Ancient Age Attack/Defence ratios totaly unfair

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
This is why I stay away from anchient warfare and even middle age war as well at times. I guess I just don't have that warmonger blood in me. I usualy lose due to a lack of units.

Ditto. But I am trying to get an earlier start at the warfare. Wasn't too hard when my Zulus found Xerxes next door. Had to put him on a reducing plan FAST before he found some iron, using archers & impis!

Now that I am on his 'bad' side, he is out for revenge.

[YC4B4U]

I think the moral of the story is - what you originally thought was alot of units, really isn't.

The 3 to 1 rule of thumb as stated before is exactly correct.

And just when you think you have so many forces that you fall asleep moving them and you think that you have no chance of losing -> that is when you don't lose a single unit and you wonder why the hell you brought so many units...

[Foolishman]

Originally posted by YC4B4U
The 3 to 1 rule of thumb as stated before is exactly correct.

And just when you think you have so many forces that you fall asleep moving them and you think that you have no chance of losing -> that is when you don't lose a single unit and you wonder why the hell you brought so many units...

Yes but, many times when I have gone to war, the odds have been completly in my favor, but, it still lets the spearman prevail, even against me when I was chinese and used Riders, I still lost 2 to just one Spearman, bad luck? Yes. (The spearman was on grassland, no river, not veteran, and my riders were veteran.)

[Foolishman]

The Speraman was also in a TOWN and fortified

[Deathwalker]

I once had it worse, I lost four warriors to one yes one Barbarian Warrior. Sometime the games acts a little wierd. I mist the old firepower option

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ksim3000
I thought Archers were mainly for Defence not Offence?

Their flag is set for Offence. However, if you give them a bombard strength, range 0, then they come in fairly handy at defence.

[narmox]

Catapults useless?

I had a war once.. Me (egypt) vs the Greeks. Ancient ages. I didn't have Iron Working yet. 14 Catapults + a bunch of war chariots, then later on swordsmen, reduced the greek empire to rubbles. Yes, even with their mighty Hoplites.

[Lord Merciless]

The random number generator in Civ 3 is kind wacky. I have lost Tanks to Spearmen, Cavalry to Longbowmen, and MAs to Pikemen. I think there are certain "killer" units on a given turn. Regardless how many times you reload and with which of your unit to attack, the outcome remains the same. However, if you bring bombard into the equation, then these "killer" units are no more.

Should you really get pissed, you can always resort to reload and wait another turn. Every new turn seems to generate a different random seed.

Also when you play SMAC in Ironman mode, the combat random number generator works in a similar fashion. An unit may be "DESTINED" to win in the current turn.

[Foolishman]

Hm, I see Lord, but, that defeats the point of mathematical wins which should be coherient in this game, it was certanly a mathematical way of winning in CTP2.

[Foolishman]

For instance, in CTP2, muksteers and cannon would certainly always win agains legions and archers, and would certainly lose against marines and tanks, (granted that certain defense bonuses were added) but it seems that a random chance of victory drives this game. I don't like that kind of uncertainy of what should win not being able to win against things that should always lsoe against it.

[Foolishman]

Because in reality, a Rider should always win against a spearman, and a tank should ALWAYS win against a spearman even if he is in a metrpolis.

[Foolishman]

Also, the inabillity to stack units is quite annoying, a winning combo in CTP2 was always the mukseteer/cannon that could conquer almost anything, but now it seems that more advance units do not have as much assurence of victory against even primitive units, that is really something Firaxis should change, because it irritates me beyond belief when I lose more highly advance units to fortified spearman and the civulator tells me I have a 70+ chance of winning. very unrealistic.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Foolishman
Because in reality, a Rider should always win against a spearman, and a tank should ALWAYS win against a spearman even if he is in a metrpolis.

So, if you were behind in tech, you would want to lose against someone who has more advanced units than you ALL THE TIME. Not only does that make for a poor game, but it is historically inaccurate.

History is full of (well, almost full ) examples where a less advanced army wins against better armed foes.

Can we say "USSR in Afganistan?" Tanks, artillery, bombers, & jet fighters against infantry (or "riflemen"). Vietnam. When Shaka beat that British unit in South Africa (my history is 'vague' there).

[Foolishman]

Yea well, that is mathematicly wrong almost everytime I lose to an AI with only regular spearman And I attack with a LARGE amount of veteran riders, it ussualy makes me so angry, I just quite because I wasted all that time.

[Foolishman]

And that is funny, because, I am playing with Aztecs, and they own early age combate, with, only warriors, I am not sure why but, a warrior that has a 2 defense when fortified and all the terrain balh, blah, is defeated by the Aztec Jaguar Infantry, that is totaly mathematicly wrong also, my only explanation for that is the speed of two, and that my jaguars are veterans, I guess that is the only factor.