 |
| |
|
|
Barnacle Bill
|
 |
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Kaiser
All through Naval history countries have tried to keep there ships up-to-date by "Up-gunning" them to the latest standard. Notice the WW2 era Battleships that post war were fitted with anti-air missiles to replace their regular flak guns (i.e USA Iowa class). So I know this is going to sound a bit bizarre, but if a Galley has survived through to the modern era, how do we know it hasn't been fitted with the latest light-weight SAM missile defense?  |
This is basically rediculous. A WWII battleship with upgraded electronics and air defense systems is a valid modern unit, and is properly represented in a game like this by having a modern version of the battleship unit to which the WWII version will upgrade. Galleys and sailing ships would not be modern units if upgraded with SAM launchers. Allowing their upgrade to modern units would represent scrapping them and building new modern ships, and since Civ ships are so slow compared to real life (a modern ship can sail around the world in less than 1 year), that is OK. If the AI is keeping them around when it has the tech to upgrade or replace them, though, it should get slaughtered. If the AI isn't building modern units because it lack the tech, it should also get slaughtered. Isandwalla was an isolated incident involving a very unusual circumstances and a British unit probably smaller than what is represented by a single Rifleman unit in Civ3. Something so rare as that should, statistically, occur at a rate less than once per game. Even at that, in involves spearmen vs guys with single shot rifles. Had this occurred with a WWI British infantry regiment (i.e. Civ3 Infantry rather than Rifleman) equipped with the usual compliment of Vickers heavy machineguns and the standard load-out of ammo (remember, at Isandwalla the Brits started with a standard load-out but the problem was the standard loadout was small at the time and they had a problem resupplying under combat conditions), then the Zulus would have died to a man without inflicting a single casualty. If a galley had a go at the Bismarck, the battleship's secondary armor would have blown the galley out of the water before the gun crews could "see the whites of their eyes". If the battleship crew was laughing so hard they kept missing, the ram would just bounce off the armor anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cutlerd
|
|
Agoura Hills, CA USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
The problem is you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
You have some of the same people whining about the fact that tech advances are prorated based on how many people have the advance also whining about phalanxes versus tanks.
The fact is that, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men and another thread in this forum: "Realism....you can't handle realism"
If you wanted realism, there would NEVER be F-15s versus galleys because the tech system would be tweaked so that inside of X years EVERY SINGLE CIV would have every tech heretofore discovered.
The value of X would likely be large in ancient times and as low as 2-5 years in modern times.
Civ is constrained by the need to allow at least some sort of tech advantage over the other civs in modern times while still trying to make the game playable for those civs that fall behind.
How does one manage both of those necessities?
Civ3 has tried by working both in to a halfway extent.....by making tech costs lower when more civs have the advance and by giving lower tech units some chance against higher tech units.
Is this realistic? Nope. But who the hell would want realism in this case? Is it realistic to make higher tech units always kill lower tech units but at the same time not also model the proliferation of technology that comes about in a modern society?
France invented the tank. Within 5 years thereafter almost every nation in the world had tanks. Same with warplanes. In a modern society, as information transfer becomes easier, it is almost impossible to maintain much of a technological edge. Sure, it can happen, especially for refinements to basic technologies, but not to the actual basic technologies themselves.
In a realistic civ world advanced units would always wipe out primitive units, but you'd almost never EVER see that situation because EVERYONE would have advanced units.
But how fun would that really be?
Devin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Kaiser
|
|
Stoke-on-Trent, England
Dec 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Barnacle Bill:-
Reading your post I'm unsure which side of the argument you fall on, but my last point about the upgraded Galley was supposed to sound a bit ridiculous. I'm just trying to imagine in my minds eye Roman Legionnaires on the top deck equipped with Stinger Missiles.
Cutlerd:-
You make some interesting points about the sharing of technologies in the modern age, which got me thinking that maybe a "Wonder" that's works a bit like the Manhattan Project might be in order for Flight. 
As you mentioned it would be easy for a rival Civ to observe the fundamentals of a technology like flight just by watching it in action on the News Reels etc. This perhaps would help to create a more even playing field between the haves and have-nots in the tech race part of the game.
