[another rant]Civ III...

[Vympel]

Empires that span the entire world aren't realistic, and there has to be some limitation on them.

Bullshit. The Civ 3 empires started to flounder and new cities built effectively useless at extremely small sizes, not 'world spanning'.

[Graeme Dice]

Bullshit. The Civ 3 empires started to flounder and new cities built effectively useless at extremely small sizes, not 'world spanning'.

You're playing a different game than I am then, because it's easy to have 30 useful productive cities.

[Graeme Dice]

So someone who DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE TECH TO BUILD LANDMINES or hell barely explosives...is beating my Tanks how again?

Asymmetrical warfare of course.

Fuck that...numbers don't mean shit when they have things they can't hurt me unless my tank jockeys are sticking their head's out the canopy.

A single aggressive battle lasts for four months for a tank. They have to stick their heads out sometime.

And Stravo brings up another great point...corruption is so goddamn rampant ...20 cities and hell why do I have them? They have half or more of their resources in the red...under any government and heck every corruption related items trying to work against it.

On what difficulty level? Because up until you pick the levels where it's made extreme on purpose, the corruption is perfectly reasonable.

[Vympel]

You're playing a different game than I am then, because it's easy to have 30 useful productive cities.

Since when is more than 30 productive cities 'world spanning'?

Asymmetrical warfare of course.

No. They don't have the technology.

A single aggressive battle lasts for four months for a tank. They have to stick their heads out sometime.

You must be smoking some mean shit. In what fucked up fantasy world do you entertain this nonsense that spearman are creeping up to tank crews and spearing them in the head, really? Do you know what the fuck operational security is?

[Thunderfire]

does. This is not a tactical combat simulation, it is grand strategy, and your laughable, downright ludicrous "they caught tank crews sleepin" doesn't change that.

They should have taken the MoM combat system for Civ3.
Something like that almonst never happend in MoM.

[Ghost Rider]

LOL...so a thousand archers...after the intial volley is going to kill the same number of tanks and armored infantry?!

Yeah nice way of saying it's all good, but you're not seeing the small details.


Bullshit...I have a superior combined forces...and they are winning because of the roll of dice is against them.

Hell playing on the lowest...ocrruption starts at 13~14 cities, in RAMPANT...screw 20+.

Yeah, mighty empire.

Hell I don't even care for military on Civ3 because they neuter anything larger then 20-1 odds...hell it's easier to win any other way then military.

[RedImperator]

It seems like they tried to cripple military expansion in order to promote more peaceful victory paths. Fuck peaceful. Nobody plays Civ because they want to get elected General Secretary of the UN. They play Civ to lead their unstoppable armored hordes through the very heart of their enemy's empire, to drive their foes before them and hear the weeping and lamentation of their women, to loot and plunder the entire world, and plant their flag in every corner of every continent

[Ghost Rider]

It seems like they tried to cripple military expansion in order to promote more peaceful victory paths. Fuck peaceful. Nobody plays Civ because they want to get elected General Secretary of the UN. They play Civ to lead their unstoppable armored hordes through the very heart of their enemy's empire, to drive their foes before them and hear the weeping and lamentation of their women, to loot and plunder the entire world, and plant their flag in every corner of every continent

Pretty much.

I mean hell you have to go out of your way to piss off your opponents...I've willfully attacked them, and they want peace after a few rounds...and we were deadlocked.

Pfft so far my victories have been UN, Cultural, and Alpha Centauri

I've yet to come close to a military because I'll likely achieve Cultural beforehand.

[phongn]

It seems like they tried to cripple military expansion in order to promote more peaceful victory paths. Fuck peaceful. Nobody plays Civ because they want to get elected General Secretary of the UN. They play Civ to lead their unstoppable armored hordes through the very heart of their enemy's empire, to drive their foes before them and hear the weeping and lamentation of their women, to loot and plunder the entire world, and plant their flag in every corner of every continent

I got so fed up with the corruption system towards the end that I resorted to mass nuclear bombardment followed by my armies razing their cities.

