Random whines about CIV3

[miike]

I wonder if there is any kind of combat system at all in this game. Earlier I used a nuclear submarine to attack an ironclad and I lost my Nuclear submarine. What is up with that? Just today, I used my Veteran Samerai to attack an elite warrior. Well, my samerai had to retreat. Sometimes, this whole thing does not make any sense. Once is not such a big deal, but I frequently see weak units beating back very strong units. I don't really like this at all. Also, When I go to war with another Civ, I always check to see what resources they have or don't have. Because certain Civs have their "wonder" unit that is really strong. Anyways, I went to war with the Chinese. Their unit is some kind of Cav unit. After making sure, that they did not have any access to horses, I attacked them. Well right after I attacked, here comes the Cavalry and knights. I really like the idea of luxuries and resources, but not if the computer does not play by it.
I also hate the fact, that enemy combat units can just "walk by" your own combat units. Now that is really stupid. I prefered it much more like SMAC, where you could put your units at strategic points to deny the enemy access to certain land or whatever. I wish that they would fix that.
And man the bartering system is really bad. Never a fair trade, AI civs always want something. Even when trying to get a peace treaty. The Enemy Civ can demand something from you, if you want peace. But if you are kicking the Civs butt, you can not demand anything from it, to stop the whupping.
Oh yeah, for some reason, whenever I make a map all the luxuries and some resources are all lumped together in like a 4 square block. On my last map the majority of the luxuries were all right next to each other. This game could really use a patch or 2. For a normal game, this might be acceptable. For a Firaxis game, and a SID game, this is unnacceptable.

[Dis]

[Monoriu]

"I wonder if there is any kind of combat system at all in this game. Earlier I used a nuclear submarine to attack an ironclad and I lost my Nuclear submarine. What is up with that? Just today, I used my Veteran Samerai to attack an elite warrior. Well, my samerai had to retreat. Sometimes, this whole thing does not make any sense. Once is not such a big deal, but I frequently see weak units beating back very strong units. I don't really like this at all. "


I suggest you check out many of the huge threads on this very board. The issue i hotly debated, some people like it (including me), and many others don't. I have no intention to hijack this thread so I'll just leave it at that.

"Also, When I go to war with another Civ, I always check to see what resources they have or don't have. Because certain Civs have their "wonder" unit that is really strong. Anyways, I went to war with the Chinese. Their unit is some kind of Cav unit. After making sure, that they did not have any access to horses, I attacked them. Well right after I attacked, here comes the Cavalry and knights. I really like the idea of luxuries and resources, but not if the computer does not play by it. "

The AI civs can buy the resources from another AI civ, you can do that as well.

"I also hate the fact, that enemy combat units can just "walk by" your own combat units. Now that is really stupid. I prefered it much more like SMAC, where you could put your units at strategic points to deny the enemy access to certain land or whatever. I wish that they would fix that. "


Its intentional, zoc is gone from civ 3. I like it that way, it makes combat more challenging, otherwise just block off several squares and you can it at the line indefinitely.

"And man the bartering system is really bad. Never a fair trade, AI civs always want something. Even when trying to get a peace treaty. The Enemy Civ can demand something from you, if you want peace. But if you are kicking the Civs butt, you can not demand anything from it, to stop the whupping. "

Of course you can demand something if you are winning. I have gotten tons of techs from the AIs who are losing the war. A lot of people have developed "vassel" strategies to extract stuff from weak AIs.

As for the AIs trading unfairly, yeah, but don't forget you can sell the same tech to all the AI civs in the same turn to get the most out of it.


"Oh yeah, for some reason, whenever I make a map all the luxuries and some resources are all lumped together in like a 4 square block. On my last map the majority of the luxuries were all right next to each other."

Again this is deliberate. The aim is to make sure that most civs only get 1-2 resource, therefore, they have to trade with each other. If everybody got everything, then why trade?

"This game could really use a patch or 2. For a normal game, this might be acceptable. For a Firaxis game, and a SID game, this is unnacceptable."

