less variable. If the combat system is changed, it should be to allow more variation on tactics and give every unit a viable use.

It's like putting too small a frame on a nice piece of artwork... why cover up the edges if they have value? People who just want to stare at the middle of the painting can do so already. There are ways you can virtually eliminate any variation on the game... and it's the same way that we would all be forced to play (to the extent that averaging is applied) if these changes are made. Bombard.

You can already do this, why force everyone to in every situation?
__________________
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Aeson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 20:24   #139
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
By Catt:

Quote:
Would seem to make for some pretty drastic changes to the game, rippling well beyond combat itself. Does beelining for Navigiation, with the chance to sew up overseas trades for C3C's scarcer resources before others have a chance to trade for them, still make sense when you could beeline for Cavs and take on AI pikes?

Without actually having played with the thing, leads me to speculate that techs that offer combat unit upgrades just became a lot more powerful seducers of one's research budget.
Seafaring and the Portuguese already made Navigation much less attractive. Why aren't you complaining about that?

Isn't it true that Musketmen are considered poor units right now?

What you are saying here is - Other avenues of tech now become important, when before they were just a requirement to escape the age. Whats the difference between beelining for Navigation and Beelining for Cavalry? It's the choice that has changed - ie, both choices have their merits, depending on how the game is going as a whole.

Just like mathematics would be more important in order to get catapults in the early era. It's about enhancing the game as a whole, by making some techs and units less redundant than they are now.

Quote:
It is my opinion that a 4-roll-combat regime would mess up the ancient age -- only swords would make decent attackers, and even then only within certain constraints. This would radically alter the balance of power based on the location of the strategic resource iron. It would make researching Bronze Working and Iron Working before any other tech the normal start in too many games, reducing variability.
No, you just don't see it do you? If you rush down that line in order to create a military, you've no chance of getting to Philosophy first, and therefore will be suffering badly in tech. Ditto getting to Mapmaking, and maybe building the Great Lighthouse (which incidentally, lets you get out and meet other races much faster, thereby giving you a technological edge). You cannot see this game outside of the military Catt. By all means rush for Iron Working - others will go for tech and wonders that will help them. Less option? It seems to me that the options are GREATLY being increased here.


Quote:
It would mean securing BW and spearman so powerful as to demand it. It would encourage the AI, based on its starting bonus units and the comparative strength it enjoys versus an early human army, attack in circumstances in which it had very little chance of doing any real damage. How welcome would an early AI-started war be for any reasonably competant human player? Tremendously, I'd say.
On the flip side, it would allow builder players to continue building to their strength, and not to be overrun by a technologically inferior race that happens to have more crap than the human player does.

Can you see it from the non-militaristic PoV? One of the main problems with building is that the AI is so aggressive to non-militaristic players that it's made very, very difficult. Until you play that style of game exclusively, you'll never know just what it's like. Have you ever played a game where the AI demanded gold and tech of you 15 times? My recent one has just that!

However, the main point here is that you are supposed to be getting away from just the combat side of the changes. This is a combat related point.

Quote:
Outside of the ancient era, it is my opinion that the combat change would significantly strengthen defense at the expense of offense. Fortified pikemen in Cities (7+pop) would be decent defenders until tanks. Muskets would be reasonably powerful until tanks. Rifleman would be very strong. And infantry would be almost tough as nails. All of which means (i) that defensive strategies become strengthened, and (ii) use of bombard on offense becomes necessary. Effective use of defensive strategies and "peaceful dominance" by the human already puts the AI at a serious disadvantage (more so than effective human military offense, IMHO). The disparate uses of bombard units between human and AI puts the AI in a no-win situation.
All of that seems completely reasonable to me. The only problem is the AI doesn't bombard enough (unless you find yourself at war with the Byzantines early - you want to see just how the AI CAN bombard when it needs to). The AI's bombarding capabilities can be fixed. What are you saying Catt? That the game should negate bombarding just because the AI is hopeless at it? Better to fix the AI so that it can bombard effectively, no?

Anyway, isn't this a combat related point?

Quote:
Even less need than currently for interior defenders -- focus all attention on bombard units, defenders for the frontiers, and attackers
I'm quite happy if the human player or AI strips his defenses when going on a full assault. The penalty for doing so is in 'military police' in your cities, which means less production overall, and much less chance of getting wonders. It'll slow down the reinforcements also, whereas the defender will still be operating at maximum effeciency.

