Combat - Am I Missing Something? - Page 2

Cookie Monster · October 4, 2003, 08:37

Not a complaint but an observation.

The designers wanted to bring back the combat model from CIV1 to CIV3. That is the reason why CIV3 combat is nothing more than simple arithmetic. You bring in more than what the enemy is bringing and you'll win.

This invalidates the stats for each unit. A flaw IMO that perhaps will be remedied in CIV4?

Zapaan · October 4, 2003, 19:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Cookie Monster
This invalidates the stats for each unit. A flaw IMO that perhaps will be remedied in CIV4?

Exactly. Why even bother with stats at all if the combat model is going to be so utterly random? They may as well have simply indicated a HIGH MED LOW value for attack/defense for all the difference having a 16 Attack strength makes versus a 3 Defend.

- Z

vmxa1 · October 4, 2003, 20:16

It is not so much that they wanted to bring back the civ1 combat as they wanted to have ancient units be of some value for the lame AI. This would make it live longer in theory, as it will tend to get some wins with its inferior units.
I feel this was ill advise and really will not save the AI if it is that far behind. It only added to the aggrevation. Civ2 concept of Fire Power should be added to round out the RNG and its massive swings.
And please spare me the crap about pictures representing this or that. If it is 100 warriors, then it is a 100 tanks. Let them win once in my life time and no more. It is actually the ships that are the worse. Galleys sink ironclad and destroyers. That is funny as in the American civil war, nothing was able to sink the two ironclads.

Jaybe · October 4, 2003, 22:19

Quote:

... nothing was able to sink the two ironclads.

Though rough seas did the Monitor in quite nicely. Of course, later ironclads looked more like steam-powered frigates. The Monitor, however, is more recognizable.

For a strategy game, nature, idiocy, logistics, etc. are part of the equation.

vmxa1 · October 4, 2003, 22:41

I knew I should have said nobody.

Zapaan · October 5, 2003, 01:27

From the sound of things, it sounds like Civ2 was more reasonable in it's combat mechanics. How was that handled? And how did you all find it, combat wise? I don't mind if a game isn't entirely realistic, but there's reasonable diffusion and then there's just stuff that breaks common sense (ie. Ironclads vs Battleships).

I skipped over Civ2 for some reason, so maybe I should go back and check it out, as it seems like it's a better bet than 3.

Btw, if anyone's interested, I've now got an altered civ3x.bix with altered unit stats, health adjustments and various changes to improve the likelihood of more reasonable results if anyone's interested.

- Z

vmxa1 · October 5, 2003, 01:38

Zapaan that is a hard call. Like lots of people here, I love CivII and rate it as #2 all time for a long time.
I have not gone back to play it since CivIII. That is not to say I rate III better, but some of the issues with II just are no longer acceptable now.
Combat was awful because you killed the whole stack if you won. One unit kills 4. You add in the nearly invincible walls and you could have one good unit defend a city against everything the AI tossed at you. It was a great one more turn game, but its time has passed. It was also too easy to beat even on deity, too many exploits. Did I mention spies, don't get me started.

Zapaan · October 5, 2003, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Zapaan that is a hard call. Like lots of people here, I love CivII and rate it as #2 all time for a long time.
I have not gone back to play it since CivIII. That is not to say I rate III better, but some of the issues with II just are no longer acceptable now.
Combat was awful because you killed the whole stack if you won. One unit kills 4. You add in the nearly invincible walls and you could have one good unit defend a city against everything the AI tossed at you. It was a great one more turn game, but its time has passed. It was also too easy to beat even on deity, too many exploits. Did I mention spies, don't get me started.

Yikes, maybe not then

Wow, those are some serious game killers. How in the world could they think those elements were even remotely acceptable? Yeesh.

Guess I'll have to live with SMACX then for my conquest binges

- Z

Hagbart · October 5, 2003, 09:05

I agree that the combat system in civ2 was a little stupid. But on the other hand it brought a lot of strategy into combat, fx fortresses were much more important in civ2 combat than in civ3.

Shogun Gunner · October 6, 2003, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Did I mention spies, don't get me started.

and now the Espionage is too expensive or not worthwhile to pursue in Civ III.

Too easy in Civ II to too hard in Civ III.

I agree the "Army of Spies" followed by a few fast units was not so interesting... Actually this forced many to Democracy as the standard government. No unit bribing, no city bribing. In this manner, Civ III is a huge improvement

vmxa1 · October 6, 2003, 14:56

True, now we force them into commies.

Zapaan · October 6, 2003, 21:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner

and now the Espionage is too expensive or not worthwhile to pursue in Civ III.

Too easy in Civ II to too hard in Civ III.

I agree the "Army of Spies" followed by a few fast units was not so interesting... Actually this forced many to Democracy as the standard government. No unit bribing, no city bribing. In this manner, Civ III is a huge improvement

Except that it's WAY too cheap to steal tech. At the least it should be 10 times more expensive.

- Z