Fire power is not what we need, we need modern units to have more hit points

[Dmc507]

I know this is a long post so I devided it up into 2 parts for people who might just want to read about hitpoints/firepower.

HERE IS THE STUFF ON HIT POINTS

There are many things that I like about this game, yet there are just as many things that I highly dislike. I am not going to go over all the bugs here because they have already been posted about millions of times. My bigest thing with the game is the combat system. I hate it when my elite tank that is in a forest is forced to retreat when attacked by a regular longbow men (this has happened too many times)

People keeps saying that we need to bring back firepower. They are wrong because only a few units had fire power. The major deciding factor in civ2's combat system was the hit points. warriors had 10 hit points whereas musketeers had 20 hit points. thats why musketeers defending at 3 won when being attacked by catapults with an attack of 6. What needs to be done about this is to give more modern units more hit points.

Does anyone else find it funny that in civ3 an ancient warror can take the same amount of damage as a battle ship and tanks? I think that ancient warriors should have only 1 hit point starting out. As more modern units come out they should have an ever increasing amount of hit points, just like in civ2 (battle ships had I belive 40 or 50 hit points in civ2 and tanks had 30. this is why tanks, unless they were all the way damaged, would never get killed by ancient units). With a system like this in civ 3, the battle out comes in the game would be much more realistic. Also, if something like this is implemented, then the veteran elite system would need to be redone. I belive that the units should gain an attack and defese bonuse each time they gain a level. I also think it would be kool if a unit became elite, that It would gain an extra movement point per turn.

HERE IS MY 2 CENTS ON OTHER STUFF.

One addition note about movement and aircraft ranges. Air craft ranges should be much much more then they are now. I would not mind it if their range was determined by the size of the map but I just started a game in a world that is 256x256 and it is unbeliveably huge. I also want to be able to decided on the dimensions of the map I want to play on in the new game screen. I dont like the preset options. There should be a custom size available too. I don't like having to go in and edit the huge map dimensions so that I can play on a map that is 256x256. Also, along the lines of huge maps, I should have the option at start up of making all units have twice as much rate of movement a-la civ2 multiplayer gold multiplayer games. This is because it will take me 50 years for my modern task force to reach another country in the map I am currently playing on (256x256). One additional thing about the start new game screen. I want to be able to choose a mix of continents and archipelogo. The real world is not made up of just continents or islands. It is made up of a combination of the 2. I want there to be a mix option that makes some big continents and some small ones, and then a bunch of islands, or perhaps one really big continent and then a bunch of really small islands. We should be able to mix it up.

