CIv4... Beware the planned obsolescence!!!

[Dale]

Originally posted by Solver
5 Knights to one Pikeman shouldn't have losses, realistically. In Civ3, it can well cost you 3 Knights, and the ridicilous part is that Knight #1 attacks, as Knights #2-#5 stand by and do nothing, and then Knight #2 attacks...

And that's what ****s me about 1-on-1 combat. It's unrealistic. Imagine how many more losses the US would've had if they sent one landing craft to Omaha beach instead of 200?

[GeoModder]

a 'unit' in cIV doesn't represent a single platoon IMO.
A tile in cIV is quite a bit bigger then a meagre beach between two rock outcrops.
A turn in cIV does represent more then a single day's battle.

[Mace]

Originally posted by GeoModder
a 'unit' in cIV doesn't represent a single platoon IMO.
A tile in cIV is quite a bit bigger then a meagre beach between two rock outcrops.
A turn in cIV does represent more then a single day's battle.

I agree!

In my opin, I don't think a "unit" in Civ1-2-3 was ever intended to be a single guy. (Except maybe a Carrier or BB.). A "Knight" isn't 1 guy on a horse, he represents what, a whole round table full of the guys. And 1 pikeman is a whole rank of 'em. And 1 transport is a 40 LCM's and LST's loaded with troops and tanks...

I am ready for something different with Civ combat, and that means I don't favor stacked combat...

[Dale]

Originally posted by GeoModder
a 'unit' in cIV doesn't represent a single platoon IMO.
A tile in cIV is quite a bit bigger then a meagre beach between two rock outcrops.
A turn in cIV does represent more then a single day's battle.

I never said it did. I see each unit as a "Corp" size. But I still see it as a bit silly that you can't do combined arms attacks and are limited to 1-on-1 unit attacks.

[patcon]

Originally posted by Changmai Beagle
I think we should get both coconuts and bamboo as resources. If you get both, and the great leader "the Professor" - you can build any unit.

You also get two additional specialist classes - "Ginger" who improves the attitude of 1 citizen and "Marianne" who improves 2 citizens (I like the wholesome farm-girl in short-shorts image), with a bonus of all male citizens happy if you have both "Ginger" and " Marianne" specialists in the same city (don't say that that image never crossed your mind!).
Having both coconuts and bamboo makes you vulnerable to the random event "three-hour tour" which causes all of your ships not in port to be lost.
Also, if an opponent also has coconuts and bamboo, he can plant a spy "Gilligan" who destroys all units built by "the Professor".

[Addled Platypus]

said coconuts carried by two African swallows?

[WolfEyes]

What? No,no...carried by 2 European swallows...watch out for that rabbit tho...

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


If I actually counted them, I would cry.

Hours on Poly are hours well spent, I tell thee!

Originally posted by Dale


And that's what ****s me about 1-on-1 combat. It's unrealistic. Imagine how many more losses the US would've had if they sent one landing craft to Omaha beach instead of 200?

What if Arnie, Segal, Stallone and Bruce Willis are on that landing craft?

[Modo44]

Originally posted by Dale
Imagine how many more losses the US would've had if they sent one landing craft to Omaha beach instead of 200?

By the Civ3 mechanics? If all went on the same turn, only one after another? Less losses. Instead of all attackers getting hit by defensive fire, only a few would receive it. The rest could then charge away without being damaged first!

Stacking has the downside of overcoming every obstacle, and that is not realistic either. There are numerous examples in human history where small forces prevailed against big ones. If you allow stacking for attack without limit, you get the unstoppable machine, rolling over everything. In my opinion this is even worse than the inconsistence of 1 on 1 battles.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by curtsibling
What if Arnie, Segal, Stallone and Bruce Willis are on that landing craft?

It'd cost more to send those four than it would to send an entire army.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Modo44
By the Civ3 mechanics? If all went on the same turn, only one after another? Less losses. Instead of all attackers getting hit by defensive fire, only a few would receive it. The rest could then charge away without being damaged first!

Hmmm...don't buy that statement.

If the Allies had sent units in one at a time, they would have been easily mowed down, as there would not be any distractions for the Germans that would occur if units were attacking simultaneously.

Unit A marches on the beach and is promtly hit by an overwhelming barrage of German fire - and is wiped off the face of the earth. So the Allies send in unit B - Rinse and repeat.

The only way the Nazis lose is if they expend too much ammo and then run out. Sorry, don't see the Germans as that stupid...

My friend and I plan to beat you up with tire irons. So who do you concentrate on - him or I? While you are concentrating on stopping me, he slips in from the back and nails you.

That type of dynamic does not happen in a 1-vs-1 combat model. And there is more historical precident for a combined combat approach that is better represented by stacked combat than the single combat model of civ3.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


It'd cost more to send those four than it would to send an entire army.

But what a cheesy movie it would make.

Chuck Norris could play the part of Eisenhower!