 |
| |
|
|
Dan Baker
|
|
Low hit points is a way of illustrating material lost.
If 100 tanks attack a city with weak defenders, odds are that at least a couple will get damaged or destroyed (look at the Ewoks!). Tanks aren't invinsible after all, and are quite pathetic for city fighting.
Because units heal in Civ-III, there is no way to model this material loss except to factor it in the probality curve. If you attack with 100 tank divisions, if you loose a couple of tanks each division that ends up being 2 divions. So even though you lose that 'unit', its stastically the same as taking only minor losses on your tank divisions.
Come on people! You want to fight wars with no losses! None at all? What kind of wars do some of you wage that missing one tank division makes a bit of difference? I usually assualt cities with about 8 divisions. I wage wars with 100s of uints. If I loose 3 or 4, I just don't care.
Basically, the designers have two choices: 1) Tanks can rarely be destroyed by weak units 2)Units don't heal at all!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
felder
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by redstar1
Wrong_shui:
I think you misunderstand my point. The attack points of a warrior do not increase just because we 'imagine' them to have light weapons and a knowledge of guerilla warfare. The point is to try and remove the absolutely ridiculous result of a man with a club or spear defeating a tank. Its obviously complete rubbish. However in the age of tanks, a 'spearman' unit isn't going to be carring a spear. That again is complete rubbish.
This is all of course up to the players imagination. I choose to think of it in this way, others may not. Maybe thats why it doesn't annoy me.....
Dave |
I disagree with your viewpoint as well. If it helps you to imagine that warriors now have guns, that's great. However, I do not believe this is the way the game was designed. The stats for the units don't change, thus your logic is flawed. If you imagine that your spearmen/warriors have guns and guerilla warfare tactics, their stats should be equivalent to that of militia or some other similarly equiped unit. You'll notice they are not. The fact of the matter is that because the stats don't change, I must assume that their weapondry and tactics haven't changed either.
In the real world, if someone with spears is attacked by people with guns and the defenders manage to obtain/steal guns from their attackers, the stats of those defenders change. Spearmen who have guns aren't spearmen anymore. It also follows that if spearmen have guns, they are more dangerous.
One way to implement this in game, is to modify the promotion system a bit. A unit can become veteran or elite, but perhaps also units could receive automatic upgrades. This could happen as a result of war with other civs that are more advanced than you. However, I don't propose that this happen to all your units at once, nor do you get the chance to build new units that are stronger (this would kind of make research fairly useless). Just occasionally, the stats of some of your units may go up a bit to reflect that unit perhaps finding some guns by theft/bribary/off a body/etc or by watching the enemy and perhaps learning new tactics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HugoHillbilly
|
|
Ontario
Nov 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by felder
I disagree with your viewpoint as well. If it helps you to imagine that warriors now have guns, that's great. However, I do not believe this is the way the game was designed. The stats for the units don't change, thus your logic is flawed. If you imagine that your spearmen/warriors have guns and guerilla warfare tactics, their stats should be equivalent to that of militia or some other similarly equiped unit. You'll notice they are not. The fact of the matter is that because the stats don't change, I must assume that their weapondry and tactics haven't changed either.
In the real world, if someone with spears is attacked by people with guns and the defenders manage to obtain/steal guns from their attackers, the stats of those defenders change. Spearmen who have guns aren't spearmen anymore. It also follows that if spearmen have guns, they are more dangerous.
One way to implement this in game, is to modify the promotion system a bit. A unit can become veteran or elite, but perhaps also units could receive automatic upgrades. This could happen as a result of war with other civs that are more advanced than you. However, I don't propose that this happen to all your units at once, nor do you get the chance to build new units that are stronger (this would kind of make research fairly useless). Just occasionally, the stats of some of your units may go up a bit to reflect that unit perhaps finding some guns by theft/bribary/off a body/etc or by watching the enemy and perhaps learning new tactics. |
That doesnt make sense either, we want to look at RELATIVE strengths. In the ancient age, A warrior 1/1/1 is a half-decent unit, fighting alongside 2/1/1 archers and 1/2/1 spearmen.
A "warrior" in the middle age is 1/1/1 fighting alongside 4/1/1, 1/3/1 all the up to 6 strength and 4 defense. This still makes him an ok unit, but not to the same extent.
