Fire power is not what we need, we need modern units to have more hit points

[n.c.]

All you of lame @ss pieces of crap telling people like Venger (and me) to shut up and/or quit whining need to blow it out your @ss. He can say whatever the fvck he wants to on these threads. Tell him why he's wrong, if you dare try, but this attempt to censor with browbeating is patently inexcusable.

[Setsuna]

I liked the way I put it better. :P

[uXs]

Originally posted by Venger


Yet another settler doofus heard from. I didn't get guns first in my current game, and often don't in Civ2, but I manage to struggle through. See, when outclassed, you must outnumber. But see, that's STRATEGY. Quantity has a quality all it's own. If you cannot win because someone else has a qualitative advantage, that's your lacking, not the systems. But you want to deny an advantage to the advanced unit, simply because you cannot win otherwise and you'd have unbalanced "gameplay". Nice sissy answer.

Venger

You really have to ask yourself, that if you make advanced units all-powerfull, how is having more low-tech units going to help ? They would all be chewed up by the almighty units of later ages, no matter how many there are.

uXs

Oh and if you think a massive amount of posts somehow makes you smarter than other people, think again. At most, it shows a tendency to spam.

[Setsuna]

I guess it's in one ear, out the other with you uXs.

Time to pick up your broken, circular logic and go home.

[Your.Master]

Originally posted by Setsuna
I guess it's in one ear, out the other with you uXs.

Time to pick up your broken, circular logic and go home.

Wow!

This is the first argument I've ever seen where EVERYBODY was totally, unrepentantly wrong! (Does that include myself? Can it, by definition?)

Both sides have good points, both sides take personal shots. I tend to agree with Venger, but he seemed to start the flames (especially with the irrational and irsmart comment on the number of woody's posts).

[n.c.]

Originally posted by Your.Master
[Venger] seemed to start the flames

How polite should he have been in response to the following?

Originally posted by woody
Quit whining!
Just stop complaining about things that you can easily change yourself!

We can start to have a better tone only if posters in general direct their frustration at those who actually start the unpleasantness.

[Dmc507]

TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO LOVE THE COMBAT SYSTEM THE WAY IT IS NOW!

To all of you people who say that superior numbers more then make up for crappy technology, yea, that was so.... back in the middle ages and 18th and 19th century. Of course 10,000 warriors are going to kill 1,000 legionnaires or 1,000 musketeers, but they would not stand up to modern weaponry. In modern times, it is superior technology that wins wars, not superior numbers. I know examples in the past of superior numbers beating superior forces, but I know of many many more cases of superior tech beating superior numbers. The US just laid waste to the third largest army in the world using superior tech back in 1991. I think it was called the gulf war? Anyone else hear of it? Also, look at all of the wars that Israel has been in. They have NEVER lost a war in the twentieth century, even though they are a tiny nation and are out number by some huge ungodly amount. Why have they never lost? BECAUSE THEY HAVE SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY. Every time that the Arabs attacked Israel with huge number of forces from every side of the country, Israel prevailed over them b/c of their better tech.

One of the biggest assets of modern warfare is airpower. You guys keep telling us to stop whining b/c we don't like the combat system. You tell us that we should deal with it b/c its more "realistic" that superior numbers beat technologically superior forces. Well here is an example for you guys. First of all, think of a football stadium at maximum capacity. That is your 70,000 man army of warriors with their stone axes, bronze armor, longbows, whatever. Now I'm just going to run my battalion of modern tanks (I'm thinking Abrams here) over all of them at 65 mph. I'm not even going to to shoot my guns because that would be unfair (have to give them some chance of survival). Here is another example using that same army of 70,000 men. Your men are walking along the road or are in the forest or wherever. They are very experienced soldiers and have won many battles vs other forces that have swords and bows. Now here I come in my C-130 and you know what I'm carrying? A 15,000 pound bomb. You know, that daisy cutter you have seen on the news? (this is assuming that you guys keep track of anything that happens in the real world) Anyway, I'm going to drop it over your army. When it hits the ground, its going to kill pretty much all of you men. Any men that it does not kill with the direct explosion will be killed by the concussion wave, and if any of your men are able to survive the concussion blast, then they will have wished that they died because it will have blown out their eardrums and not be able to hear ever again. Or I could just fly over them with an F-15E Strike Eagle armed with cluster bombs and drop a couple of those on them. It will kill them all nice and good. In fact, cluster bombs are so effective that President Bush considered not using them so much on open troops because they were killing soooo many of the Iraqis In desert storm that they thought it might look bad to the international community. Another way I could kill your 70,000 men is to just put a couple of machine gun nests in front of them. Doesn't matter how fast or how many of them run at me. They will all die. Look at world war I for an example of that.

What I am basically getting to here for all of you people who keep saying that the game is great and that superior numbers, even if they are longbow men, have a good chance of killing more advanced units need to STU. YES THAT'S RIGHT STU!!!!

STU!

If you can find a good example of modern units being defeated by swordsmen, give it to us. And don't use the special forces operations that have gone wrong because they don't count as civ3 cant model them. units (tanks, swords men, musketeers, etc.) represent great amounts of units. It is not just a single tank and a single swordsmen. The special ops failures (I am thinking of Somalia here) were because small amounts of helicopters (like 2 or 3 were sent in) against thousands of hostile forces who had arks and shoulder launched missiles. Yea most of the people just threw rocks, but there were some there using technology. Also, politicians would not let them win. They would not allow tanks to go in like the generals wanted. If they had allowed tanks to go in and allowed the generals to do what they wanted to do, then we never would have lost those men. Yes 2 men with guns cant kill 5,000 angry people, but then again, civ1, 2, and 3, never modeled that. It models conventional warfare, meaning hundreds of tanks. And don't say look at Afghanistan and the soviet invasion either. I could go on and on about how the soviets fvcked up. And don't forget that we gave the camel jockeys stinger missiles to shoot down the soviet helicopter (oooh, nothing like being able to see that your technology advanced missiles are able to easily destroy hundreds of your arch enemy's helicopters)

I am willing to accept superior numbers of forces beating my technology superior forces up until WW1 units become available. Then it should be no contest, because in real life, especially 1970 and on, it is 100% of the time.

