What does Infantry represent?

[Panag]

hi ,

the infantry unit they have now is good , ..... to fill the time period between 1917 and lets say 1950 , ...

after that they need a footsoldier for the "vietnam" era , and last but not least a modern 1985 + guy

have a nice day

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Barchan
Nevertheless, I can't help but think you're missing the point.

I am trying to help you think otherwise. I am afraid it was you that missed the point.

Oh, I have a sense of humor. Perhaps your insults weren't all that funny? Anyway, maybe you should try using smilies more often to indicate you're just kidding.



That's as may be, but they at least let us know when they *are* jokes....

See you missed another point. A joke need not also be kidding. I said it was funny. I didn't say I was kidding.

If you found what I said so insulting ....

A breech loader is loaded from the rear of the gun. That is what I was talking about. I don't think anyone but you had a problem with it nor do I think any lurker was confused. You were being a pedent. So you got my grammer nazi award. Its supposed to be annoying AND funny. I don't expect the reciever to laugh. So a smiley would be innapropriate even beyond my usual reticence in using them except when being silly.

[=DrJambo=]

ethelred and barchan, could you stop this childish bickering and post something constructive rather than filling up this post with nonense.

thanks

[Ming]

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Ethelred
You were being a pedent.

*sighs*

It's pedant, but since it seems we're not going to progress beyond the "was not/were too" stage here, there's little point in trying to deny your accusation. Oh, and by the way, repeatedly calling someone a Nazi is generally not very well received. I'm not personally of the Jewish faith, but I have friends who are and would be grievously offended to be labeled any sort of Nazi, grammar or otherwise.

But this has gone on long enough, and in deference to DrJambo and others (Ming in particular *bows respectfully*), I'm willing to let the issue slide.

So anyway, FWIW, I think the Infantry unit represents the basic ground unit from nearly every industrialized country from about 1900 onward to the mid-1960's. In the latter quarter of the 20th century the advent of fully-automatic weapons, squad-level machine guns (such as the M-60 and SAW) and widespread use of armored personnel carriers made most bolt-action/semi-automatic foot-based infantry units obsolete. Not totally ineffective, mind you, but obsolete. Swords are obsolete, but someone can still kill you with one if they get close enough.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by Barchan

Originally posted by Ethelred

You were being a pedent.

*sighs*

It's pedant...

[Capt Dizle]

Thats pretty funny. Pedant. Pedent.

Anyone want to come up with a noun or a few appropriate adjectives to describe Ming's showy graphic?

Ming, no offense, but you have issues pal.

[Zachriel]

Definitions

-

[N. Machiavelli]

Ming knows how to make an entrance. Oh well, no more SPAMMING for me. Hopefully others will take it to heart.

[Panag]

hi ,

there is room for a range of other "infantry" jobs aswell , commando , combat diver , sniper , etc , ....

have a nice day

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

there is room for a range of other "infantry" jobs aswell , commando , combat diver , sniper , etc , ....

have a nice day

Sniper? How would you implement this in game mechanics? The only way I can see it done as a standard unit is to have a foot soldier able to lethal bombard a single square away without the ability to effect buildings or improvments.

[Panag]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli


Sniper? How would you implement this in game mechanics? The only way I can see it done as a standard unit is to have a foot soldier able to lethal bombard a single square away without the ability to effect buildings or improvments.

hi ,

if we start from this viewpoint , then we cant put anything in the game , ....

if we put our shoulders under something , we nearly always arrive at the place we want , ....

not a bad idea you have btw , intresting

its always possible that Firaxis assigns more unit options , ...

have a nice day

[N. Machiavelli]

They are off to the right start including new units such as "Medieval Infantry" but I think that was a sort of 'consession' on their part. The fewer units they make, the easier, simpler it is for them to worry about balance. It's not like Firaxis has major problems or that creating new units are beyond the competance of the company that spawned the originals. But any new units in the near future are reliant upon the fans to create, not Firaxis.

[Panag]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
They are off to the right start including new units such as "Medieval Infantry" but I think that was a sort of 'consession' on their part. The fewer units they make, the easier, simpler it is for them to worry about balance. It's not like Firaxis has major problems or that creating new units are beyond the competance of the company that spawned the originals. But any new units in the near future are reliant upon the fans to create, not Firaxis.

hi ,

they should create more units , not the players , .....
and what is the use to let the players create when the game itself is unstable , .....

they have to fix balance and other stuff first , then the players can start to work on the creation of mod's and scen's , .....

have a nice day

[N. Machiavelli]

But every unit they introduce changes the gameplay and strategy of the game. Every unit would have to be seriously play-balance tested and both it, and many other units would have to be adjusted accordingly. If they give the players the proper tools to do what they could do in CtPII, such as unit and event scripting, or flags like the unit-only bombardment, then *we* can adjust the game as we see fit. It's better that way. The players themselves are the best beta-testers, not the company's in-house team.