 |
|  |
 |
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001 time: 05:15
|
|
HI Guys,
Just a little "news" I obtained from a PC review magazine from my little corner of the world:
1) On territory- essentially borders and territory greatly advantage a defender in a conflict situation, as enemy units cannot make use of your infrastructure (roads etc), making invasion a slow and difficult process.
2) Air units: These will no longer move like ground units, but will have an "Operational Range" in which they can perform air-missions.
3) Leaders: No exact limit given on # of leaders/civilization, but going on one screen capture I saw, there can definitely be about 4!
Anyway, wish I had more, but most of the article was information that has already appeared here.
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jsw363
|
|
I didn't quite follow the air units thing, but the territory bit is interesting. Seems to be more accurate, like the defenders getting the "home court advantage." Defenders have access to supply lines, have more morale for defending their patria, and should also get the local support of peasants. I guess giving them a little boost is the best way to show all that.
I wonder if each civ gets their own leader units (Napolean appearing for the French only) or if leader units are sort of random, like Napolean appearing for the Americans. Are the leaders different? Do some have better skills than others at naval combat or building wonders (I think I read about that somewhere)
Thanks Lurker-
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001 time: 05:15
|
|
Hi Again,
I agree with jsw363's take on why you can't use an defenders road if it lies within his territory. Additionally, this rule will makes spec-ops forces (those that treat all terrain as roads) that much more important (and worth building). It should be also noted that this rule only applies if the structures lie WITHIN a cities borders! Low culture cities with no borders will be able to have their roads and rail used against them!!! Also, just because you can't use a nations infrastructure, doesn't mean you can't disrupt it. According to the review, enemy units can cut off internal supply routes by blocking roads or by occupying the resource squares in question (though much of this has all been mentioned previously!)
The screen capture showing the leaders was a Roman screen, and 3 out of the 4
were leaders famous Romans like "Hadrian, Caesar etc..", the 4th one had a "Silly" name, which probably served the same purpose as Place-holder art.
On a final note, it is easier to "Expel" enemy (or hostile) units from within your territory!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001 time: 05:15
|
|
Hi JSW363,
I thought I'd try and explain how I think operational ranges for air-units works.
Basically, rather than moving your air-units to their destination like glorified ground units, your air units will basically have an "operational range". If your target lies within that range then you can perform an air mission. Assuming your unit(s) survive the mission, then they will return to home base. I'm not sure, but I'm hoping that this also means that aircraft and AA fire will automatically intercept enemy aircraft that come within their operational range. I'm also assuming that you can move an air unit from city to city (or city to airfield), so long as it lies within the operational range.
Anyway, I hope this clears things up, and I hope I'm on the right track (if any Firaxians are out there, it'd be nice to get this clarified!)
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
|  |
 |
|
The Mad Viking
|
 |
of the Great White North
Feb 2000 time: 05:15
|
|
Ralf, excellent idea: quote: I agree though that completely nullified road/RR-bonus seems a little harsh. Treating both roads & railroads as roads with only doubled (not tripled) move-bonus, would be more enough to simulate above. As it stands, there is no incentive whatsoever to make use of enemy-roads - which is unrealistic since (after all) moving your tanks on enemy-roads or through enemy-mud DOES make a big difference |
I also hope air units will be more useful. Air units should not be destroyed when attacking ground units, unless they are protected by some sort of AA capability. In civ2, a fighter strafing a veteran phalanx on a mountain would be destroyed. Man, those guys sure can throw spears. A bomber squadron would be destroyed by a battleship.
Air attack should be more like spy sabotage, where some hit points are taken off the defender, and the air unit almost always survives, but may take some hit point losses.
Air support should have a chance to disrupt advancing ground units before they attack the city the air unit is in.
But this isi all for naught. In 41 days, we will learn how it will work! 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Edward
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ralf
Before that the invader is busy dealing with mines, blown-up bridges, removed roadsigns and so on (besides regular fighting) - all in order to slow down the advancement. |
I know I'd be thwarted by roadsigns in the Aztec Empire, even without any manipulation on their part. Every city sounds like Texacolapax to me. Reading a train schedule would be even worse!
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|