Tweet
Re: Broken broken broken...
"Are you playing a different version of Civ3 than me? Because all combat happens one unit at a time. There is no giant battle where 40 units have at it, there are 40 battles."
First, I don't understand your vehemence. Making accusations of not having played previous games in the series won't make me convert to your school of thought more easily, but perhaps you're more interested in the arguement than the subject, and that's fine by me.
As for it being 40 battles, yes, of course it is. However, if it's my 2 tanks and one infantry against his 4 knights, and I lose a tank, I just lost 33% of my force, and 50% of my offensive units. However, if it's my 20 tanks and 10 infantry, and he's got 40 knights, and I lose even 3 tanks, that's only 10% of my force, and 15% of my offensive punch.
My point is that when the number of combatants is smaller, and an unlikely result occurs, it is much more jarring than it is when there are large formational battles.
"What kind of nonsense is that? I swear you guys actually haven't played another other game in the Civ series - a technology allows you to field new more powerful units. This in turn gives you an advantage in combat. Discovering mobile warfare doesn't "determine" the combat in any game..."
Mobile warfare *does* give you an edge in Civ3. I'd much rather have a force of cavalry than a force of knights. I'd much rather have a force of mechanized infantry rather than riflemen. However, the advantage in civ 3 is an edge, not a determination. My units, no matter how advanced, will not be invincible in combat.
You hate this.
I don't mind it.
If I want my units to be able to roll over other units, i'll play a real wargame (heck, I still play Panzer General, the original one, just to watch my FW-190's mop the floor with those pesky Spitfires, and just scorch those Yak's).
Now, I'm not entirely opposed to a compromise position, where the industrial age units get a bit of a boost over their ancient counterparts.
One statement though, saying that "A bowmen unit should not beat cavalry 50 percent of the time, PERIOD" is not entirely an honest assessment. A cav unit defending against bowmen without terrain modifiers or support and of equal experience will lose a bit more than 50% of the time. Why leave your cav unit exposed? Why not support him with cannon? Why not garrison the city with an infantry-type unit instead of cavalry? Why rush in to take an objective that unit type can't hold? Personally, I use my cav as my breakthrough unit, and to secure important terrain, as well as to counter-attack quickly. Leaving them unsupported or in small numbers in isolated positions is just asking for them to be massacred, imo.
Jbird
"Are you playing a different version of Civ3 than me? Because all combat happens one unit at a time. There is no giant battle where 40 units have at it, there are 40 battles."
First, I don't understand your vehemence. Making accusations of not having played previous games in the series won't make me convert to your school of thought more easily, but perhaps you're more interested in the arguement than the subject, and that's fine by me.
As for it being 40 battles, yes, of course it is. However, if it's my 2 tanks and one infantry against his 4 knights, and I lose a tank, I just lost 33% of my force, and 50% of my offensive units. However, if it's my 20 tanks and 10 infantry, and he's got 40 knights, and I lose even 3 tanks, that's only 10% of my force, and 15% of my offensive punch.
My point is that when the number of combatants is smaller, and an unlikely result occurs, it is much more jarring than it is when there are large formational battles.
"What kind of nonsense is that? I swear you guys actually haven't played another other game in the Civ series - a technology allows you to field new more powerful units. This in turn gives you an advantage in combat. Discovering mobile warfare doesn't "determine" the combat in any game..."
Mobile warfare *does* give you an edge in Civ3. I'd much rather have a force of cavalry than a force of knights. I'd much rather have a force of mechanized infantry rather than riflemen. However, the advantage in civ 3 is an edge, not a determination. My units, no matter how advanced, will not be invincible in combat.
You hate this.
I don't mind it.
If I want my units to be able to roll over other units, i'll play a real wargame (heck, I still play Panzer General, the original one, just to watch my FW-190's mop the floor with those pesky Spitfires, and just scorch those Yak's).
Now, I'm not entirely opposed to a compromise position, where the industrial age units get a bit of a boost over their ancient counterparts.
One statement though, saying that "A bowmen unit should not beat cavalry 50 percent of the time, PERIOD" is not entirely an honest assessment. A cav unit defending against bowmen without terrain modifiers or support and of equal experience will lose a bit more than 50% of the time. Why leave your cav unit exposed? Why not support him with cannon? Why not garrison the city with an infantry-type unit instead of cavalry? Why rush in to take an objective that unit type can't hold? Personally, I use my cav as my breakthrough unit, and to secure important terrain, as well as to counter-attack quickly. Leaving them unsupported or in small numbers in isolated positions is just asking for them to be massacred, imo.
Jbird
Comment