Thread Tools
Old November 19, 2001, 23:16   #61
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
Real strategy!
To Monoriu, and those that belive higher is better:

First, game mechanics should work the same at all levels unless told so by the designers and according to Fixaris, the same equations are used at all levels, so if the combat system is different higher up, this is a mistake, not a plus.

But moving on to REAL STRATEGY: As someone said earlier (I believe Venger the Avenger ), strategy can only be made if one is able to make a set of assumptions, which will allow you to make a long term plan (a strategy). In WW2 the U.S. did not keep huge masses of troops in the U.S. fearing invasion because after a certain time, we assumed (correctly) that the enemy lacked the ability to mount such an operation. This was not an oversight by our generals, it was a sound military decision. Or look at the Gulf War- coolition forces attacked Iraq with inferior numbers because they trusted (correctly) the power of air power in that situation- again, good strategic thinking.
Lets say I face two enemies- Germany and Zululand. Germany has Panzers, Zululand at best has Cavalry (of course lots of impis). Both decide to attack at the same time. Who do you concentrate on? The Germans, of course, since they have technologically advanced weapons, amking them more dangerous, or so it should be. Because of the combat system the Zulus, with Masses of impis waking by your borders and winning odd battles vs. your defenders might be far more dangerous than a few panzers ( alot more expensive than impis and one can sabotage their construction by attacking resources) also winning, but also loosing, a few odd battles. This makes no strategic sense and nor does it allow you to really create a strategy. Quick story:

I decided to attack some Zulu cities on another continent because I love RR's and the continent I commanded had no coal So I send a combined force of Rfilemen, cannons, and cavalry on galleons to take them out. Eventually I would reeinforce with Infantry and artillery. I also took workerss to build defenses. I land on jungle and move to make good defenses to set up a siege. Well, masses upon masses of Zulu and allied forces (Chinese, Aztec) come pouring forward and overcome, after great losses, mind you, my defenders, including infantry dug into jungle fortresses backed by mighty artillery (my cavalry had been killed long before). So here I go, create a combined arms army (or as much as one can before tanks), send tyhem in force to take a city of 4 and all that is detroyed by guys without not only guns, but metal- for god's sake, no METAL The strange combat results undermine attapts at combined arms many times too.
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 23:19   #62
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
Re: Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff
Quote:
Originally posted by n.c.


That is fine, what is not okay is why this is true and how it gets implemented.

-"shouldn't you be playing on a higher difficulty level?"
Not necessarily, as he may have encountered a seriously backward civ.

I don't understand your first point. What do you mean by "that is fine" and "what is not okay is why this is true"???

Your second point: I have played 3 games in Regent, Monarch and Emperor. The AIs trade techs among each other very frequently. Most AI civs I encountered have more or less the same technology, the most backward ones are only 4-5 techs behind. If he encounters a civ with knight as the most advanced units, chances are, most other AI civs are only 4-5 techs ahead of them, or 4-5 techs behind.
Monoriu is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 23:24   #63
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
Re: Real strategy!
Quote:
Originally posted by GePap

I decided to attack some Zulu cities on another continent because I love RR's and the continent I commanded had no coal So I send a combined force of Rfilemen, cannons, and cavalry on galleons to take them out. Eventually I would reeinforce with Infantry and artillery. I also took workerss to build defenses. I land on jungle and move to make good defenses to set up a siege. Well, masses upon masses of Zulu and allied forces (Chinese, Aztec) come pouring forward and overcome, after great losses, mind you, my defenders, including infantry dug into jungle fortresses backed by mighty artillery (my cavalry had been killed long before). So here I go, create a combined arms army (or as much as one can before tanks), send tyhem in force to take a city of 4 and all that is detroyed by guys without not only guns, but metal- for god's sake, no METAL The strange combat results undermine attapts at combined arms many times too.

You forgot one thing: sufficient numbers. If you are fighting an alliance of several AI civs, you should be bringing huge numbers. I fought and won against a coalition of 7 AI civs with the same tech as mine in Regent level, with an army of about 150 units and I constantly found myself lacking in numbers. How many units did you send?

