 |
| |
|
|
|
First there are going to be only 60 units total in the game. I wanted more, but that is another game. Let's try to keep this one on topic so if Dan M. is looking in it may be constructed. Question one; who should win a one-on-one or two-on-one, three-on-one? How many Warriors would it take to beat a Phalanx/Hoplite etc? Or how many Warriors to beat a Legion? We could discuss any combination of Units attacking or defending in the open or in a City with or without City walls.
In the other Civ. games, Phalanx/Hoplite were at a disadvantage in the open and normally loss almost to any one. Should that feature stay in the game or not?
As of now do we know how many unit per stack?
I believed 3 to 4 warriors could defeat one Phalanx/Hoplite in the open. However it should take at lease 4 or more warriors to defeat one Legion in the open because he can used his shield and short Sword.
Should a Sherman M-4 defeat a Abrams M-1. I say NO even if there are six, seven, eight, or even 10 because of the M-1 armor. (I was talking to a M-1 tank crewman at the Travis Air Force Base Open House on Sunday and he was talking about the Gulf War and we did not loose a single tank to enemy tank fire. We lost two M-1, one to Artillery fire and one mechanical problem that could not be repaired.)
The U.S.A.F. F-15 vs. Iraq. The US and Saudi F-15s recorded 36 of the 41 aerial victories or Iraqi aircraft with no looses (AirExpo 2001 and aerospace odyssey Travis AFB.). The F-15 record including all Air Forces 100.5 to 0, including four Mig-29 during the Balkan conflict.
A question here is do we want realization or a F-15 that can be defected from time to time by the Mig-29?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
IMO 20 warriors could take out a riflemen if they charged it.
bah. I like civ 2's battles.
why do you have to make stacks
wait, do you HAVE TO make stacks?
were allowed one stack per 4 cities, but do we HAVE TO stack them?
can we send them out in single unit form? |
20 warriors, it would depend on how far away from the riflemen they started. At 200 yard your 20 warriors would loose. At 20 yards they may win.
Stack are the new wave of thing to come, and beside if you don't build them the AI will and unless you have a tank against 9-12 Legion you will not win many battles.
No you do not have to stack, however the above answer applies.
Yes you can send them out as single until you go to war, after that I would not.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
KrazyHorse
|
 |
Macedonia
May 2001
time: 00:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
IMO 20 warriors could take out a riflemen if they charged it.
or, realistically, 1,000 riflemen being onrished by 20,000 guys with pointy sticks.
you cant shoot them all. |
Yes you can. The battle of Rorke's Drift. Look it up. 100 British riflemen holed up in a farm held off 4000 Zulus, killing 1000 of them. Now look up the battle of Isandlwana. It happened the day before Rorke's Drift, and 1300 British riflemen were annihilated by 15000 Zulus. Why? They got caught in the open. Kind of demonstrates the value of fortification, doesn't it?
quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
why do you have to make stacks
wait, do you HAVE TO make stacks? |
Let's say you have 20 warriors, and the AI has one rifleman. You can send your 20 warriors in individually, and they'll probably end up all dying. On the other hand, you can send in the 20 units at once, and their combat strengths get added together. No more rifleman.
quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
were allowed one stack per 4 cities, but do we HAVE TO stack them?
can we send them out in single unit form? |
That's a good question. If single units also count as armies, then Civ III will be a very different game from its predecessors. There will be no more garrisoning units in cities, since you could only defend 1/4 of them this way. This would fit in with the idea of making the countryside more important in Civ III. Does anyone (i.e. employees of a certain company whose name shall remain forever in the annals of Apolyton) have an answer as to whether this is the case or not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frank80878
|
|
Lakewood, NJ, USA
Jun 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
The combat of civ 2 was always faulty and unrealistic, but i loved it anyway. But the one blasphemous error that i couldnt understand is why they made the marine unit the best infantry in the game. This really makes me mad that the creators fell into the classic american myth that marines are the gods of war. I served four years in the 82nd Airborne Division in 505th infantry. In those years we crossed trained with the marines all the time. AND WE NEVER LOST ONCE!!!!!!! My company went up against a battalion of marine 11-Bravos and we destroyed them all. And this isnt a one time lucky event, when we were outnumbering them on some exercises we would destroy them with even less effort. So civ always made me mad with th 8/5 marines, and the 6/4 paratroopers. Maybe i have a biased view, but there is no way a airborne division is worse than a stupid leg marine division. So maybe they should look realistically at the units instead of just following the American love for marines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sebanaj
|
|
buenos aires, argentina
Apr 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
I hope that a group of triremes won't sink a battleship!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JMarks
|
 |
formerly known as the artist
Mar 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grumbold
I would have liked to see more combat options but leaving that aside, I would expect as a general rule of thumb that 1 defensive unit of its age should kill 1.5 attacking units. Terrain bonuses then modify this so that a fortified hilltop will be more on the order of 1 defender lost to 5 attackers. Unfortunately the whole Civ system prevents intelligent tactics of dealing with "impregnable" defenders, i.e. sieges, ambushes, ranged attack etc. so I am more inclined to lean toward making it harder to defend in compensation.