There are some major bugs in this game, like air superiority, but overall, I am enjoying the game as is.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by miike
I wonder if there is any kind of combat system at all in this game. Earlier I used a nuclear submarine to attack an ironclad and I lost my Nuclear submarine. What is up with that? Just today, I used my Veteran Samerai to attack an elite warrior. Well, my samerai had to retreat. Sometimes, this whole thing does not make any sense. Once is not such a big deal, but I frequently see weak units beating back very strong units. I don't really like this at all. Also, When I go to war with another Civ, I always check to see what resources they have or don't have. Because certain Civs have their "wonder" unit that is really strong. Anyways, I went to war with the Chinese. Their unit is some kind of Cav unit. After making sure, that they did not have any access to horses, I attacked them. Well right after I attacked, here comes the Cavalry and knights. I really like the idea of luxuries and resources, but not if the computer does not play by it.
I also hate the fact, that enemy combat units can just "walk by" your own combat units. Now that is really stupid. I prefered it much more like SMAC, where you could put your units at strategic points to deny the enemy access to certain land or whatever. I wish that they would fix that.
And man the bartering system is really bad. Never a fair trade, AI civs always want something. Even when trying to get a peace treaty. The Enemy Civ can demand something from you, if you want peace. But if you are kicking the Civs butt, you can not demand anything from it, to stop the whupping.
Oh yeah, for some reason, whenever I make a map all the luxuries and some resources are all lumped together in like a 4 square block. On my last map the majority of the luxuries were all right next to each other. This game could really use a patch or 2. For a normal game, this might be acceptable. For a Firaxis game, and a SID game, this is unnacceptable.

[Kekkonen]

Originally posted by miike
And man the bartering system is really bad. Never a fair trade, AI civs always want something.

I've gotten straight one-for-one luxury deals. However, I think you only get these when you're dealing with a civ that is roughly equal to you. The lesser civs want something to close the gap; think of it as foreign aid. Often they'll also accept less than what they originally demand.

[Grumbold]

Should I put a sensible answer in a troll thread? Hmm. Well, here goes...

The AI civs know how many resources you are already getting and so they "score" their luxury appropriately. If you already have 4 luxuries then the next one will give your cities with marketplaces +3 happiness. That makes it 3x more valuable than a luxury that would only give you +1 happiness. Expect to be charged accordingly.

This makes obtaining all luxuries to get that magic +4 happiness luxury very expensive because all foreign deals are subsequently renegotiated on expiry as if their luxury is the one worth 4x standard. Its only worth contemplating if you have a healthy lead on the opposition and want to maximise your game score.

[conquistadore]

Originally posted by kekkonen
I've gotten straight one-for-one luxury deals. However, I think you only get these when you're dealing with a civ that is roughly equal to you. The lesser civs want something to close the gap; think of it as foreign aid.

i agree that it all depends on your size but from what i've encountered, its the stronger civs that is demanding tribute and stuff. If you refuse them, they give you hell. Conversely, when you are kicking their butts, they'll offer you everything to save their worthless lives.

Originally posted by miike
I also hate the fact, that enemy combat units can just "walk by" your own combat units.

They have modified ZOC in civ3, some units(eg. cavalry) are able to take shots at the enemy as they pass by.

[Mannamagnus]

Originally posted by miike
This game could really use a patch or 2. For a normal game, this might be acceptable. For a Firaxis game, and a SID game, this is unnacceptable.

Yeah civ2 didn't need any patches at all!

[Akka]

The AI does in fact always ask for much more than they should. Just try something silly : propose to the AI to give it 10 gold, and in exchange it should give you 10 gold.
Well, answer is simple : they will say something like "this deal is too much one-sided". Perhaps that it's because I lead the game, but anyway it's stupid. I offered a lot of time a fair deal to the AI, and finally get at war with it because I was tired to never be able to exchange something for something roughtly equivalent. NO, I won't give 43 gold/turn + world map + 2 technology + access to my rubber just to get access to oil. Talk about one-sided deals :P

And they will NEVER EVER sell you a city unless you're crushing them and force them into begging for peace. Even if you propose your entire empire in exchange of one of their tundra-based 2-population city.

[Kekkonen]

Originally posted by conquistadore
i agree that it all depends on your size but from what i've encountered, its the stronger civs that is demanding tribute and stuff. If you refuse them, they give you hell. Conversely, when you are kicking their butts, they'll offer you everything to save their worthless lives.

I haven't seen a "tributary" trade proposal by a strong civ yet. Otto the Cranky German did regularly extort tech as tribute early in my current game when his military was stronger than mine. That was straight tribute, not a lopsided trade though.

Of course, now that we're in the mid-1900s he's only got three cities left and no strategic resources. Morale of the story: if you piss off the little guy early, make sure you've got more than just riflemen when he comes a'knocking with tanks and artillery.

[Monoriu]

Come on people, yes I know most of the stuff he posted have already been mentioned many, many times here. But the original poster maybe new here and at least he posted his comments in a sensible, and polite way. He deserves better treatment from us.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
And they will NEVER EVER sell you a city unless you're crushing them and force them into begging for peace. Even if you propose your entire empire in exchange of one of their tundra-based 2-population city.