Combined arms, AND sufficient numbers, AND sufficient technology, AND tactical sense, AND careful planning, AND a good production base. You need all that.
Monoriu is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 23:28   #64
n.c.
Emperor
 
n.c.'s Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: North Carolina, best state in the union
Posts: 3,894
Re: Re: Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff
Quote:
Originally posted by Monoriu
What do you mean by "that is fine" and "what is not okay is why this is true"???
Of course the game's combat system should be unforgiving. Achieving this via unrealistic results is not the way to go.
n.c. is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 23:28   #65
WhiteElephants
King
 
WhiteElephants's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo Ohio
Posts: 1,074
This is precisely our point. You haven't modified your strategy to fit the mechanics of the game. Instead you continually use units in ways you believe are possible, but are clearly not possible if the mechanics of the game were taken into consideration.

I think that you gave combined arms a valiant effort in your example, but lets face it you were attacked by three other civs. I don't think you can expect to land a force of combined arms on someone else's continent and be laid seige to by three other civs and rightfully expect to win. Next time you know to bring more, no?

Strategy is not about coming to a game with a strategy in hand and expecting it to work. You have to develop a strategy to fit the game model, but what I'm hearing around here is that the game model needs to fit someone's preconceived strategies. Not so.
WhiteElephants is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 23:34   #66
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff
Quote:
Originally posted by n.c.
Of course the game's combat system should be unforgiving. Achieving this via unrealistic results is not the way to go.

No, the game mechanics are the same for everybody, the AI doesn't have an "edge". YOU can kill the AI's units with ancient units as well. It doesn't necesarily make the game hard, IF you are willing to spend the time to micromanage and change your style to fit the system.

What I mean is, you have to think hard to win even if you are playing on the lowest difficulty levels and is fighting a backward opponent.
Monoriu is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 23:49   #67
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
REAL STRATEGY 2
If one were to have counted the units that were involved that little story, one would find that the enemy did not have a significant numerical advantege over me, yes I was fighting three civs but as backward civs they could not maintain as many units as I (which is a bit of game realism I like). Lets say the enemy, several levels of tech back, had about 2 times the number of units I had? Is that enough to overcome my technological superiority? Then whats the point of technological superiority? Why should I strive for greater and greater knowledge if it gives me bu a miniscule advantage. Think, if the hundreads of gold I spent reaserching replaceable parts had been channeld insteat towards supporting masses of knights and swordssmen I would have taken that city (incidently, i made peace with these guys soon after and took advantege of culture to get what i could not through war- I have RR's everywhere!).

On the game model: The folks at fixaris tried to make a model in which wars of endless expansion driven by megalomaniacal perons with one or two armors would crush their poor tech backwards foes would be a thing of the past -qudos to them! But the way they did it was wrong! Resources have become a serious chokehold on players (why did I get into that failed enterprise in the first place?) so they decided that players without resources need a chance (the only reason backwards units are so relatively good here) because they saw problems ahead. well, if they saw problems ahead, they should have fixed them and not weakened the combat system.
The addition of bombardment and making you pay out of a central treasury and so forth were great cahnges and I have changed my strategy (thank you very much )but If i can't make any assumptions besides-must have a three to one superiority regardless of tech levels- then what I can do strategically has been greatly curtailed. By emphasizing mass beyond its true (no matter how great) weight, they have handcuffed players, not made them free.
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old November 19, 2001, 23:58   #68
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
"Lets say the enemy, several levels of tech back, had about 2 times the number of units I had? Is that enough to overcome my technological superiority? Then whats the point of technological superiority? Why should I strive for greater and greater knowledge if it gives me bu a miniscule advantage. "


I have a proposal: let's stop arguing now, go play civ 3, make 100 warriors and send them against AI musketeers. See how long your army will last. Tech gives you an edge, just not as much as you'd like, because getting higher tech is the easy path, managing a huge army effectively is the hard path and you want the easy way. I am saying, you need both.


