MOO3 finished!

[Fyron]

Yes I did. They got rid of the hit points and fire power scheme. So, medieval musketmen can now defeat modern Tanks, a lot. That is completely absurd. If it happens once after playing for like 100 hours, that is fine, and assignable to an anomoly. But if it happens a lot, then there is a problem.

They killed off Civ 2 ToT, which was the best thing to happen to Civ since the original release of Civ 1. There were so many awesome advancements made in the genre with ToT that they dropped completely. Thanks to the egomaniac otherwise known as Sid Meier.

Bombardment hardly does enough to matter. I have watched 32 bombers bomb a city, and do a total of 1 point of damage. That, again, is absurd.

The AIs cheat way too much to be enjoyable. They trade their techs with each other really cheaply, so you have a very hard time keeping up, esp. at higher difficulty levels.

Shall I continue?

[Puke]

could someone please take a break from bickering over the CIV/SMAC serise and the failings of games that crash every 10-100 hours, and give me an SE4 player's perspective on MOO3?

lets face it. tons of people left se4 because they thought that even a year after its release, it was still in 'beta.' it has given me tons of RCEs from the unmodded game and integer overflow errors, until some very recent patches within the Last year. the strategic combat still has some problems, and the simulator is still useless. and frankly, i dont care if you spend $2 on a meal, or $50.

please put that aside for a second, and if anyone has the game, shell out some facts about the gameplay. how are the features? how is the combat, and economics, and politics? can it be played well multiplayer, without realtime connections? can games be saved so realtime games can be continued later? how is the AI, and minister control? how is the customization? how does it stack up to SE4?

I care only a little bit what reviewers say. I want to hear the real story from people here, because as SE4 players, your oppinions count more.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yes I did. They got rid of the hit points and fire power scheme. So, medieval musketmen can now defeat modern Tanks, a lot. That is completely absurd. If it happens once after playing for like 100 hours, that is fine, and assignable to an anomoly. But if it happens a lot, then there is a problem.

It's hardly absurd that musketman can defeat modern tanks, especially in a good defensive position. Unless, as I've already said, you somehow believe that those are the same exact soldiers that you trained several hundred years before. Modern tanks are still vulnerable to infantry, and molotov cocktails will still cause them plenty of problems.

Bombardment hardly does enough to matter. I have watched 32 bombers bomb a city, and do a total of 1 point of damage. That, again, is absurd.

And how many structures and population points were destroyed during this bombardment? Military units are not likely to be severely damaged during a bombardment from bombers, as that represents WWII level technology. The whole city of Berlin was nearly destroyed but the military still was functional. The point of bombardments is to destroy the population and improvements of a city so that your units can overcome the defenders.

The AIs cheat way too much to be enjoyable. They trade their techs with each other really cheaply, so you have a very hard time keeping up, esp. at higher difficulty levels.

The AI's are quite willing to trade those technologies with you, which is the best way to keep up with them. After most of them have a technology, the price is low enough that you should be able to afford it. Once communism is researched, you can switch to democracy and blow past the AI in research as it starts to conscript troops for its defense.

Shall I continue?

The things you've pointed out are fairly minor gripes.

[Fyron]

It's hardly absurd that musketman can defeat modern tanks, especially in a good defensive position. Unless, as I've already said, you somehow believe that those are the same exact soldiers that you trained several hundred years before. Modern tanks are still vulnerable to infantry, and molotov cocktails will still cause them plenty of problems.

Please explain to me how men armed with arquebuses can defeat tanks, with anti-personal machine guns on them. Modern tanks are not vulnerable to men with arquebuses.

And how many structures and population points were destroyed during this bombardment? Military units are not likely to be severely damaged during a bombardment from bombers, as that represents WWII level technology. The whole city of Berlin was nearly destroyed but the military still was functional. The point of bombardments is to destroy the population and improvements of a city so that your units can overcome the defenders.[/quote]All the bombardment did was 1 damage to a unit. Nothing else was destroyed. No population, no buildings. This happens a lot, with all types of bombardment units. Catapults, cannons, ships, everything. I sit there, bombarding with tons of units, turn after turn, and nothing gets done, except maybe 1 or 2 points of damage to a unit, or population.

The AI's are quite willing to trade those technologies with you, which is the best way to keep up with them.

No, you misunderstand. They are only willing to trade them to you for a lot more than the worth of what they are trading. But, they are always willing to trade for little to other AIs, even on the turn they receive the tecnologies.

After most of them have a technology, the price is low enough that you should be able to afford it. Once communism is researched, you can switch to democracy and blow past the AI in research as it starts to conscript troops for its defense.

The price goes up with every tech you trade for, regardless of who you got it from. I have never seen them ask less for a tech that they all have.

