The undefeatable infantry unit...

[Mace]

Originally posted by Melboz99
I found out why they had such a difficult time. The city was built on hilly terrain. Anyone have any idea how much of a defensive bonus my infantry unit had?

Here is a map:

50% bonus I believe...

Even so, with my Civ3 luck, if that had been *my* infantryman fortified in a city on a hill, it would have taken, oh, about the first 12-13 longbowmen to kill him.

The other day my full strength Vet Swordsman lost to a single regular Archer unfortified in a plain.
Spearmen defeating tanks, indeed...

[spy14]

50% for the hill + 50-100% depending on city/metropolis

[Last Conformist]

+25% for fortified.

[Solomwi]

Still, that's a defense of, what, 22.5 in a city?

That gives a LB roughly 15% chance of winning, so on average every other LB should have knocked off one HP. Accounting for elite status, it's still quite a feat for that lone infantry unit to hold out against 25 longbow units.

[Aqualung71]

Hill + City + Fortified = 125% bonus, so yes 22.5 defence. As Solomwi said, pretty unlikley win.

I'm sure some guru can come up with the exact probability, but perhaps a reasonable approximation would be to pit a 75 hit point LB (roughly equivalent to 25 regular LB) against an elite Infantry (which it was eventually due to promotions). The chances of the LB losing would be small indeed.

[Rasputin]

bout time an infantry unit held off the bowman...

[:) Smiley]

Next up: Spearman beats tank... on the attack!

[Rasputin]

now that would be fun to see... as long as it not during one of my games....

[Aqualung71]

Originally posted by Smiley
Next up: Spearman beats tank... on the attack!

It's got a better chance on defence!

[Dis]

now for the important issue.

Your city placement!! (I was glancing at your minimap) Is that ICS or what?

[Melboz99]

Originally posted by Dissident
now for the important issue.

Your city placement!! (I was glancing at your minimap) Is that ICS or what?

You got it! This was my first game with ICS. Unfortunatley, the game placed 3 AI on the same continent with me, and only two on the other continent.

I really don't understand why it does that! There should always be an equal amount of players on equal sized continents!

Anyway, enough ranting. Around 500 AD I ran out of space. I ran into the Egyptians to my SE, the Byzantines to my NE, and the ocean in all other directions.

I am now playing a game where I modified the map. I tried to place all the players equally spaced apart on equal sized continents. What I accidentally did was place two players a little close together north of me, and I missed one of the player starting locations, so two of the players were too close on the other continent. Anyway, it's not like they were closer than the original markers, it's just that they were less than equally spaced apart.

What did I end up with? At about 600 AD I ran out room, except for some turndra to my south. Thinking about it now, I really should have settled down there, there were quite a lot of resouces in that tundra. Now it's full of Indians and Koreans,

Anyway, total amount of cities, large map, continents, 60% water, 600 AD was just over 100!

It's amazing what using ICS has done to improve my games! I was only behind in the tech race for half of the ancient era, and I'm on Regent! Right now, it's 1060 AD, and I am about 6 techs away from the industrial ages, getting techs about every 4 turns, with a profit of 33gpt.

This is quite an achievement for me. I used to struggle on regent until well into the middle ages. I've had it easy ever since the ancient era. Also, even on easier diff levels I've never been this advanced at 1000 AD.

Oh, get this, my population is a whopping 23,840,000! That's using a land area of 106,200 square miles.

Well, I'm having a great time with ICS. It does kind of stink later on when your biggest city is only a 14, but 90% of the game is played in the early ages, when you can't grow beyond 12 anyway.

Dan O.

[Melboz99]

I just did a quick calculation on the population and land area. It seems that I have 224.5 people per square mile. That's quite a number considering what the average is for the USA.

Okay, I just googled it, and couldn't find an average for the whole US, but I found one for my state, Illinois. The average for Illinois is 205.6 persons per square mile.

Dan O.

[spy14]

Surely the average for California or somesuch would be greater than Illinois?

[Melboz99]

As of 1990, California had a population density of 190.8. That is the same year I took the Illinois statistic from. Perhaps it's changed by now, yet I doubt it has changed by much. California has a lot of mountains and desert that are pretty low in population densitities.

Illinois has a lot of cornfield, true, but we have countless small towns, as well as Chicago, Pioria, and Rockford. Rockford is the second largest metropoliton area at about 300,000. Pioria is pretty close, we passed them up about 15-20 years ago, I believe. Chicago, of course, is in the millions. I believe the metropolotin area for Chicago is something like 8 million.

As far as I know, California has only 3 major metropolotin areas, LA, Sanfransico, and Sandiago. But, the state is nearly three times the size of Illinois (Califonia is ~150,000sqmi, Illinois is ~55,0000sqmi)

Just thought I'd get that info for you. BTW, you can find all the stats here: http://www.census.gov/population/cen...90den_stco.txt

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Woah dude...what's up with the city locations on your inset map?