Why the rules whiners are wrong

[Evil_Eric_4]

The submarine should be impossible to target for a bombing

Even as far back as WW2 The airplane has proven itself a capable
ASW weapon. Its even more important now.

[n.c.]

So let me see if I understand: a problem with past games (air vs. navy) was solved not by simply making the combat a bit more even, but pretending that planes cannot sink ships?

This is bad enough. Worse is that many people don't seem to question it at all. Worse still is that some actually defend it.

[Green Giant]

IMO each unit represents several of its kind. If you want me to explain the evidence to you I will but it is fairly obvious. When has an air power destroyed an entire battle group? When has air power destroyed an entire army?

Can anyone tell me when, at any point, did any game in the civ series claim to be a realistic simulation? Everything is abstracted, if it wasn't the game would be a micromanagement nightmare and a bore because the play balance would be off the wall. Nukes destroying entire cities? Yes in real life its true but how fun would it be to get wiped out in one turn? You want realism in war, go play Operational Art of War, its a great and very realistic wargame. I like things the way they are, fun and balanced.

EDIT: I must add though that I do agree with you on the complaint of fighters not working. Its so obvous its incredible. I don't know if I have ever seen anything that bad, a whole unit that is so important in the late-game, totally worthless.

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Green Giant
When has an air power destroyed an entire battle group?

When have navies been immune from air attack? Firaxis' solution was worse than the problem.

-"Everything is abstracted"
There is a big difference between abstract and absurd.

-"I like things the way they are, fun and balanced."
Were they not in Civ II/SMAC? If not, weren't the solutions less problematic than the ones devised by Firaxis?

[codemast01]

Originally posted by Green Giant
When has an air power destroyed an entire battle group? When has air power destroyed an entire army?

When have cruise missiles destoryed an entire army. Cause that's what happens in Civ3. Yet a group of bombers cannot sink a ship.

Another point. People keep saying air power is too powerful comared to the navy. The truth is air power has become more powerful since WWII. Navies have moved from ship to ship combat to air to ship combat. The battleship has waned in importances as a fighting unit while the carrier has gained in importance. Other ships are built to protect the carrier. (The term carrier battlegroup hints at the carrier's importance) To make a long story short, air power is suppose to be superior to naval power.

Can anyone tell me when, at any point, did any game in the civ series claim to be a realistic simulation?

True. However war and Civilization are intertwined. (If you don't think Friaxis thought war is important, just look at all the stuff you can build. I don't know the exact numbers but I would venture to say that nearly half of the things you can build in Civilization are units) So at least make war as realistic as possible.

[WhiteElephants]

So at least make war as realistic as possible.

How and where would you propose the realism end? Should we worry about the armor penetration values for our M1A1 Abrams agaisnt the side armor of another modern battle tank? Should we have a counter that tells us how many bullets our units have left? Should we know which units are fatigued and fresh? Should it cost gold to replace hit points? Should we be informed when the squad leader is killed?

[codemast01]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


How and where would you propose the realism end? Should we worry about the armor penetration values for our M1A1 Abrams agaisnt the side armor of another modern battle tank? Should we have a counter that tells us how many bullets our units have left? Should we know which units are fatigued and fresh? Should it cost gold to replace hit points? Should we be informed when the squad leader is killed?

There is no need for sarcasm. Realistic as possible means : Try to avoid glaring unrealistic situations like swordmans destroying tanks and airplanes (the focus of modern naval battles) that are unable to sink ships. The modern navy revovles around the carrier and its planes.

[Ancientfool]

A simple 'check box' that allowed you to mark units as destroyable via bombardment (in the editor) would solve the entire controversy. People who want carriers to be sunk by aircraft could just flag the carriers as vulnerable. Easy.

Will they do it? beats me.

[n.c.]

This discussion sounds familiar . . . .

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by codemast01


There is no need for sarcasm. Realistic as possible means : Try to avoid glaring unrealistic situations like swordmans destroying tanks and airplanes (the focus of modern naval battles) that are unable to sink ships. The modern navy revovles around the carrier and its planes.