Another Idea. This is just an idea I have that I think would be really cool if it could be implemented. Mid-air refueling. If the current airplane system is kept it could work like this. You would station your mid-air refueling aircraft in citys or carriers and you would set them to "patrol" or "refuel" just like you set fighters to air superiority and what this would allow you to do is if any fighter or bombers range overlaped with that of the tanker, then it would allow the fighter/bomber to continou through the tankers range and then go its set range again. so if the tankers range was 6 then a fighter going through it would have its range extented 6 beyond that of the tankers range in all directions from the tanker. Also, you would be able to use multiple tankers to fly your bombers and fighters around the world to bomb/recon a target in a single turn. This from the fact that the US sends B-2s from Whitemans airforce base in the middle of missouri all the way over to afganastna and back. Of course only modern fighters/bombers would be capable of being refueled in midair. Also, I think it that the air base improvment should come back and that you can make a treaty with you allys (assuming that you can again have a strait allience and not just this ally vs enimy crap) to allow you to build an airbase in their teritory so that you could station fighters/bombers/tankers there. Also, you should be able to land your aircraft at bases other then from where they took off. Additionaly, fighters should scramble and bomb any units attacking their city/base if there is another ground unit in the city/base defending (the fighters scramble while the groudn units engage). Along those lines, if a city/base that has only fighters in it when it is attacked, there should be a 50% chance for the fighters to get off the ground and bomb the attacking unit. not 100% chance like if there were ground units in it because the enimy ground units have time to get the air base and attack the aircraft as they are taking off because there were no ground defenders to stop them. (A company of knights from the middle ages should not be able to walk into a city that has 8 f-15s in it and destroy all of the f-15s). Another thing, air units and artiery units should be able to destroy units. Why is is that I can bomb a city of size 12 with 15 city improvements down to size 1 and 0 city improvments and yet barely damage the defeneding units? (I know because I went gung-ho with f-15s as soon as I got them in a game I was playing because I thought they would kick royal butt). Once the city was at size 1 (which would be like me killing millions of civillions), and all the improvements were gone, I bombed it twice as much as what it took me to get it to size one and yet nothing happened? Does anyone see something wrong with this? Finaly, AEGIS crusiers should have a fairly weak bombard, and should be able to carry cruise missles. The cruise missles would be their primary attack form and cruise missles should have a range much farther then 2. When was the last time you saw a Ticondaroga class crusier bombard the shoreline? You dont see that because it doesnt happen. We (meaning USA) destroy stuff by attacking with cruise missles and fighters/bombers. Perhaps instead of having the ablitiy to bombard, the AEGIS crusier would have a missle attack option that would have a range of like 4 or 6 or somthing. It could have a limited number of shots before it has to return back to base for more missles, spending at least one turn in port to be resupplyed. Also, you should be able to station 1 ATTACK helicopter on the crusiers. This assuming that there is an attack helicopter put into the game. I wouldnt mind it if air units had less of a chance of damaging/destroying infantry units if the attack helicopter had an increased chance of killing soldiers. Ok, one last thing. Why is it cannons from the 15th century can bombard my battleship down to 1 health? the cannons first of all most likely cant shoot that far, even if the battle ship was just off the coast and secondly, the steal ball from the cannons would just bounce off the battleships, or any other modern vessle for that matter. Question, why is it that my battle ship only does damage like 1 out of 6 bombards? Doesnt its guns do tons and tons of damge? thats what I thought, maybe Im wrong. Subs should have a strait out chance of sinking any vessel with no damage. I want there to be the possiblity for me to sink a battle ship with my sub, yet not have the battleships defense so low that destroyers esily sink them, or the subs attack so high that destroyers cant defend agasint them. Ok, I just thought of something else, if you bombard a bombard unit (with ground/sea bombard units, then there is the chance that that unit being bombarded may bombard you back (assuming it has the range to do so. thus simulating artillery duels.

Ok i know this was a long list of stuff, but it is stuff that I have not yet read on the forums that I thought people should hear about. If you read all of this then you have my thanks.

[Venger]

Dude I explained all this in a thread this morning...

HP/FP are part of the same system however. You can substitute a rise in one for the other and get the same result, at least with small numbers. Make the numbers too high and you'll get the right number of victories but end up with wierd results like units not taking any damage or inflicting damage before they are destroyed...

Using FP also keeps you from using some ridiculous size numbers in modern day units...still, they are two sides of the same coin in Civ2.

Venger

[woody]

Quit whining! You can do almost all of what you suggested, by using the editor. If you want to increase the power of modern units, increase their offense and defense rating. If you want long-range bombers, increase their range.

Of course you'll unbalance the game, but if that's what you want to do, go ahead. Just stop complaining about things that you can easily change yourself!

[Venger]

Originally posted by woody
Of course you'll unbalance the game, but if that's what you want to do, go ahead. Just stop complaining about things that you can easily change yourself!

Listen newbie priçk, it's not up to us to finish the game for them. People paid $50 for a game that works not a game they have to tweak to make sense.

Die troll die!

Venger

[yavoon]

funny, I think the game worx just fine, right now, as is.

its been explained to you many times why ancient units are allowed a better chance than "realism" against modern units. but you scoff it off. well I'm sorry u scoff it off but thems the reasons.

[Venger]

Originally posted by yavoon
its been explained to you many times why ancient units are allowed a better chance than "realism" against modern units. but you scoff it off. well I'm sorry u scoff it off but thems the reasons.

If you feel your gameplay requires a handicap and unreasonable unit strengths, please try a challenging game of "Candyland" or "Chutes and Ladders". Id like a game about history and controlling a nation and the world to include things resembling what happens in history and the world...