[RedImperator]

It seems like they tried to cripple military expansion in order to promote more peaceful victory paths. Fuck peaceful. Nobody plays Civ because they want to get elected General Secretary of the UN. They play Civ to lead their unstoppable armored hordes through the very heart of their enemy's empire, to drive their foes before them and hear the weeping and lamentation of their women, to loot and plunder the entire world, and plant their flag in every corner of every continent

I got so fed up with the corruption system towards the end that I resorted to mass nuclear bombardment followed by my armies razing their cities.

If I recall correctly, I just went into the rules.txt file and neutered the corrpution system....or am I thinking of Civ II?

[phongn]

It seems like they tried to cripple military expansion in order to promote more peaceful victory paths. Fuck peaceful. Nobody plays Civ because they want to get elected General Secretary of the UN. They play Civ to lead their unstoppable armored hordes through the very heart of their enemy's empire, to drive their foes before them and hear the weeping and lamentation of their women, to loot and plunder the entire world, and plant their flag in every corner of every continent

I got so fed up with the corruption system towards the end that I resorted to mass nuclear bombardment followed by my armies razing their cities.

If I recall correctly, I just went into the rules.txt file and neutered the corrpution system....or am I thinking of Civ II?

Civ2. Civ3 didn't use rules.txt, IIRC - but it was also fairly easy to modify.

[Ted]

I'm sure there is a mod out there that will deal with the combat problems.

Besides, can't you just increase the firepower of modern weapons exponentially, doing so manually? Like increasing the power of a tank, etc... so like one shot would wipe out the archers on open ground. It may seem cheap doing it that way, but it'll effect all modern euipment, making it much easier to kill antiquated equipment.

[phongn]

There's at least one mod that did that.

[Graeme Dice]

Since when is more than 30 productive cities 'world spanning'?

When placed so that they don't affect each other 30 cities will cover more than half the world on a pangaea standard map.

[HemlockGrey]

But 30 widely-spread out cities is nothing compared to the empires you could have in Civ 2.

[Straha]

This is hilarious because the Civ II strat-guide actually had a paragraph saying that the reason they changed combat system was so you wouldn't get militia men destroying tank units, like what happened in Civ I. I would get the exact quote but I think the strat guide is either in storage or gone.

However I personally LOVED Civ:Call to Power with all my heart, that game was DA BOMB! The only real problem was that once you got a real technological edge you had the game in the bag, either with the alien, or just by rail launching nukes and Enviro-Bombs into the middle of the enemy, along with War Walker Legions to do the clean up.

Besides that the only other major problem with CIV: CTP was how the AIs would never get rid of old units, sometimes I would just rip through packs of Legions and warriors with my Tanks and Plasmatica before I hit one decent unit.

[Graeme Dice]

But 30 widely-spread out cities is nothing compared to the empires you could have in Civ 2.

So what? Civ 3 is a different game than Civ 2.

[Straha]

But 30 widely-spread out cities is nothing compared to the empires you could have in Civ 2.

So what? Civ 3 is a different game than Civ 2.

Yes, a worse and much less realistic game.

[Graeme Dice]

Yes, a worse and much less realistic game.

Only to those who don't understand statistics.

[Straha]

Yes, a worse and much less realistic game.

Only to those who don't understand statistics.

Of how tanks would die to Phalanxes? And how the Roman Army Ownzored (pathetic L337 skills I know) the Soviet Army at their Height?

And how Old Iron Sides could sink the entire Kitty Hawk Carrier group?

[Graeme Dice]

Of how tanks would die to Phalanxes? And how the Roman Army Ownzored (pathetic L337 skills I know) the Soviet Army at their Height?

And how Old Iron Sides could sink the entire Kitty Hawk Carrier group?

Like I said you don't understand statistics. You see a pattern in these results when that pattern does not actually exist. Such occurrences are extremely rare, and are not impossible given the nature of the battles that are portrayed by the game. Further, a simplified combat model is a good thing for a game that does not depend on combat.