Other "glaring unrealistic situations" in the game include:

1. Pyramids serve as granaries in all cities.
2. Takes 200 years to produce a band of warriors.
3. San Francisco suffers more corruption than New York because its further from Washington DC.
4. Takes 50 years to move from New York to Boston.
5. The Spanish fleet moved faster becasue of Magellan's expedition.
6. The Iroquois are famous and feared because of their mounted warriors.
7. USA does not need any electricity plants because they have already built the Hoover dam.

Do you need more? Do you understand what I am saying? The focus of Civ 3 is not realism.

[jackshot]

Originally posted by Monoriu


Other "glaring unrealistic situations" in the game include:

1. Pyramids serve as granaries in all cities.

BTW, it is now thought that the Egyptians did not use slave labor to buld the pyramids. Instead they enticed commoners to haul tons of stone around by virtue of an elaborate food distribution system. Laborers worked for the food, and huge Nile-based infrastructures of transportation and storage were put in place to make it happen.

Just thought I'd mention it. But I'm sorry, it's Civ and I expect a cartoony, what-if version of history. Otherwise the whole thing is nothing but a lot of arbitrary +1's and 50% bonuses and so many turns until completion.

[TheDarkside]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants


How and where would you propose the realism end? Should we worry about the armor penetration values for our M1A1 Abrams agaisnt the side armor of another modern battle tank? Should we have a counter that tells us how many bullets our units have left? Should we know which units are fatigued and fresh? Should it cost gold to replace hit points? Should we be informed when the squad leader is killed?

It's a shame when exaggeration and sarcasm gets introiduced...
but regardless, If you read my posts I'm not trying to argue for the realism extreme. I'm trying to voice support for a compromise. First it's a few planes can destory entire fleet, now planes are nothing to be feared again by navies. Can't we find a middle ground here?

[Akka]

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4




Even as far back as WW2 The airplane has proven itself a capable
ASW weapon. Its even more important now.

I suggested to make submarines immune to airplane bombing on a balance issue, so that someone could not just produce carriers and rule the sea. He would have to produce destroyer/battleship to escort the carrier (BTW the combat values of submarines just plain suck, the normal sub should be AT LEAST 8/3 rather than 6/4 and the nuclear one 10/4 AT LEAST).

Now, airplanes were useful to track down and sink submarines in WW2 only when they were already spotted (ie naval fight already engaged) or were close from the surface (then they were possible to see from the air). So its not completely illogical to make them immune to bombing. Just a little simplification to make a unit actually worthless something good

[HunterAssasin]

I don't think submarines should be immune to bombing, if you can see it through an AEGIS cruiser or whatever you should be able to order bombers to bomb in the general vicinity but have a greatly reduced chance to hit against them.

[Akka]

Originally posted by HunterAssasin
I don't think submarines should be immune to bombing, if you can see it through an AEGIS cruiser or whatever you should be able to order bombers to bomb in the general vicinity but have a greatly reduced chance to hit against them.

Make sense. If they increase the stats of the submarines (which are barely able to sink trireme actually), then your idea fits well in the game.

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Nukes should be a LOT more powerful thn they are... Just because they are supposed to be terror weapons. Civ2 handled that pretty well... If I nuked someone, I could count on them to do their best to nuke me back... and usually succeeding unless I used my spies to kill them off.

And the problem is..?

I've used one - 1 - nuke so far in my CIV3 career. I used it to wipe out a strong city defense and entered it with marines in order to secure an oil resource. It was a Chinese city that I nuked. Upon pressing space for next turn, I immidiately received three ICBMs, not from the Chinese, but from the Greeks (I think, cos the Chinese didn't have any). They nuked my capital plus two other cities. I have not nuked anyone since then... I also had a number of ICBMs and tacticals, but did not retaliate against the greeks. I think this works great, and I will think four or five times before using a nuke again.


Fred

[francoImpaler]

Originally posted by MrB


I could go on and on but I think the point is made. But I'll be most p'ed off if Firaxis neuter their fantastic game just because a number of vocal people don't really know where the designers where coming from with it. I couldn't agree more that Civ3 needs a good patch, but I think patching time would be much better spend squashing bugs than messing about with game rules and spoiling it for all the satisfied people.