Venger

[yavoon]

funny u mention handicap since 99.9% of the complaints are of player's battleships losing to computer's galley's, NOT the other way around. it would seem u want to remove a feature so u lose less.

there are SO MANY unrealistic things about civ3, its just silly. but trust me, if u have tanks, and he has spearmen, not counting incompetence, which u might indeed posess. you will win, the more battles you fight, themore this will bear out, because the more the dice will have been rolled, and the more the tanks higher stats will attest to.

that doesn't mean you won't lose the odd battle, but like I sed, I'm sorry you dislike the reaons the combat system is how it is. and I'm sorry your so hostile to anyone who disagrees, but u know, at some point, why not go play a simulation game instead of a strategy game?

[Venger]

Originally posted by yavoon
funny u mention

U ? Who R U, Prince?

handicap since 99.9% of the complaints are of player's battleships losing to computer's galley's

I didn't mention a battleship - thanks though.

it would seem u want to remove a feature so u lose less.

Oh, goofy combat results aren't a bug, they're a feature!

there are SO MANY unrealistic things about civ3, its just silly. but trust me, if u have tanks, and he has spearmen, not counting incompetence, which u might indeed posess.

Who said tanks attacking spearmen? Another made up line...

that doesn't mean you won't lose the odd battle, but like I sed, I'm sorry you dislike the reaons the combat system is how it is.

Why would I like any reason that something is broken?

and I'm sorry your so hostile to anyone who disagrees, but u know, at some point, why not go play a simulation game instead of a strategy game?

Did you read what you wrote? Strategy is based on reasonable expectations. Creating a Civ and researching and striving and building a musketeer after 5000 years of Civ time only to see them lose regularly to units that were around in 4000 BC is NOT a reasonable expectation. Plus, it makes the feel of rewriting history and making your own empire an exercise in tedious randomness, SUPPOSEDLY designed for "gameplay balance". Can they not find "gameplay balance" with "gameplay reason"?

Venger

[yavoon]

sorry strategy isnt simulation. all my examples have been brought up in some analogous form before, just cuz u haven't sed them in this thread doesn't mean u can call them bulslhit. but thats just part of ur misdirection tactics.

why aren't u mad at the 100000 other unrealistic things about civ? huh? thats wut i thot, now sit down.

[uXs]

Originally posted by Venger


If you feel your gameplay requires a handicap and unreasonable unit strengths, please try a challenging game of "Candyland" or "Chutes and Ladders". Id like a game about history and controlling a nation and the world to include things resembling what happens in history and the world...

Venger

No you don't. The only thing you want is a horribly unbalanced game where the first guy who gets guns wins.

uXs

[woody]

I never should have bothered trying to point out anything to guys like "Venger". He's so closed-minded. The problem is that guys like him, who whine about tanks losing to pikemen, completely lack the ability of abstract thought. He can't understand that Civ is an abstraction of reality. Civ doesn't try to emulate reality. If it did, it would be a boring, unbalanced game.

Still, the editor allows him to change the units to what he wants. Instead of doing that, he'd rather whine, and have the game horribly unbalanced for everyone.

Venger, why don't you simply return Civ3 and never buy another strategy game. We'd all be better off.

[Venger]

Originally posted by woody
I never should have bothered trying to point out anything to guys like "Venger". He's so closed-minded.

As opposed as to you, open minded to the point your brain has fallen out.

The problem is that guys like him, who whine about tanks losing to pikemen, completely lack the ability of abstract thought.

We non-abstract thinkers indeed don't enjoy playing a game that basically treats combat like a game of three card monte. Guys like you will swallow whatever software Firaxis ejaculates because you are fanboys who are easily amused and do not require your time to be well spent.

He can't understand that Civ is an abstraction of reality.

Civ3 combat is an abstraction of irrationality.

Civ doesn't try to emulate reality.

Which is why the Civs all have real names, real city names, real leader names, real unit names, real building names, and real terrain types, all because they were trying to avoid emulating anything like reality. Doofus.

If it did, it would be a boring, unbalanced game.

What you have is a tedious, unbalanced game. But boring? Never! Can't wait to see what miraculous feat those 5000 year old warriors are going to pull off!

Still, the editor allows him to change the units to what he wants.

I cannot change the HP/FP rules, dork, which is the real fix for the game, and I would rather have gotten a game that had decent values in the first place. Of course, an obsequious peon like yourself would be happy with a screen sized paper cutout that looked like it was really a running program.