Another thing for all you guys who just LUUUUVVVVVVV the game the way it is now. If you love the combat so much, then don't patch it when the patch comes out. I saw one person say that If I didn't like the range of the aircraft to change it in the editor, well, hmm, I cant make it higher then 8 in the editor because I already tried that! Obviously you have not tried playing the game on a really really big map nor do you try to use air power effectively. Also, I don't like messing with hacks for the game. I think that the game should come with all of the editing options in the game already, I shouldn't have to hack it to get access to it.

If you want to flame me, go right on ahead and do so. I encourage it. I also know that at least one person will call me a newbie that knows nothing. To that person, you are obvously a very stupid person who knows nothing about the history of warfare. To everyone else, Have a nice day

[Dmc507]

oh forgot to say sorry to Venger. If you did say all of this stuff I apologize for not seeing your post. That to anyone else who also already pointed out anything I pointed out.

[Venger]

Originally posted by woody
I think Venger's lack of class goes a long way to showing that his ideas are as confused as he is.

Lack of class? I have posted information and opinion backed with demonstrable fact, and you have responded with "close minded" and "whine". Talk about irony...

You write the check, you patronizing jerk, and I'll cash it...

Venger

[Venger]

Originally posted by uXs
You really have to ask yourself, that if you make advanced units all-powerfull, how is having more low-tech units going to help ?

We don't want them all powerful, and quantity has a quality all it's own. Look at the musketeer versus 2 legions example - in Civ2, the musketeer always won the first battle, but lost half it's hit points, and was 75% likely to be killed by the 2nd legions counter attack. Even without a counter attack, the musketeer was only 50/50. I think you may be forgetting the damage aspect when thinking of this debate. When a modern unit wins, it suffers damage, and that damage means that it WILL die if it continues combat, either attacking or defending.

They would all be chewed up by the almighty units of later ages, no matter how many there are.

First, they should be chewed up, second, yes the quantity matters! Every old unit you add has 10 hit points to burn. Again, look at the example.

Oh and if you think a massive amount of posts somehow makes you smarter than other people, think again. At most, it shows a tendency to spam.

?????

Venger

[Cavalier_13]

My 2 cents.....

Lemme enlighten some people up with a story from one of my games....

The year is 1937. Huge Map. 16 Civs.

I am the most advanced in terms of technology. I create an army comprised of 4 ELITE MODERN ARMOR( I have the Pentagon Small Wonder). The Zulus, for reasons known only to them, decide it's time to get it on. Woohoo I think, knowing I need some of their space!

I load the army up and take it to them. I disembark with that Army and they attack the next turn. Their attack force consists of 7 Longbowmen, 5 Impi and 2 swordsmen.

Haha, they don't stand a chance! Wrong........after the 6th attack by the longbowmen, my Army of MODERN ARMOR is toast. Say WHAT???

By sheer LOGIC, that should not have happened. I don't know about any of you, but I have yet to see an M1A2 Abrams tank fall to a bunch of Archers. If they could, well, the Afghans could use bows and armor to punch through advanced ceramic plate armor! I can picture the news now......200 Taliban warriors, armed with state of the art Longbows from the middle ages have successfully destroyed the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th Armored Divisions in Kabul today.......General Got-his-arse-kicked commented on the fact that superiour numbers defeated them. "How can you expect 50 tanks with the latest in armor and weaponry AND a 105MM canon to compete with 200 men firing bows and arrows?" was the defensive answer of Defence Secretary Who-needs-tech-when-you-got-numbers concerning this report.

In related news, the German Luftwaffe has recently recommissioned 4000 WI-era bi/tri-planes and analysts conclude the US Air Force, consisting of inferiour F-15's and F-16's, the US Navy, consisting of F-14's and F-18's and Bomber Command, consisting of invisble F-117 and B-2 aircraft will be in deep trouble if the Germans turn hostile.

More at 11.....

Need I really say more?

Cavalier

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by Your.Master


Wow!

This is the first argument I've ever seen where EVERYBODY was totally, unrepentantly wrong! (Does that include myself? Can it, by definition?)

Both sides have good points, both sides take personal shots. I tend to agree with Venger, but he seemed to start the flames (especially with the irrational and irsmart comment on the number of woody's posts).

See, when someone responds to an argument by merely restating their own position without even making the slightest attempt to refute the opposition, that person has wasted everyone's time. You don't make contentions in an argument by sounding off like a broken record.

[n.c.]

BTW, to any of you who say "fix it in the editor" . . . how do give ancient 1 HP and modern units 3-4? I'll wait for an answer.

[Rust]

Reality?

Think reality is the cats meow?, than quit playing games.

[WhiteElephants]

If you can find a good example of modern units being defeated by swordsmen, give it to us.

I should ask you to show us an example of modern units facing swordsmen at all. By the logic extension of your own arguement (realism over abstraction) this would never be the case to begin with. So I'm curious as to how you would propose to fix this fault of realism in the game?

Need I really say more?

Cavalier

Well, in regards to your poor tactical abilty I don't think you need to say a single word more as we are all thoroughly convinced.