My point is that there is no need to upgrade the stats of cheap units, because thats what they are. People have said that there should have been units implemented that are weaker then the stronger units that dont require the strategic resources.
That is the older units, that is the whole reason they donot become obsolete and the whole reason the combat system allows them to win every once in awhile. It is to balance the strategic resources system.
If I cant build infantry(no rubber), then I can build riflemen! I dont need to build "partisan infantry" that has the same stats as a riflemen but just looks different, that would create alot of stupid redundant units and would be confusing. Why do you think the riflemen requires no strategic resources? That is your cheap alternative defending unit, even if it is obsolete to the age.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Special_Olympic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by redstar1
Why not?
Whats in a name anyway? A cavalry division of the British Army is still called a cavalry division even though it has tanks. Infantry is still called infantry even though the weapons and effectiveness have changed over the last couple of hundred years.
The game is what you make it. It plays on your imagination to help immerse you in its world. If you are happy enough to think a warrior unit remains a man with a club when F15s are screaming overhead then thats up to you.
Rationalization HAS to be an argument. By becoming immersed in the game you must rationalize else you end up thinking things like 'This is crap, I bet Churchill never had to manually move 50 Units' or your scout would disappear when he got away from your cities and you would only see the map when/if he returned. Its not as if they have mobile phones.....
Dave |
This is just dumb. If the warriors are armed with infantry weapons, that's what they should be called... "infantry".
If one has to use ones imagination to make up for faults in the game, it just plain sucks. Great games stimulate the imagination.
With this game, you have to imagine you're playing something that is fun.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DrFell
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by redstar1
If we are going to continually have this realism argument why don't we try and agree some principles.
Firstly, I suggest that a warrior in the Industrial/Modern age is no longer a man with a club. Let imagine he has progressed to become say a group of civilians/or reserves armed with light weapons and trained in guerilla warfare.
Maybe a spearman can now be a small group of anti-tank soldiers armed with shoulder-holstered bazookas. (such as the German front line defenses in the cold war).
We don't have to be constricted by the images on our screens. Does it not seem silly to you that in the age of Steel and Explosives you still have a unit running around in deerskin carring a club? Lets be sensible about this. Yes, the idea of a man with a club, or indeed a spear, defeating a tank is outrageous so why not inject some imagination and it no longer seems silly. It seems like a modern-day non-frontline unit doing its job and succeeding.
As for Galleys defeating destroyers.... imagine a galley is now a squadron of fast attack craft or coastal patrol vessels with light weapons.
It's easy if you try.....
Dave |
There are a few problems with this. First, you haven't payed anything at all to get these units upgraded - this just isn't realistic, where are they getting these brand new weapons from? Also imagine the case of a small nation, isolated from the rest of the world and having only spearmen, for example. Imagine I sail across with tanks etc. and invade. It's pretty difficult to imagine if they had contact with only me that they could get their hands on enough modern weapons to make any difference in the outcome of the war. Yet they can still get these super warriors. The fact is, advanced weaponry is represented by advanced units in the game.
In some situations, it might seem realistic, but in my opinion there are just too many cases where it just doesn't make any sense at all. Face it, this needs fixing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Calorman
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by redstar1
Wrong_shui:
I think you misunderstand my point. The attack points of a warrior do not increase just because we 'imagine' them to have light weapons and a knowledge of guerilla warfare. The point is to try and remove the absolutely ridiculous result of a man with a club or spear defeating a tank. Its obviously complete rubbish. However in the age of tanks, a 'spearman' unit isn't going to be carring a spear. That again is complete rubbish.
This is all of course up to the players imagination. I choose to think of it in this way, others may not. Maybe thats why it doesn't annoy me.....
Dave |
You're right that people can interpret much of this as they see fit (such as saying that infantryman actually represents 1000 men for example). However, firaxis did put in the effort to upgrade the graphical appearance of settlers/workers as time dictates. If 'warriors' were somehow automatically upgraded with contemporary weapons as time went by then why haven't they represented this?
You see the intention is that warriors et al simply aren't upgraded. You build a warrior in 2001 he doesn't look like a scruffy goat herder with a kalashnikov slung over his back. He still looks like Conan the barbarian. This is the whole reason for having more than one type of troop in the game. If your reasoning was correct then why do we have so many different unit types? Why not just say that the warrior is armed with a stone axe in the ancient period, a longsword in the medieval period, flintlock pistols in the industrial period and an automatic rifle in the modern period and not bother having riflemen, infantry, musketeers etc?
