 |
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970 time: 00:16
|
|
Is there anyway that we can create a modification of the bic files so that weapons of more advanced ages don't get killed by weaker units? Do you think that adjusting the combat numbers of some units would make a difference?
We need to make musket men more powerful than the spearman... much more powerful! But if we do so, we have to make the value of the gunpowder tech much greater.
We need some think tanks here to debate what the numbers should be. Any takers?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dominator_Jones
|
|
Chicago, IL
Nov 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
Last night I was glad for the way it was balanced. My peaceful Indian nation was cruising along having finally just barely gained the scientific lead even though we were trapped in a corner of a small island, when out of the blue my long time friends and neighbors the Zulu's and Japanese declared total annihilation on me. For a few years my poor swordsmen, spearmen, pikemen held off the advance of hordes of tanks and cavalry while Zulu bombers ravaged my infrastructure. The numbers were too great though and we were overrun. Just for fun they got every other nation in the world to declare war against me as well and no one would hear my plea's for peace. My advisor told me they were evil, I guess I should have listened.
I don't think that there is too much imbalance with it. I may have held off a few tanks with low tech units but generally it took 2 or 3 low tech units to do it so I think it balanced out nicely. There were really no surprises or one spearman out in the wilderness holding off a tank.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
theautarch
|
|
US-East Coast
Nov 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
Well I'd first like to say I am a brand new civer. With that out of the way, I did experience a jaw dropping episode. I sent in my cavalry units and infantry to destroy a Persian city. First unit comp defended with was a rifleman, dead, second unit popped up to be a pikeman, and all my units were lost. "WHAT!", I said, "I'll show him." So I went and created some swordsman, in the industrial age, waited a few turns for them to arrive at said city, and happily removed the pikeman from existence. The rest is history.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
WhiteElephants
|
 |
Toledo Ohio
Mar 2000 time: 00:16
|
|
Rather than compare the way you think combat should work in the game, or in a real world setting, I think you should consider if the way it works improves game play.
At face value it would seem that musketeers should defeat spearmen, but then you'd have to ask the british riflemen at Rourke's Drift about that, or how about the U.S. Marines at Khe Sahn, or the Russian conspricts who invaded Afghanistan -- the list goes on.
I think the most important issue should be playability, but if the arguement is for "realism" there are plenty of example that contradict what would normally be deemed as "realistic".
Consider this, the Gulf War was nearly over by now and Iraq had one of the most advanced armies in the world, yet the war in Afghanistan rages on. How does that fit the paradigm?
What I'm suggesting is that there are different ways units were used through out history. For instance the development of trench warfare and machinguns changed the role of the infantryman as did the eveloution of artillery. You could no longer expect to charge an enemy's position and survive nor could you line up in columns and march across the battle field. Same thing goes for the invention of the tank. To hunker down in a trench and expect to not be flanked by a more mobile army was asking to be cut off from supplies, surrounded, and killed. Yet the basic jist of the infantryman didn't change all that much from WWI to WWII, in fact some of the same weapons were being used. The only real change was the way the war was fought and in a game like Civ it would be very difficult to reflect that change and that is probably why you see the system in place as it is.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kimmygibler
|
|
If you want accurate win loss ratios, go to the civ3 results calculator site. I don't know where it is now, but it was posted on the forms a while back
|
|
|  |
 |
|
shammy
|
|
Lappeenranta
Nov 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
i just eased my frustration with civ3 editor..
i basically divided the units to 5 categories and adjusted their power accordingly..
i didnt touch ancient or early medieval units
early industrial units are much more powerful than late medieval.. and late industrial are somewhat more powerful than early industrial.. the biggest gap i made was between industrial and modern units. now, if someone wants to kill my modern tanks or modern mechanized infantry.. he has to use modern units, anything older than industrial wont even make a dent on it.
i feel succesful so far.. AI can no longer sink my battleships with iron clads or frigates.. under any circumstances. nor can an archer destroy my marine group
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Yoleus
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
Is there anyway that we can create a modification of the bic files so that weapons of more advanced ages don't get killed by weaker units |
Ok, so you would like to modify it deeply, making it strangely more similar to Civ2 (on ONE aspect, I know). Why don't you rant loudly for the "features" you do not like? Why don't you contribute to the development of Freeciv instead?
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|