"The addition of bombardment and making you pay out of a central treasury and so forth were great cahnges and I have changed my strategy (thank you very much )but If i can't make any assumptions besides-must have a three to one superiority regardless of tech levels- then what I can do strategically has been greatly curtailed. By emphasizing mass beyond its true (no matter how great) weight, they have handcuffed players, not made them free."

You maybe handcuffed because of your mindset, but I am sure that I am not handcuffed. What prevents you from taking advantage of the new rules and make a 200 unit army? In my last game I had 300 and that's on Monarch level, the AI actually had a production bonus over me.

edit: sorry, quoted the wrong sentences in my first try.
Monoriu is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 00:09   #69
n.c.
Emperor
 
n.c.'s Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: North Carolina, best state in the union
Posts: 3,894
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff
Quote:
Originally posted by Monoriu
[1] the AI doesn't have an "edge".

[2] It doesn't necesarily make the game hard

[3] you have to think hard to win even if you are playing on the lowest difficulty levels and is fighting a backward opponent.
1) I never said it did.

2) Some here like to think it does (makes them feel superior).

3) Of course you should have to think hard. The problem now is that you can think all you like and the combat results border on random.

Look, all I/we want is realism. If you and others prefer this notion of ancient units killing modern ones, fine. There are actually reasons for such a preference that make sense.

Just don't concoct post-hoc rationalizations why what we want is inferior or the because of wanting an easier game. (This is a general comment.) It's simply a different preference. Essentially that is all we are saying, only that our preference not being met causes us to like the game much less.

Well, that and a certain "re-write history" slogan that some of us took to imply realism.

Good night all.
n.c. is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 00:21   #70
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
"Just don't concoct post-hoc rationalizations why what we want is inferior or the because of wanting an easier game. (This is a general comment.) It's simply a different preference. Essentially that is all we are saying, only that our preference not being met causes us to like the game much less. "


I respect your preference. So just edit the game. The rules editor is there for a reason, and you have just stated one. You can't give more hps or fp to a unit, but you can increase the att. and def. values of modern units. That will have similar effects as the hp/fp system: modern units win more often.

I respect the people who want realism. What I cannot stand, are people using bad tactics (cavalry used as city defenders, an invastion force that consists of 3 units etc) and then complain that the system doesn't work. The system rewards good management of units and penalizes recklessness. Hence it works.
Monoriu is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 00:41   #71
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
GePap departs HP thread
This is my last post here today:

I think, MOnoriu, that you have made a good point, my point
Yes, I could build a 300 unit army, but then who's building culture? Or infrastructure. I don't want to be a war economy, with all my cities dedicated soley to unit production. I want to be able to conduct short wars for specific gains without always having to be ready for a WW. I want to be able to carry out small operations and big, not just big. Many have commented that squashing your enemy with better tech is boring. I agree (again, the A.I. needs to cull out old units promptly) but so is winning with a steamroller all the time. What you offer is one strategy-that of masses of units ala WW1. Why do you think that army size has shrunk in the past 40 years? (in 1939 the SU had a standing army of 4 million, in 1989 of about 2 million) Because we have substituted advaced tech, wich can deliver more punch more accurately, making mass somewhat obselete. As I have said many times (but not on this forum), any war today that would trully require us to bring back the draft, would be over in 30 minutes (Nukes are too weak in this game). By the time I get to modern, to those B-2's and m1a1 and m2's and so forth, I should be able to switch cities to the spaceship without worring that my cavalry wielding enemies might come and raze my empire.

I say, if your going to do something, do it for real. If the folk at fixaris wanted a resource system implemented to force people to change strategy and make endless wars of expansion too difficult, DO IT!, but don't create eccentricities just to cover your arse and save your selves from complaints from people unable to change their strategy .
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 00:54   #72
barefootbadass
Prince
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 378
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: On Tactics and stuff
Quote:
Originally posted by n.c.


Well, that and a certain "re-write history" slogan that some of us took to imply realism.

