07-09-2002 15:59									#1
	1 good argument why combat is not flawed Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If a spearman can defeat a tank so often, anybody can win civ3 deity by simply building a whole military comprised of spearman and go conquer the world.
It is so much cheaper, you can set science to 0 and win.

	07-09-2002 17:06									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

nah, no fun in that.

	07-09-2002 23:04									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Hum, not flawed? Well if you mean broken, no it is not broken, but a flaw or two may be found, but that is alright.

	07-09-2002 23:14									#4
	Re: 1 good argument why combat is not flawed Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Fistleaf If a spearman can defeat a tank so often, anybody can win civ3 deity by simply building a whole military comprised of spearman and go conquer the world. It is so much cheaper, you can set science to 0 and win.

but then you couldn't ATTACK. you'd need to be babylon and use their archers

	07-09-2002 23:36									#5
	Re: 1 good argument why combat is not flawed Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Fistleaf If a spearman can defeat a tank so often, anybody can win civ3 deity by simply building a whole military comprised of spearman and go conquer the world. It is so much cheaper, you can set science to 0 and win.

I guess that reducing things to absurd doesn´t work here. For the same reason you could say that CIV1 military model was as good as CIV2 and CIV3 ones, or even a model with 2 units: AncienteraArmy and ModernArmy would be consistent with that.

The problem about CIV3 is that the combat model is simpler than in CIV2. Some problems of CIV1 that were fixed in CIV2 appear again in CIV3, like that spearmen beating tanks or that "Stupid model Armies" mixing swordmen and nuclear missiles.

	08-09-2002 00:53									#6
	Support Apolyton

I think he was just being ironical, no need to bash

	08-09-2002 01:46									#7
	Re: Re: 1 good argument why combat is not flawed Get a bigger avatar today!

A good argument?

quote: Originally posted by Alfonsus72 "Stupid model Armies" mixing swordmen and nuclear missiles.

Ah, but bearing in mind the Temporal Dislocation Unit Evolution Theory (tm) that swordsman is more of a low intensity guerrilla fighter - analogous to rebel armies that go around macheteing people in the third world. They can exist together.

	08-09-2002 13:50									#8
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Arc no need to bash

That was not my intention, I just tried to declare my oposition to the Civ3 combat model in an ironical way, but with respect and consideration to the thread starter , who give us the oportunity to criticise civ3 combat once more. Sorry if it didn´t sounds like that, I have to improve my english.

quote: Originally posted by Carver Ah, but bearing in mind the Temporal Dislocation Unit Evolution Theory (tm) that swordsman is more of a low intensity guerrilla fighter - analogous to rebel armies that go around macheteing people in the third world. They can exist together.

Yes, all you need is imagination .