 |
| |
|
|
Jaybe
|
 |
Las Vegas, NV USA
Sep 2001
time: 21:19
|
|
Inspired by the vision of ruins in PTW, I'm finally letting this out:
Especially in modern combat, it is well known that the ruins of a large city (metropolis) generally only increases the defense benefits. All the brick, twisted steel, snipers hiding in the rubble, and blocked streets.
It is contrary to RL to want to reduce a metropolis to a town so it would be easier to defeat the defenders. (Out of hate for the residents is totally OFF TOPIC).
Therefore, I suggest that when bombardment kills off population and a metropolis becomes a city, or a city becomes a town, that it's defense bonus NOT be reduced.
Use of a metropolis size graphic (w/ruins) could be used as a convenient indicator, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I see your point but here is mine. Did you ever think why they set up the defense bonuses like they did? Think about it a second and scroll down..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To aid the AI. Logically you would expect a series of defensive improvements that would step up urban defense. But its hard to program the AI to know when it needs to build defense and what priority to put on it. So, dumb the game mechanics down, institute a built in defense step up implemented by something that occurs naturally, growth. (which we all know the AI can do).
Design decisions like this is why I hate the game and why I continue to post about it. I hope someone hears me and these guys are not allowed to do anymore games I might want to play.
jt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Adm.Naismith
|
 |
Milano - Italy
Oct 1999
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tuberski
The whole point is that, while the AI can Bombard- it doesn't. So changing the way metroplois bonuses work wouldn't really affect them when they are doing it. But, it will make the AI a little tougher because it will affect a PLAYERS bombard ability. |
Oh, c'mon! Probably it will simply change the usefulness of bombard: if bombarding I'm risking to help the defender, I'll simply avoid it (if not when I have a hundred of artillery and can probably destroy every citizen 'till the last one is fresh meat ready for my infantry. 
I like the idea of a graphic change  (reduced city=town surrounded by ruins), but I don't think we shoul add a defensive bonus.
Look, we know in real life urban combats have special rules, but ruins aren't necessary good for enhance defense of/from armies.
They are goods to add some cover to snipers, but you can't win a battle by snipers, while the most cover effect for common troops is not more (sometimes really less) of a good entrenched line with some fort/bunkers.
We have some example in history of good defense in city, but usually the most quoted is WWII Stalingrad defense, a very special situation (and a defensive blood bath, until the Russian were able to counterattack).
In fact a city defense suffer from a logistic point of view: in country terrain you can have good cover from forests, hills, mountains and still be able to receive more food than in a city under siege. We should also add the mess of civilian management in a sieged town, a fact that can't be managed at a strategic level as in Civ III.
More often than not, cities were left behind from defenders in WWII (while town and villages are sometime well defended because they are relevant point for communication, as main route crosses or relevant train tracks junctions.
Forts were the real backbone of a defense, in medieval age, and Firaxis should tune up a bit more their ZOC effect, IMO.
Regarding to ruined town defense, better left this part of the game as is, IMHO.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe
Inspired by the vision of ruins in PTW, I'm finally letting this out:
Especially in modern combat, it is well known that the ruins of a large city (metropolis) generally only increases the defense benefits. All the brick, twisted steel, snipers hiding in the rubble, and blocked streets.
It is contrary to RL to want to reduce a metropolis to a town so it would be easier to defeat the defenders. (Out of hate for the residents is totally OFF TOPIC).
Therefore, I suggest that when bombardment kills off population and a metropolis becomes a city, or a city becomes a town, that it's defense bonus NOT be reduced.
Use of a metropolis size graphic (w/ruins) could be used as a convenient indicator, etc. |
All of which is totally TRUE.
But I hope you appreciate the adsurd irony of how a single unit with just one hit point left can "raze" a metropolis instantly turning it into a grassland and processing all those corpses (into cat food, perhaps??). Not even a pollution tile is left! 
THAT nonsense, dumber even than Culture Flipping, has to be ended before even your suggestions.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
dexters
|
 |
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001
time: 05:19
|
|
If you want to be realistic, get your fat asses off the computer and enlist in the Army. Work your way up and be a General and deal with REAL WORLD logistics.
Trying to impose real world values to a game, even a game like Civ 3 is absurd.
You know what, it would be realistic if you died in 80 years. How absurd is it to have a ruler for 4000 years. No civilization has ever managed that. But nevermind that. The pimply faced, dorks who have no life don't mind having power forever, regardless of how unrealistic it is. But they sure like to knit pick on things like defensive bonsuses, culture flipping and call argue their case entirely on realism.
No offense to the thread starter, I am not against the idea of having ruins become a defensive bonus. I personally think it would make the game interesting. But the reasoning that went behind it isn't a gameplay issue. It's a realism issue. And I have a problem with that. Because people who only think in those terms are either blind to the fact that Civ 3 and all Civ games have always had unrealistic rules. The rules in strategy/simulation games are made to simulate the experience of running a civilization given the constraints of gameplay.
Is Culture flipping supported by emperical evidence? It's arguable. But the idea that conquered cities may revert to its original owners or that a stronger culture may absorb neighboring cities has some basis on world history, and makes the game fun.
Those who can't see past that should spend less time on their computers.
Last edited by dexters on 01-06-2002 at 03:26
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
While riuns do make for a better defense, to allow metropilises to keep their defence bonus after bombardment, as long as bombardment so rarely hits the defending units, would lower its value, which would be a negative thing in terms of game value. A much better change to keep things more realistic would be to do as in SMAC and give Infantry a bonus attacking cities, or better yet, give fast mobile units, specially tanks and up, significant penalties for attacking into cities. This is just as realistic and makes combined arms more inportant. Also, I have heard that with 1.21 the A.I. does bring infantry along for attacks, which means that it can be taught to use such tactics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AIL
|
 |
Germany
Jan 2002
time: 06:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Coracle
But I hope you appreciate the adsurd irony of how a single unit with just one hit point left can "raze" a metropolis instantly turning it into a grassland and processing all those corpses (into cat food, perhaps??). |
They are turned into workers... But it's still redicolous! I think Cities from a certain size on (maybe 7) shall not be razebale for realism purposes. Anyways with the 1.21 patch you have the ability to abandon a city at any time and here it's the same: It shall not be possible for cities bigger than 6, not in one turn!
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Also, I have heard that with 1.21 the A.I. does bring infantry along for attacks, which means that it can be taught to use such tactics. |
You have heared? I've seen the Japanese going for my cities with 100+ Infantry and only few Cavalrys... I find it much harder to defend against em because their high defesive value while attack is just the same that Cavalry has.
Last edited by AIL on 02-06-2002 at 13:23
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-05-2002 07:20
Maybe I should keep adding the things he says over and over, and then he will stop...........
|