Keep it realistic...

[HuntrIsGod74831]

i think it is so stupid (and extremely unrealistic) that, when you're attacking with a modern armor against a city defended by warriors, that the warrior could even do one point of damage. ancient stone and wood axes versus titanium alloy or something of the sort is just stupid. a penny for your thoughts?

[Bill9999]

Yes, pretty unrealistic.

I also find the fact that a Bishop could kill a knight unrealistic, but those are the rules.

[Flanker]

Maybe you could think of it as modern wars when the military comes with tanks, APC:s, mech. infs and so on, and the resisting inhabitants in the city that is being attacked is teens, students and other people throwing stones and bottles at the military, maybe they even could make some Molotov-cocktails, burning tyres or something similar that are a little bit annoying for the attacking troops. Then you should also think of that it is hard for an attacker to take over a city with just rushing in a lot of tanks there. There must also be a small amount of foot soldiers following, maybe transported to the battle field in APC:s, and mocking up. During this progress they are more vulnerable and might have some losses and wounded soldiers.
Well, that´s just one explanasion I have. With clever tactics even a far superior enemy has sometimes been if not beaten, then at least a little bit hurt.

[Beren]

Still, I'd think the difference in unit strenght could be a little bit better. Maybe increase the number of HP, so it's less chance and more maths.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Beren
Maybe increase the number of HP, so it's less chance and more maths.

the editor isn't great, i know, but it can do this.

[notyoueither]

Try one of the mods. Blitz or Balancer. I think they both increase hitpoints and increase the gap in values between ancient and modern units. Many people rave about them.

Or try the Patch suggestion mod. That one has been posted on civ3.com and is apparently being tested by Firaxis.

[Willem]

Another way to look at it, by time you get to the modern era, turns are a year apart. So do you think that the warrior in the city will sit around twiddling his thumbs for a year, knowing there's a tank regiment about to attack? Even with inferior weaponry, he's going to be able to come up with some sort of anti-tank defence in the space of a year, or at least try to.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Beren
Still, I'd think the difference in unit strenght could be a little bit better. Maybe increase the number of HP, so it's less chance and more maths.

That doesn't work. I've tested by making a 100/100 unit. The unit kicked butt until riflemen, at which units above that started to kill 100/100 units.

[Rotten999]

With the way the tech "race" goes, how likely is this warrior/tank match-up anyway? If you're that far ahead (god knows how you did it) you probably shouldn't be complaining.

Maybe the warriors dug tank traps? Hows that?

[Zachriel]

Most of the time an "unexpected result" can be attributed to mistakes, such friendly fire, or being outflanked and having your supply train destroyed.

[Flanker]

With all these tactical possibillites the warrior might have, it is almost strange that they don´t win even more battles...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Flanker
With all these tactical possibillites the warrior might have, it is almost strange that they don´t win even more battles...

The main reason is because there are rarely any warriors in the modern age. I almost never see them past the Middle Ages.

Who's afraid of warriors when they have tanks? A show of hands?

[The Rook]

It's also unrealistic that...

A modern Battleship takes years to circle the globe at full speed.

The same leader, born in 4000 BC, is still alive 4000 years later.

Synthetic resources like plastics and snythetic rubber never replace their natural counterparts.

You can upgrade a galley into a Galleon.

The maintenance cost of a tank is the same as a warrior.

It takes many years, sometimes centuries, to build something like a temple or harbor.

Workers can just go in and clean up after a nuclear explosion.

A single powerplant like the Hoover Dam could supply power to an entire continent.

Should I go on?

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by The Rook
It's also unrealistic that...

A modern Battleship takes years to circle the globe at full speed.

The same leader, born in 4000 BC, is still alive 4000 years later.

Synthetic resources like plastics and snythetic rubber never replace their natural counterparts.

You can upgrade a galley into a Galleon.

The maintenance cost of a tank is the same as a warrior.

It takes many years, sometimes centuries, to build something like a temple or harbor.

Workers can just go in and clean up after a nuclear explosion.

A single powerplant like the Hoover Dam could supply power to an entire continent.

Should I go on?

I agree with the point made above. Civ3 simply isn't and won't realistic. Coming up with explanations to this and that is really not necessary though, since the game is simply a game. Making it more than that would add way too much into the equation... the game is not an exact simulation, and doesn't claim to be.

However, I can't see why smaller adjustments can't be made; I'm not exactly a big fan myself of stronger units losing out to way weaker ones.

[Navyman]

I don't really keep up-to-date with the chat on the forum so I am not sure if anyone else has suggested this or not.

But one thing that Civ needs to change is the method city improvements and units are built. The building system would be much better if instead of a serial production, it was a parallel production. For instance, you could allocate certain increments of your total labor force in a city to building different things simultaneously.

They already have something similar where there is a certain amount of "trade" and that gets modified by different things like city improvements and such. Then that is divided up into tax, lux, and research. I advocate using a similar system for labor, where each city generates a pool of labor determined by its size, city improvements, etc. And each city can divide up its labor so that things can be built simultaneously. For example, 20% of the labor force can be set to building the temple while 30% is building the marketplace, and 40% is building the archer, and 10% is building the catapult.

That, I believe, has the potential to completely change and imiprove the game and the strategies and make an overall better game.