Civ Has Come a Long Way

[gunkulator]

You didn't need to wait for Tanks or Cavalry to win Civ2. Writing gave you Diplomats which pretty much sealed the end for the AI.

On units: while Civ2 did have some useless ones, Civ3 is guilty of having gaps. The worst one is the long long wait from 6 attack Cavalry to 16 attack Tanks. That's more than double the attack strength without any intermediate unit. Warmongering pretty much grinds to a halt after those Riflemen and Infantry show up in cities.

[Krill]

Unless you have Siphaphi (sp?) Many people think that they are a game breaker and don't play them.

[Last Conformist]

@albiedamned: The AI ceased to make armies in C3C. Must be a bug.

@gunkulator: That's, incidentally, the period of many of my greatest conquests. Arty/Cav/Inf stacks are very powerful attackers, and easily rips defending Inf apart.

[albiedamned]

Originally posted by gunkulator
On units: while Civ2 did have some useless ones, Civ3 is guilty of having gaps. The worst one is the long long wait from 6 attack Cavalry to 16 attack Tanks. That's more than double the attack strength without any intermediate unit. Warmongering pretty much grinds to a halt after those Riflemen and Infantry show up in cities.

I disagree. First of all, it is historically realistic as the World War I era was a time when defense dominated. Come WWII, tanks switched the balance to offense. But secondly, it is extremely possible to attack in this era if you pile up enough artillery. See this ancient thread I wrote on the topic. Basically, your 6 attack Cav or Infantry will win if you bombard the defenders down to 1 HP, even if those defenders are 10 defense Infantry. In fact you could even win with Riflemen, if you lack the resources for Cav or Infantry. A Rifleman/Artillery army requires no resources.

[spy14]

The major breakthroughs at the end of WW1 were made by the first ever tank advances, they broke the deadlock in the western front.

[gunkulator]

I disagree. First of all, it is historically realistic as the World War I era was a time when defense dominated. Come WWII, tanks switched the balance to offense. But secondly, it is extremely possible to attack in this era if you pile up enough artillery

Yes, I know about the massive Arty stack tactic. My complaint is a gameplay one, not a realism one. Building a moving a huge stack of infantry and artillery requires more micromanagement. Plodding along at 1 move per turn drags the game down compared to medieval and ancient era warfare. Realistic? Probably. Good gameplay: nope.

This is an area where Civ2 was better, although it tended to swing the other way. Modern warfare was very fast but also too easy. Blitzkrieg just isn't possible in Civ3.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by albiedamned
I seem to recall that they added in an additional bonus for when units from more modern eras fight against units from older eras. Was that in one of the patches?

That sounds like a new way of calculating combat outcomes as the averages from a number of rolls, that was GOING to be included in a patch some months back. The results of such tests were being posted here by Breakaway Games employees for a bit before one of the Beta patches, but it was done away with before the patch was released due to a not inconsiderable outcry.

It would have effectively made outcomes certain before the battle was joined. A sort of 'powerful get more powerful, weaker lose all chances' result.

[albiedamned]

You know what, I think I'm confusing Civ3 with RoN here. I think RoN did that; made modern units more likely to beat ancient ones.

[vondrack]

Originally posted by spy14
The major breakthroughs at the end of WW1 were made by the first ever tank advances, they broke the deadlock in the western front.

I do not think I can agree with this statement - tanks in WW1 made one rather spectacular appearing at the Battle of Cambrai, but made very little difference otherwise. They were too unreliable and too few to "break the deadlock".

[spy14]

Should have written "some" instead of "the". Either way though it was when the first major advances occured (and at a walking pace).

[Proserpine]

Originally posted by vondrack

I do not think I can agree with this statement - tanks in WW1 made one rather spectacular appearing at the Battle of Cambrai, but made very little difference otherwise. They were too unreliable and too few to "break the deadlock".

True, but they did have some effect at the end of the war. Arguably, without wishing to start a debate about the outcome of WWI, their use at Cambrai also reflected the growing technological advantage of the allied (Entente) and Cambrai was the writing on the wall for the Central Powers.

I am currently reading a book on the Polish-Russian conflict of 1919-20 (White Eagle, Red Star). The use of WWI era tanks by the Poles was helpful, particularly in exploiting the "miracle on the Vistula", though I would argue not decisive (except locally).

KR

[Last Conformist]

Building a moving a huge stack of infantry and artillery requires more micromanagement. Plodding along at 1 move per turn drags the game down compared to medieval and ancient era warfare. Realistic? Probably. Good gameplay: nope.

I personally rather like it. It's only a pity the AI does not understand it.

[Leonidas]

There is a lot I like in Civ3. But Civ2 also has a lot I like as well.

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by gunkulator
[Yes, I know about the massive Arty stack tactic. My complaint is a gameplay one, not a realism one. Building a moving a huge stack of infantry and artillery requires more micromanagement. Plodding along at 1 move per turn drags the game down compared to medieval and ancient era warfare. Realistic? Probably. Good gameplay: nope.

This is an area where Civ2 was better, although it tended to swing the other way. Modern warfare was very fast but also too easy. Blitzkrieg just isn't possible in Civ3.

One word, Railroads.

Of course, blitzkrieg really needs tanks. Once you have tanks blitz is very much possible in Civ3. I can often take 5-10 cities in one turn in the late game..

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


One word, Railroads.

...that don't work in AI land. By the time Tanks come rolling along, much of the AI's territory is 3 squares deep. If you bring Artillery, you need one turn to get 3 squares away, another to get 2 squares away and then you can attack on the third turn. Reinforcements? Forget it. They may be just one square away on clear land but it might as well be across a mountain or swamp.

Rails are also an annoyance in that they bring about the most unrealistic aspect of the game: The AI can attack your invading army with everything its got, no matter how far away, all in a single turn. To survive this, you need raw numbers, leading to massive "unit bloat" and the associated monotonous one-at-a-time attacks.

Of course, blitzkrieg really needs tanks. Once you have tanks blitz is very much possible in Civ3. I can often take 5-10 cities in one turn in the late game..

With MA's, yes but there's an awful long stretch of time to get them. Without MAs, you'll never get past their borders without a counter attack. The only way I've ever taken that many cities in the modern era is by breaking a ROP and that's a one shot deal.

I dunno, I prefer ancient and medieval warfare. More kinds of units, more options, quicker to get in and attack. YMMV I suppose.

IMHO, Civ2 made modern warfare too easy, but it was fast. Civ3 has swung too far the other way.