Civ 3 is a redesign of Civ 1, not an expansion to Civ 2. Just be glad they didn't go in the direction of SMAC and have such ridiculous results as infantry punching fighters to death because they have the best armour possible.

To the person who seemed incredulous about the statement that the current system keeps tanks from losing to militia. It most certainly does do that. Out of 1000 combats, the militia will win 2, which is small enough of a result to be ignored.

[Straha]

Of how tanks would die to Phalanxes? And how the Roman Army Ownzored (pathetic L337 skills I know) the Soviet Army at their Height?

And how Old Iron Sides could sink the entire Kitty Hawk Carrier group?

Like I said you don't understand statistics. You see a pattern in these results when that pattern does not actually exist. Such occurrences are extremely rare, and are not impossible given the nature of the battles that are portrayed by the game. Further, a simplified combat model is a good thing for a game that does not depend on combat.

...

To the person who seemed incredulous about the statement that the current system keeps tanks from losing to militia. It most certainly does do that. Out of 1000 combats, the militia will win 2, which is small enough of a result to be ignored.

A. We see statistics when it isn't supposed to happen AT ALL! Let's be honnest about this now, in real life how often do you think the army that tore through bagdhad would lose to the Babylonian Empire in the same region? One out every thousand times? Or every damn frieken time, even if they just run over the damn guys?

B. The Game DOES depend on Combat, I've played hndreds of individual games of Civ, and not once have I ever not used combat to help me kick ass all over the game. The Fact is that Combat is what made Civ Great, and when you screw that up when you had a much better system in Civ II well what do you expect?

C. No it's not small enough to be ignored, but you missed the point of my statement. THey fixed combat so they would not have this exact same problem, and yet they returned it to this system when they knew there would be a prolem. Also I would like to ask you how do you think you alone in a tank would fare against 500 pre-bronze age men?

[Graeme Dice]

A. We see statistics when it isn't supposed to happen AT ALL! Let's be honnest about this now, in real life how often do you think the army that tore through bagdhad would lose to the Babylonian Empire in the same region? One out every thousand times? Or every damn frieken time, even if they just run over the damn guys?

The army wouldn't lose. Individual tanks might be lost once in a while, which is exactly what it represents.

B. The Game DOES depend on Combat, I've played hndreds of individual games of Civ, and not once have I ever not used combat to help me kick ass all over the game. The Fact is that Combat is what made Civ Great, and when you screw that up when you had a much better system in Civ II well what do you expect?

Combat isn't what made Civ great. Civilization was made great by every aspect other than combat. Namely the infrastructure building.

C. No it's not small enough to be ignored, but you missed the point of my statement.

Yes, 0.2% is small enough to be statistically ignored.

THey fixed combat so they would not have this exact same problem, and yet they returned it to this system when they knew there would be a prolem.

Because the problem is so rare that it doesn't really matter.

Also I would like to ask you how do you think you alone in a tank would fare against 500 pre-bronze age men?

Me alone in a tank? I would expect that if they had good leadership I would simply not wake up one morning. And you still haven't shown what numerical ratio the units represent.

[RedImperator]

The land units obviously don't represent 1 game unit=1 real world unit, unless you'd care to argue that it's possible to garrison a city in real life with two infantrymen and one fighter. One tank being taken out by bronze age warriors? If the crew was stupid or unlucky, yes. An entire brigade? Never--not once every 500 times, not once every 5000 times, not once every 5,000,000 times. And focusing exclusively on the wildly improbable results ignores lots of results which are merely improbable in the real world, but happen with distressing regularity in Civ III, such as archers garrisoning a city repulsing musketmen with cavalry and cannons in support. The least they could have done was give an exponential increase in offensive power to gunpowder units and again to mechanized units to represent the enormous range and lethality advantage they have over their predacessors. The fact of the matter is, it's totally inexcusable that they had this problem in Civ I, FIXED IT IN CIV II, and then brought it back in Civ III.

[Setzer]

Civ2. Civ3 didn't use rules.txt, IIRC - but it was also fairly easy to modify.

Really? How did you modify the files. I too am sick of my 1940s tanks being killed by Phalanxes.