Again, you are only seeing this from the military PoV Catt. There are other ways to play this game.

Quote:
Beeline to cavalry and pick a nearby AI civ without either (1) knowledge of Gunpowder, (2) saltpeter, or (3) the money to upgrade pikes to muskets. With cats upgraded to cannons and Cavs on the offense, march through any such neighbor taking very few casualties.
Catt - this is what happens anyway. However, while you are 'beelining to Cav', the AI might have been 'beelining to Nav'. They might have met a strong AI on another continent, who traded them Saltpeter and Gunpowder. What a surprise that might be when you start attacking their cities. Does all this seem reasonable and sound like a game that is enjoyable? It does to me.

Quote:
If the above circumstances don't present themselves, focus military builds on strong defenders and artillery units. An artillery unit stack of doom can dominate offensive operations, from catapults right on up through artillery.
I don't see how this is breaking the game. Changing the game? Yes. Breaking it? No. It might be *different* tactics that are required, but I don't see how it's breaking.

Quote:
If content with one's REX, forget investing a whole lot in military -- you can bet that your thoughtful defense will absolutely shred any AI offensive.
If you have access to iron and gunpowder at least. If not, you find yourself in a poorly defended position and are wishing you'd built a whole load of archers earlier. That's the breaks.

Quote:
None of which the AI could do! Without radically altering AI decision-making, it would launch its hopeless horsemen / archer attacks. It would attack far superior defensive positions. It would continue to research a wide smattering of techs, many of which have effectively been devalued by the inherent strengthening of the military-related techs. It would not understand that absent compelling circumstances (i.e., Cav versus spears or pikes) that it would rarely make sense to go on the offensive. It would blow innumerable shields and gold on wars and battles that it cannot win.
The AI has many avenues open to it to ensure it is usually in the favourable position when attacking. This usually is a tech lead and trading every resource it needs if it can. You continue to assume that military techs are the be and end all of the game. That's because what you know *now* about the game is that military techs are the be and end all of it. There is absolutely no difference in what you are suggesting might happen and what actually happens now.

Quote:
I still have never once seen you address game balance with anything more than "As to the overall game balancing effects, I honestly don't know."
And I still honestly don't. You *think* you know Catt, but you don't. I didn't realise up till now just how steeped in the militaristic game you were, but now I do. You have very little concept of what is happening outside of the military game, and more importantly what other non-militaristic civs are doing while you are pursuing your military game.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 20:29   #140
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
Scenario #1. Inter-AI warfare and it's effect on player civs.

Unless Soren spent what I would imagine to be a looong time adjusting the AI, they would most likely happily bash on each other for lengthy periods of time since the power of the defence is radically increased by 4 roll combat.

So, the human builder would be doubly blessed. First his own cities would be very safe with their walls and fortified defenders whose D strengths would exceed all normal units' A values.

Then, the human builder would benefit from AI around him or her burning themselves out against each other in blood baths of futilility that would go on for lengthier periods of time due, again, to the increased power of the defence.

Crucially, Republic and Democracy would be greatly reduced as viable forms of government for the AI unless absolutely no war ocurred (which can happen but is uncommon). Even as things stand the AI is often forced out of Republic and Democracy by WW when AI agression overflows the bounds of peace. The need for the AI to switch would increase due to lengthier conflicts, more casulaties, and with fewer clear victors, once again due to the increased power of the defence.

Now, I don't know about you, but I notice that as soon as the major AIs start to switch out of Republic or Democracy into Monarchy and Communism, I have the game in the bag from a builder POV. They increase corruption, and decrease their ability to research right at the time that I am normally putting on my speed skates of higher learning. The tech war is won simply because the AI elect to attend the gun fight with... well they don't even really have knives at that point, do they? More like they show up as clay pidgeons for the player to take blasts at with Tanks and MA as his space ship is completed some time around the point they discover that corporations are a good thing.

That is an example of how overall game balance can be altered by such a fundamental change in combat. All that is required is the premise that the defence is greatly increased in power. If you grant that, then the rest is likely.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
notyoueither is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 20:31   #141
Antrine
Prince
 
Antrine's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 676
[QUOTE]As to making it optional, I believe that is a mistake for the simple reason that it will further factionalise MP games. The change is big enough that players would start to ask - "Are you playing streaky or non-streaky combat?"[/QUOTE by Jeem]

Jeem, this is flat out inconsiderate. I bet 80% play only alone somewhere in a corner on their own computer, never minding the rest of the planet. This game 'made it big' without MP not the other way around.