The game is playable as is but Venger's comments are correct regarding the military play. It could be much better. Anyone completely satisfied with a strategy game that matches bowmen and tanks with the outcome in doubt is not interested in real world strategy. To each his own I suppose.

[rid102]

I've used one - 1 - nuke so far in my CIV3 career. I used it to wipe out a strong city defense and entered it with marines in order to secure an oil resource. It was a Chinese city that I nuked. Upon pressing space for next turn, I immidiately received three ICBMs, not from the Chinese, but from the Greeks (I think, cos the Chinese didn't have any). They nuked my capital plus two other cities. I have not nuked anyone since then... I also had a number of ICBMs and tacticals, but did not retaliate against the greeks. I think this works great, and I will think four or five times before using a nuke again.

That sounds very similar to how the AI handled Nukes in Civ2 though. I had one game on Emperor laying Civ2 with 3 other civs which were all powerful (nuclear). I attacked and captured the Eygptian capital to prevent a spaceship launch (does anyone know if you can still do this with Civ3 BTW?) with Nukes and basically started a trade off. I got nuked back a couple of times from the other civs (suprise strikes), so nuked them back a bit. Then got a couple more nukes coming over etc. for several turns until they ran out and things calmed down a bit.

[korn469]

well personally i don't expect extream realism from civ i just want a historical flavor

to me each unit on the map represents a number of units
for example a modern armor unit probably represents something between a brigade to a division

not only that to me each unit represents a range of units...i would say that most likely T-72's up to the most current version of an abrams count as modern armor

probably everything from the monitor up to the maine count as an ironclad

so obviously civ3 cannot, moreover it doesn't even try to present "realistic" combat however it should try to be an abstract version, that maintains the flavor of the historical period if not its details

a world war one scenario shouldn't be a rapid moving blitzkrieg type war, nor should a modern war focus on entrenched infantry

each cruise missile in civ3 represents hundreds of cruise missiles launched over the course of a year...think about this, in september of 1990 Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world (5th largest i think) it had thousands of tanks

the war started on january 17th and was over by Febuary 27th with the Iraqi army in ruins...and the Iraqi army was certainly better armed than even the american army in world war 2

all in all from the Iraqi invasion of kuwait (August 2nd) to the Iraqi's accepting surrender terms (March 3rd) was 7 months and 1 day, less than one turn in civ3 for the 5th largest army to be completely overhwelmed!

there was a reason that people were scared during the cuban missile crisis...a nuclear war would have virtually destroyed both the US and the USSR, especially one in the late 70's or anytime during the 80's

"air power doesn't work! Afganistan proved this, as does Bosnia..."
yeap just watch the news

the real world looks more and more like SMAC when you think about it

all i'm saying is that civ3 doesn't have to be realistic, but it should be fun, because it is a game solely intended for enjoyment

Nukes got nerfed because they didn't add in M.A.D. read the Soren Johnson chat transcript...he said that originally nukes completely destroyed a city but that it was too powerful so firaxis balanced it as best they could for a christmas release

each person will have a different veiw of balance, because each person has a different view of fun...personally i think civ3 is pretty fun out of the box, but i think it can be more fun with some rule changes...so guess what i did? i changed the rules!

since civ3 is single player only, right now i really hope that firaxis is focusing all of their efforts on fixing bugs and giving the players more oppertunities to change the rules to their liking i'd be more than happy with that

for anyone who cares here is the ruleset that I think makes civ3 more fun

p.s. just because a game designer set the rules doesn't mean that a couple of changes won't improve them, although many considered StarCraft to be one of the most balanced games ever the staff made many balance only changes throughout the life of the game to improve upon its balance

[Oerdin]

I would go so far as to say that in WW2 more ships where sunk by planes then by enemy surface ships. That conforms with what we know about Pearl Harbor and all the major navel battles. The Japanese navy was sunk bit by bit by American carrier based aircraft.

P.S. And yes may subs where sunk by airplanes too.

[Freeze]

Combat ships, yes. But looking at raw tonnage sunk, I'm pretty sure the Germans sank enough allied shipping for 3 wars using submarines. I don't have the figures in front of me so please correct my mistakes.