The things you've pointed out are fairly minor gripes.

Only in your opinion. They are mostly severe flaws in the combat system (or lack thereof) that make the game less than fun to play.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Please explain to me how men armed with arquebuses can defeat tanks, with anti-personal machine guns on them. Modern tanks are not vulnerable to men with arquebuses.

Yes, modern tanks are vulnerable. In order for musketeers to have a 10% chance of defeating a modern armour unit while defending, you have to have the unit in a metropolis, on a montaintop, river square, and be fortified. This multiplies its defense by 2.5 times. In a situation like this, where a single combat Lasts for four months(three attacks per turn for the tanks), there are plenty of occasions for a musketman to kill the soldiers, or disable the tank. After all, the attackers don't spend their entire lives inside the tank. The terrain is also completely unsuited to the tank, and perfectly suited to the infantry. In open terrain, you have tank traps, mines, and everything else the game abstracts away.

All the bombardment did was 1 damage to a unit. Nothing else was destroyed. No population, no buildings. This happens a lot, with all types of bombardment units. Catapults, cannons, ships, everything. I sit there, bombarding with tons of units, turn after turn, and nothing gets done, except maybe 1 or 2 points of damage to a unit, or population.

I highly doubt that this is the case, unless you are trying to use low-tech units to bombard high-tech ones.

No, you misunderstand. They are only willing to trade them to you for a lot more than the worth of what they are trading. But, they are always willing to trade for little to other AIs, even on the turn they receive the tecnologies. The price goes up with every tech you trade for, regardless of who you got it from. I have never seen them ask less for a tech that they all have.

Then you have not actually attempted this strategy. It works, and is one of the standard methods to play. You can play an entire game where you perform no research, and simply buy tech advances.

I assume that you never play on a difficulty level less or greater than monarch then, so that the AI doesn't get production bonuses, and you don't either? Otherwise, what you are complaining about is that the AI makes the game too hard, which is easily remedied by choosng an easier difficulty level.

Only in your opinion. They are mostly severe flaws in the combat system (or lack thereof) that make the game less than fun to play.

In my opinion, they are what make the game worth playing. It is unrealistic to assume that high-tech units will _always_ beat low tech ones.

[Fyron]

Yes, modern tanks are vulnerable. In order for musketeers to have a 10% chance of defeating a modern armour unit while defending, you have to have the unit in a metropolis, on a montaintop, river square, and be fortified. This multiplies its defense by 2.5 times. In a situation like this, where a single combat Lasts for four months(three attacks per turn for the tanks), there are plenty of occasions for a musketman to kill the soldiers, or disable the tank. After all, the attackers don't spend their entire lives inside the tank. The terrain is also completely unsuited to the tank, and perfectly suited to the infantry. In open terrain, you have tank traps, mines, and everything else the game abstracts away.

What you are trying to do is rationalize the absurdities in the combat system. It doesn't work. These are not men with low grade rifles, they are men with arquebuses. One small round bullet, which you have to pack in with the gun powder to the gun. Such guns can not penetrate a tank's armor, period. Sure, it is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. The tanks get defeated on open terrain too. These musketmen don't have mines and such.

I highly doubt that this is the case, unless you are trying to use low-tech units to bombard high-tech ones.

Nope, trying to bombard equal and lower tech units. It happened all the time when I tried bombarding, even with absurd numbers of units.

Then you have not actually attempted this strategy. It works, and is one of the standard methods to play. You can play an entire game where you perform no research, and simply buy tech advances.

Ok, so unless you spend all your trade on taxes and then buy everything, you fall behind. Sounds like fun to me.

I assume that you never play on a difficulty level less or greater than monarch then, so that the AI doesn't get production bonuses, and you don't either? Otherwise, what you are complaining about is that the AI makes the game too hard, which is easily remedied by choosng an easier difficulty level.

I am complaining that the AI cheats too much. Not a simple bonus to remain competitive, but cheating. I stopped playing the game long ago because it was no fun. So, of course the rampant cheating is insurmountable with my skill at civ 3. Had the game been fun, I could probably have played enough to learn how to cope with the cheating. But, it wasn't fun, so I stopped playing.

In my opinion, they are what make the game worth playing. It is unrealistic to assume that high-tech units will _always_ beat low tech ones.

It is unrealistic for large numbers of high tech units to be required to defeat low tech units. The problems happen with things like Pikemen too. Tell me how men armed with Pikes (and nothing else) can defeat tanks? They simply can't, unless you artificially create a lot of bizarre circumstances in their favor. In 99.99% of situations, the pikemen would be slaughtered without any danger at all to the tank. But in civ 3, they can defeat the tanks.

[steveh11]

Well, this thread doesn't have much to do with MOO3 anymore...

