 |
| |
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Bad analogy...
Chess has one piece per tile. Civ has many per tile... possibly.
Chess isn't technically tactical in military terms... if we wish to be pedantic... or unless you wish to disagree with the dictionary definition.
Or are you saying M-W and the Oxford English dictionaries have incorrectly defined the word?
Oh... and you've hit the nail on the head... TBS games... are called TBS games for a reason. The "Strategy" bit is significant. |
so chess only allowing one unit per tile makes it tactical??
I don't think so, I can, and do, play many games that are tactical in nature but allow many units per tile
what I am saying is that you don't understand what tactical means
and I think that I have shown that what the majority of others think tactical means is different than what you think tactical means
and I agree, Civ is mostly a strategy game
but it has had tactical elements from the beginning, and I would like to make them fun again, instead of throwing them into the garbage heap
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
Bad analogy...
Chess has one piece per tile. Civ has many per tile... possibly.
Chess isn't technically tactical in military terms... if we wish to be pedantic... or unless you wish to disagree with the dictionary definition.
Or are you saying M-W and the Oxford English dictionaries have incorrectly defined the word?
Oh... and you've hit the nail on the head... TBS games... are called TBS games for a reason. The "Strategy" bit is significant. |
what I wish to say is that you don't understand the dictionary definition
(At least, that is what I think is the case now, I use to think differently)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Not my definition. The definition is from Merriam-Webster.
Thats where words are commonly defined. A dictionary. Not by Jon Miller.
and I have read your posts... they're just plain wrong, however. Civ2 had one of the least realistic and intuitive combat systems possible. Although firepower was a step forward from Civ1...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
I understand the dictionary definition perfectly well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
no
I ams aying that you do not understand what those words mean
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
no you don't
you show you don't by your claims of what it means
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
to give you an example
forking is a tactic in chess
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Which word...
forces...
plural of force... "2 a : military strength b (1) : a body (as of troops or ships) assigned to a military purpose "
maneuver...
1 a : a military or naval movement
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
some more definitions to aid your understanding (sorry, I forgot that this is not an english only site and english might not be your first language).
A procedure or set of maneuvers engaged in to achieve an end, an aim, or a goal.
An expedient for achieving a goal; a maneuver.
Hence, any system or method of procedure
. The science and art of disposing military and naval forces in order for battle, and performing military and naval evolutions. It is divided into grand tactics, or the tactics of battles, and elementary tactics, or the tactics of instruction.
(used with a sing. verb) The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy: Tactics is a required course at all military academies.
(used with a pl. verb) Maneuvers used against an enemy: Guerrilla tactics were employed during most of the war.
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jon Miller
to give you an example
forking is a tactic in chess
Jon Miller |
As I've said... Chess isn't a valid analogy... it only allows one entity per tile, and has abstract environmental world rules. A limited one move per turn situation.
Civ can have many entities per tile and has less restrictive world rules.
I.E. each entity can move each turn.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
forces
meaning multiple
as in you have multiple chess peices
but actually, you can have tactics with only one force
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrBaggins
As I've said... Chess isn't a valid analogy... it only allows one entity per tile, and has abstract environmental world rules. A limited one move per turn situation.
Civ can have many entities per tile and has less restrictive world rules.
I.E. each entity can move each turn. |
it is not different
imagine every turn borken into smaller turns
where you deterimine the order of the turns
civ has abstract environmental world rules
and the one unit per tile thing is just as stupid as the rest of your counter arguments
you claim that your definition implies all these things
I don't see anywhere in your deffinition where it does (And the plurality, which you seem so focused on, is false anyways)
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
have you ever played in avalon hill board game?
or axis and allies?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
or even risk?
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
It is absolutely different.
We are discussing combat in Civ... and specifically resolving combat where multiple entities are on the same tiles.
There wouldn't need to be any resolution in this manner, if Civ were like Chess.. in that only one entity could exist in a single tile.
Thats not what you're suggesting though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
The last board game I played was Warhammer 40k.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
no it is not
having only one unit per place does not make it so that there can be no tactics
there is tactics in risk for example
as well as a lot of other board games, and computer games
like Civ
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
you don't seem to have any understanding of what tactics is
where in the definition yuo gave, does it mention anything about only single unit allowable in one place at one time?
where does it even seem to imply it?
I would recommend you read some books on tactics, and see if you can find some understanding (are yuo sure you have never played risk?)
Jojnm iller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
and I disagree with your definition.
You are confusing strategic movement, with tactical movement, considering the multiple entities per space situation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
You don't seem to grasp the concept.. that in military terms... troops do not tactically, or strategically move in isolation... they move in combination... and that doesn't happen in a turn based game... without stacks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
no I am not
and you won't listen to me
people in general accept my definiton
deal with it
Jon miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
as I have said
you don't ahve a clue
please study some more
JOn Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
I'm sorry.. I must have missed the Jon Miller Dictionary.
I looked for in on Barnes and Noble... but didn't find it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
You sir... have less than no clue.
Please initiate studying, since you've not even started.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
well
you also missed the dictionary of every other english speaking person on the planet
JOn Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
Planet Jon Miller you mean?
sorry... I've not visited there... and after seeing the brochure, I don't care to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rasputin
|
 |
Brisbane
May 1999
time: 15:32
|
|
you two ,,,
for clarification from a thesaurus....
Entry: tactics
Function: noun
Definition: strategy
Synonyms: approach, campaign, channels, course, defense, device, disposition, generalship, line, maneuver, maneuvering, means, method, move, plan, ploy, policy, procedure, red tape, scheme, stratagem, system, tack, technique, trick, way
tactics and strategy are same.....
civ is not a war simulation it is a `game of strategy/tactics units are represented by icons, each icon representing many things, it is not meant to be taken literally that you have a man on a horse as cavalry, it also represents the supply needed to get him there, the cooks cleaners etc...
civ is very abstract in that it doesnt attempt nor should it betray an attrition war, a drawn battle, or any such thing, it is meant to be a fun strategy/tactics type game similar to a lot of old fashioned board games where a simple cardboard counter represented a platoon of infantry or tanks or planes. these games are reknown for their great strategy on a grand scale. which is what civ is.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002
time: 23:32
|
|
Mr. Baggins:
No
You are wrong
You don't even know things
Because I know them
Don't ever post again no matter what because I have proved
you to be an idiot.
you would know that if you ever read a single one of my posts
that you have responded to
Seriosly...
Chess or any other board games aren't usefull tools to explore how a Civlization game's combat should be. Civ is far more complicated than any of them, and by all rights should be, as it has the help of a CPU and an inifinite series of possible sequences.
In order to get as close to on topic as possible:
Mr. Baggins mentioned hitpoints, which if I recall haven't yet come up in this thread. I think most of us will agree tha the exclusion of hit points was a big mistake in Civ 3 combat.
I'm not refering to the Civ 3 version of 2,3,4,5 based on rank... but instead to the Civ 2 style of different eras' units haveing different amounts of damage they can take. In Civ 3 this was coupled with firepower, so that late game units were much more powerful than ancient era ones.
Hitpoints can represent the size of the unit (so an archer unit with 20 hitpoints would essentially have 4 times the soldiers as a warrior with 5), the technology levels (MA is a bit sturdier thank tanks, for example), and provides a very sensible and intuitive set of combat paramaters.
Hitpoints and firepower can, and have, existed in games with and without stacked combat, so I think we can safely all rally behind this idea. I may be wrong, but what do others think?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-12-2003 19:12
You don't have to hit me over the head with a 2x4 to agree that HP/ARMOR/FIREPOWER should be a part of the equation.
|