Ideally I would prefer the CtP approach, where a defensive stack is very strong but you cannot afford to have each city fully defended. That allows the players to try and outmanoeuver each other to bring their full army stacks to bear on weaker targets. It is very satisfying to see huge army stacks disbanding because you have cut off the means to fund them instead of recklessly attacking and losing four times the casualties. |
On the contrary, civ has made was great for sieges, and civ3 promises to be even better, at least where siege weapons are concerned. The only exception will be 'starving' units out, my favorite tactic in the civil war scenario. This may now be imposible  and I really liked that tactic. Remember the Age of Discovery scenario? I used that tactic to take Europe and most of Asia, and if I hadn't gotten bored doing this I would have taken the rest. (ok, I know this was missing the point of the scenario)
Oh, and I do recall that stacked units fight individually then switch off (like in those stupid wrestling matches) to the next guy. Strong attackers first then to the weakest. If defending, then high defenders first, and so on. Now where was this reported? I can't remember, but there was a small uproar of contraversy when it was first heard.
Ioanes
|
|
| |
|
|
|
me_irate
|
|
I personally like cpt 2 system. The battles work great, normal infanty attack 1 unit at a time, but ranged units can attack any unit as catipults do. And cavalry can attack any unit as long as no unit is in fron of it. I would be disapointed if it didn't have a system at least simular to this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sebanaj
|
|
buenos aires, argentina
Apr 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
or 4 swords beating a tank! it happens on CTP 2
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MORON
|
|
Vancouver, Canada
Jun 2001
time: 13:14
|
|
...there had been thousands of systems of combat proposed for civ 3.
Hope they picked a good one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
It's also true that faced by a technologically superior force sometimes the less sophisticated force will steal weapons and develop tactics to fight back. After a couple hundred years of retreating from european encroachment the amerinds eventually adopted european weapons. In the past 2 centuries there have been numerous examples of technoligically unsophisticated peoples holding the forces of more developed nations.
This gives me some ideas. When your force invades a country that's significantly less developed the victim should have the chance to appeal to your rivals for aid. This aid might come in the form of a donation of technology or even some sort of mechanism for donating production, i.e. units produced by ther benefactor, but deployed in the recipient nation as the recipient's units. In fact the intervention could come at a variety of levels ranging from donations of technology and/or production, to sending units, to naval blockade, to outright war.
Another way to handle conflict between nations with a technological disparity would be to giver the forces of the less developed nation the chance to convert to partisans when attacked by a superior unit. There would need to be two levels of partisans, one for the modern era, the other for the age of muskets and rifles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grumbold
I'm confident that triremes could not beat a battleship but massed galleons could. |
In the game yes it could happen. In life forget it. The Iowa class battleship carried 9, 16 inch guns and could fire a round 26 miles. Their 5 inch guns could fire a round about 15 miles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MORON
Yamato class had 18inch guns 
Can we make spies steal tech from enemy units(of course only the ones that allows it to be build)? Sounds fun, fair and realistic. |
Yes I would agree it was very good luck for the U.S. in that they did not have to fight the Yamato Ship to Ship. I think we would have won because we had more battleship to fight with. But a lot of people would have died. It kind of funny that after Pearl Harbor no American battleships was sunk. The Bismark was sunk before we the U.S. enter the war and the Yamato was sunk by aircraft as was the Bismark.
I agree with the Spies. In the Game as in real life we should alow spies to steal from somebody or a city.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grumbold
A little bit of bad weather would solve that in pre-radar days. One lucky shot can be all it takes. I'm not saying it is likely, but it needs to be possible. Even if they have to somehow trick the battleship into letting itself get boarded! |
Hey there was a movie five or six years ago when Tommy Lee Jones took over the USS New Jersey or USS Missouri. The real bad thing if those boys in Yemen had boarded the USS Cole they may have taken the ship because all small arms are locked up except for the personnel on watch. That means there are only one or two .45 cal pistol at hand and maybe one M-16 carry by a crewman.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-06-2001 03:14
). But you have to remember that realism is not the only factor that determines the relative strength of units. If as you suggest they made a paratrooper that had a really high attack value, that unit would in my opinion be overly powerful. In terms of game balance, you don't want a unit that has paradrop ability to also have the highest attack value. Otherwise there would be no reason to make any other units. For the sake of game balance you have to offset the paradrop ability with a slightly lower attack value. 
|