[/(monty python) massage by the Swedish Prime Minister]
Well, maybe two complaints.
1) Movement: If there is no road across a river, moving across the river should cost one extra movement point.
Once engineering (bridge building) is obtained, lack of a road crossing a river should imply that there is NO BRIDGE across the river. The river should therefore be a hinderance to fast movers. These are major rivers in civ3.
2) Combat (can be adjusted in the editor): The combat bonus should be 50%, not 25%.
The principle behind the defense advantage behind a river is that there are limited crossing points (fords or bridges). The defender can therefore concentrate on those positions, just monitoring the rest of the front. The only alternatives to fords and bridges are boats or bridging equipment, both of which take time to muster; surprise attacks are therefore restricted (with a few historical notable exceptions, strategically represented by lucky rolls of the dice).
Well, maybe two complaints.
1) Movement: If there is no road across a river, moving across the river should cost one extra movement point.
Once engineering (bridge building) is obtained, lack of a road crossing a river should imply that there is NO BRIDGE across the river. The river should therefore be a hinderance to fast movers. These are major rivers in civ3.
2) Combat (can be adjusted in the editor): The combat bonus should be 50%, not 25%.
The principle behind the defense advantage behind a river is that there are limited crossing points (fords or bridges). The defender can therefore concentrate on those positions, just monitoring the rest of the front. The only alternatives to fords and bridges are boats or bridging equipment, both of which take time to muster; surprise attacks are therefore restricted (with a few historical notable exceptions, strategically represented by lucky rolls of the dice).
Comment