Firaxis: Metropolis ruins affect combat!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Jaybe
SNARG!!
I wish people would stop quoting that Coracle drek! Because of the "great" value of his posts he's on my ignore list, and then people not only reference them, but quote them.
JB

Point taken.

::Adds Coracle to Ignore list::

::Stops spamming him::

[dexters]

If you want to be realistic, get your fat asses off the computer and enlist in the Army. Work your way up and be a General and deal with REAL WORLD logistics.

Trying to impose real world values to a game, even a game like Civ 3 is absurd.

You know what, it would be realistic if you died in 80 years. How absurd is it to have a ruler for 4000 years. No civilization has ever managed that. But nevermind that. The pimply faced, dorks who have no life don't mind having power forever, regardless of how unrealistic it is. But they sure like to knit pick on things like defensive bonsuses, culture flipping and call argue their case entirely on realism.

No offense to the thread starter, I am not against the idea of having ruins become a defensive bonus. I personally think it would make the game interesting. But the reasoning that went behind it isn't a gameplay issue. It's a realism issue. And I have a problem with that. Because people who only think in those terms are either blind to the fact that Civ 3 and all Civ games have always had unrealistic rules. The rules in strategy/simulation games are made to simulate the experience of running a civilization given the constraints of gameplay.

Is Culture flipping supported by emperical evidence? It's arguable. But the idea that conquered cities may revert to its original owners or that a stronger culture may absorb neighboring cities has some basis on world history, and makes the game fun.
Those who can't see past that should spend less time on their computers.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
... Firaxis should tune up a bit more their ZOC effect, IMO.
...

Absolutely. Just calculate the odds normally, without any ZOC/movement bonus to the defender.

--
Just as a reminder regarding this thread, I was just saying that an attacker should not be motivated to kill most everyone in a metropolis in order to get better odds when the ground units attack. A metro would STAY a metro for combat purposes, even if it has been reduced to size 1.

Clearing an entrenched enemy in a large city is bloody work according to current military doctrine. For that reason, they train for it a lot.

Reducing a metro is currently a standard procedure for me when at war. Bring in the bombers, deploy the artillery, ....

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Jaybe
SNARG!!
I wish people would stop quoting that Coracle drek! Because of the "great" value of his posts he's on my ignore list, and then people not only reference them, but quote them.

JB

I won't quote him anymore, it's not like he defends himself.

But I may put in a or too and his name, now and again.

[Jaybe]

Tuberski,
'S cool. I just pulled the switch on him a couple days ago, 'cause I had had more than enough. But I'll be reminded of him every time you post -- he's in your sig!

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Tuberski,
'S cool. I just pulled the switch on him a couple days ago, 'cause I had had more than enough. But I'll be reminded of him every time you post -- he's in your sig!

He's pretty much my favorite person.

You know since I put that up, he hasn't mentioned the cheat mode at all!

Maybe I should keep adding the things he says over and over, and then he will stop...........

Nahhhh

[GePap]

Not worth it.

While riuns do make for a better defense, to allow metropilises to keep their defence bonus after bombardment, as long as bombardment so rarely hits the defending units, would lower its value, which would be a negative thing in terms of game value. A much better change to keep things more realistic would be to do as in SMAC and give Infantry a bonus attacking cities, or better yet, give fast mobile units, specially tanks and up, significant penalties for attacking into cities. This is just as realistic and makes combined arms more inportant. Also, I have heard that with 1.21 the A.I. does bring infantry along for attacks, which means that it can be taught to use such tactics.

[AIL]

Re: Re: Firaxis: Metropolis ruins affect combat!

Originally posted by Coracle
But I hope you appreciate the adsurd irony of how a single unit with just one hit point left can "raze" a metropolis instantly turning it into a grassland and processing all those corpses (into cat food, perhaps??).

They are turned into workers... But it's still redicolous! I think Cities from a certain size on (maybe 7) shall not be razebale for realism purposes. Anyways with the 1.21 patch you have the ability to abandon a city at any time and here it's the same: It shall not be possible for cities bigger than 6, not in one turn!

Originally posted by GePap
Also, I have heard that with 1.21 the A.I. does bring infantry along for attacks, which means that it can be taught to use such tactics.

You have heared? I've seen the Japanese going for my cities with 100+ Infantry and only few Cavalrys... I find it much harder to defend against em because their high defesive value while attack is just the same that Cavalry has.