I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make. You can continue to interpret it as you want of course, but the simple truth is that you're wrong. A warrior built in 4000 BC is the same as a warrior built in 2000 AD, flint axe, animal furs and all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaybe
|
 |
Las Vegas, NV USA
Sep 2001
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Calorman
You're right that people can interpret much of this as they see fit (such as saying that infantryman actually represents 1000 men for example). However, firaxis did put in the effort to upgrade the graphical appearance of settlers/workers as time dictates. If 'warriors' were somehow automatically upgraded with contemporary weapons as time went by then why haven't they represented this?
You see the intention is that warriors et al simply aren't upgraded. You build a warrior in 2001 he doesn't look like a scruffy goat herder with a kalashnikov slung over his back. He still looks like Conan the barbarian. This is the whole reason for having more than one type of troop in the game. If your reasoning was correct then why do we have so many different unit types? Why not just say that the warrior is armed with a stone axe in the ancient period, a longsword in the medieval period, flintlock pistols in the industrial period and an automatic rifle in the modern period and not bother having riflemen, infantry, musketeers etc?
I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make. You can continue to interpret it as you want of course, but the simple truth is that you're wrong. A warrior built in 4000 BC is the same as a warrior built in 2000 AD, flint axe, animal furs and all. |
Life is full of compromises, and your "simple truth is that you're wrong" statement (last paragraph) is, uh, wrong! (OTH, your statement "You can continue to interpret it as you want of course" is totally correct and also applies to yourself).
Just as with Civ2, you cannot expect game producers to cover every little detail and realism aspect. They would have had to do a different graphic for each period, complete with animations, and then people would be complaining because the combat animations looked like people firing RPG's (anti-tank weapons) when it wasn't in combat with a tank.
It all boils down to your THINKING what serves you best. If it serves you better to get out your life's frustrations by criticizing, by all means continue to do so. But I hope you are also enjoying the game! 
Oh, and by the way, Happy Holidays! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Calorman
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe
Life is full of compromises, and your "simple truth is that you're wrong" statement (last paragraph) is, uh, wrong! (OTH, your statement "You can continue to interpret it as you want of course" is totally correct and also applies to yourself).
Just as with Civ2, you cannot expect game producers to cover every little detail and realism aspect. They would have had to do a different graphic for each period, complete with animations, and then people would be complaining because the combat animations looked like people firing RPG's (anti-tank weapons) when it wasn't in combat with a tank.
It all boils down to your THINKING what serves you best. If it serves you better to get out your life's frustrations by criticizing, by all means continue to do so. But I hope you are also enjoying the game!
Oh, and by the way, Happy Holidays! |
LOL. I knew when I typed that somebody would get hung up on that last statement. Yes it was a blunt thing to say but I think its fair considering the arguments I had put forward in my post. I still think you can interpret things as you wish but that doesn't mean you're correct about something. If the guy I was responding to was to put forward his own rebuttals and claim that I was simply wrong then that would be fair game.
As for your comments . . .
Like I said if you're prepared to go into the detail of at least changing some of the graphics as time goes by then why not all of them? Because of time contraints? Budget? I think we can safely agree that the reason they did not change the appearence of say, a warrior, as time goes by is because the warrior simply does not change. A warrior is the same whenever you build it. People are just touting out this rationalisation rubbish as a way of excusing inferior units frequently beating superior ones, instead of admitting that the combat system is simply poor.
And concerning your comments about what weapon he would use, that doesn't really make sense. I certainly don't expect them to manufacture graphics for several different attacks. As it is now I don't see tanks using their machine guns when engaging infantry, nor do I see my marines wipping out LAWs when taking out tanks. It doesn't bother me and since I haven't really heard much complaining about it I don't think it bothers many other people either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Libertarian
|
|
Don't forget sticky bombs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
s3d
|
|
well, think as RPG player - imagine spearman as modern somalian spearman with spear _and_ RPG (not that RPG but RPG - 7). Perfectly able to take out tank and also proven to be able to take out marine detachment.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-12-2001 08:50
Just as i said earlier
|