 |
| |
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
 |
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:12
|
|
Hey, guys, I really need some information based upon your own experience on this. Of course, in the Modern era, when I protect my cities with Machine Gunners, I don't need these old Phalanxes stuck in there. That's why I disband older units (seems normal, doen't it?). But, I'm given minus points for that. In Rankings, Civ Points, under Minus Points, there's Lost Units, an amount of the units I lost. But in increases not only when I lose the battle, it also increase when I disband an old unit. I think this is quite unfair, so please tell me why is it so, and do you disband your units that are old.
------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I found this out sometime back, but promptly forgot about it. Anyway, I don't normally disband units so I'm safe.
And I agree with the 2 of you.....it's senseless!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gregurabi
|
|
Lorain, OH, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
I'm a pretty good player. I can smack the AI around, but I doubt I'd be too much challenge to a dedicated human opponent in multi-player mode. (Which I've never done. No time.)
The AI has no brains -- it just gets things handed to it to give it an unfair initial advantage. (It gets more initial Settlers, more gold, more tech.) This mean the early game is the only tricky bit -- you have to expand as quickly as possible and overcome the AI's lead. Once you do this, it's a free ride the rest of the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MadWoodster
|
|
A wierd and mad place called Southampton
Jan 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
By fiddling around with one of the text files, I think diff.txt you can change the bonus the computer gets. So you can set it so it starts with the same as you but then gets a bonus in science, production etc this way it is more of a challenge all the way through (though with WesW's MedMod 4 it is alot harder anyway)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Solver, I was referring to a new PBEM, and speaking in general. In other words, Gregubari (or anyone wishing to play real people) should try CTP PBEM. It is the most feasible. I think many people may not even be aware of the CTP patch 1.2 (like me earlier!) that allows PBEM now. That Multiplayer (real time) is not much good I don't think. Even with the 2 minute limit, once you get about 10 cities with maybe 30 units, 2 minutes is not long enough to make a rational turn. And if you make it more than 2 minutes, I agree -- who has time for that? PBEM is the best way.
Back to the topic, I agree with the game the way it is. You must be penalized (slightly) for disbanding. When any weapon of war is obsoleted, it is disbanded or dismantled. The units are forever lost (not killed, but lost) and the cost has to be written off somewhere, even if it wasn't destroyed by war  .
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited October 23, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:12
|
|
Quinns, you're a very nice guy, but I can't agree with that. Having Phalanxes in Genetic era is bad, because a) Martial Law b) Maintenance costs, even though small c) Squares occupied bu unneeded units
So, you get a minus point for getting rid of a unit that doesn't help you. You want to defend your cities, so you move your Phalanx outside it, but then it starts generating unhappiness. Unfair, in my opinion, and you can also see rest of people agreeing with me.
------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Thanks Solver. I know I'm on the other side of this issue, but think about it. Suppose you are the defense minister of the Soviet Union back in the 1980's and bought a big huge Russian attack submarine for 500 million dollars. The cost of the crew for the sub is minimal compared to the sub cost and maintenance.
Now it is the 1990's. The annual maintenance for the sub is over 20 million dollars a year so you decide to let it rot in Arch Angel harbor rather than paying the 20 million dollar maintenance fee. Are you saying that the sub can just go home and no one should be penalized for this expenditure?? No. While you are "using" the sub there is no penalty, but once you decide to scrap it, you must pay the penalty (500 million dollars down the tubes). The crew can "go home" but the sub and all it's equipment must be costed against the Russian economy (negative points).
(Solver, I KNOW that you are not Russian, but Latvian, and not implying so with this example.)
I respect the opionion of you and all the others on this topic, but I fully disagree with you and them, and fully agree with the creators of Civilization.
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited October 24, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gregurabi
|
|
Lorain, OH, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:12
|
|
Solver, I really didn't understand your last comment. Having Phalanxes in the end-game is good because:
1) They exert martial law in the city they're in.
2) They have negligible maintenance cost.
3) They can't be upgraded.
4) Disbanding them only gets you half their original cost, and hurts your score.
Why would you move the Phalanx out of the city to defend it?
Now, if you're arguing "realism" instead of game-based reasons, then you could make a case that allowing the player to retain Phalanxes across thousands of years is not "realistic". (Whatever that means in a computer game.) In that case, from a game design standpoint, it might have been better if Activision had done certain things differently. But in CTP as it stands, or with the mods I've seen so far, keeping Phalanxes around forever is definitely the way to play.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Solver
|
|
Apolyton Duke Of Something
|
|
Latvia, Riga
Sep 2000
time: 07:12
|
|
Quinns, you may be right here, it seems realistic, but I don't yet think it imporves the gameplay. On the other hand, relaistic games is what we want. Yes, you're partially right, I must say.
So, and why do you state I am Latvian? I live in Latvia, but I'm not Latvian.
Gregurabi:
Reason for moving the phalanx out is to be able to put new units in. If there are six Phalanxes stcuk inside, means I can only add 3 units now.
------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Your right about the realism of phalanxes in the 23rd century! I think a good way to think about the units is just by their "Assault strength/Range strength/Defense strength/Movement points" numbers instead of the actual name of the unit. My guess would be that a 23rd century phalanx would really just be an upgraded version (call it what you like) of a 1/0/2/1 unit.
And sorry for assuming you were from Latvia just because you live there. Steve
[This message has been edited by quinns (edited October 28, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quinns
|
|
Okay then. I'm non-denominational (ex-Catholic) American. My ancestors are from Ireland and Poland.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-10-2000 18:11
|