Quite right. Blair and buddies are having talks with the Spanish right now about how to maybe, possibly, eventually give some limited rights to Gibraltar back to Spain. Immediately the residents are screaming death or victory and the UK govt has to rush out and stress that nothing will happen without a successful referendum of the residents. Unless you are a despot just giving away cities full of your own people is political suicide. About the best you can do is look the other way when it gets occupied during a war.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Grumbold


Quite right. Blair and buddies are having talks with the Spanish right now about how to maybe, possibly, eventually give some limited rights to Gibraltar back to Spain. Immediately the residents are screaming death or victory and the UK govt has to rush out and stress that nothing will happen without a successful referendum of the residents. Unless you are a despot just giving away cities full of your own people is political suicide. About the best you can do is look the other way when it gets occupied during a war.

yeah, blair will not give it away until spanish armada appears again before the white cliffs of dover. hum, to get there, it has to sell through gibraltar. sorted

[Kekkonen]

Grumbold is quite right. Of course Alaska did get sold, but it was by a de facto despot, the Russian Czar, and most of the local population may not even have known that it was a part of the Russian empire.

In game terms, it's probably good that the AI doesn't sell its cities (unless its being trampled over by some very persuasive military boots). I mean, is there any other logical reason why you'd want to buy that little town in a remote tundra island besides the fact that you want to screw the AI out of its oil supply before it figures out Refining?

[Akka]

Originally posted by Kekkonen
Grumbold is quite right. Of course Alaska did get sold, but it was by a de facto despot, the Russian Czar, and most of the local population may not even have known that it was a part of the Russian empire.

In game terms, it's probably good that the AI doesn't sell its cities (unless its being trampled over by some very persuasive military boots). I mean, is there any other logical reason why you'd want to buy that little town in a remote tundra island besides the fact that you want to screw the AI out of its oil supply before it figures out Refining?

On a point of realism, it does not make sense either to have the AI refuse to take 17 cities from you empire against a 2-point population town located in the end of the world.
On a point of pure gameplay, I think that trading crucial cities could be part of deals.

I admit though that only autoritarian governments should be able to sell cities. It both make sense and give a little (ok, VERY VERY VERY small) advantage to governments that are not democracy/republic


And on a side note, the main thing I was complaining was not about the AI selling cities, it was about the AI always making outrageous deals, practically forcing you to either enter in a war or be bled to death if you want a ressource it has.

[Kekkonen]

You're right, Akka, it doesn't make sense. However, the proposal doesn't make sense either, so I don't think it's a crucial fault. I don't really have a problem with the AI not giving up/selling cities unless it's under direct military threat; being willing to trade cities might open up easily exploitable loopholes, and I don't trust my own willpower.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Kekkonen
You're right, Akka, it doesn't make sense. However, the proposal doesn't make sense either, so I don't think it's a crucial fault.

Mmh, for dictatorial governments, it actually make sense to be able to trade cities. After all, it already happened sometimes in history (ie the Corsica was sold to the French monarchy in 1769).

I don't really have a problem with the AI not giving up/selling cities unless it's under direct military threat; being willing to trade cities might open up easily exploitable loopholes, and I don't trust my own willpower.

That's a very valid answer, the bad thing is that it's already possible to cheat the AI on this matter : build a small 1-population city righ in the middle of your empire, just aside your capitol and your core cities with big population and strong culture. Then sell it to another Civ. Ask a arm and a leg for it. Make them pay a bleeding per turn gold, tech and so on. Then wait 2-3 turn and BANG the governor is overthrown and the city come back under your rule. Rince and repeat

Ok now you have an easily exploitable loophole, time to test your willpower

I'm just so vile

[zapperio]

Funny, I tried that and no one wanted my city.

Zap

[Kekkonen]

AARGH!

I must resist! I must resist! I must...

I actually might be able to resist that temptation. It's a bit artificial, and it leads to a temporary ugly spot within my glorious empire. Call me anal, but I just hate it, even if I know it can't last.

I could always justify buying stuff from other civs by telling myself "Hey, the US bought Alaska". But AFAIK they never went on the market to see how much they could get for Baltimore.

[francoImpaler]

The only points that are valid are the military issues but a warrior beating a samurai is not a good example.

All the old units running around and competing in the modern era is silly. Make the AI as competitive as possible but if they can't keep up they deserve to be slaughtered. Maybe there should be some sort of auto upgrade when you change eras as long as the strategic resources are available.

CivIII air power sucks. I am a transcend player in SMAC and I admit that copters are too strong in that game but CivIII fighters should be able to strafe and kill. Nukes are too weak but I care less since I don't use them.

There should also be a way that the AI can unconditionally surrender and be assimilated with the possibility of future revolt. That is a real world occurrence and it is silly that you must anniliate an opponent to defeat them.

I am enjoying the game as is but IMO some military tweaks and changes to the draconian corruption would improve it.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Dissident

I wonder if you read the topic line before you opened his post. Because if you did, your stupid little snore effect is just the acting out of a child.

What did you THINK he was going to talk about?