The problem with flight in Civ3 is, as I touched on in a earlier post, a little too powerful in some areas, particularly against a Civ that doesn't have flight. If you wage war against a Civ that has not developed flight then you can almost cripple their infrastructure in 5 or 6 turns easily. There should be some defense against the bombardment of your improvements, even if that doesn't involve your own Air units. But if you had a new Wonder like suggested earlier you could create an extra EarlyFlight advance equal to perhaps WW1 Biplane Units which could be built by everybody, and then the more advanced WW2 class units would only be built by those who have researched the Flight tech.
Or alternatively I really think they should enable Artillery units to fire as Flak at incoming bombers and then have a chance of shooting a bomber down, maybe then the Civ that shot the plane down could acquire the EarlyFlight advance by looking at the wreckage. After all there was lots of technology crossover in both World Wars by analyising Aircraft that has been shot down whilst bombing the enemy.
It just seems so unfair that you have no chance of shooting a plane down in Civ3 unless you have developed Flight yourself, not even if you've developed Artillery.
Last edited by The Kaiser on 08-01-2002 at 06:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cutlerd
|
|
Agoura Hills, CA USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
I don't know....I viewed in some respects the CIV3 bombing of roads and wiping them out as less destruction of the roads and more strafing and interdicting movement upon them.
Had it turned out in history that one nation had military capable flight and another did not, I would have to imagine it'd be a lockup for the civ that had flight. Yes, small arms fire would down some, though not enough to matter on the scale of CIV, and it wouldn't be too hard I suppose for the victimized non-flight nations to re-gear their artillery to fire vertically and develop fuses for their shells.
I agree that perhaps artillery (not cannons) should have a chance for air defense....a sort of pathetic SAM.
But aside from that, I am interested that you think the bombing of roads and improvements aspect too powerful. Why do you think that? My experience has been that the bombing of roads and improvements is generally limited by range to the front lines or just behind them, and usually those areas aren't that built up or productive anyways given that with no ZOCs, enemy troops infiltrate and pillage anyways with or without planes.
I personally find airpower in CIV 3 to be about right play balance wise in that it has its own unique niche in the game such that I feel the need to build aircraft but not so dominant that I forego other units and not so useless that I never build them.
As far as realism goes, I wouldn't kick and scream if aircraft had a chance to sink ships (not kill ground units....only ships) and if ships had some AA fire back at the aircraft. I also would like to see fighters able to escort bombers so that we could see some dogfights.
Devin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cutlerd
|
|
Agoura Hills, CA USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grrr
I don't find the destruction of tile improvements as much a problem as the fact that one warrior can pulverise a city bigger than New York in a matter of minutes. I mean, I don't see how you could use a club to destroy the pyramids. It would take you millenia! |
Well a matter of minutes is pushing it. Try a two year turn. Now, is two years enough?
Well, let's postulate a group of, say, 5 thousand to ten thousand teen agers armed with molotov cocktails, lead pipes, and cigarette lighters. Give them 2 years of unopposed access. I am willing to bet they could make of even modern New York a wasteland in that amount of time.
Devin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Kaiser
|
|
Stoke-on-Trent, England
Dec 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Ok so you do have to divert production to produce the bombers in the first place, but once you have 5 or 6 unopposed bombers you can do some serious damage. If you deny the enemy any oil resources and knock out any harbors to stop trading, then you have a real strangle hold that is difficult to break even if the enemy develops flight themselves. And if the enemy tries to mount a ground assault they get pulverized as soon as the stick their heads out in the open.
All this without the bombers receiving a scratch!
I've convinced myself even more, Artillery definetely needs a flak capability, nothing too strong but just enough to ask a few questions of the bombers.
Oh, and also if bombing irrigation is to be allowed then it must be classed as an atrocity, as crops could only be destroyed biologically from the Air.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grrr
|
 |
of Hamilton, New-Zealand.
