Civ4 Units

[MrBaggins]

The last board game I played was Warhammer 40k.

[Jon Miller]

no it is not

having only one unit per place does not make it so that there can be no tactics

there is tactics in risk for example

as well as a lot of other board games, and computer games

like Civ

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

you don't seem to have any understanding of what tactics is

where in the definition yuo gave, does it mention anything about only single unit allowable in one place at one time?

where does it even seem to imply it?

I would recommend you read some books on tactics, and see if you can find some understanding (are yuo sure you have never played risk?)

Jojnm iller

[MrBaggins]

and I disagree with your definition.

You are confusing strategic movement, with tactical movement, considering the multiple entities per space situation.

[MrBaggins]

You don't seem to grasp the concept.. that in military terms... troops do not tactically, or strategically move in isolation... they move in combination... and that doesn't happen in a turn based game... without stacks.

[Jon Miller]

no I am not

and you won't listen to me

people in general accept my definiton

deal with it

Jon miller

[Jon Miller]

as I have said

you don't ahve a clue

please study some more

JOn Miller

[MrBaggins]

I'm sorry.. I must have missed the Jon Miller Dictionary.

I looked for in on Barnes and Noble... but didn't find it.

[MrBaggins]

You sir... have less than no clue.

Please initiate studying, since you've not even started.

[Jon Miller]

well

you also missed the dictionary of every other english speaking person on the planet

JOn Miller

[MrBaggins]

Planet Jon Miller you mean?

sorry... I've not visited there... and after seeing the brochure, I don't care to.

[Rasputin]

you two ,,,

for clarification from a thesaurus....
Entry: tactics
Function: noun
Definition: strategy
Synonyms: approach, campaign, channels, course, defense, device, disposition, generalship, line, maneuver, maneuvering, means, method, move, plan, ploy, policy, procedure, red tape, scheme, stratagem, system, tack, technique, trick, way




tactics and strategy are same.....



civ is not a war simulation it is a `game of strategy/tactics units are represented by icons, each icon representing many things, it is not meant to be taken literally that you have a man on a horse as cavalry, it also represents the supply needed to get him there, the cooks cleaners etc...

civ is very abstract in that it doesnt attempt nor should it betray an attrition war, a drawn battle, or any such thing, it is meant to be a fun strategy/tactics type game similar to a lot of old fashioned board games where a simple cardboard counter represented a platoon of infantry or tanks or planes. these games are reknown for their great strategy on a grand scale. which is what civ is.

[Rasputin]

oh and for info go here
Tactics and other words meaning the same


you will be surprised how tactics is used in differnet ways

[Fosse]

Mr. Baggins:

No

You are wrong

You don't even know things

Because I know them

Don't ever post again no matter what because I have proved

you to be an idiot.

you would know that if you ever read a single one of my posts

that you have responded to




Seriosly...
Chess or any other board games aren't usefull tools to explore how a Civlization game's combat should be. Civ is far more complicated than any of them, and by all rights should be, as it has the help of a CPU and an inifinite series of possible sequences.

In order to get as close to on topic as possible:
Mr. Baggins mentioned hitpoints, which if I recall haven't yet come up in this thread. I think most of us will agree tha the exclusion of hit points was a big mistake in Civ 3 combat.

I'm not refering to the Civ 3 version of 2,3,4,5 based on rank... but instead to the Civ 2 style of different eras' units haveing different amounts of damage they can take. In Civ 3 this was coupled with firepower, so that late game units were much more powerful than ancient era ones.


Hitpoints can represent the size of the unit (so an archer unit with 20 hitpoints would essentially have 4 times the soldiers as a warrior with 5), the technology levels (MA is a bit sturdier thank tanks, for example), and provides a very sensible and intuitive set of combat paramaters.

Hitpoints and firepower can, and have, existed in games with and without stacked combat, so I think we can safely all rally behind this idea. I may be wrong, but what do others think?

[hexagonian]

You don't have to hit me over the head with a 2x4 to agree that HP/ARMOR/FIREPOWER should be a part of the equation.

To be honest, I have yet to hear anyone say that the exclusion of these elements in civ3 was a positive thing.