Good night all.
One word: gullible. Of course it was used to imply a certain level of parallels to reality, and the game delivers with some level of parallels to reality, at least as much as previous games in the series(which wasn't much ).
barefootbadass is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 01:04   #73
N. Machiavelli
Prince
 
N. Machiavelli's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Prince
Posts: 359
FP isn't 'realism'
I suppose the main cry for FP stems not from 'realism' per se, but the fact that currently, all damage given and taken regardless of unit is equal. Take for example a warrior and (everyone's favorite) the tank. The attack and defense properties of the two units means nothing more than what chance the two units have of hitting one another. However, the damage inflicted upon the warrior by the tank is equal to the damage a warrior could inflict upon the tank. Why? By this model, the warrior could do the same damage to a musketeer as a fortified tank on a hill. The only difference is if he get REALLY lucky in how he throws his axe. Perhaps his axe ricochets off a rock, causing an avalanche to fall upon the tank from his hilly-position, I don't know. In any case, it makes a warrior and a tank have little difference to each other as a rifleman and a machine-gunner: both inflict the same damage (a bullet), but the machine gunner can throw a crap-load more of them at an enemy, thereby increasing it's odds of hitting them. Granted, I've seen few primitive warriors, but I think few of them were carrying around 105 mm cannons on their backs. Firepower represents the fact that the 105 mm cannon is going to inflict more damage (no matter what the 'odds') than an axe.

The other argument is that you really aren't placing a warrior and a tank against each other....The warrior, you see, is symbolic of a crazy guy with a pistol attacking that tank. The units seem to be reflective to what they are up against. That warrior could be a rag-tag militia man attacking a musketeer one turn, and a man with a anti-tank missile attacking a tank the next...wow. If units are merely reflective of the age (they actually aren't what the text says they are), then why does the game consider these units to be 'obsolete' and restrict me from building them. Heck, if these are really militia/partisans, I should be able to build 10 of them in every city in the last age; even if they lose, their sheer numbers prevent any 'modern unit' blitzing me. Sure, it may cost some cash, but I'll be ni-invincible to the AI, who is ignorant to combined arms/tactics.

As an experiment, I spent the last few hours playing an interesting game. It was a large 'pangea' map, in which there was 1 island (interesting). The map had 7 Civs other than myself and I started on said island just off the coast. It was played on Monarch-difficulty. I purposefully did not advance beyond map-making, and after reaching that tech, I cut all funding from my research department. This island had NO early strategic resources (iron/horses) and was filled to the brim @ 7 size-6 (No aqueducts) cities and all 'gold' as directed towards cash to fuel my army. And what an army. The only units (besides settlers and workers) I built were warriors and galleys to ferry them across. The only contact with the mainland civs was to periodically sell my world map for a few bits of gold. From the beginning to 1926 AD, I made no move to get off the island, and had every city building warriors and galleys at a 2:1 ratio. At 1926, I moved these warriors, who had never seen any other civ, nor had been introduced to their technology, swarm the German beaches by the hundreds (at the peak, there was 473 warriors). These warriors proceeded to die by the many but overwhelmed all (by then 5) civs on the continent. There was no tactics involved. There were no combined arms. I stayed in the ancient age while every other civ was at least late-industrial. I even razed every city I conquered....all with a million men with axes. But they weren't men with axes, they were nothing more than %'s multiplied by the hundreds. Attila should not have been able to take his hordes and over ran modern-day Europe.

BTW: I should be able to get a copy of Photoshop tomorrow, so I could be able to make some nice screenshots later on ( I have all the memorable dates saved ie The Landing, and The Conquest).
N. Machiavelli is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 01:33   #74
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
All hail Machiavelli, and I lied
Yes, I am posting again, so sue me

Finally, someone has taken the time to conduct an empirical test of this combat system, and his results seem to speak for themselves. (all of those, and there are many, who have been involved in this debate over many threads await eagerly.) A better argument for FP could not have been made with words
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 02:03   #75
Setsuna
Warlord
 
Local Time: 12:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 139
Re: FP isn't 'realism'
Quote:
Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
*Snip*
Ah, your post does justice to the historical name you bear. I salute you, sir. You went out of your way in order to prove a point. Bravo!
Setsuna is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 11:10   #76
woody
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally posted by n.c.
The erroneous nature of this comment has been explained many, many times (even on this thread). Maybe one day you will understand.
It's totally irrelevant. Hit points is a red herring. If you don't change the offense and defense, you'll just end up with damaged tanks from spears. Then you'll whine about why your tanks are being damaged at all.