Dec 2000
time: 18:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Kaiser
Oh, and also if bombing irrigation is to be allowed then it must be classed as an atrocity, as crops could only be destroyed biologically from the Air. |
Acctually, in WWII, bombers did great damage to land, with craters rendering it unmachinable, and large parts of the crops buried in debris. Furthermore, irrigation canals were often either totally flooded or dammed up by such action.
quote:
Originally posted by cutlerd
Well a matter of minutes is pushing it. Try a two year turn. Now, is two years enough?
Well, let's postulate a group of, say, 5 thousand to ten thousand teen agers armed with molotov cocktails, lead pipes, and cigarette lighters. Give them 2 years of unopposed access. I am willing to bet they could make of even modern New York a wasteland in that amount of time.
Devin |
There's one key requirement missing, ALCOHOL  ! However, even though they would render the place uninhabitable, I believe, there would be enough squatters left to call the ruins a "city".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cutlerd
|
|
Agoura Hills, CA USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
There are many instances in the Pacific campaign of WW2 where aircraft sank large numbers of ships without direct support of ships on their side. In fact, one of the revelations of WW2 in the Pacific was that Battleships were obsolete and useful only as AA platforms and to perform shore bombardment in support of invasions.
There is a reason, in fact, why the US has not a single Battleship in its fleets now.
Try:
Pearl Harbour
Taranto
Coral Sea
Midway
Leyte Gulf
You are, however, correct with regard to the efficacy of aerial bombardment against ground troops. Even the largest carpet bombing episodes of WW2 did not completely wipe out divisions of ground troops. What they did do was render them ineffective for combat, which CIV3 models quite nicely.
Devin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
cutlerd
quote:
There are many instances in the Pacific campaign of WW2 where aircraft sank large numbers of ships without direct support of ships on their side. In fact, one of the revelations of WW2 in the Pacific was that Battleships were obsolete and useful only as AA platforms and to perform shore bombardment in support of invasions. |
i see...
quote:
You are, however, correct with regard to the efficacy of aerial bombardment against ground troops. Even the largest carpet bombing episodes of WW2 did not completely wipe out divisions of ground troops. What they did do was render them ineffective for combat, which CIV3 models quite nicely. |
but wait a minute, up above you said that airpower sank large number of ships, but not every single ship in the entire fleet and in each example you presented some ships escaped, so wouldn't that represent only 1 hp also?
i think we all agree that civ3 is not a wargame and that it doesn't even attempt to realistically represent battles, so shouldn't we be arguing over game balance instead of realism?
to me one of the major reasons that air/bombard units reducing a unit to one hp isn't balanced because of the low number of hit points, as it is now a regular unit cannot go below 33% of their hitpoints, which means that in some circumstances that a 1hp unit might still be viable in a role besides cannon fodder, just increasing hitpoints would go a long ways towards balancing airpower (if RoF was also increased) and it would all other combat results better
if you want a wargame checkout The Operational Art of War: Century of Warfare it includes all of the TOAoW games (volume 1,2 and the expnasion) and you can snag it at amazon.com for 19.99 there is also a playable demo for volume 1 here
i've heard that volume 2 is better than volume 1 but i couldn't find a demo for it, plus afaik the demo doesn't contain the scenario editor which is what everyone says is the best feature of TOAoW
ps
it also has multiplayer
Last edited by korn469 on 09-01-2002 at 02:11
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Barnacle Bill
|
|
Somewhere on the wine dark sea
Oct 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
Yes, the cost of techs somebody else has but you do not SHOULD be lower than if you are blazing a trail. However, only if you are in contact with them. The way the Aztecs & Incas got so far behind was that they were out of contact. Also, it should be in the form of lower costs or research bonuses - you should not be able to use an advance for which you lack the prereqs. I mean, how many Sherman tanks do you think the Roman Empire could have produced if you just gave them the plans, what would they use for fuel & ammo, etc?