Instead of doing that, he'd rather whine, and have the game horribly unbalanced for everyone.

Everyone! Nice sample size. Funny, a majority of respondants to polls in here seem to think the system needs a good deal of work. Care to revise your statistical analysis? Or would you rather brown nose some more with the other fanboys who love the Emperor's new combat?

Venger, why don't you simply return Civ3 and never buy another strategy game. We'd all be better off.

Well, Mr. Settler, I've done a good deal more than show up late carrying a big bag of overpowering ignorance like you. I recommend games like "Yahtzee" and "Old Maid" for someone with your gaming preferences...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by uXs
No you don't. The only thing you want is a horribly unbalanced game where the first guy who gets guns wins.

Yet another settler doofus heard from. I didn't get guns first in my current game, and often don't in Civ2, but I manage to struggle through. See, when outclassed, you must outnumber. But see, that's STRATEGY. Quantity has a quality all it's own. If you cannot win because someone else has a qualitative advantage, that's your lacking, not the systems. But you want to deny an advantage to the advanced unit, simply because you cannot win otherwise and you'd have unbalanced "gameplay". Nice sissy answer.

Venger

[woody]

I think Venger's lack of class goes a long way to showing that his ideas are as confused as he is.

I have a question: is it possible to killfile someone in this forum, so I don't have to see anything he posts? (As a user, not as a moderator.)

[Setsuna]

As I've said in this forum before, sometimes when people are unable to refute something that they don't like, they have to block it out.

Does the truth hurt that badly, woody?

[n.c.]

All you of lame @ss pieces of crap telling people like Venger (and me) to shut up and/or quit whining need to blow it out your @ss. He can say whatever the fvck he wants to on these threads. Tell him why he's wrong, if you dare try, but this attempt to censor with browbeating is patently inexcusable.

[Setsuna]

I liked the way I put it better. :P

[uXs]

Originally posted by Venger


Yet another settler doofus heard from. I didn't get guns first in my current game, and often don't in Civ2, but I manage to struggle through. See, when outclassed, you must outnumber. But see, that's STRATEGY. Quantity has a quality all it's own. If you cannot win because someone else has a qualitative advantage, that's your lacking, not the systems. But you want to deny an advantage to the advanced unit, simply because you cannot win otherwise and you'd have unbalanced "gameplay". Nice sissy answer.

Venger

You really have to ask yourself, that if you make advanced units all-powerfull, how is having more low-tech units going to help ? They would all be chewed up by the almighty units of later ages, no matter how many there are.

uXs

Oh and if you think a massive amount of posts somehow makes you smarter than other people, think again. At most, it shows a tendency to spam.

[Setsuna]

I guess it's in one ear, out the other with you uXs.

Time to pick up your broken, circular logic and go home.

[Your.Master]

Originally posted by Setsuna
I guess it's in one ear, out the other with you uXs.

Time to pick up your broken, circular logic and go home.

Wow!

This is the first argument I've ever seen where EVERYBODY was totally, unrepentantly wrong! (Does that include myself? Can it, by definition?)

Both sides have good points, both sides take personal shots. I tend to agree with Venger, but he seemed to start the flames (especially with the irrational and irsmart comment on the number of woody's posts).

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Your.Master
[Venger] seemed to start the flames

How polite should he have been in response to the following?

Originally posted by woody
Quit whining!
Just stop complaining about things that you can easily change yourself!

We can start to have a better tone only if posters in general direct their frustration at those who actually start the unpleasantness.

[Dmc507]

To all of you people who say that superior numbers more then make up for crappy technology, yea, that was so.... back in the middle ages and 18th and 19th century. Of course 10,000 warriors are going to kill 1,000 legionnaires or 1,000 musketeers, but they would not stand up to modern weaponry. In modern times, it is superior technology that wins wars, not superior numbers. I know examples in the past of superior numbers beating superior forces, but I know of many many more cases of superior tech beating superior numbers. The US just laid waste to the third largest army in the world using superior tech back in 1991. I think it was called the gulf war? Anyone else hear of it? Also, look at all of the wars that Israel has been in. They have NEVER lost a war in the twentieth century, even though they are a tiny nation and are out number by some huge ungodly amount. Why have they never lost? BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY. Every time that the Arabs attacked Israel with huge number of forces from every side of the country, Israel prevailed over them b/c of their better tech.

