Tweet
Heh. Subject vauge enough for ya? 
Anyway, can someone explain to me WHY Firaxis decided to do away with firepower? Huh? HUH? What was thier rationale? Who was the brain genius at Firaxis who said "Hey, you know what I was thinking? You know the combat system in Civ II? You know, the revamped balanced one that we made after everybody complained about the combat system in Civ I? Yeah, let's go ahead and and scrap that in favor of the old crappy Civ I system that made everybody pull their hair out."
The manual states: "Combat has been improved so the concept of firepower is no longer necessary." Improved? Explain how! You mean the "invention" of hitpoints? Dosen't seem to help at all. Well, it IS better than Civ I, but it's not NEARLY as good as CIV II, IMHO. It's still pretty all or nothing. I have 5 archers ready to attack a town with a single fortifed hoplite in it. All 5 of them attack in one turn. Now, I understand that the hoplite has a defense of 3 as compared to the archer's attack of 2, and I also understand that the 50% fortified bonus makes it 4.5, and that rounded up the defense is 5. But STILL! FIVE! FIVE ARCHERS! ONE HOPLITE! And they ALL DIE. You know how much damage I did to the hoplite? Ironically, NEGATIVE ONE. While I did do one point of damage, the hoplite got two battlefield promotions during the assaults, so he actually GAINED health. And, as I'm sure you realize, my fine fellow-civers, stuff like this isn't a rare occourance. The Civ 2 combat system never left me feeling cheated like this. Oh, I'd lose 3 or 4 archers, but I could be quite sure the phlanx(sp?) would take at least a little damage from each archer until it eventually died. As it is now, I'm praying to God that my 3 archers can graze that hoplite.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Civ III, I'm just puzzled as to why Firaxis thought it would be wise to take a step BACK.
--SG
Anyway, can someone explain to me WHY Firaxis decided to do away with firepower? Huh? HUH? What was thier rationale? Who was the brain genius at Firaxis who said "Hey, you know what I was thinking? You know the combat system in Civ II? You know, the revamped balanced one that we made after everybody complained about the combat system in Civ I? Yeah, let's go ahead and and scrap that in favor of the old crappy Civ I system that made everybody pull their hair out."
The manual states: "Combat has been improved so the concept of firepower is no longer necessary." Improved? Explain how! You mean the "invention" of hitpoints? Dosen't seem to help at all. Well, it IS better than Civ I, but it's not NEARLY as good as CIV II, IMHO. It's still pretty all or nothing. I have 5 archers ready to attack a town with a single fortifed hoplite in it. All 5 of them attack in one turn. Now, I understand that the hoplite has a defense of 3 as compared to the archer's attack of 2, and I also understand that the 50% fortified bonus makes it 4.5, and that rounded up the defense is 5. But STILL! FIVE! FIVE ARCHERS! ONE HOPLITE! And they ALL DIE. You know how much damage I did to the hoplite? Ironically, NEGATIVE ONE. While I did do one point of damage, the hoplite got two battlefield promotions during the assaults, so he actually GAINED health. And, as I'm sure you realize, my fine fellow-civers, stuff like this isn't a rare occourance. The Civ 2 combat system never left me feeling cheated like this. Oh, I'd lose 3 or 4 archers, but I could be quite sure the phlanx(sp?) would take at least a little damage from each archer until it eventually died. As it is now, I'm praying to God that my 3 archers can graze that hoplite.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Civ III, I'm just puzzled as to why Firaxis thought it would be wise to take a step BACK.
--SG
Comment