Another piece of the problem is not enough combat eras. It took a long time to get aircraft with a significant ability to harm cities. A WWI aircraft basically couldn't do it. Massed WWII bombers could, but not fighters. A 1950's F-4 Phantom had a bigger bomb load than a WWII B-17. If the pace of tech development is balanced correctly, barring the "out of contact lag", the tech leader should get an edge that makes it worth being the tech leader, but it is unrealistic for two nations that have been in contact since they were both in the bronze age to be so far apart that one has WWII-era aircraft while the other is still in sailing ships.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cutlerd
|
|
Agoura Hills, CA USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Korn,
I agree with you. You can look at aircraft reducing a ship to 1 hp as meaning it sank some but not all of that particular fleet. I personally don't have a problem with the way aircraft cannot currently sink ships. I think it serves as a way to keep ships useful when, in real life, airpower dominates completely.
That said, however, I also wouldn't mind if aircraft did sink ships as long as ships got AA capabilities in return.
The end result is, I suppose, that I can live with it both ways.
Barnacle Bill,
I agree with your statement.
Devin
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The Kaiser
|
|
Stoke-on-Trent, England
Dec 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
Nobody seems to addressing one of the serious imbalances and that is without Flight the game won't let you shoot a bomber down. Which is basically ridiculous!
I am a fan of the new mission based model for Air units, but at least under the old system a bomber could be lost when attacking a ground unit. Ok, so it left itself open to the totally unrealistic result of a phalanx shooting down a bomber, but it needn't be that way. If only Artillery was given a flak capability, it would go someway to addressing this imbalance, and it would also provide for another area that is missing, that of a mobile anti-air system for ground units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by whosurdaddy
Ummm, if you dont think modern day laser and satelited guided weapons can target single individuals, ships, etc. then i dont know what world your living in. Oh, by the way, they have tried to fire cruise missles at osama bin laden, but missed not due to faulty technology but to due to faulty intelligence. As for a ship in the open ocean with nowhere to hide (especially without aircover or anti-aircraft defenses, such as a galley), gimme a break, they are sitting ducks for modern day warplanes. THATS WHY THE MAIN ANTI SHIP WEAPON OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE BEGINNING OF WORLD WAR II HAS BEEN AIRPLANES!!!!!!!!! |
Well when you consider that Jet Fighters are travelling at, oh say, Mach One or so, and the galley is almost standing still in comparison, I'd say the odds of missing one on the first fly-by would be pretty good. And since the fighter only has a limited amount of ammo on board, it's not really that inconceivable that the galleys might get through, with a little bit of luck.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N. Machiavelli
|
 |
THE Prince
Nov 2001
time: 06:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cutlerd
Korn,
I agree with you. You can look at aircraft reducing a ship to 1 hp as meaning it sank some but not all of that particular fleet.
|
My only real problem is that it is impossible to sink a galley, regardless of attempts to 'upgrade', no matter how many B-2's I send at it. I could, in theory, send 'thousands' (assuming that one bomber in the game is representant of a bomber group, just as that one galley represents a task group) of bombers, carpet-bomb a radius of several miles, and *never, ever* sink those ships. Not even the supposed 1-in-a-thousand chance that a 1-HP spearman has attacking a fortified mech infantry, in a hilly, 30-pop city, across a river, etc......
Also, a 1-HP battleship 'mysteriously' bombards with the same firepower as a 5-HP does. Why? Is it true that the one or two ships surviving the bombardment can project the same amount of force that the full fleet could? It simply has a smaller chance of survival in a 1on1 slugfest than it's 5-HP counterpart.
The only way an aircraft carrier could beat a battleship in this game is to use it's aircraft to lower it to 1-hp, then hope that the random number gods are on its side when the battleship attacks it. Carriers are offensive weapons, not ranged-phalanxes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TinCow
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
second thing is THAT NO NATION USES GALLEYS!
even the least advanced nation on earth is going to use a combustion engine on their ships, which would more likely resemble patrol boats than anything else
spearmean, galleys, etc just aren't going to exist along side f/a-18's and abrams tanks
|
Sure, no one uses galleys... but there are many instances of serious techinical imbalances in warfare. The Zulu uprising had British Riflemen and Cannons (for lack of a better Civ3 choice) facing off against Zulu Impis with spears. Hell, the Zulus even won a huge battle and slaughtered 2,000 of the British Riflemen before they were defeated.