OPTIONS are courtesy.

Many Thanks,
Someone who cares.
Antrine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 20:45   #142
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Re-iterating one of my posts in the patch thread, there is another issue that would ruin game balance:

Resource distribution (or the lack thereof)

Specifically, there *has* to be a meaningful ability for lesser units to overcome the stronger, otherwise the resource-challenged, whether human or AI, are screwed.

And that, my friend, is a Royal Flush, end-of game arument about how combat can overly affect balance.
Resource distribution can be fixed. We've already seen new resources added in Conquests - there is no reason why other strategic resources can't be too.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that the Swordsman vs Spearmen point came up earlier, and I stated that a Spearman is still better overall so long as it's behind walls. That is not something that will break the game - it's something that will change the builder game in order to value walls more than they are now.

Iron might be great, and is obviously better than having none, but Swordmen are still going to be up against it when fighting fortified spearmen. Dare I say Catapults? You don't need ANY resources for those - maybe if you don't have Iron you might consider them more valuable than you do now? Again, no game-breaking here - just adding to the options available, and making less-used units more viable.

Quote:
Again, after a lot of time (and heartache) this game is just about there in terms of polish and game balance... you want to change it to better fit you game style? Not until you can prove that the change will not ruin what has been so hard-achieved.
Ummm, yet again I should reiterate that it's not actually *me* who's changing the combat!

Firaxis think the combat is too streaky. They probably see the game becoming more bottlenecked towards 'effective strategies' as well. I don't need to prove anything to any of you. However, I'm not about to let Firaxis abandon this plan simply because a small vocal minority (which you are btw) of players like their combats in the 'streaky' manner they are right now. Continue to slap it down by all means - I'm going nowhere, and I'm making sure the other side of the coin is seen and the other PoV is heard.

Others might be fazed by a concerted attack from Apolyton's 'big-gun posters', but I am not. No offence, but I've seen of far worse than this on the Moo3 forum. I have every confidence that Firaxis will see through the scaremongering and make the game a whole new experience for us all. Considering how old the game now is, we should all be grateful if a new combat system forces a new outlook on how to play.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 20:50   #143
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Catt
@ Jeem: D'oh! You crossposted with me and you might want to edit both the inaccuracy and repetitiveness out of your last post. Or shall I add the additional "SHOW SOME EXAMPLES!" blather to my first response?

Catt
Nah, I think I'll leave it Catt. After all, I did ask you to show me some examples where the game might break down into a cataclysmic state (or something. ), and I don't think you did with the examples you posted.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 20:59   #144
Aeson
Emperor
 
Local Time: 08:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: orangesoda
Posts: 8,643
Quote:
Can you see it from the non-militaristic PoV? One of the main problems with building is that the AI is so aggressive to non-militaristic players that it's made very, very difficult. Until you play that style of game exclusively, you'll never know just what it's like. Have you ever played a game where the AI demanded gold and tech of you 15 times? My recent one has just that!
You assume no one but yourself plays peacenik games. The reality is that most of the arguments here are to allow for a wider range of gamestyles to be effective, your's is the argument to limit playstyle.

Currently, peacenik games aren't hard to win unless you don't know what you are doing. Defense already has a very large advantage in the game, only the AI tends to go about it poorly (2 defenders per city, maybe an artillery, and no mobile counter-attacking force held in reserve) and so offensives are possible against it.

You don't have to fight any wars to win at any difficulty level other than Sid (and probably there it's possible too, somehow). In most cases, it's the least time consuming method of winning. Turtle and build the spaceship or call a UN vote.

The warfare aspect of it is simplistic. Keep your defenses upgraded, keep a tech lead, keep a mobile counterattacking force, lots of bombardment units, and the AI just can't touch you. If they demand something from you, laugh at them and eat up the peicemeal invasion forces they send sporadically into your territory. Even OCC games usually are possible with a decent setup (though then you should usually give in to demands of course), and with several cities to support economic and defensive power, there isn't a problem.

