 |
|
Alfonsus72
|
|
As far as I know, in civ3 the human player has some chance to capture AI workers.
As workers could have a defense value of 0 (umm.. still not sure about that), will other units with a defensive value of 0, as catapults could have, be capturable?. Has anybody heard something about it?.
Guess we will have to wait and see... but that would be a nice new feature.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dainbramaged13
|
|
Dumbass
Mar 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TechWins
I highly doubt it. |
me too
it would be cool bnut i bet you its not in
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tuckson
|
|
Hmmm, a catapult killing no units? Makes no sense to me either. Of course for a catapult, the change to hit a man alone is minimal, but throw the stones on an attacking army (irl a mass invasion) still makes victims.
But it should make sense if a catapult causes more damage to structures then to units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bleyn
|
|
On the subject of having to use another unit to man a catapult or cannon, I'm indifferent at this point. I'd rather wait and see what actually happens, and get better details.
On capturing, I'm all for it. Especially if a catapult or cannon unit is caught on its own. Yes they would have the crews serving the weapons, but with 17th-19th century cannon at least, they did not have enough, if any, organic infantry to really defend themselves. The best the artillery crews could often do on their own was spike the cannon to make them useless to enemy until a master gunsmith could repair it. And I would bet catapults had similar defensive issues.
I'd also like to see city walls do a disappearance, like the barracks do, when cannon appear. The straight up and down fortifications that were adequate for defense against a catapult were useless against all but the earliest cannon. The Alamo is a perfect example of this. It was a frontier garrison fortification that was perfectly adequate for defense against Native Americans and bandits with only small arms, but perfectly useless against the artillary of a real 19th century army. Those guys were just plain doomed and stupid to hole up in there like they did. They would have done much better to emulate the guerilla warfare tactics of the Revolutionary war.
And if there must be a post cannon city walls, limit it to only towns under a certain size. The fortifications required to protect a town against a siege with cannon just weren't feasible for the big cities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tuckson
|
|
Hmmm,
I think a catapult WILL be useful against infantry, grouped in certain formations, like the famous roman Phalanx. In civ 2 phalanx is a Unit, but i.r.l. it was a formation of roman soldiers.
Those formations usually march straight ahead, unless the casualties become to big. So a catapult could at least break those formations, which otherwise would have been way to strong for the enemy.
A catapult to be used mainly as a bomarding unit of course makes sense, but then it must be possible to:
a: attack from a long range and
b: to defend it with other units.
And a long rang means out of reach of "normal units". And units like horse or something also should be considered as "normal units", so a striking distance of 2 makes no sense. At least make it 3 so a horse also needs 2 turns to reach a catapult.
In this case however, the catapult should hardly be able to kill the horse, though giving it some damage could be a possibility.
Grtx
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tuckson
|
|
Hmmm,
I think a catapult WILL be useful against infantry, grouped in certain formations, like the famous roman Phalanx. In civ 2 phalanx is a Unit, but i.r.l. it was a formation of roman soldiers.
Those formations usually march straight ahead, unless the casualties become to big. So a catapult could at least break those formations, which otherwise would have been way to strong for the enemy.
A catapult to be used mainly as a bomarding unit of course makes sense, but then it must be possible to:
a: attack from a long range and
b: to defend it with other units.
And a long rang means out of reach of "normal units". And units like horse or something also should be considered as "normal units", so a striking distance of 2 makes no sense. At least make it 3 so a horse also needs 2 turns to reach a catapult.
In this case however, the catapult should hardly be able to kill the horse, though giving it some damage could be a possibility.
Grtx
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alfonsus72
|
|
Well, I guess almost everybody here agree that captured catapults and cannons would be a nice feature. But, as many people here, I also HIGHLY DOUBT that could be in. We only have 2 argument to hope so:
- For 1st in the civilization saga (except colonization), at least an unit (the worker) will be capturable.
-Catapults, as worker, will have a defense value of 0, so they are defenseless, or, in firaxis terms, "have to be manned". So if your soldiers find a defenseless war machine alone, why do they have to destroy it instead of capture and use it?.
So, do you think this is enough?. Has somebody read something about the matter?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
Tuckson:
This is NOT a military simulation. Each tile represents about 200 miles. It is a STRATEGIC game. The game turn is a year. If you have a catapult against a cavalry battle, in the course of a year, the catapult will lose. It will not damage the horses some 600 miles away.
Cats, and their successors, cannon, were of mostly psychological value in battle. They disrupt and demoralize the defenders, and improve the morale of the attacking infantry.
(That is in addition to their primary role as an anti-structure weapon.)
It sounds to me that Civ3 is on the right track. As I suggested before, bombardment should have the opportunity to damage units similar to a spy's sabotage function.
And to the newbie struggling with city walls-
as you have found, you need an overwhelming superiority in attacking units to win through city walls. Veteran catapults will go about even against fortified pre-gunpowder infantry. Vet cannons will kick ass againt the same units. For musketeers, you will struggle even with vet cannons. Vet artillery will kick muskets, and will do ok against riflemen, about even with alps. Of course if you get a vet defender and the town is in a river square, yikes!
For these reasons, most prefer to wait for spies and sabotage the walls, or incite a revolt (best bet). You need an army of dips. Or wait until you have bombers / howizters which ignore city walls. Try taking out the capital city militarily, then incite a revolt inexpensively in the remaining cities. (if they're a rich civ, the capital will move, at a cost of 1500gold. )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Steve Clark
|
 |
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
time: 22:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
my thoughts exactly dearmad! manning a catapult adds nothing to gameplay, it adds little to strategy...the only thing it adds to is MICROMANAGEMENT! in civ you are the spirit of the civilization, not a company commander, or platoon leader
|
Well said, korn. I recall the debates we had early last year on those who wanted to turn Civ3 into SidQuartermaster. As others have mentioned, it is important to understand the scale of Civ games. You have to keep everything at the approriate level of play, else you will frustrate the gamer. Abstract units representing large armies are the appropriate level for a global strategy game. They do cost resources to build and maintain, but only at the large armies level. Any interactions below that abstract level would be so out of place in Civ that it would be more frustrating (and work) than enjoyable to play. That, imo, was the fatal flaw of EU, but I digress.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Clark
Well said, korn. I recall the debates we had early last year on those who wanted to turn Civ3 into SidQuartermaster. As others have mentioned, it is important to understand the scale of Civ games. You have to keep everything at the approriate level of play, else you will frustrate the gamer. Abstract units representing large armies are the appropriate level for a global strategy game. They do cost resources to build and maintain, but only at the large armies level. Any interactions below that abstract level would be so out of place in Civ that it would be more frustrating (and work) than enjoyable to play. That, imo, was the fatal flaw of EU, but I digress. |
I agree with this as well.
However, the 'ranged barrage' type of warfare that similar units in SMAC had was pretty much completely useless and uninterestingly weak. I would have rather seen these catapults/cannons to be the real siege weapons.
Strong walled cities/fortresses were impregnable for most of history, without siege weapons of great power (which there really weren't too many before the advent of the 'super cannon', fist used by Mehmed II to ravage Constantinopel's famed city walls.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-09-2001 18:17
.
, I'm not completely sure, but you could be right!! This would mean that unit movement and tile resources weren't affected anymore or a least affected in some other way than previously!! 
|