Technical mismatching IS realistic. Remember, this is an alternate reality of history that you are playing... assume in this scenario that some wars DID have galleys facing off against F-18s.
Either that or do what I do... when old units are being used in a more advanced age... don't look at them as units by their names, look at them by their stats. In the Modern Age, spearmen and other such units are more like untrained crappy militia with AK-47s. Just because they animation makes them look like they have spears doesn't mean that you actually have to imagine them that way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cutlerd
|
|
Agoura Hills, CA USA
Dec 1999
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Either that or do what I do... when old units are being used in a more advanced age... don't look at them as units by their names, look at them by their stats. In the Modern Age, spearmen and other such units are more like untrained crappy militia with AK-47s. Just because they animation makes them look like they have spears doesn't mean that you actually have to imagine them that way. |
I wish I could be there with you on this one, but the problem is that there are two separate problems at work.
1. The problem of the AI not upgrading units as aggressively as they should. I frankly think there should be a unit obsolescence function that says when certain advances are discovered, a pop up menu immediately asks if you want to upgrade all of your units to the new type. If you refuse, those units are immediately disbanded and the shields go to the cities if they are in the city.
This auto upgrade should happen not at one step but at two steps removed in technology.
For example, when a nation enters the Industrial Age they MUST upgrade all ancient units immediately. When a nation enters the Modern Age they must upgrade all Renaissance units immediately.
This will eliminate the problem of the AI keeping obsolete units around well after the time they should be disbanded.
2. The second problem is that sometimes you will simply have an AI that is so far behind the times it doesn't have the tech to upgrade units. This is where I think your proposal falls short. I can certainly imagine a Spearman unit in modern times being a group of militia with AK-47s IF the civ knows gunpowder...but I'm going to have a hard time believing that a civ that does not know gunpowder has guys with AK-47s.
My solution for this would be to to once again use the two age threshhold to propogate techs.
For example, no civ may be two ages behind the lead civ.
If I enter the Industrial Age, every civ automatically gains all techs required to reach the Renaissance Age. That, in conjunction with #1 above would then cause their units to upgrade and at least pull the civ to within reasonable levels of unit compatability.
Devin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
|
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:17
|
|
TinCow
quote:
Sure, no one uses galleys... but there are many instances of serious techinical imbalances in warfare. The Zulu uprising had British Riflemen and Cannons (for lack of a better Civ3 choice) facing off against Zulu Impis with spears. Hell, the Zulus even won a huge battle and slaughtered 2,000 of the British Riflemen before they were defeated. |
many instances? i think you are wrong on this one, most of the instances you are talking about are better represented by a massive barbarian uprising than by two civilization-states facing off against each other
just think of a single rifleman being attacked by 50 barbarian horsemen and that represents each situation much better
check out these two sites
http://www.clscc.cc.tn.us/Courses/n...ta_and_Zulu.htm
quote:
-Little Bighorn and Isandhlwana illustrate similarities in conflicts between industrialized and non-industrial peoples
-The Lakotas and Zulus could acquire and use firearms, but not manufacture them.
-mistakes made by U.S. and British officers in these battles
-development of the myth of the "noble savages"
-ruinous aftermath for the Lakotas and the Zulus |
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/histo...sandhlwana.html
quote:
By the dawn of January 22, Chelmsford had left his main camp in search of the elusive enemy. Isandhlwana was down to half its strength; that is 2,000 men. While Chelmsford and the other half of the camp's contingent was chasing around the countryside the Zulu force of 20,000 warriors was resting in a steep ravine only four miles from the camp. It was an amazing and brilliant achievement to move an army of this size so close to the British position through countryside which was not exactly covered in forests and which was alive with British scouting parties. One can only marvel at the ability of the commanders; the stealth and discipline of the regiments. Undoubtedly this was the basis for the famous victory, for the attack was launched with great speed and surprise enabling the traditional Zulu "horns" to encircle the camp while the main body — the "chest" — charged at the weakest point. For half-an-hour the British poured out a desperate fire cutting down many warriors. Displaying great velour and determination the impis kept charging the lines of redcoats until they were able to come to close quarters with infantrymen Engels had described as "the best in the world for fighting at close quarters". On this occasion the assegais of African warriors proved too much for English bayonets and after a battle that had lasted little more than an hour there were very few survivors on the British side to tell the tale. Two thousand Zulu warriors had died in defence of their country and Cetshwayo remarked that "an assegai has been thrust into the belly of the nation". |
if there are instances of preindustrial forces defeating western armies please inform me
plus you left out the worst defeat of the US army in history, which was at the hands of a native american by the name of little turtle
http://www.noacsc.org/ohiohist/region1/fort/facts.htm
quote:
*Fort Recovery is the site of the two largest Indian-military battles in the United States.
