Do You Play Civ III ?

[SlowwHand]

I don't see where I said there wouldn't have to be fixes, Rah.
What I see me saying is Civ III SP kicks Civ II SP's ass, taking it down the road then; Civ III MP should do the same to Civ II MP.
It's only reasonable.

[War4ever]

especially if i can attack with my horde of warriors and defeat your vet musketeers

see the warrior defence is alive and well

[SlowwHand]

I doubt that will be the case, War4.
And like I've said, if you go all out attack for a long time, and don't win, then you suffer war weariness and are ripe for a counter attack, if one chooses to do so.
One could just fend off with defense, keep building science and culture improvements, and do fine.
Maybe win.
Hypothesizing, that's all.

[War4ever]

win via culture why must the church be included in games.....why don't they just have a tech called crowd control to appease the masses....

culture was interesting ....but kinda silly to me....

were culturally advanced b/c we build more temples/cathedrals/colliseums than your empire .....

[rah]

With the simplified combat, sitting back in a defensive stand is considerably harder in CIV III. Keeping 2 or 3 good defensive units and 1 offensive unit in a city (like is common in CIV II) won't stop a horde of attackers. (like is common in CIV II) and that one offensive unit isn't going to take out a stack. (especially the way CIV III handles cats and artillary) 10 warriors attacking such a city are likely to be successful (unlike civ II)

This will drastically change how we play the game. While tech windows will still play a role, you don't need to wait for them to go on the offensive. Build you stack of 10 warriors and go have fun. Nothing early is going to stop them except another stack of 10 warriors, and you can't afford to put 10 warriors in each city. It will become more of a shell game. Being able to switch shells will become of critical importance. Being attacked from two sides could be devestating, (unlike now in civII)

RAH
This is why I hold some hope for CIVIII. Tactics will be much more important.

[SlowwHand]

If y'all don't like, that's fine; but there's more to the world, and Civ, than what some like to dwell on.
If you're all content to ICS and have no other factors involved, great for you.

[rah]

God, I hope you were responding to someone else's post with that one Sloww, because otherwise it made no sense what so ever.

RAH

[SlowwHand]

I wasn't responding to your holding out hope, Rah.

[SlowwHand]

One thing I feel I need to disagree with War4 on is the culture aspect.
It's the same as, I'm just using an example close at hand, Afghanistan and the USA, or whatever comparison you want to make.
Yeah Afghans, or whoever, are fierce fighters; but mix in some culture and have balance, and you have the USA, or whoever.

Yeah, I bet that's just clear as mud, huh ?

[War4ever]

no i understand what your saying Slowwhand....i just think a cultural victory is a bit cheesey.....

i like the idea of culture...just not the way its implemented in civ3

as for ics...i haven't ics'ed in years but the power of ics is amazing when you have 10 close cities are pinned in and have just discovered iron works after building STWA

but then again, civ is all about reading your situation and making the necessary changes on the drop of a dime and not looking back....

[SlowwHand]

I'm with ya there. Always a new ripple in the pond.

[War4ever]

Have you played a tribe match lately...i have heard nothing about tribes for a long time now

[rah]

Originally posted by War4ever
as for ics...i haven't ics'ed in years but the power of ics is amazing when you have 10 close cities are pinned in and have just discovered iron works after building STWA

STWA, didn't you know that makes you a bad player?

RAH

[War4ever]

i forgot......all those caravans paying me 10-17 gold each while in monarchy is far better than my 10 vet legions walking along themountain tops and beelining for core cities

[rah]

But don't you remember, Monarchy is a wasted tech also. I guess you just suck

RAH