Caravans are too powerfull

[Mercantile]

A screw you guys Ok well that topic went nowhere. I suppose i should take the holy grail and come up with an arguement for barb kings being worth too much as Scouse Gits stated Actually i will likely be pelted with fruit again.

[Ming]

Well... what did you expect

[Matthew]

There are two types of people who play civ. Those who like camels, and those who deserve to die.

------------------
The camel is not a part of civ.

THE CAMEL IS CIV !!!!

SAVE THE CAMEL !!!!!!

[debeest]

Um ... I'll admit that the game I just finished was only the first time I ever won before 1900, and so far at OCC I usually haven't won, so I'm nowhere near the strongest player around here -- but I know I'm not the only one who thinks caravans are mainly for building Wonders out of. Some pretty good players (DaveV for example) don't seem to use them much at all. So, if you REALLY want this thread to go somewhere, Merc -- convince me that I should devote my resources to building caravans and sending them off into the wilderness. Quite seriously, I'd like to know if I'm as far off base on this subject as the commentary here would seem to indicate.

[Blaupanzer]

The real historical precedent is the Romans versus the Phoenicians (Carthaginians in Civ). The real Phoenicians were trading giants, and their civilization had a big lead on the Romans at the start. We all know the Romans ate them alive and salted the soil of their capitol. A pretty firm argument in FAVOR of Merc's point. With that lead and that strategy, the Carthaginians should be able to win in Civ II. (Probably more than one scenario on this; I'm not really into scenarios.)

[Matthew]

quote: Originally posted by Blaupanzer on 11-22-2000 10:17 AM The real historical precedent is the Romans versus the Phoenicians (Carthaginians in Civ). The real Phoenicians were trading giants, and their civilization had a big lead on the Romans at the start. We all know the Romans ate them alive and salted the soil of their capitol. A pretty firm argument in FAVOR of Merc's point. With that lead and that strategy, the Carthaginians should be able to win in Civ II. (Probably more than one scenario on this; I'm not really into scenarios.)

You speak as if the results of the first two punic wars was a foregone conclusion. This is hardly the case. Rome won the first one. which was mostly a naval war, because of a tactic the Carthagenians were not prepared for. The Roman ships each had a cmplement of soldiers, and any time two ships got close, the Roman ship would throw a grapple onto the Carthagenian ship, holding it close long enough for the Romans to board the Carthagenian ship. In this way the advantages the Carthagenians held in seamanship was voided. This is hardly a tactic the Carthagenians should not have been prepared for. It was common among the Greeks, which is where the Romans got the idea. They probably just didn't think the Romans would use it. Had the Carthagenians been more prepared for this tactic and thereby prolonged the conflict, theit greater economic power certainly would have taken its toll on the Romans, who had ben stretched to their limits in building their fleet.

[Mercantile]

Blaupanzer thanks for the support, finally someone with an agreement. Duck though as the fruit is coming in long and hard

Matthew agreed that the Carthaginians should have expected that from the Romans. Another classic example of underestimating the opposition and it coming back to bite you in the leg. also another example of the Romans using techniques of other civilizations and modifying them to their benefits.

Although Rome had to rushbuild its navy, it did not use most of its resources to do this. In fact one could argue that the cathaginians spent alot of there coffers paying for their mercenary army consisting of Celts, Spanish, Gauls, Numidians and Greeks.

And for all the Roman success in the waters, it took them a few defeats to figure out how to take Carthage by land. Both sides narrowly missed wiping each other off the face of the planet until the Romans dealt Carthage the death blow.

[Mercantile]

Blaupanzer I totally agree, this isn't a war game, its a civ building game and i think economically that caravans are too powerfull, making the game far too easy to beat. I mean come one, winning with one city , sheesh, that makes no sense

[Blaupanzer]

Historical points well taken, but not repeatable in the Civ II environment. I'll continue to support Merc, as I believe history would probably NOT repeat itself in the Civ II environment. Still, the very closeness of that conflict may explain why the designers made the choices they did. Sid was interested civilization building, not in designing Civ as a wargame. The other strategies had to be viable. So it may be that the caravans are too strong so as to specifically push players away from having every game devolve into just another wargame.

[Blaupanzer]

Winning so easily, even at deity is a product of programming the AI. We still can't get a computer to do what humans do. I suspect teh relative strength of caravans is still not enough to get many MP games to end with the first to AC. They seem to devolve into wargames from the discussion of the people who do play.
[This message has been edited by Blaupanzer (edited November 29, 2000).]

[Mercantile]

Blaupanzer, I believe its more who you play. I too hear that alot of people think the first to leos, mikes or statue means the game is over. True against a superp player this may be. But i think thats when civvers need to learn guile and tactics. Most situations allow for extensive tech stealing therefore allowing civs in the dark ages to catch up. Caravans being as powerfull as they are , allow for science and tech and gold bonuses, so no game is lost, besides people need more experience with the mid and late game. Any fool can churn settlers for five hours

[Blaupanzer]

Like the idea, Merc. I still end up playing into the Twentieth Century against the AI. Suspect I'd be eaten alive by the MPers.

[Mercantile]

Blaupanzer, it all depends on the map and your ability to explore it. Against the ai, Marcos is great to build especially if your not Supreme, as the ai will be much more "liberal" with their map exchange, obviously against the dastardly human its moot unless in a diplo game, or a game with enough opposition, say 6 others to make it worth the shield cost. Large maps with lots of terrain and less water pose more difficulty in conquering i find, as you need to rail your cities in order to move them across 150 tiles

You should try to hook up with us some day for some MP action it really is the only way to go in this game.

[Caesar the Great]

Maybe freights, but certainly not caravans, they provide a good angle to the game... slow, easy to kill, but if successful provide a good boost for all your hard work. Although I presonally like deuls more than larger games, caravans are still very essential to nearly any strategy.

*throws a rotten watermellon*

*throws carved rotten pumpkin with words civ 2 on the front*

ouch... that must have hurt

[Mercantile]

ok, admittedly caravans especially early in the game are not too too powerfull, but freight can run up some atrocious numbers I just realized the real reason caravans are too powerfull and i am not sure as to why i didn't figure this out before.

Their ability to disband the amount of shields they cost to make for a wonder makes them Waaaaaaaaaaay to powerfull. All other units disband at a much different rate, ie half at most i believe. So why make caravans different?

Its unjust. I believe in saving the camel but i believe caravans make beating the ai and building wonders way to easy. There , no someone refute me
Ummm aren't we out of fruit, i think most of it is too expensive to be lobbing at this point in the season, lob some mandarin oranges, i like those
------------------
Do you shovel snow in your birkenstocks?
[This message has been edited by Mercantile (edited December 03, 2000).]