 |
|
dennis580
|
|
What's the stats for the regular Panzer. The 16,8,3 is for the German UU Panzer.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CygnusZ
|
|
But hell, as long as Lee was on the table anyway...
Nat Turner is better defined as a murderer than a leader.
Alexander Hamilton was Washington's second in command but he never fired a shot in anger.
Tons of crappy choices made my list 
Edit:: D'oh! I screwed that up. General Horatio Gates was the one whom suffered from so much cowardice that he fled a battle and was last seen buying a horse 500 miles from the side. Too many damn Generals to remember.
Last edited by CygnusZ on 24-10-2001 at 09:13
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Insigna
|
|
quote: Originally posted by CygnusZ
I hope no confederate soldier's (Robert Lee) get any kind of honor in this game. Anyway, some other ones I was thinking of:
William Henry Harrison
Dwight Eisenhower
Richard Montgomery
Nat Turner
"Stonewall" Jackson (Thomas J. Jackson)
Benjamin Rush
Alexander Hamilton |
That list is garbage.
"Stonewall" Jackson was a confederate
Alexander Hamilton was not a general or a soldger
Nat Turner was an insane person who murdered inocent wemen and children
How aboul Rommel and Alexander the Great.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gopher
|
|
I eat my own poop
Dec 1999 time: 00:15
|
|
Anyone else notice that in the Military Screen, that you have the ability to upgrade units?
Damn!
This game keeps on getting better and better
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Andy
|
|
Provo, UT, USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:15
|
|
On the City Build Requests screen, the last item on the list is "Wealth". Given that it only takes one turn to build and by the name, this must be the Civ 3 version of Capitalization. I believe that this is new info and was debated on another thread.
I cannot believe how cool this game is going to be. They have thought of everything. I especially like the new requirement for a fresh water source. Makes ancient city building much more realistic as most major ancient cities were built on rivers. There are so many details to digest in every decision. I cannot wait to play.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
nlmalph
|
|
quote: Alexander Hamilton was a military leader? |
Considering the "Great Leaders" can be used by non-military players strictly to complete production, I'd say having a non-military Great Leader would be just fine.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CygnusZ
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Uh... Hamilton WAS a soldier. Washington's second in command (was a Colonel, I believe). Did a rearguard delaying action while Washington was retreating over the Raritan River (in NJ).
Jackson was a Confederate, but Confed culture is part of American. |
Ok, I said I didn't think confederates should make the list. That doesn't mean that I'm necessairly 100% right. It's just if it were at my personal discretion I wouldn't use them.
Secondly, Hamilton WAS Washington's Second in Command, BUT he never fired a single shot of participated in a single battle. In fact, he doubted the revolutionary cause was even worth fighting for at times. Often in the post-revolutionary period his shady participation made him seem like he had borderline "Revolutionary credentials".
(Remember, after his Washington Appointment to Sec. of Treasury he was never given a cabinet position again even though it was fashionable in the early days of the Republic to give cabinet positions to people with opposing views)
Nat Turner was the leader of a slave rebellion in Virgina (I think I have the state right... don't hold me up to that). He killed men women and children alike in his rebellion. Perhaps it could be debated his cruel, it could be argued it was necessary. Remember that Slave rebellion's in the Union were inspired by the Hatian revolution which involved killing men/women/children. He could well be considered a great hero and a great villian. I tend to err on hero (no more mercy for slave owners than for Nazi's).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
WenAmon
|
|
anyone notice that you need aqueduct to get past 6 pop?
its in the smart governer screen above......
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Imran Siddiqui

|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970 time: 00:15
|
|
quote: Secondly, Hamilton WAS Washington's Second in Command, BUT he never fired a single shot of participated in a single battle. In fact, he doubted the revolutionary cause was even worth fighting for at times. Often in the post-revolutionary period his shady participation made him seem like he had borderline "Revolutionary credentials". |
He may not have fired a single shot, but then did Washington? And yes, he did participate in a battle. Like I told you, he commanded a rear-guard delaying action as Washington retreated across the Raritan. There is a monument in New Brunswick (NJ) to commemorate that.
quote: (Remember, after his Washington Appointment to Sec. of Treasury he was never given a cabinet position again even though it was fashionable in the early days of the Republic to give cabinet positions to people with opposing views) |
That could be because he was shot and killed in 1803 by Aaron Burr .
And I wonder by what example do you figure that it was fashionable to give cabinet positions to those with opposing views? I don't recall any of them in Adams' of Jefferson's administration, unless you count the Vice President under Adams (because Jefferson got the 2nd highest vote total, and under original laws, there was no Presidential 'ticket').
|
|
|  |
 |
|
El hidalgo
|
|
OK, I don't get this:
quote: One thing that they can't do anymore is irrigate land without a fresh supply of water. Cities along the coast had better also be near a river or lake or inland sea if you want them to grow quickly. Once you discover electricity you can irrigate anywhere. Cities on rivers become even more important as a result. |
He means "supply of fresh water," right? OK, just making sure. Now the comment about electricity: if you can irrigate anywhere, does that mean even on tiles without any access to any kind of water, whether sea or fresh water? If so, I don't get it. How can you irrigate without water? How can I just start irrigating in the middle of the Sahara without drawing off water from a nearby source? (Maybe I'm on an oasis, but that's a special case). On the other hand, if the comment means that after you discover electrity then you can irrigate with sea water, then that makes sense to me. But which is it?
Still, I like this concept very much 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
UKScud
|
|
Auckland, NZ
Sep 2001 time: 05:15
|
|
The deal with rivers is, I think, going to determine a lot of early developed strategies.
For a start, if there is no movement bonus for the river (any evidence that there is a bonus?) then one of the means of really exploring the map readily available in Civ2 is gone. Unless that is, the scout gets a big movement bonus and is available early on.
Defensive bonuses will be good, but of course the AI could well be thinking the same thing.
I think that fresh water irrigation will make most people think twice about locating their capital city on a sea edge. Pros: Once you have a harbour your trade with other Civs is gonna be easier. Cons: City growth is going to be sluggish without irrigation, and since settler production ultimately depends upon whether you can afford those two pop. points, I think it will slow down your own civilization growth.
Electricity is definately a 'target' discovery in the same way that Invention or Monotheism was in Civ2. Without extensive irrigation, the population spurt that drives your cities to the modern day just doesn't happen. How important is it to discover electricity first? Would you trade it?
Any other thoughts?
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|