Warlord-AI

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Don't trust that comparison at all - it only compares numbers of units IIRC, including settlers and workers.

When you get spies in the enemy nation, then you can judge your military against theirs.

True, but usually the AI doesn't upgrade, so if you have more units, you are really much better!

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by Trip
Until recent times (20th century and beyond) artillery was fairly unimportant. Cannonballs didn't explode, so the only damage they did was when they hit men as they flew across the landscape. Artillery is credited with less than 15 percent of all casualties in most cases (and consider the cost spent on artillery compared with regular infantrymen), which is very low. In some battles after 1810, Napoleon had as few as 50 guns at his command, while the Russians and others would have maybe 500 or more. That didn't stop Napoleon from crushing his opponents more often than not. Artillery was mainly used to demoralize enemy troops than anything else. Until explosive munitions were developed, artillery was only a support factor to other arms.

Well, the cannon was good against walls! I don't see that effect back in civ3....

[V.O.C.'02]

O.K. but maybe I,ve got like 50 workers more, and he has got a much more advanced army. I still can't see whether that's true or not.

P.S. how can I see what's happening within other civs capitols?

[campmajor!]

You need a spy to view actual troops, but you can also use your embassy to spy on them. But it is expensive AND risky! If you get caught, you are the ****...

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by campmajor!
You need a spy to view actual troops, but you can also use your embassy to spy on them. But it is expensive AND risky! If you get caught, you are the ****...

You've got a real problem if your name is Richard...

[V.O.C.'02]

I do not understand this...are you quoting yourself

you sound a bit schitzofrenic

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by campmajor!
Well, the cannon was good against walls! I don't see that effect back in civ3....

Yes, this is Civ III. That means warfare is limited to attack VS defense values for each seperate unit. What do you think this is anyways? EU2? Preposterous!

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
I do not understand this...are you quoting yourself

you sound a bit schitzofrenic

I was referring to the "Censuur"...

[campmajor!]

I mean if your name is Richard, you are probably called D!ck, instead of ****.

[campmajor!]

Oh well, **** ****!

[V.O.C.'02]

Point well taken, you ***** ****** ***** ******, and your *** can **** **** ***** me ( )

[V.O.C.'02]

Thought about it, still acnnot work out the richard-bit, please explain

[Ethelred]

I just sent you a PM. Hopefully the censor bot will not fill it full of *******************************************
*******************************************

otherwise it won't make much sense.

[V.O.C.'02]

Ah, yes... read your PM. Make sense now.

I'm sorry, I am only familiar with the Dutch East-side slang.

Will be paying more attention in the future, thanks

[Panag]

Re: Warlord-AI is a *****

Originally posted by V.O.C.'02
IMHO the chieftan and warlord AI is a ***** when it comes to making war. When it dares to start a war at all, and our armies are about equal it never goes voor the big push but just sends a couple of units. It just leans back and goes for the defendse, I've never seen an AI with a great offensive power yet.

I haven't really tried monarch or higher yet, because I think I need some more experience with the Civ3 basics, but I'm thinking of giving it a try. Are there big diferences here concerning my question?

hi ,

try to set the default level in the editor for the AI at deity , ....

that really make one go "zap" , .....

have a nice day