Civilization 4: Age of Empires 2 TBS edition

[StarLightDeath]

People hate me yet they keep reading what I write. If I made a post and no one responded I wouldn't be here. You keep me here so you have no one to blame but yourself. Everyone needs someone to hate and I feel proud to be that person. I'm not here to be anyone's friend and if you don't like that then don't respond to my posts.

You'll get a reply Aeson when you stop using that format for your replies. I'm not going to read through 20 different lines as you respond to every little sentence I make. Try writing a complete response in 1-2 paragraphs with a general idea and supporting points. While you're at it, go play some MP so you can actually know what I'm talking about. Until then, go play some SP and have fun with the AI since you find it so complex and "deep."

[Aeson]

(I so love this, thank you Eyes for playing this long. After the other night, I thought I had lost you forever!)

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
People hate me yet they keep reading what I write.

It's good for laughs.

If I made a post and no one responded I wouldn't be here.

But your fallacious statements would be here, unrefuted. And we can't have that.

You keep me here so you have no one to blame but yourself.

And yourself. It takes two. If you didn't post here, no one would talk about you. (Which may be why you can't stop, even though you hate the game and have given up on it being fixed.)

Everyone needs someone to hate and I feel proud to be that person. I'm not here to be anyone's friend and if you don't like that then don't respond to my posts.

I don't hate you. You're great fun actually. I do feel a bit saddened that you say you won't play anymore though.

You'll get a reply Aeson when you stop using that format for your replies.

I know you don't want to discuss things in detail, because the details show the holes and inconsistancy in your reasoning. If you don't want to respond to me, that's your choice. I'm not going to let you dictate the way I discuss things though. If you make a fallacious statement somewhere in your big 'ol pack of whining, I'm going to point it out. (And if it's a big 'ol pack of fallacious statements, then it will be a big 'ol pack of refutations.)

I'm not going to read through 20 different lines as you respond to every little sentence I make.

You mean, not anymore?

Try writing a complete response in 1-2 paragraphs with a general idea and supporting points.

Most of my responses to the points you bring up fit this discription, or close to it. Although sometimes what you say is so easy to refute it only takes a line or two.

An argument is not one big repetition of a homogenous point. It is many little points supporting an overall assertion. If the little points are invalid, they deserve to be pointed out.

While you're at it, go play some MP so you can actually know what I'm talking about. Until then, go play some SP and have fun with the AI since you find it so complex and "deep."

You and your little "go play MP" are so cute.

------------------

Run and hide from facts Eyes, cause you certainly can't address them.

[Aeson]

When I posted that Poly came up with this gem:

Greener's Law: Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.

(They can see us! They're watching!)

[Fidel]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
I used Navy Seals as an example of how ridiculous defense bonuses in cities are. Did I say a musketman is going to kill a Navy seal on regular terrain? No. Did I say I could stop a choke of navy seals? No. Did I not point out that having a navy seal vs Musketman in an MP game is impossible? I most certainly did.

i reckon that the only fitting punishment for you being you is to let you argue with yourself:

The game is fundamentally flawed. I can make a musketman beat a navy seal every single time fairly early in the game with very little effort at all.

[StarLightDeath]

I didn't read your post Aeson. Apparently you don't realize I'm serious when I say I'm not responding to anymore posts in that format.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
I didn't read your post Aeson.

Oh no! Not that you seemed to read any of the previous ones that well anyways though.

Apparently you don't realize I'm serious when I say I'm not responding to anymore posts in that format.

Technically, this is a response. I posted, you responded (without reading).

[EEKthedog]

What wonders me is why the hell he's still playing this game daily while nagging and whining about the game.

[Zinegata]

Originally posted by Aeson
When I posted that Poly came up with this gem:

Greener's Law: Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel.

(They can see us! They're watching!)

I'd have preferred "Never argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience".

But that also works. The RNG does indeed works in mysterious ways ^_^

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, assuming you aren't exaggerating, technically (who's nitpicky now?) you wouldn't be "arrogant." You'd just be an *******.

You shouldn't let him off so easy. He is wrong in his claim that "arrogant" requires an overestimation of one's abilities. While it can be used in that manner, the term can also apply to those who can back up their arrogance.

[StarLightDeath]

ANYWAY, THE COMBAT SYSTEM IS FLAWED.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath


The real problem is that when you damage a unit it is no longer that unit anymore. If I take a Navy seal and damage it down to 6 for all intents and purposes it is now a Longbowman. It may still have the unit artwork of a navy seal, but when my axeman attacks it it is a swordsman with navy seal upgrades. In Civ2 even when a unit was damaged it was still that unit. A damaged tank was still a damaged tank. A damaged knight was still a damaged knight. It may have had less hitpoints and thus was weaker, but it was still the same unit.

Stralight's tone not withstanding I think this is a legitimate point.

Curiously, I had thought about this recently myself and i'm still unsure if it is detrimental to the new system or not.

In previous games under the attack/defense value system, a wounded tank still had those superior attack/defense values against an inferior opponent and thus still had an advantage even though weakened.
A wounded tank could do much damage before finally succumbing to destruction by more primitive units.

Under the new system, a weakened tank seems to be no more powerful than a more primitive unit of the same "overall" value.

Perhaps this was meant to simulate something, but it is a legitimate point to say that units are what they are only until they get damaged.

i'm still pissed at going back to non lethal bombing.

yet, overall I put my vote in for liking this game alot, including the combat. The upgrades seem to balance this new system out and make combat the most fun i've had in any civ game.....so far

[EEKthedog]

IIRC units have their strength being equal to their hitpoints.

A maceman with strength and hitpoints 8 has a value of 64 whereas a warrior (2) has a value of 4.

A wounded macemen with 2 of 8 left is still 4 times stronger than a warrior.

[Odin]

*Sigh* Same old MalevolentLight.


Your supposed to bring siege units to a city to weaken the city defenses and cause collateral damage to the defending stack. Your hypothetical Navy SEALS would come in with artillery and blast your musketmen back to the stone age. So your "defense bonuses are too much" is BS. Collateral damage is made even more important from the fact that damaged units have lower strength than heathy units.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by StarLightDeath
People hate me yet they keep reading what I write.

I'm making an album

Everyone needs someone to hate and I feel proud to be that person.

Can I put that in my sig

Stop messing with the newbies head Sean - does Ming know you're here?