|
Post by Canucksoldier on Sept 4, 2006 18:54:44 GMT -5
Rupman, arguing history is irrelevant, argue game play instead. When we can do both it's fine but game play will always have to take 1st place to historical accuracy.
CS
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Sept 4, 2006 23:04:53 GMT -5
Well I think it's completely relevant when they use real civilization names, real military unit names, real building names etc... They try to make some degree of accuracy. I mean otherwise why not come up with crazy units like Pegasi or Unicorns. Those would be really fun, and probably would improve game play. I'd love to swoop down on a flying horse and raid some other civ, or run the horn on a Unicorn through some guys chest. Since you insist OK, I'll stick to Game play.
1. First Strike is the weakest upgrade in the game. Unless you have like 3 of them on a unit it does very little. Combat 1 is far better. If you check odds with the same 2 units, one with combat 1 and the other with first strike, the combat 1 has better odds. So basically first strike is something you should only do after you've used every other upgrade on a unit.
2. Catapults are overpowered. When someone builds a stack of 10 catas with maybe 2 elephants and a spear on top of it, that's just dumb. Also for all the other reasons stated in this thread and elsewhere. BTW catapults and cannons were crazy expensive in real life. Not something that you would build like 20 of just to throw away on some knights. Oops talking about historical accuracy.
3. Swordman are damn near worthless units. Like I said, I and most other players particularly the good ones, rarely if ever, build them. 10% city attack is not enough of an advantage for them to be used when the other person can just build an axe. If someone doesn't have metal they are like dead or easily choked out of being a factor anyways. No one wastes time building a sword to attack some archers in a city because after you get rid of this guy what will you use the stupid thing for. The next guy will likely have metal and he's going to build an axe and take out that swordman easy. This goes for Pratorians too. No one ever picks Rome for starters, since both their leaders traits aren't great. There UU is barely any better. It's just a beefed up swordman. An axe with melee upgrade easily kills them. It's kind of lame that Rome which was one of the most powerful and influential civs in history is regarded as weak when it comes to this game. Sorry, I'm talking about historical accuracy again.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Sept 4, 2006 23:45:14 GMT -5
3. Swordman are damn near worthless units. Like I said, I and most other players particularly the good ones, rarely if ever, build them. 10% city attack is not enough of an advantage for them to be used when the other person can just build an axe. If someone doesn't have metal they are like dead or easily choked out of being a factor anyways. No one wastes time building a sword to attack some archers in a city because after you get rid of this guy what will you use the stupid thing for. The next guy will likely have metal and he's going to build an axe and take out that swordman easy. This goes for Pratorians too. No one ever picks Rome for starters, since both their leaders traits aren't great. There UU is barely any better. It's just a beefed up swordman. An axe with melee upgrade easily kills them. It's kind of lame that Rome which was one of the most powerful and influential civs in history is regarded as weak when it comes to this game. Sorry, I'm talking about historical accuracy again. Just because you haven't found a good use for building Swords in Ladder games doesn't mean they are worthless. I have seen many very good players use them in many very interesting ways. As for Praetorians, how exactly does an Axe with Melee upgrade easily kill them? A Combat I Praetorian is an 8.8, and the Axe with Melee is a 9.25. That's 65% odds, sure you should win more than you should lose, but not exaclty what I would call "easily killing" them. Anyways, if you're not Aggressive, to get the Axe a Melee upgrade you're going to need Vassalage or Theocracy, and those two civics come much later than Praetorians. So your example doesn't make a ton of sense there except for a handful of civs. And imagine the clever Rome player who puts Praetorians on hills or in forests, what is going to "easily kill" them then? I do agree that Rome works much better for SP players against the AI than it does in Ladder play, but to say Axes will slaughter them is just ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Sept 5, 2006 0:17:10 GMT -5
Catas for city def isnt that far from reality. If u see it in a more general context. Cities had stuff like burning oil or towers or catalike def weapeons - these weapons could counterwhatevery troop there was on way espacially masstroops - catas too def city - civ4 as close to reallity as possibly.