The key to defense is to not allow the opposition to even get a shot at your cities. If you play it right, the 'spearman vs tank' syndrome will have no effect on the outcome of your game outside a lost tank that can easily be replaced.
__________________
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
Aeson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 21:00   #145
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Antrine
Quote:
As to making it optional, I believe that is a mistake for the simple reason that it will further factionalise MP games. The change is big enough that players would start to ask - "Are you playing streaky or non-streaky combat?"[/QUOTE by Jeem]

Jeem, this is flat out inconsiderate. I bet 80% play only alone somewhere in a corner on their own computer, never minding the rest of the planet. This game 'made it big' without MP not the other way around.

OPTIONS are courtesy.

Many Thanks,
Someone who cares.
I know that! 1/2 my games are single-player and 1/2 are MP.

But actually, I see your point on this. If you don't want it in the game then that should be up to you. Optional is probably the only way ahead because of this, but I'd be worried that it could split the MP community.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 21:04   #146
Theseus
PtWDG Gathering StormApolyton UniversityApolytoners Hall of FameBtS Tri-LeagueC4DG Gathering StormApolyCon 06 Participants
Emperor
 
Theseus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm!
Posts: 8,907
Good for you, Jeem. Seriously, I like a healthy argument.

Um, three things:

I think you're overplaying the "militaristic POV" think... a) a lot of people around here are just faaaantastic builders, and b) many of us played this among other peacenik games:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=57468

... and thus know a bit about playing peacefully.

Also, you might want to read this:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=67506

... I know, I know, I'm shameless.

Lastly, I gotta question for you:

If 4-roll were implemented, how quickly would you jump to play the Aztecs, Zulu, or Sumerians, as their UUs are currently designed?

ps: When referring to resource distribution earlier, I was mostly concerned about AI civs getting the shaft. Yes, you are right, it can be balanced... but the whole point is that the balance is currently oriented toward 1-roll, and making the change to more deterministic combat doesn't fit without ALSO tweaking a whole bunch of other stuff (like Impis and Jags and Enkidus ).
__________________
The greatest delight for man is to inflict defeat on his enemies, to drive them before him, to see those dear to them with their faces bathed in tears, to bestride their horses, to crush in his arms their daughters and wives.

Duas uncias in puncta mortalis est.
Theseus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 21:16   #147
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally posted by DrSpike
I think Catt's tome above sums everything up pretty nicely. Jeem, we can't say for sure the change would break the game, but we are not being hysterical for the sake of it.........our views come from deep thought and much civving.
OK, I'm being hysterical and I don't think too deeply.]

Quote:
Thinking back to the early posts on the beta patch the first thing I posted after was hang on that combat change looks a little hasty. And many many others reacted exactly the same. You can impugn our motives if you want, but honestly I believe most people that posted concerns have the game's interests at heart.
And my first post on this whole forum was....? (Hint:- Go check and see)

Quote:
I am so glad Firaxis pulled the change, and maybe after seeing the opinions of gamers and statisticians they will reconsider how they implement any changes they want to make. Because leaving aside my subjective opinions on the change completely, I can tell you flat out that their stated method is not the best way of attaining their stated goal.
At no time have I ever supported the 4-roll system. Many of you seem to be confused over this. Read my first ever post on this forum - you'll see that I am in complete agreement with many here on that.

4-rolls is way too much. At least I tried to give other views on the way ahead (like 2 rolls, 3 victories XP gain). Few others have, and instead are digging their heels in and demanding that it isn't changed - not actually giving any input as to how it can be changed for the best. Guilty? Not I, M'lud.

Well, it looks pretty obvious to me that Firaxis want to change it. It might have been pulled from this patch, but Jesse still came back with examples after it had been pulled. Firaxis want to change this. They want feedback on how it can be done in order to better balance the game. By digging in heels and stating that you don't want it to change, you are helping NOBODY but your own selfish self.

If I'm the only one who will back up Firaxis on this, so be it. I want a change - I don't want the 4-roll change, but I want a change. I suspect there are MANY others who feel the same way, yet don't want to incur the wrath of Apolytons finest so keep quiet. I guess we're in for a long haul.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 21:34   #148
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Theseus
Good for you, Jeem. Seriously, I like a healthy argument.
Well, I'm doing my best to ensure it remains healthy. Others might want to take suit.