Face it. All you're looking for is something to cry about. You can already break the game the way you want to, but you still whine and cry. Firaxis isn't your mommy, so you should get her to make the changes for you.
woody is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 11:22   #77
TheDarkside
Civilization IV Creators
Prince
 
TheDarkside's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 586
Quote:
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
Have you played EU2 yet? (Europa Universalis 2)
TheDarkside is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 11:40   #78
TheDarkside
Civilization IV Creators
Prince
 
TheDarkside's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 586
I'm surprised some people are really defending the current combat system. It's really a fact that combat is simple and abstracted, based solely on dice rolls and 2 simple variables. There's no strategy involved really, except fortify in the hills but then you get ignored unless that hill contains a strategic resource the AI wants... combat is simply mass your highest attack rating units upon one city in one turn (so that the defenders dont magically fully heal next turn via barracks) until it falls or u ran out of units in that particular area. I never thought I'd say this, me being abig-time TBS fan, but I find my click-fest RTS games like starcraft involving alot more thought and strategy. The only reason I'm ranting about this, is this game is _based_ on war and combat. You can't win without engaging wars unless it's a fluke. Especially with AI as aggressive as it is (which is nice) you have to engage in wars.

Last edited by TheDarkside; November 20, 2001 at 16:06.
TheDarkside is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 11:49   #79
Wrong_shui
Warlord
 
Wrong_shui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: a field
Posts: 183
Im giving up on this debate, people arnt prepared to accept firaxis made a wrong decision.
Wrong_shui is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 14:02   #80
E. Goldstein
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally posted by woody
It's totally irrelevant. Hit points is a red herring. If you don't change the offense and defense, you'll just end up with damaged tanks from spears. Then you'll whine about why your tanks are being damaged at all.

Face it. All you're looking for is something to cry about. You can already break the game the way you want to, but you still whine and cry. Firaxis isn't your mommy, so you should get her to make the changes for you.

You're a joke, woody, as is what you try and pass off as an argument. People have repeatedly stated that damaged units of armor are perfectly acceptable in combat(or battleships vs caravels, or cruisers vs. frigates, or...). What isn't is spearmen defeating armored divisions with any such regularity.

And my mommy didn't buy me Civ3, so I feel that if I get a defective product I should try and get the defection fixed. Something about earning one's own money makes a person care more about the quality of the items they purchase, but you wouldn't know about that, would you?

Please, just tell me why I should have to go to the same lengths to defeat a fow with bows and arrows as I would one with armored formations and heavy bombers. Please, no rediculous crap about how the Allies invaded Normandy or the Germans Russia with a massive number of men, because that is nonsensical in this argument. Don't give me any evasions such as the "red herring" line, or idiotic armchair quarterbacking of tactics (Duhhh you need 300 units to invade a medieval foe with modern equipment), or any sh!t about Civ3 being a new game and therefore it's acceptable to throw out the TRUE combined arms of Civ2 in favor of some rediculous flip-of-the-coin system. Just tell me why it is logical that ancient units can put up a semi-credible defenses against modern ones.
__________________
E. Goldstein
Avoid Europa Universalis like the plague.
E. Goldstein is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 14:20   #81
woody
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally posted by E. Goldstein
You're a joke, woody, as is what you try and pass off as an argument. People have repeatedly stated that damaged units of armor are perfectly acceptable in combat(or battleships vs caravels, or cruisers vs. frigates, or...). What isn't is spearmen defeating armored divisions with any such regularity.
You must be playing a game other than Civ3. Because, certainly in my version of Civ3, ancient units hardly ever beat modern units.

But just why do you feel it's okay for ancient units to damage tanks, but not destroy them. Your argument is non-sequitur. I think you need to think things through.