[TheDarkside]

each person will have a different veiw of balance, because each person has a different view of fun...personally i think civ3 is pretty fun out of the box, but i think it can be more fun with some rule changes...so guess what i did? i changed the rules!

Right, that's what it boils down to. We obviously have different opinions on what's fun and how things should behave, and if the editor was powerful enough, people wouldn't be complaining so much (i think!). I would say that the perfect game is one which can be modified relatively easily for anyone's particular taste, and it's nice that the gaming industry is seeing more and more games where you can edit the rules and modify things. Games with scripting languages (like Operation Flashpoint, CtP:2) to edit how the AI behaves for certain events, games like Serious Sam which released a SDK to modify the game code itself! Unfortunately, it seems to me Civ3 took a step backward in the modding support. IIRC Civ2's text files gave me more power in editting the game, although yes it wasn't in the form of nice GUI as in Civ3- but IMO I'd take the txt files any day over a GUI with limited capability.

[korn469]

but IMO I'd take the txt files any day over a GUI with limited capability

same here up to a point
it is really a shame that civ3 shipped with such a nice editor but it didn't ship with the ability to create scenarios, that more than anything goes to that basically infogrames pushed civ3 out of the door at least a few months before it was ready, and most (certainly not all though) of these balance issues would have been taken care of if civ3 had a longer beta test, or an open beta test

i hope that eventually the civ3 scenario editor has the ability to add in triggers ala StarEdit for Starcraft

and for those who are curious this is from a navy.mil site found here

The Japanese Merchant Marine lost 8.1 million tons of vessels during the war, with submarines accounting for 4.9 million tons (60%) of the losses. Additionally, U.S. submarines sank 700,000 tons of naval ships (about 30% of the total lost) including 8 aircraft carriers, 1 battleship and 11 cruisers. Of the total 288 U.S. submarines deployed throughout the war (including those stationed in the Atlantic), 52 submarines were lost with 48 destroyed in the war zones of the Pacific. American submariners, who comprised only 1.6% of the Navy, suffered the highest loss rate in the U.S. Armed Forces, with 22% killed

so 1.6% of the navy sunk 60% of japanese merchant shipping, and 30% of naval shipping, not too shabby huh?

[codemast01]

Originally posted by Monoriu


Other "glaring unrealistic situations" in the game include:

1. Pyramids serve as granaries in all cities.

I believe a previous user touched on the possible reasoning behind this. I don't know about you but most people aren't Egyptologist. (The problem isn't glaring if you don't know enough about it. What I and most people know about is the modern armies vs. ancient armies and rightfully our criticisms lie in this area)

2. Takes 200 years to produce a band of warriors.
4. Takes 50 years to move from New York to Boston.

Yes. This is a glaring problem. However the solution (reducing the time between turns) is far far worse.

3. San Francisco suffers more corruption than New York because its further from Washington DC.

I don't understand what you are getting at here. Historically, and logically corruption should and does grow as you get farther from the center of a civilization. Prehaps you mean this isn't how things are in modern reality. Local governments also enforce the law and therefore would make corruption more even throughout a civilization. However the local government itself can still be corrupt. Prehaps an addition of a tech called Television can cause corruption to be less influenced by distance. (Reporters love government scandals)

5. The Spanish fleet moved faster becasue of Magellan's expedition.

Wouldn't you move with more confidence (faster) if you didn't think you are going to fall off the edge of the world?

6. The Iroquois are famous and feared because of their mounted warriors.

I'm not entirely sure exactly what rule you are refering to.

7. USA does not need any electricity plants because they have already built the Hoover dam.

Yes. The effects of this wonder is far too powerful. However I would venture to say that anything less would not be worth building.

On that same note I would also say that units tend to have the most glaring problem because unlike wonders the player uses them every turn. This means that glaring unrealistic situations are especially amplified when they related to a unit.

the focus of Civ 3 is not realism.

I totally agree. However the eventual goal is.

[Jack_www]

I woukd like to point out something. The backbone of allmost all navies of the world is not the battleship. In the past the battleship was the main ship of all navies and naval power was often measured by how many battleships a navy had. Things started to change with WWII. The aircraft carrior became the backbone of the U.S. navy. Today the U.S. navy has no battleships what so ever.