ancient era warfare: non-existent?

[Steve Clark]

But don't you think it might be better or more fun to play a scenario that is based solely in one of the four eras? For example, an ancient age scenario (like what Kull did in Civ2) would be much more immersive than anything that the ancient age in a regular Civ3 can provide. The same applies to the middle age, industrial age and of course, the modern age. The regular game gives you the sweep of time, scenarios give you the historical/time period details.

[Lorizael]

The fact that you have to research all techs in an era before you move on probably means that there will be more time in each era. I've also seen several ancient screenshots where the time was already in the 10's place. That probably means the time before the Common Era will last longer.

One thing I really missed in Civ II and I was all those wars in the Mediterranean and Middle East. But I still want modern warfare (more fun to me) so scenarios just won't do.

All the ancient UU's also gives some home.

Uber... welcome back and did you know you are a very sick person?

[The Rook]

I never had a problem with this. I always shut off the spaceship option, and I will shut off all the other options in CIV3. My games will take forever, but I am not out to "win" I'm more into simulation than gaming. I will take each era at a time, and not be in such a hurry to advance to the next. As long as I keep pace with the AI, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Dante Alighieri]

Originally posted by Lonestar


The first "Modern" war was the American Civil war, More Americans died at Gettysburg than during the entirety of the Vietnam war. After Grant became Commander-In-Chief (and Sherman took over the Western Theater) The war more closely resembled a modern war. Grant's VA campaign was a long grinding war, which eventually turned into trench warfare before he achieved a breakthrough in 1865.

And over 100,000 died within a year in Georgia when General Sherman came through. American Civil war was bloddier than any other modern war I believe.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Dante Alighieri


And over 100,000 died within a year in Georgia when General Sherman came through. American Civil war was bloddier than any other modern war I believe.

What do you mean bloodier?

10 or 20 million (I think) Russians died during World War II.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Dante Alighieri


And over 100,000 died within a year in Georgia when General Sherman came through. American Civil war was bloddier than any other modern war I believe.

Sounds like typical biased Southern mythology they're teaching you. In the ACW, there were about 620,000 casualties, of that, about 200,000 were KIA. In the Atlanta campaign, casualties were about 16,000 for both sides. There were comparetively little casualties on the march to the sea because the resistance was elsewhere (shooting into Tennessee hoping to draw Sherman there). Civilian casualties was very light during the war (of those directly involved in military operations), and that includes Georgia as well.

More Americans died during the Civil War than the Americans that fought in all other wars combined.

[Sandman]

Don't forget that we now have barbarian encampments to destroy in the ancient era. You'll need to wage a war of sorts to eliminate them.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I usually wait till I get Legions (looks like I wont be geting them playing as Americans or Germans) and catapults until I wage war. Then I can actually do some damage. Severly hurt the nearest civ (and make them pay 20 gold a turn0 and then grow exponentially

[Dante Alighieri]

Originally posted by Lorizael


What do you mean bloodier?

10 or 20 million (I think) Russians died during World War II.

The general consensus is that 3.5 million Germans and between 5 and 6 million Russians were killed in the Russian campaigns. In terms of sheer numbers this was certainly the bloodiEST campaign. However I still maintain that the American Civil War was one of the bloodier modern wars. It was certainly the first war to be considered modern.

[Dante Alighieri]

Originally posted by Steve Clark


Sounds like typical biased Southern mythology they're teaching you. In the ACW, there were about 620,000 casualties, of that, about 200,000 were KIA.

I'm assuming by "they" you mean Southern Americans. If that is what you mean, then I'd first like to point out that it would have been very difficult for "them" to teach me this typical biased Southern mythology. I was born in Bronx and as an Army Brat grew up in over 20 countries and went to many schools. I only moved to Atlanta 3 months ago.

You are almost correct in your total casualties although some historians would say it is even lower. What you fail to realize is that is almost 2% of the population at the time. On a percentage basis this is almost as high as the Russian campaign in WWII.

Originally posted by Steve Clark

In the Atlanta campaign, casualties were about 16,000 for both sides. There were comparetively little casualties on the march to the sea because the resistance was elsewhere (shooting into Tennessee hoping to draw Sherman there). Civilian casualties was very light during the war (of those directly involved in military operations), and that includes Georgia as well.

More Americans died during the Civil War than the Americans that fought in all other wars combined.

WRONG! I wouldn't call taking nine months to get from Chattanooga, TN to Atlanta light resistance. It then took him five months to continue though to Savannah and Columbia, SC

http://www.ngeorgia.com/history/atlcamp.html

http://www.civilwarhome.com/ShermansMarch.htm

Battles

Chickamauga 34,500 DEAD KIA
Chattanooga 12,400 DEAD KIA
Peachtree Creek 4,500 DEAD KIA
Atlanta 11,700 DEAD KIA

Total 63,100 DEAD KIA

http://www.americancivilwar.com/cwstats.html

These were the major battles. Dozens of skirmishes between Chattanooga and Atlanta killed nearly 15,000 more KIA. Lastly,
twice that died from rampant disease on both sides. The total easily aproaches 100,000. On a square mile basis this makes North Georgia the bloodiest area in all of world history.

[Sikander]

The Thirty Years War in the 1600's killed a much higher percentage of the population of Central Europe than any other war, something like 30% over that vast area. The highest loss in percentage terms for any state in WWII was 30% for Poland. WWI was terrible, but because of the static nature of the Western Front the numbers of civilians killed (usually far more than military casualties) was relatively small.

[Urban Ranger]

When I was playing Civ - I played that much more than Civ 2, which I thought was more of the same - I ususally played an early game rush with a huge number of chariots. For example when I played as the Chinese on the Earth map I'd rush the Indians, Mongols, and Russians early to wipe them out and move aggressively westwards.

As a result, I had more battles in the ancient era than any other.

[Spacecow]

The way I play Civ 2, I beeline Monarchy -> Feudalism -> Chivalry, which often gives me knights about the time the AI leading in tech gets legions. I make almost nothing but knights, wipe everyone off my continent, and then go perfectionistic. So for me, MOST of my war occurs with knights. I guess I'm just the exception. I probably would learn to play differently if I ever did MP much.

-Spacecow

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Spacecow
The way I play Civ 2, I beeline Monarchy -> Feudalism -> Chivalry, which often gives me knights about the time the AI leading in tech gets legions. I make almost nothing but knights, wipe everyone off my continent, and then go perfectionistic. So for me, MOST of my war occurs with knights. I guess I'm just the exception. I probably would learn to play differently if I ever did MP much.

-Spacecow

Actually, thats pretty much my standard style, sometimes going to crusaders if it takes that long to remove the other civs... If generally taken over my continent before gunpowder, and then go perfectionistic, without wars for the rest of the game.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Dante Alighieri


And over 100,000 died within a year in Georgia when General Sherman came through. American Civil war was bloddier than any other modern war I believe.

Dante, apparently I misunderstood your generalization from your quote. I specifically concentrated on when Sherman led his army through Georgia starting with the battles NW of Atlanta and ending up in Savannah. Thus the figure of 16,000+ casualties, not KIA (mainly from Peachtree and Atlanta). Grant still had the army in the Chick-Chatt campaign. After Atlanta, Sherman's army did not encounter any significant battles, even though it did take quite a bit of time to move an army of that size to Savannah-Charleston-Columbia-Raleigh.