Finally, I hope you realize that Civ3 is a game. Games do not have to emulate reality. In fact, when they do, they cease to become games. Try to learn to use your imagination.
woody is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 14:30   #82
E. Goldstein
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8
I feel it is ok for tanks to be damaged, but not destroyed, because the armor token is representative of a large force. Surely even you understand that it doesn't mean one tank, and an archer doesn't mean one archer.

Some games are meant to emulate reality. It's a good indication that this is the case when the majority of the things in a game are named after real people or objects. Claiming otherwise only exposes one's ability for doublethink.

Oh, and you never answered the question: Did you buy Civ3 yourself, or with $60 from mommy's pocketbook?
__________________
E. Goldstein
Avoid Europa Universalis like the plague.
E. Goldstein is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 16:02   #83
woody
Warlord
 
Local Time: 17:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 143
Quote:
Originally posted by E. Goldstein
I feel it is ok for tanks to be damaged, but not destroyed, because the armor token is representative of a large force. Surely even you understand that it doesn't mean one tank, and an archer doesn't mean one archer.

Some games are meant to emulate reality. It's a good indication that this is the case when the majority of the things in a game are named after real people or objects. Claiming otherwise only exposes one's ability for doublethink.
I feel kind of sorry for you. You obviously can't think straight. In the first paragraph, you claim that the tank isn't really a tank. Then, in the second paragraph, you claim that it is a tank because it's named like one. Well, which is it?

If you're willing to accept that the pretty pictures aren't really tanks and pikemen, it's not much more of a leap to realize that they're only representations of entities with fixed attack/defense/movement values. Just try to make the leap. I know it's hard for you, but the game is a lot more fun once you realize that it's an abtraction of reality.
woody is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 16:25   #84
N. Machiavelli
Prince
 
N. Machiavelli's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Prince
Posts: 359
This is nutz
Quote:
Originally posted by woody


I feel kind of sorry for you. You obviously can't think straight. In the first paragraph, you claim that the tank isn't really a tank. Then, in the second paragraph, you claim that it is a tank because it's named like one. Well, which is it?
Errm, actually he said that the single tank is representative of many tanks, not just one ie the 'tank' is representative of a column just as the 'archer' represents a regiment etc. HIm not think straight? Evidently you can't read straight.


Quote:
If you're willing to accept that the pretty pictures aren't really tanks and pikemen, it's not much more of a leap to realize that they're only representations of entities with fixed attack/defense/movement values. Just try to make the leap. I know it's hard for you, but the game is a lot more fun once you realize that it's an abtraction of reality.
Then why give them graphics relating to reality at all? If they have no correlation to reality, or the units they 'represent' why do it at all? You might as well play it on a Excel Spreadsheet, if all they mean are numbers. In previous games, you knew a tank was superior to a pikeman, just as it is in real life. Tanks beat pikemen in real life, and they coud beat them in the game; the attack/defense/movement combat system of those games reflected it. Now, common sense is moot. The only difference between this 'tank' and 'pikeman' is the odds one has to hit the other. This game now plays more like Dungeons and Dragons: everything you do is settled upon a dice roll; at least in D&D, the dice weren't loaded.

This entire argument (like nearly every other string on this board) has de-evolved into 4 guys throwing insults at one another. Jesus, how old are you people? If you wish to argue about the game, knock yourself out.......but remember that it's just a game and there's no reason to throw in the kind of passion you folks put into insulting each other, take that kind of crap back to the playground where it belongs.
N. Machiavelli is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 16:39   #85
TheDarkside
Civilization IV Creators
Prince
 
TheDarkside's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 586
Do you think if the guy in Tien An Men square might've had a chance had he held a spear and shield?
TheDarkside is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 16:49   #86
E. Goldstein
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally posted by woody


I feel kind of sorry for you. You obviously can't think straight. In the first paragraph, you claim that the tank isn't really a tank. Then, in the second paragraph, you claim that it is a tank because it's named like one. Well, which is it?

