 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:16
|
|
As I said in other posts, I have also very rarely if ever gotten the weird results that have angererd so many, because, like you, I only mainly attack with huge armies (I am a great believer in big battalions) and use arty (Arty is the king of the battlefield). The problem is that the A.I. as is, simply does not wage war that effectively. Yes, neither did the A.I. in civ2, but the failures are different. In civ2, the A.I. was horrible and plain dumb at offense, but it always had lots of defenses held back. In civ3, the A.I. is good at offense, but crappy at defense, very crappy. Kill its offensive army, or bottle it up, and they are wide open, even to small rushes by tanks. I believe that fortified inf. should be nearly invulnerable to cavalry attacks without lots of sofening up, but with combat as is, a human can charge a large city with lots of cavalry and overwhelm the A.I. defense with few losses and keep going. This make warfare in this game just as easy as civ2 if you are on a roll, and it is only the inability to use their infrastructure that keeps people from wipping out the A.I. as quickly as in civ2.
The way to fix this, without going into the calcualtions of the game, is changing the A.I. Now, personally, I think that a few modifications to the few equations that rule combat results are a much simpler fix that reprogramming for a better A.I. that will be a better general.
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|