U ever watched the movie bravehart? u remember the treespears used gainst knights? - now imagine some1 fighting with these trees gainst some1 having a axe .... Also i own u with a axe everyday when u have a spear - once u miss u r my slave
u maybe can argue wheater a sword is better then a axe - but a axe sword fight might end fast with a thrown axe - game over
|
|
|
Post by venceslas on Sept 5, 2006 1:29:21 GMT -5
"1. First Strike is the weakest upgrade in the game. Unless you have like 3 of them on a unit it does very little. Combat 1 is far better. If you check odds with the same 2 units, one with combat 1 and the other with first strike, the combat 1 has better odds. So basically first strike is something you should only do after you've used every other upgrade on a unit."
I think that "first strike" do not modify the displayed odd, however when odd are similar or very near, it does a big difference in the result. There are interesting analysis on this subject on others forums.
chris.
|
|
|
Post by Canucksoldier on Sept 5, 2006 1:41:01 GMT -5
"1. First Strike is the weakest upgrade in the game. Unless you have like 3 of them on a unit it does very little. Combat 1 is far better. If you check odds with the same 2 units, one with combat 1 and the other with first strike, the combat 1 has better odds. So basically first strike is something you should only do after you've used every other upgrade on a unit." I think that "first strike" do not modify the displayed odd, however when odd are similar or very near, it does a big difference in the result. There are interesting analysis on this subject on others forums. chris. Yes even with the modifications in 1.61 and Warlords I don't think the complex math involved with first strikes are truly displayed by the combat odds mouse over. CS
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Sept 5, 2006 2:02:40 GMT -5
I think that "first strike" do not modify the displayed odd, however when odd are similar or very near, it does a big difference in the result. There are interesting analysis on this subject on others forums. chris. Nah. It's counted in combat odds. Try a warriror in forest (str 3) vs archer (str 3). Archer will have 56% win chance. Odds will not be similar because enemy will have other upgrades instead of first strike. So that analysis is absolutely worthless.
|
|
|
Post by venceslas on Sept 5, 2006 6:31:17 GMT -5
"So that analysis is absolutely worthless."
hope you were speaking from your example? The links whose I was speaking are from the highest interest for explaining combat calculation. You have a perfect comprehension from how odd are computed, but many people don't or what it means exactly...
Thy for the odd, haven't checked before posted(that was the reason for "I think").
chris.
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Sept 5, 2006 7:55:45 GMT -5
U ever watched the movie bravehart? u remember the treespears used gainst knights? - now imagine some1 fighting with these trees gainst some1 having a axe .... Also i own u with a axe everyday when u have a spear - once u miss u r my slave u maybe can argue wheater a sword is better then a axe - but a axe sword fight might end fast with a thrown axe - game over Yes great film but that film was entirely inaccurate like most mel gibson movies and yes perhaps a axe man can throw his axe but a long sword can also chop off his head before he can have the chance also spearmen have long spears so why cant they throw them i think tech wise iron aint much use in early eras anymore since the only unit a swordman is any use against is a warrior imo
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Sept 5, 2006 11:47:31 GMT -5
I didn't use the word slaughter, please don't put words in my mouth Mookie. Easily defeated is an exaggeration but 65% odds is still decent for a unit like the praetorian. Who cares if you put them in forests and hills you can do that with any other unit and get the same advantage, like another axe. You could also get a great general early and add him to your city and get the +2 xp. So you don't have to necessarily wait for Theo or Vassaledge.
Tommy that was a Movie not Real Life. They also waited till the last minute before they revealed the spears so the horses were in full charge. Horses will not charged into spears, they are not stupid, they like to keep there lives, thats why spears are so effective against them. One of the few truely realistic things in this game.