If you're willing to accept that the pretty pictures aren't really tanks and pikemen, it's not much more of a leap to realize that they're only representations of entities with fixed attack/defense/movement values. Just try to make the leap. I know it's hard for you, but the game is a lot more fun once you realize that it's an abtraction of reality.
Since you are too lazy to read and comprehend a post, I will post a short explanation for you. My exact words were, "I feel it is ok for tanks to be damaged, but not destroyed, because the armor token is representative of a large force. Surely even you understand that it doesn't mean one tank, and an archer doesn't mean one archer. "
To anyone who speaks English (and has even a bare modicum of intelligence), this means that the tank icon represents a group of tanks. For example, it might represent an armored brigade or division. Likewise, an archer represents a group of archers, for example a formation of 200. Your circular logic is becoming quite tiresome. Are you capable of responding to what a person actually says in a post, or are you just able to concoct nonsense?

If the icons are just "entities with fixed ADM values," then why name them, and make them appear like, real objects? Familiarity? If this is the reason, then why give them nonsensical values? It's like calling a football a basketball then pitching it to a guy who swings a bat.


Oh, and you STILL haven't answered the question: Did mommy buy your Civ3?
__________________
E. Goldstein
Avoid Europa Universalis like the plague.
E. Goldstein is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 17:28   #87
WhiteElephants
King
 
WhiteElephants's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo Ohio
Posts: 1,074
Re: This is nutz
Quote:
Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
Then why give them graphics relating to reality at all? If they have no correlation to reality, or the units they 'represent' why do it at all? You might as well play it on a Excel Spreadsheet, if all they mean are numbers. In previous games, you knew a tank was superior to a pikeman, just as it is in real life. Tanks beat pikemen in real life, and they coud beat them in the game; the attack/defense/movement combat system of those games reflected it. Now, common sense is moot. The only difference between this 'tank' and 'pikeman' is the odds one has to hit the other. This game now plays more like Dungeons and Dragons: everything you do is settled upon a dice roll; at least in D&D, the dice weren't loaded.
I hate to break it to you, but the grahics for the units are simply eye candy. If you look back at the old Civ games you can see that the graphics of today's Civ and yesterday's Civ aren't comparable. They certainly weren't "cutting edge" for their day, but the basic premise and addictivity of the game remained. Today's games have just pushed the envelope further to the point where we expect this kind of eye candy. Consider the old Avalon Hill War Games that were simply squares of cardboard, hardly aesthetic. I've also played SMAC for years and have yet to run into anyone complaining about the validity of a Silksteel Sentinel defending against a Shard Rover. Both games use similar mechanics, except one has no real life counter part to measure against, and thus no arguement. The fact remains that the game is an abstraction of reality and that the premise of the entire combat system is based on odds and numbers, not whether a tank is really a tank. Whether the units look like tanks or unicorns the mechanics and odds behind there names still remain.

I think your experiment was interesting and impressive, but I'm not sure if it proves your point or if it just proves how pathetic the AI still is. We're also waiting for that screen shot. Do you think a human would have reacted in the same way? What units did you find yourself up against? Did you find yourself attacking more than defending or vica versa? If what you say is true I might be inclined to change my position, but I'm not sure what we can conclude from a battle vs. the AI.
WhiteElephants is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 17:57   #88
GePap
Emperor
 
GePap's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
On the experiment
First, we can't, nor should compare the SMAC combat system to this one:SMAC's was far better and made more sense. Silksteel was 2, yes, but remember the advantage of inf in cites over fast units (very realistic) plus the addition of morale. It was ususlally best to storm cities with inf-not mech units as one does in real life (or would in real life in a planet 4.5 light years away in a hundred years... )
Second, the A.I. is no slouch at fighting war- many in these forums can attest to having real difficulty beating concentrated A.I. assults, as can I. In fact, war fighting and handling strategy, especially finding the weaks point in your attack, is a strength of the A.I. so we should at this point not dicount the experiemnt by saying, "oh well, but it was the A.I....". The other major point is that wehter he was continually in the assault or resting for a few truns does NOT MATTER. The victory was won by overwhelming numbers, even with completely backwards units. No amount of A.I., or perhaps even unprepared human strategy ( and what player would assume his human counterpart stopped advancing at Map making and is sitting there just making units? Would we not think them insane or stupid, especially when they must face my 'mighty' tanks?) would have been able to counter this endless horde of stone age men simply because, as N. Machiavelli said, as of now, it is just %'s multiplied by the hundreds.The only counter wouuld be to have as many troops yourself, but who, in that situation, would?
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
GePap is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 18:02   #89
E. Goldstein
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 8
Re: Re: This is nutz
Quote:
Originally posted by WhiteElephants