Quote:
Um, three things:

I think you're overplaying the "militaristic POV" think... a) a lot of people around here are just faaaantastic builders
Don't doubt it for a minute. I'm not too shabby on the attack myself, surprising though that might be to some.

However, Catt's arguments were definitely on the militaristic PoV. There was no sense of the 'bigger picture' - in effect Catt's arguments about pursuing Military techs just plain ignored the fact that builders can have an equally successful game by aggressively pursuing other avenues.

Quote:
Lastly, I gotta question for you:

If 4-roll were implemented, how quickly would you jump to play the Aztecs, Zulu, or Sumerians, as their UUs are currently designed?
I never play the Zulu because they're expansionist. I hate the production change to the Aztecs, and I'd rather they were still Religious (even though Agricultural is a boon in itself). The Sumerians suit me to a T. I hardly ever bother to build spearmen early because they cost too many shields. Spearmen for Warrior production is something I greatly admire!

On the Aztecs - I can't help but feel the change in production for the Jaggy is because of the change in Trait. Agricultural can mean that they grow so much faster than they did, and therefore have more production, faster. However, this is countered on Emperor level because you need an early temple in order to make full use of your workforce. By losing Religious, that early temple is no longer as easy as it used to be.

It's the one change I want to see changed back. Jaggies are absolutely RUBBISH now (IMO).

Once again, I need to assure you that the 4-roll combat is not what I want. How many times do I need to say it? I don't want the 4-roll combat. I offered my opinion on what would be better for the game overall (2 roll, 3 XP gain or 3-roll, 4 XP gain).

Maybe I need to make this really clear :-

I do not want to see 4-roll combat in Civ3.

Quote me on that if you want to.

Quote:
ps: When referring to resource distribution earlier, I was mostly concerned about AI civs getting the shaft. Yes, you are right, it can be balanced... but the whole point is that the balance is currently oriented toward 1-roll, and making the change to more deterministic combat doesn't fit without ALSO tweaking a whole bunch of other stuff (like Impis and Jags and Enkidus ).
All of which can be done. The only race that will really lose out is the Aztecs because 1) The Jaggy is already overpriced and 2) It would be even more worthless than it is now if the 'streaky' results were dealt with.

However - do you see what is happening here? We are bottlenecking the game to the extent of strangulation because of what has gone before. It might be 2 years of playtesting, but that 2 years has led us down a narrow path.

Instead of continuing down a rapidly narrowing path, perhaps it's time to readdress the root cause - that is the flawed AI and combat system in the first place.

Last edited by Jeem; December 17, 2003 at 21:47.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 21:39   #149
CiverDan
Civilization III MultiplayerPtWDG Lux InvictaInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamPtWDG Roleplay
Prince
 
Local Time: 09:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 733
I was in a MP game today where I attacked 1 regular archer in the open (no terrian bonus) with a vet 5/5 ancient cavalry and lost. I almost lost another with a similar attack but the cav won with 1 HP. Clearly the current key to the game is still massing units. That is why Jag Warrior rushes are so successful in MP. The should be balanced somewhat, this may be "overbalancing though". I think enkidus should be 15 shields too....but thats another matter..
__________________
Citizen of the Apolyton team in the ISDG
Currently known as Senor Rubris in the PTW DG team
CiverDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17, 2003, 22:13   #150
Jeem
Warlord
 
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Posts: 159
Quote:
Originally posted by CiverDan
I was in a MP game today where I attacked 1 regular archer in the open (no terrian bonus) with a vet 5/5 ancient cavalry and lost. I almost lost another with a similar attack but the cav won with 1 HP. Clearly the current key to the game is still massing units. That is why Jag Warrior rushes are so successful in MP. The should be balanced somewhat, this may be "overbalancing though". I think enkidus should be 15 shields too....but thats another matter..
I actually agree with that 100%. Jaggies were too good in Civ3 and PTW, but I think adding 50% to their build cost is a bad case of overfixing.

The game allows for units and buildings to cost anything. I'd have priced Jaggies at 12 production.

Enkidu's I'm still not sure about. They look cheap (certainly when compared to a Jaggy). I think the real flaw is the Jaggy increase - just about every other special stayed the same or got cheaper. Whether the change from Relig to Agric is what made Firaxis change the value I dunno - I do know that being next to the Aztecs isn't quite as horrible as it used to be.
Jeem is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 10:35.


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