In Civ-3, only those players who engage their troops in battles have a change of getting battle-hardened combat-units, and only those who's units continue to win battles have a change of becoming military "great leaders". That's, all good and well.
But what about those players who almost never, engage their troops in battles (the "ultra-pacifists" ones). Shouldnt they be punished by having a slow-but-steady "combat-value degenerate" factor attached to their idle city-guarding troops?
Personally I try to avoid battles as much as possible (especially large invasion-attempts) before modern RR-times. But, I dont mind being "punished" for it. I only look at it as yet another re-balancing game-tweak, forcing me to take that (for me) negative factor into account, as well. More game-challenge! Why not?
Any suggestions HOW it should be implemented - IF it should, that is.
But what about those players who almost never, engage their troops in battles (the "ultra-pacifists" ones). Shouldnt they be punished by having a slow-but-steady "combat-value degenerate" factor attached to their idle city-guarding troops?
Personally I try to avoid battles as much as possible (especially large invasion-attempts) before modern RR-times. But, I dont mind being "punished" for it. I only look at it as yet another re-balancing game-tweak, forcing me to take that (for me) negative factor into account, as well. More game-challenge! Why not?
Any suggestions HOW it should be implemented - IF it should, that is.
Comment