Throwing axes are much smaller than battle axes. You don't throw a battle axe. It won't stay straight and can be easily dodged and a thrown axe will only go through weaker armor like leather, not plate mail or even decent chain mail unless the guy throwing it has a cannon for an arm. At best it may break a bone.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Sept 5, 2006 11:52:19 GMT -5
I didn't use the word slaughter, please don't put words in my mouth Mookie. Alright, my mistake, I'll stick with the "easily kill" that you used! Sure, an early General will help get you to those 65% odds, for Axes built in 1 city. However, remember you could be facing Praets being built out of 3 or 4 cities, and nothing is stopping the Roman player from adding a General to one of his cities to put Shock onto some of his Praets too! That would be 10.8 vs. 9.25 in favor of the Praets at 67%, which by your defintion is an easy kill (in the wrong direction!).
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Sept 5, 2006 12:54:36 GMT -5
It's been said before and I'll say it again, "If you want just balanced gameplay, play chess. If you want just historical accuracy, watch the History Channel [or perfom a live historical re-enactment ;P]." I think Firaxis did the best they could to provide both. That said, as a fan of history, I must disagree, based on my bias, that historical accuracy must take a back seat to game mechanics. For example, the WWII African campaign for vanilla Civ is very unbalanced, but it does its best to be true to history. The guide for the scenario says that the Allied forces are the most difficult Civ to play, but the game can still be fun outside of a "winning-and-recieving-a-higher-rank" context. On the other hand, we must remeber that the universe of Civ is alternate history, which is what gives the designers the license to make some changes. Only in the historical scenarios does historical accuracy have to be scrutinized. Personally, I like Rome's Julius Ceasar in Warlords. You just know that the Imperialistic Trait was made for Rome. Rupman, I invite you to look at my thread in the Mods section. I have some ideas that are accurate, and a couple that are off the wall! You are all welcome to look at some of the ideas I posted there, critique them, or add some of your own. Anywho, back on topic, I agree that first strike is an overrated promotion. The problem is that there are plenty of other promotions that are better game-wise that can fill the levels that a unit can usually get in its lifetime. However, if I get it for free from a Protective leader, I'm not complaining.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Sept 5, 2006 13:44:25 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong Mookie. I like Praets, I just think it's lame that an axe under any circumstances would have odds vs one. The Roman Legions were the best war machine up till the time of the High Middle Ages. It terms of training and tactics they could easily take on most infantry from the Middle Ages. Only Knights would really be able to take them. Maces in this game own Praets, but it should really not be the case. The Roman Legions were the most dominant military force probably ever seen. Relatively speaking there was no force in the world in there time and really for a 1000 years after the empire fell that could have stood against them on a level playing field. This game seriously underestimates there strength.
|
|
|
Post by deyreepher on Sept 5, 2006 14:37:21 GMT -5
Actually, it was their superior siege technology that usually won the day for the Roman Legions. Getting beat down by rapid firing artillery, anti-personnel and wide area effect devices just broke their opponents.
Without their technology and a 1 on 1 fight, the Romans would still go down. Just ask any German.
|
|
|
Post by coloneltreize on Sept 5, 2006 14:43:36 GMT -5
On that note, they also misrepresent England's Redcoats, or any other UU that was the single best fighting force of its time. I guess the designers were very conservative in making the UUs stronger than the units they were based on. In an Ancient cton of 130 turns where Praets totally owned, the game would be completely unbalanced in favor of the Roman player. This only supports my belief that the game should be played for the entire 320 turns on Quick speed, even if players have to continue the game in a second session. But, that opinion is way off topic here. On the topic of realism, I have some real difficult ones: 1. Everyone knows they used Papyrus reed scrolls, an early form of paper in The Great Library of Alexandria. You certainly could have drawn a map on them, when in the game you can't exchange maps until you discover Paper(unless you exchange screen shots ), which is later in the tech tree, and not required for Literature or Drama. 2. Why can't France build Observatories, and why does the UB Salon require Astronomy? 3. Why can't you trade currency until you get Currency, even though you know what money is and how it works from the beginning. Your Civ must use currency to be able to research Currency! 4. Why can't Galleys, Work Boats and Triremes cross ocean squares? In the Earth map, the Mediterranean Sea is comprised of 'Ocean' squares, yet I recall Triremes being able to cross that body of water in history. I could go on and on. I hope I gave you some more ammo, Rupman. But like I said before, Firaxis took a lot of artistic license, here.