I own and still play SMAC, especially the expanded variant (Alien Crossfire). I played Civ2 for years. I never bought Civ3 because of gameplay issues I'd read about - this is the first I've heard of it having other problems. But I had been considering getting it despite these because:

I own and still play Europa Universalis - more recently EU2 - and that definitely had bugs and 'features' that needed work, but it was a fun thing to play even out of the box, and Paradox worked hard with the user community to improve it.

Similarly, SE has improved over the years. I still play that too - obviously!

Even a hard-core wargame such as Uncommon Valor from Matrix Games is now up to Version 2.20, having fixed many gameplay issues, and some more serious faults. (I don't own this yet but I'm likely to buy it in the next couple of months or so.)

So I think that in general it's wrong to think that you'll get a finished, polished product at first issue. As complex as games like these have become it needs 'road testing' to fix it within the limited resources of the companies we buy from. Yes, even EA - Last I looked they didn't have the budget of the US military, and look what they sometimes come up with!

Steve.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
What you are trying to do is rationalize the absurdities in the combat system. It doesn't work. These are not men with low grade rifles, they are men with arquebuses. One small round bullet, which you have to pack in with the gun powder to the gun. Such guns can not penetrate a tank's armor, period. Sure, it is theoretically possible, but highly unlikely.

And if you understood the combat system at all, you would realize just how unlikely it is. Without any modifiers, a modern armour will defeat a musketeman 98.64% of the time.

The tanks get defeated on open terrain too. These musketmen don't have mines and such.

Ahhh. So what you are saying is that these musketmen are actually 400-1000 years old by the time they fought your tank. Why don't they have mines and such? To say that they don't is to be irrational.

Ok, so unless you spend all your trade on taxes and then buy everything, you fall behind. Sounds like fun to me.

I am complaining that the AI cheats too much. Not a simple bonus to remain competitive, but cheating.

There is no difference between a bonus to production and trading research. Both are cheating.

I stopped playing the game long ago because it was no fun. So, of course the rampant cheating is insurmountable with my skill at civ 3. Had the game been fun, I could probably have played enough to learn how to cope with the cheating. But, it wasn't fun, so I stopped playing.

So basically, you couldn't beat the game at as high a difficulty level as you could play the other games, so its obviously the games fault that you don't understand the game.

It is unrealistic for large numbers of high tech units to be required to defeat low tech units. The problems happen with things like Pikemen too. Tell me how men armed with Pikes (and nothing else) can defeat tanks?

This is an artificially constructed dilemna that you have built for no reason other than to convince yourself that the combat system is severely flawed. Pikemen can defeat tanks in several ways that I have already explained. If not, then apparently the Russian civilians in Leningrad didn't actually manage to defeat a single German tank. You cannot explain away the fact that a single attack from a tank represents an entire four month campaign.

They simply can't, unless you artificially create a lot of bizarre circumstances in their favor. In 99.99% of situations, the pikemen would be slaughtered without any danger at all to the tank. But in civ 3, they can defeat the tanks.

BZZZT. In Civ 3 they are defeated 99.5% of the time.

What you see as a "severely flawed" combat mechanism, I see as standard, and expected, statistical variation.

[Rollo]

Originally posted by Puke:
could someone please take a break from bickering over the CIV/SMAC serise and the failings of games that crash every 10-100 hours, and give me an SE4 player's perspective on MOO3?

lets face it. tons of people left se4 because they thought that even a year after its release, it was still in 'beta.' it has given me tons of RCEs from the unmodded game and integer overflow errors, until some very recent patches within the Last year. the strategic combat still has some problems, and the simulator is still useless. and frankly, i dont care if you spend $2 on a meal, or $50.

please put that aside for a second, and if anyone has the game, shell out some facts about the gameplay. how are the features? how is the combat, and economics, and politics? can it be played well multiplayer, without realtime connections? can games be saved so realtime games can be continued later? how is the AI, and minister control? how is the customization? how does it stack up to SE4?

I care only a little bit what reviewers say. I want to hear the real story from people here, because as SE4 players, your oppinions count more.

Well said, Puke. So are there any news about MOO3?

Graeme, Fyron, please stop the bickering (or make a new thread for that). You both have to realise that none will convince the other.
Agree to disagree, give a hug, and be happy...

Rollo

[Phoenix-D]

"Ahhh. So what you are saying is that these musketmen are actually 400-1000 years old by the time they fought your tank. Why don't they have mines and such? To say that they don't is to be irrational."

Because they're not armed with such. I have only simple knives for weapons; this does not imply I have been around since the knife was invented!

Why WOULD they have mines? They're main weapon certainly doesn't indicate they would.

Phoenix-D