Why the big deal over Firepower in Civilization 2?

[Wrong_shui]

Moo

[Akka]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru


You totally missed my point. I'm not talking about combat experience, I'm talking about TRAINING, which is what the majority of the expense in 'building' soldiers is.

You totally missed the point. I did not talked about combat experience neither.
Conscript units are units formed with haste, very poor training.
Regular units are standard ones.
Veteran units are either regular with fight experience, EITHER units created with barracks. No combat experience here, just the added TRAINING in barracks.

I'm not even stating an opinion, I'm just showing the game mechanic. "conscript", "regular", "veteran" and "elite" are the EXPERIENCE levels, wheter this experience is acquired on the field or with training.

Further, your assumption that "spearmen" are "low-trained infantry" just does not make sense when these spearmen are elite.

That's your interpretation. If you are trying to fit the way the game works to the real world, your interpretation makes no sense, as there are no civilizations anywhere in the world producing spearmen.

Blind ?
What were the African tribes just 150 years ago ? They disappeared because Europe conquered them, but they were in contact with European traders for more than 300 years and were still not able to produce guns. Would the Europeans not being fond of colonization, there could have still Zulus spearmen (I mean SPEARMEN, not guerilla teams with grenades and semi-automatic weapons), native american hunters with bows and Aztecs using stone weapons by the time.

If you see the game as an abstract representation of the real world, you have to accept that a civilization building outdated units is building modern units which are not as well equipped and armed.

Why abstract about weaponry and experience when they are GAME FEATURES ? Would the game not have experience level nor weaponry, I would agree. But there is. So you have to find another way to rationalize.

[AllanEvans]

Isn't everyone forgetting that a key factor in European colonization of many lands was disease? In many cases after a few contacts with Europeans, folks who returned only a few years later found populations already destroyed (this happened in N. America, S. America, Australia...). So now, can someone please go on a rant about how this is missing from Civ3? Blah.

This discussion about historical reality in a bit over the top. To make any of the Civ's playable, there has to be a gradual increase in capabilities as technology advances... it is all about *gameplay* ... I agree with the poster that said that if you want historical reality, go play a historical sim game.

*gameplay*gameplay*gameplay* <--- note the word 'game'



I think that the added complexity in Civ3 is excellent, but it will take a while for the subtleties of the changes to be understood.

Discuss the gameplay, whether you like it, hate it, whatever... give suggestions, opinions, advice, ... THAT is what most people want to read, not blither about battle statistics from the Battle of the *insert name of battle here*.

[XPav]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli

Each side in the Battle of Britain had primary fighters. The British had the Hawker Hurricane IIA, and the Supermarine Spitfire Mk IA/IIA. The German fighter involved was the ME-109. The Messerchmitt far out-classed the out-dated Hurricane and could consistantly out-maneuver the Spitfire. A year later, when the FW-190 was introduced, well, let's just say that the German air-advantage increased a wee bit.

We're talking about the Battle of Britain, and, well, you're pretty much agreeing with me. You're wrong about the Me-109 being superior to the Spit though. The 109 can climb faster, but the Spit could turn better. I didn't even bring the FW-190 into this, but you're right on that -- it did outclass the Spit V.

When you point out that most of the British kills over England were bombers. Yeah, duh. Most of the German kills over France and Germany were bombers too. What's your point?

Btw, it's kinda easier to be recovered from ejection when it's in your own country.

You're agreeing with me.

Hold it right there. The main tanks facing one another at the Battle of France were the German Panzer IIF, British Cruiser Mk IV, and the French Somua S35. Here are the specs:

Snipping the tank specs, I'm going to go back to square 1 here. WHAT are we talking about? Best technology? Average technology? How many there are here? Exactly what are we trying to compare?

By 'start' I assume you mean 1942, half-way through the war, when the Panzer Mk III was introduced.

Panzer Mk III introduced 1942?

Err.

No.

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz8.htm

Don't feel too upset, other folks fell asleep in history class as well.

You don't appear to have been fully awake either.