|
|
|
Post by MookieNJ on Sept 5, 2006 14:45:12 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong Mookie. I like Praets, I just think it's lame that an axe under any circumstances would have odds vs one. I don't understand why you continue to assert something that I've shown to be incorrect? An unpromoted Axe does not have odds vs. an unpromoted Praet. A 1 star Axe does not have odds vs. a 1 star Praet. A shock Axe does not have odds vs. a shock Praet. A shock Axe does not have odds vs. a 1 star Praet in a forest. A shock Axe does not have odds vs. a 1 star Praet on a hill. A 1 star Axe in a 20% bonus city does not have odds vs. an attacking City Raider 1 Praet. A shock Axe in a 20% bonus city does not have odds vs. an attcking City Raider 2 Praet. Basically, the only time, under your wording, "any circumstances" occurs is when the Axe is able to get 2 upgrades while the Praet is stuck on just 1. Shock Axes will beat 1 star Praets and and defending Shock Axes will defeat City Raider 1 Praets.
|
|
|
Post by venceslas on Sept 5, 2006 14:47:07 GMT -5
Ellestar I have checked my point, and you are wrong.
archer vs warrior on forest is 3 vs 3, first strike is not computed in the odd.
Due to the random aspect of "first strike" it seems more logical.
chris.
|
|
|
Post by rupman on Sept 5, 2006 14:54:39 GMT -5
Well then you need to read Professor Nathan Rosenstein's book on war in the ancient med and middle ages. I don't have the exact title for you right now. I'll try to find it when I get home. I also took the guys class on war in the anc med. It rocked. Basically he would completely disagree with you and so do I. Although technology was a part of the Roman War Machine, it was not the only part. The Roman Legions were better trained than any other soldier of their time, as well as being better equiped, supplied, etc...
The major reasons for the Germans owning the Roman in the last century of the Empire was because the Romans spent so much time fighting each other in civil wars that it decimated the legions. To beef the legions back up they allowed poorly trained barbarians such as Germans to join the legions in exchange for Roman citizenship. Of course these guys let their other German buddies waltz right in and sack Rome.
|
|
|
Post by Ellestar on Sept 5, 2006 15:58:54 GMT -5
Ellestar I have checked my point, and you are wrong. archer vs warrior on forest is 3 vs 3, first strike is not computed in the odd. Due to the random aspect of "first strike" it seems more logical. chris. You know, i become really angry when someone argues with me and posts some bullsh it once again without checking when i already posted a proven facts. 3 str vs 3 str should be a 50% chance But here we see a 56.8% chance. I bet it's because first strikes are counted in combat odds (say, my combat calculator gives a 0.568359375 chance to win for that fight and it counts first strikes as well). If you have any other explanation, please do tell us. hope you were speaking from your example? The links whose I was speaking are from the highest interest for explaining combat calculation. You have a perfect comprehension from how odd are computed, but many people don't or what it means exactly... chris. Any part of article that compares unimproved unit with a first strike unit is inherently useless. The only valid comparision is to compare X first strike with X other upgrades.
|
|
|
Post by venceslas on Sept 5, 2006 16:02:20 GMT -5
"archer vs warrior on forest is 3 vs 3, first strike is not computed in the odd." that was my sentence. I was saying that game displayed 3v3 like your sreenshot show it I may misunderstand the word odd due to my english, is it refered to the 56%? In this case sorry, in my way it was refered at 3v3. "56%" was refered to the word result in my previous post. For the 56%, it was my point !!! Anyway, now I understand your point and I fully agree with you(except that theses articles in civfanatic or apolyton are quite interesting). Don't show you angry, it's not nice, better keep cool chris.
|
|