One of the biggest assets of modern warfare is airpower. You guys keep telling us to stop whining b/c we don't like the combat system. You tell us that we should deal with it b/c its more "realistic" that superior numbers beat technologically superior forces. Well here is an example for you guys. First of all, think of a football stadium at maximum capacity. That is your 70,000 man army of warriors with their stone axes, bronze armor, longbows, whatever. Now I'm just going to run my battalion of modern tanks (I'm thinking Abrams here) over all of them at 65 mph. I'm not even going to to shoot my guns because that would be unfair (have to give them some chance of survival). Here is another example using that same army of 70,000 men. Your men are walking along the road or are in the forest or wherever. They are very experienced soldiers and have won many battles vs other forces that have swords and bows. Now here I come in my C-130 and you know what I'm carrying? A 15,000 pound bomb. You know, that daisy cutter you have seen on the news? (this is assuming that you guys keep track of anything that happens in the real world) Anyway, I'm going to drop it over your army. When it hits the ground, its going to kill pretty much all of you men. Any men that it does not kill with the direct explosion will be killed by the concussion wave, and if any of your men are able to survive the concussion blast, then they will have wished that they died because it will have blown out their eardrums and not be able to hear ever again. Or I could just fly over them with an F-15E Strike Eagle armed with cluster bombs and drop a couple of those on them. It will kill them all nice and good. In fact, cluster bombs are so effective that President Bush considered not using them so much on open troops because they were killing soooo many of the Iraqis In desert storm that they thought it might look bad to the international community. Another way I could kill your 70,000 men is to just put a couple of machine gun nests in front of them. Doesn't matter how fast or how many of them run at me. They will all die. Look at world war I for an example of that.

What I am basically getting to here for all of you people who keep saying that the game is great and that superior numbers, even if they are longbow men, have a good chance of killing more advanced units need to STU. YES THAT'S RIGHT STU!!!!

STU!

If you can find a good example of modern units being defeated by swordsmen, give it to us. And don't use the special forces operations that have gone wrong because they don't count as civ3 cant model them. units (tanks, swords men, musketeers, etc.) represent great amounts of units. It is not just a single tank and a single swordsmen. The special ops failures (I am thinking of Somalia here) were because small amounts of helicopters (like 2 or 3 were sent in) against thousands of hostile forces who had arks and shoulder launched missiles. Yea most of the people just threw rocks, but there were some there using technology. Also, politicians would not let them win. They would not allow tanks to go in like the generals wanted. If they had allowed tanks to go in and allowed the generals to do what they wanted to do, then we never would have lost those men. Yes 2 men with guns cant kill 5,000 angry people, but then again, civ1, 2, and 3, never modeled that. It models conventional warfare, meaning hundreds of tanks. And don't say look at Afghanistan and the soviet invasion either. I could go on and on about how the soviets fvcked up. And don't forget that we gave the camel jockeys stinger missiles to shoot down the soviet helicopter (oooh, nothing like being able to see that your technology advanced missiles are able to easily destroy hundreds of your arch enemy's helicopters)

I am willing to accept superior numbers of forces beating my technology superior forces up until WW1 units become available. Then it should be no contest, because in real life, especially 1970 and on, it is 100% of the time.

Another thing for all you guys who just LUUUUVVVVVVV the game the way it is now. If you love the combat so much, then don't patch it when the patch comes out. I saw one person say that If I didn't like the range of the aircraft to change it in the editor, well, hmm, I cant make it higher then 8 in the editor because I already tried that! Obviously you have not tried playing the game on a really really big map nor do you try to use air power effectively. Also, I don't like messing with hacks for the game. I think that the game should come with all of the editing options in the game already, I shouldn't have to hack it to get access to it.

If you want to flame me, go right on ahead and do so. I encourage it. I also know that at least one person will call me a newbie that knows nothing. To that person, you are obvously a very stupid person who knows nothing about the history of warfare. To everyone else, Have a nice day

[Dmc507]

oh forgot to say sorry to Venger. If you did say all of this stuff I apologize for not seeing your post. That to anyone else who also already pointed out anything I pointed out.