*Fort Recovery is the site of the worst defeat of an American army on American soil in the history of the United States. Over 65% of the entire U.S. Army was completely destroyed in three hours. Our country went virtually without an army for two years.
*The first battle at Fort Recovery (St. Clair's Defeat) resulted in the very first U.S. Congressional investigation. St. Clair was blamed for the defeat, but was exonerated of all charges when it was found the Secretary of War, Henry Knox, and his friend, William Duer, stole $55,000 of the $75,000 allocated to buy supplies for the newly formed army and used it to speculate on land.
*St. Clair's Defeat is the greatest victory of a native force (the Indians) over a white invading force (the army) in the history of the world.
|
http://www.indigenouspeople.org/natlit/turtle.htm
quote:
He led the confederation of Indians that defeated General Arthur St. Clair, at Fort Recovery on November 3, 1791. His force inflicted the worst defeat ever suffered by the U.S. Army at the hands of native Americans. St. Clair's army consisted of 1300 soldiers. In the battle, 602 were killed and about 300 wounded. The Indian force consisted of approximately 1000 warriors. Only 66 Indians were killed in this battle! It was the greatest defeat the Americans ever suffered at the hands of the Indians. Even worst than the loss suffered at the Battle of Little Big Horn or Custer's Last Stand. Custer only lost about 210 men compared to St. Clair's loss of 602 killed! Me-she-kin-no-quah lived the village of Ke-ki-ong-a'. Kekinonga means blackberry patch. This was the Miami capitol (Ft. Wayne, IN). |
however...
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/fall96/anthony.html
quote:
Indian scouts, spying on Wayne, called him "the Chief who never sleeps." Shortly before the Christmas of 1793, Wayne led a small group of men north to the area of St. Clair's defeat and built Fort Recovery. In June of 1794, 2,000 Indians attacked the fort.
"Although the Indians vastly outnumbered the defenders," Hollins wrote, "the well-trained dragoons and riflemen within the professionally built fort held out against overwhelming odds. The Indians were forced to retreat." Their defeat at Fort Recovery shook the Indians' confidence. Little Turtle relinquished his leadership. Two of the Great Lakes tribes decided to return to their camps.
Wayne continued moving north, establishing Fort Defiance (now Defiance, Ohio) in August 1794. Ahead of him were some 1,300 Indians outside of Fort Miami, the British-held stronghold near the present-day Toledo. Wayne sent one more letter to four Indian tribes with a last offer to negotiate. There were no positive responses.
On Aug. 20, 1794, Wayne's army attacked the Indians at Fallen Timbers, just south of Toledo. The battle lasted less than an hour. Fleeing Indians raced toward Fort Miami, where the British had promised protection. They were turned away because the British did not want to risk war with the United States.
