 |
|
DrFell
|
|
If medieval infantry were 5/2/1 I'd still build knights myself too. Mobility is so much more powerful than just attack strength on it's own (hence the power of rush tactics, and why they are always done by fast horse units). The infantry would have to be accompanied by pikes (realistic, I suppose) if they were to be successful in attacking against a human opponent, otherwise they'd be whittled down one by one.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
With Samurai at 4.4.2., and the below historical modded values, there is little point in having "Medieval Infantry".
Longbowmen: 4.3.1. English UU.
Knights: 5.2.2.
Early Musketman: 5.6.1.
Musket Infantry: 6.7.1.
If I did have them in my mod they'd likely be 4.4.1 or maybe 4.5.1.
Other modded values:
8.10.1. Riflemen
10.13.1. Infantry.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Maybe call them Macemen.
I think the problem that firaxis has encountered is that it has not allowed enough spacing between unit strenghts. . .
Knight 5.4.2
Longbowmen 5.1.1
Pikemen 1.5.1
Musketmen 3.6.1
Cavalry 10.5.3
Infantry 14.18.1
Paratrooper 16.22.1
|
Although I strongly disagree with some of your values your point is VERY valid about Firaxis making a big mistake by not having enough space between units. A lot of us complained about that in December. Why did they do that, and keep post-gunpowder units' values so low??
Firaxis already admitted that they made those values ARTIFICIALLY low to "give a chance" to civs without certain resources, such as saltpeter. Of course, strategic resource appearances rates are absurdly too low in Civ 3. So Firaxis is wrong on both counts.
All this is why people have been forced to mod the game - for playability AND some semblance of historical accuracy.
AS FOR YOUR VALUES. . .
Longbowmen defense value is FAR too low. They repeatedly stopped French knights at Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt.
Knights defense value is a bit too high.
Pikemen is alot too high. Actually, I liked Civ 2 giving them a bonus against mounted troops.
Cavalry attack values are too high. With your riflemen at '10' defense the cavalry will have a fair chance of defeating them - totally unrealistic.
BTW, we also need a second (modern) Musketman (with the bayonet and a faster firing mechanism), plus offensive Shock Troops coming before tanks.
Your values for paratroopers is far too high.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tolkien
|
|
Anywhere but here
Oct 2001
time: 22:21
|
|
I agree, a medievel unit (other than the knight) needs to be added. It's like the game skips from the Ancient Era to the Industrial Era.
The new unit (whatever it's name is) could be 5/2/1, enough of an upgrade from the Swordsman, and more powerful than the Longbowman, though not interferring with the Musketman. I personally like the name Footsoldier, or Footman.
And personally, I think the modern ground unit, Marine, needs a change. If they want this game to be historically accurate, they need to change this dudes name...maybe to Heavy Infantry or something like that. The Marines are U.S. troops, yet in Civ3, every civ can build him...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
tomcat ha
|
|
jantisarry shood be the best infantry unit until the rifleman
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
I doubt very much if the Janissaries in 1805 (what there were left of them by then) would have had much luck going up against Napoleon's musket (and bayonet) armed foot soldiers in 1805, or against the professional British soldiers of the same period. I'll remind you that they failed to put down the Greek revolt in the 1820's = why the sultan began to build a modern army causing them to revolt (and get massacred).
Last edited by Coracle on 24-08-2002 at 06:56
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-08-2002 23:34
.
|