I hate to break it to you, but the grahics for the units are simply eye candy. If you look back at the old Civ games you can see that the graphics of today's Civ and yesterday's Civ aren't comparable. They certainly weren't "cutting edge" for their day, but the basic premise and addictivity of the game remained. Today's games have just pushed the envelope further to the point where we expect this kind of eye candy. Consider the old Avalon Hill War Games that were simply squares of cardboard, hardly aesthetic. I've also played SMAC for years and have yet to run into anyone complaining about the validity of a Silksteel Sentinel defending against a Shard Rover. Both games use similar mechanics, except one has no real life counter part to measure against, and thus no arguement. The fact remains that the game is an abstraction of reality and that the premise of the entire combat system is based on odds and numbers, not whether a tank is really a tank. Whether the units look like tanks or unicorns the mechanics and odds behind there names still remain.

I think your experiment was interesting and impressive, but I'm not sure if it proves your point or if it just proves how pathetic the AI still is. We're also waiting for that screen shot. Do you think a human would have reacted in the same way? What units did you find yourself up against? Did you find yourself attacking more than defending or vica versa? If what you say is true I might be inclined to change my position, but I'm not sure what we can conclude from a battle vs. the AI.
I'm sorry, White Elephant, but this argument doesn't even qualify as specious. So, because the graphics of Civ1/2/3 aren't cutting edge, we're to believe that they don't represent what they appear to - or what they are named? Really, you have to be either stupid or on the take to try and argue something that looks like a tank, is called a tank, and sounds like a tank isn't really meant to be a tank.

The SMAC argument, however, does qualify as specious (but just barely). This shouldn't require any explanation for anyone smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time, I will do so for the sake of my own amusement. The reason that no one complains about impact rovers and silksteel sentinels is because they are fictional. Tanks and pikemen, however, are very real. Those of us with the ability for critical thinking expect something which looks like a tank and is called a tank to naturally smash something which looks like a pikeman and is called a pikeman.

However, a cretin would have us believe that those things that look like tanks and pikemen really AREN'T tanks and pikemen, but whatever suits them in the present. Naturally as their old lies come full circle and catch up with them, the pikemen and tanks will come to be something totally different.

Nice strawman at the end.
__________________
E. Goldstein
Avoid Europa Universalis like the plague.
E. Goldstein is offline  
Old November 20, 2001, 18:16   #90
WhiteElephants
King
 
WhiteElephants's Avatar
 
Local Time: 12:02
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Toledo Ohio
Posts: 1,074
Re: On the experiment
Quote:
Originally posted by GePap
First, we can't, nor should compare the SMAC combat system to this one:SMAC's was far better and made more sense. Silksteel was 2, yes, but remember the advantage of inf in cites over fast units (very realistic) plus the addition of morale. It was ususlally best to storm cities with inf-not mech units as one does in real life (or would in real life in a planet 4.5 light years away in a hundred years... )
Sure we can. Hit points, combat modifiers, and morale aside, it was basically the same system only different modifiers. It still operated on a compare attack vs. defense mechanic, no? My point was that there were no heated battles about realism because the game was considered unrealistic as most games are. We accepted the fact the Silksteel was a 4 defense and played the game as though it was a unit with 4 defense and not what we thought it should be. There was no wild speculation on what a Silksteel defender should really defend at. We didn't clamor for a editor in order to rectify the outrageous situation. What we did was accept the unit for what it was and modify our strategy accordingly. What we seem to have here is a portion of the playing population who feels that the game should be modified to fit their strategy not their strategy to the game, which is good that they've included a editor in the game.
WhiteElephants is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 13:02.


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