Wayne moved south and built a new fort near the three rivers. Fort Wayne was officially dedicated Oct. 22, 1794. Peace with the Indian tribes was achieved with the Treaty of Greenville on Aug. 3, 1795. |
i also disagree with this
quote:
Either that or do what I do... when old units are being used in a more advanced age... don't look at them as units by their names, look at them by their stats. In the Modern Age, spearmen and other such units are more like untrained crappy militia with AK-47s. Just because they animation makes them look like they have spears doesn't mean that you actually have to imagine them that way. |
i would take 500 northern alliance militiamen from afganistan armed only with ak-47's over 10,000 of the best trained roman legionairs personally led by Julius Caesar himself, simply put the firepower of modern weapons would slaughter the romans
really i would take the seattle police force in riot gear with tear gas, rubber bullets, and waterhoses over a similar sized force of hoplites commanded by Alexander the Great
spearmen in civ3 don't represent militia forces armed with AK-47's they represent spearmen...militia forces are most likely represented by conscripts if at all
and that is only the representation, the reason that warriors appear in the late game is simply because firaxis didn't allow swordmen to upgrade, if all units had a proper upgrade path (which is possible using the editor alone) then once you research nationalism nothing below a rifleman would appear in the build queue
by simply doubling hitpoints and fixing the upgrade paths then aircraft are more effective, modern units virtually never lose to ancient units, and obsolete units don't appear in the build queue so the AI no longer builds them
it isn't an issue of realism or not...we already know civ3 isn't realistic
it's an issue of gamebalance and the failure of firaxis to make warriors obsolete, because as it is now, if you don't have iron then warriors will always appear in the build queue no matter how advanced you are, and if you do have iron then swordsmen will replace the warriors, but swordmen, longbowmen, cavalry, ironclads, frigates, and privateers will always appear in the build queue because firaxis failed to make them obsolete with tool that already exist in civ3
plus although a militia equipped with AK-47s might be able to win a guerilla war against a modern foe (provided they have another modern state providing them supplies) in civ3 a regular fortified musketman on a mountain is going to win about 55% of the time against regular marines, about 68% of the time against regular paratroopers, and about 54% of the time against mech infantry if it is in a fort, that is not realism that is game balance
yes while the entrenched militia unit might win some of the times, in civ3 a well entrenched completely obsolete defender win most of the time, which isn't right
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
|
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by korn469
and that is only the representation, the reason that warriors appear in the late game is simply because firaxis didn't allow swordmen to upgrade, if all units had a proper upgrade path (which is possible using the editor alone) then once you research nationalism nothing below a rifleman would appear in the build queue
by simply doubling hitpoints and fixing the upgrade paths then aircraft are more effective, modern units virtually never lose to ancient units, and obsolete units don't appear in the build queue so the AI no longer builds them
it isn't an issue of realism or not...we already know civ3 isn't realistic
it's an issue of gamebalance and the failure of firaxis to make warriors obsolete, because as it is now, if you don't have iron then warriors will always appear in the build queue no matter how advanced you are, and if you do have iron then swordsmen will replace the warriors, but swordmen, longbowmen, cavalry, ironclads, frigates, and privateers will always appear in the build queue because firaxis failed to make them obsolete with tool that already exist in civ3
plus although a militia equipped with AK-47s might be able to win a guerilla war against a modern foe (provided they have another modern state providing them supplies) in civ3 a regular fortified musketman on a mountain is going to win about 55% of the time against regular marines, about 68% of the time against regular paratroopers, and about 54% of the time against mech infantry if it is in a fort, that is not realism that is game balance
yes while the entrenched militia unit might win some of the times, in civ3 a well entrenched completely obsolete defender win most of the time, which isn't right |
Then why don't you just go into the Editor and fix the problems you've mentioned yourself?
Why do so many people in this forum have the attitude that Firaxis has to do everything for them. The game comes with an Editor, it was designed so that anyone who didn't like the way things were playing could customize it, within certain limits, if they so wished. Granted it's not a perfect Editor, but there are other programs here that do have some capability to make some real additions.
Yes it requires time and a great deal of patience, and there are certain things you just can't change. But it seems to me that most of the complaints I've been hearing by members of this forum could be solved by spending some time with the Editor and the Civ3CopyTool. To much corruption? Adjust the settings so that it's not as severe, or create/manipulate improvements to help you reduce it. A problem with troop movement? Create a personnel carrier, or alter the settings of an existing unit, load it up and send it off with 8,10,100 units inside. And this whole issue of obsolete units is so ridiculously easy to solve, I really don't see why so much energy is being wasted in *****ing about it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2002 02:20
Funny, point well made Korn.
|