Zylka’s 95 theses on why Civilization 3 is an utter disappointment.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
The bismark sank 'cause the commander of the ship left shore without hitler's permission. She were chased around by the brits in the north atlantic and basicly died out there.

The Bismark was ordered to sea by the German high command as part of operation "Rheinubung" (sorry no umlauts).

[bigvic]

I'm not alone

Refer to my rant on "new and different complaints". I agree w/most of booby girl avatar dude's complaints, though the aesthetic stuff and Joan d' Arcs cleavage are the least of my probs. These guys did such a good job w/ SMAC, yet left so many revolutionary good ideas out of CIVIII. I was a big fan of the original CTP, for that matter, which will surely draw fire from civ I & II diehards who preferred that "kill one, kill 'em all" combat system that kind of ruined the whole civ I, II thing for me. At least civIII, unlike ctpII, all beta stuff included, is an improvement over its predecesors, if a flawed one. Too bad the two can't come together and work on serious quality control issues. Civ III still doesn't approach the combat system of ctp I or II, with their intrinsic army making abilities, different unit functions, etc.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by SpencerH


The Bismark was ordered to sea by the German high command as part of operation "Rheinubung" (sorry no umlauts).

But Hitler still didn't order it to be launched. I've seen that show about the bismark like 20 times on that history channel. That's what I heard.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Thrawn05

But Hitler still didn't order it to be launched. I've seen that show about the bismark like 20 times on that history channel. That's what I heard.

I cant find evidence that Hitler personally ordered it launched. But given that he sent birthday wishes to Admiral Lutjens in the middle of the operation, it is likely he approved of it.

[dikwhit]

lol guys come on ..... i thought this was a thread on probs w/ game not why the bismark sank...... although its a debatable point the tangent has about run its course..... wouldnt the debate be better on the history channel or the beat the dead horse forums? =P

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by dikwhit
lol guys come on ..... i thought this was a thread on probs w/ game not why the bismark sank...... although its a debatable point the tangent has about run its course..... wouldnt the debate be better on the history channel or the beat the dead horse forums? =P

I don't know about SpencerH, but I rest. I'm not one to start or at least drag a debait. I'll let the other posters decide on their own.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by dikwhit
lol guys come on ..... i thought this was a thread on probs w/ game not why the bismark sank...... although its a debatable point the tangent has about run its course..... wouldnt the debate be better on the history channel or the beat the dead horse forums? =P

Obviously, its much more interesting to discuss teenage rants about cartoon characters and their cleavage than to try to establish a historical background for why (or why not) airpower should sink ships in CIV3.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Obviously, its much more interesting to discuss teenage rants about cartoon characters and their cleavage than to try to establish a historical background for why (or why not) airpower should sink ships in CIV3.

I agree, it's funny reading other posts about who is the sexist anime girl on the net then to have a mature discussion about history.

[Ethelred]

Terribly sorry to be this way about it but purple hair just doesn't do it for me. Green maybe but not purple. And even then only on St. Patrick's day.

Of course bombs have sunk battleships. Not very often though for the simple reason the bombs were better spent sinking aircraft carriers. I am pretty sure the US didn't even bother planning on targeting Japanese battleships at Midway.

The point is moot on sinking battleships with bombs anyway. That will be available in the next patch. How deep in the setup you will have to go to get it is still a deep dark and encrypted secret.

[Zachriel]

56 - Units can not use enemy roads. It’s fine enough that you can’t use enemy railroads, but roads??? Again, you’d like to render warfare in it’s entirety obsolete, I see. What’s the story here - are you a bunch of hippies, or what?

We'll just answer one of the many inaccurate statements in the original post.The most famous tank blitz in history is the overrun of French troops by the Germans in 1940. The key to the campaign was a armored drive to the sea behind the French lines. This "race" to the sea was virtually unopposed. This advance covered a couple of hundred kilometers and took several days. So the most famous tank blitz in history averaged about 2 kilometers per hour, about the same as a slow walk.

[Ethelred]

The tanks may have been slowed down infantry. I am no expert on WWII but I am under the impression that German infantry wasn't in the habbit of climbing on the tanks like you see in films of US troops in WWII. And even that was when the tanks weren't in combat.

The German Army wasn't as mechanized as the US was either. Still used horses for a lot of transport. Makes it hard to go fast for days on end or you would outrun the supplies.

In WWI one of the things that stopped the occasional breathroughs from going far was that the supplies stopped moveing at the end of the railheads. When they took new ground they were limited to around twenty miles then they had to build more rail. That is why I said maybe the roads could be used but not the rails.

[ACooper]

Is it not harder to move in enemy territory than your own? Isn't it obvious?

[Thrawn05]

This is why Tanks/Panzers/Mech Infantry/Modern Armor/Radar Artillary and all the horses (I think that's all of them ) have extra movment points. The supposed appeal of these units is that they can run around in enemy territory quicker then most other land units.

[Skeeve]

Originally posted by bigvic
Refer to my rant on "new and different complaints". I agree w/most of booby girl avatar dude's complaints...

LOL , Nice description.

Does anyone think she looks a bit like the actress who plays on Fox's "Dark Angel" TV show? (Albeit a bit less dark)

[dikwhit]

spencer.... agree 95% the teenage rants about breastesses is idiotic but the debate on ships being sunk by planes is kinda moot.
1) it will be a toggleable option in 1.18 or whatever # the patch is
2) specific cases aside, with the "high-quality civ3 animations" does it really matter if the planes are shooting/bombing/ torpedoing(sp?)/ or kamikaziing/ ships? you gotta use your imagination in any case and regardless of cause ships w/ that much damage should be on the ocean floor IMHO.

BTW yes i know kamikazi is a bit extreme and not an option but regardless in historical arguments it has always been an option although a bit of a piss-poor 1