Every group needs a hall monitor, but this group has about 10...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by LaRusso

Another pinhead heard from. Did the thread title tip you off that this person, obviously posting about Civ3 for the first time, was going to bring up things he didn't like about the game, and that you, as one of the resident obsequious hall monitors, were going to see the same complaints others have made?

You'd think the following things would have occurred to you:

1) Enough people see the same problems, so there may indeed BE a problem

2) SKIP THE POST IF IT SAYS RANDOM WHINES ABOUT CIV3

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by Kekkonen
In game terms, it's probably good that the AI doesn't sell its cities (unless its being trampled over by some very persuasive military boots).

Agreed - does anyone here think if the AI traded cities it'd actually do it in a way that made sense?

Venger
P.S. Which begs the question, WHY is it there at all?

[francoImpaler]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


On a point of realism, it does not make sense either to have the AI refuse to take 17 cities from you empire against a 2-point population town located in the end of the world.
On a point of pure gameplay, I think that trading crucial cities could be part of deals.

I admit though that only autoritarian governments should be able to sell cities. It both make sense and give a little (ok, VERY VERY VERY small) advantage to governments that are not democracy/republic


And on a side note, the main thing I was complaining was not about the AI selling cities, it was about the AI always making outrageous deals, practically forcing you to either enter in a war or be bled to death if you want a ressource it has.

I have found that when negotiating a peace treaty with a beaten AI you can clean out their treasury and get gold per turh but cities are not on the table for the deal in any case that I recall.

[Venger]

Originally posted by Monoriu
Come on people, yes I know most of the stuff he posted have already been mentioned many, many times here. But the original poster maybe new here and at least he posted his comments in a sensible, and polite way. He deserves better treatment from us.

Mono, you are one of the sane ones on the other side of many Civ3 arguments from me. My compliments on your courtesy, you have in in spades more than many others, often times myself included. You are SO RIGHT ON THE MONEY here.

This person is CLEARLY new, and has EVERY RIGHT to post in here as much as those who dismiss him because he "bores" them.

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by miike
Earlier I used a nuclear submarine to attack an ironclad and I lost my Nuclear submarine. What is up with that?

The combat system is broken.

Just today, I used my Veteran Samerai to attack an elite warrior. Well, my samerai had to retreat.

What's a samurai, 5 attack? That's honestly not all THAT bad - considering a possible defensive bonus and they are still basically guys with sticks. Now I'd not want that to happen every other turn however..

Sometimes, this whole thing does not make any sense.

Been there, done that. The combat system needs major work.

After making sure, that they did not have any access to horses, I attacked them. Well right after I attacked, here comes the Cavalry and knights. I really like the idea of luxuries and resources, but not if the computer does not play by it.

Keep in mind he could have been trading for horses...which is a good part of Civ3.

I also hate the fact, that enemy combat units can just "walk by" your own combat units. Now that is really stupid. I prefered it much more like SMAC, where you could put your units at strategic points to deny the enemy access to certain land or whatever. I wish that they would fix that.

Zone of control is another pet peeve of mine - I agree some ZOC needs to come back. I don't mind removing it from warriors, but gunpowder units should have it.

And man the bartering system is really bad. Never a fair trade, AI civs always want something. Even when trying to get a peace treaty. The Enemy Civ can demand something from you, if you want peace. But if you are kicking the Civs butt, you can not demand anything from it, to stop the whupping.

I can usually extort them after a real ass pasting. But the bartering has become tedious - there are several broken components to it (many have offered 100 gold to the AI for 10 in return and have been rejected - that's PLAINLY BROKEN). After a while I just tire of trying to find the most I can get, and it's usually extortion on their parts - they want 3 luxuries for my 1. Screw them.

For a Firaxis game, and a SID game, this is unnacceptable.

I'm beginning to think Brian Reynolds was the real genius the whole time...

Venger
P.S. Brian if you ever read these - I am independently wealthy and would love to create the definitive Civ game...let's do lunch.

[Dis]

yeah I read the thread. and I read your response as well.

my point is my post was just as meaningful as his random whines (his words). And it got the same thing accomplished- nothing

[Dis]

P.S. I have just as much right to post my , as he has to post his random whines (again his words not mine).

[Kekkonen]

Originally posted by francoImpaler
I have found that when negotiating a peace treaty with a beaten AI you can clean out their treasury and get gold per turh but cities are not on the table for the deal in any case that I recall.

I've gotten cities from the AI in peace negotiations, even ones on a remote island that would have been a hassle to invade otherwise. I think that to get that though you have to have the AI civ really fearing for it's artificial life. It doesn't necessarily know when it is the underdog, but it does seem to know it if you can invade and destroy it at will.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Dissident
P.S. I have just as much right to post my , as he has to post his random whines (again his words not mine).

And then we have equally as much right to treat you as an ******* if you act as an *******.