[Venger]

Originally posted by woody
I think Venger's lack of class goes a long way to showing that his ideas are as confused as he is.

Lack of class? I have posted information and opinion backed with demonstrable fact, and you have responded with "close minded" and "whine". Talk about irony...

You write the check, you patronizing jerk, and I'll cash it...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by uXs
You really have to ask yourself, that if you make advanced units all-powerfull, how is having more low-tech units going to help ?

We don't want them all powerful, and quantity has a quality all it's own. Look at the musketeer versus 2 legions example - in Civ2, the musketeer always won the first battle, but lost half it's hit points, and was 75% likely to be killed by the 2nd legions counter attack. Even without a counter attack, the musketeer was only 50/50. I think you may be forgetting the damage aspect when thinking of this debate. When a modern unit wins, it suffers damage, and that damage means that it WILL die if it continues combat, either attacking or defending.

They would all be chewed up by the almighty units of later ages, no matter how many there are.

First, they should be chewed up, second, yes the quantity matters! Every old unit you add has 10 hit points to burn. Again, look at the example.

Oh and if you think a massive amount of posts somehow makes you smarter than other people, think again. At most, it shows a tendency to spam.

?????

Venger

[Cavalier_13]

Lemme enlighten some people up with a story from one of my games....

The year is 1937. Huge Map. 16 Civs.

I am the most advanced in terms of technology. I create an army comprised of 4 ELITE MODERN ARMOR( I have the Pentagon Small Wonder). The Zulus, for reasons known only to them, decide it's time to get it on. Woohoo I think, knowing I need some of their space!

I load the army up and take it to them. I disembark with that Army and they attack the next turn. Their attack force consists of 7 Longbowmen, 5 Impi and 2 swordsmen.

Haha, they don't stand a chance! Wrong........after the 6th attack by the longbowmen, my Army of MODERN ARMOR is toast. Say WHAT???

By sheer LOGIC, that should not have happened. I don't know about any of you, but I have yet to see an M1A2 Abrams tank fall to a bunch of Archers. If they could, well, the Afghans could use bows and armor to punch through advanced ceramic plate armor! I can picture the news now......200 Taliban warriors, armed with state of the art Longbows from the middle ages have successfully destroyed the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th Armored Divisions in Kabul today.......General Got-his-arse-kicked commented on the fact that superiour numbers defeated them. "How can you expect 50 tanks with the latest in armor and weaponry AND a 105MM canon to compete with 200 men firing bows and arrows?" was the defensive answer of Defence Secretary Who-needs-tech-when-you-got-numbers concerning this report.

In related news, the German Luftwaffe has recently recommissioned 4000 WI-era bi/tri-planes and analysts conclude the US Air Force, consisting of inferiour F-15's and F-16's, the US Navy, consisting of F-14's and F-18's and Bomber Command, consisting of invisble F-117 and B-2 aircraft will be in deep trouble if the Germans turn hostile.

More at 11.....

Need I really say more?

Cavalier

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Your.Master


Wow!

This is the first argument I've ever seen where EVERYBODY was totally, unrepentantly wrong! (Does that include myself? Can it, by definition?)

Both sides have good points, both sides take personal shots. I tend to agree with Venger, but he seemed to start the flames (especially with the irrational and irsmart comment on the number of woody's posts).

See, when someone responds to an argument by merely restating their own position without even making the slightest attempt to refute the opposition, that person has wasted everyone's time. You don't make contentions in an argument by sounding off like a broken record.

[n.c.]

BTW, to any of you who say "fix it in the editor" . . . how do give ancient 1 HP and modern units 3-4? I'll wait for an answer.

[Rust]

Think reality is the cats meow?, than quit playing games.

[WhiteElephants]

If you can find a good example of modern units being defeated by swordsmen, give it to us.

I should ask you to show us an example of modern units facing swordsmen at all. By the logic extension of your own arguement (realism over abstraction) this would never be the case to begin with. So I'm curious as to how you would propose to fix this fault of realism in the game?

Need I really say more?

Cavalier

Well, in regards to your poor tactical abilty I don't think you need to say a single word more as we are all thoroughly convinced.