1 good argument why combat is not flawed

[Fistleaf]

If a spearman can defeat a tank so often, anybody can win civ3 deity by simply building a whole military comprised of spearman and go conquer the world.
It is so much cheaper, you can set science to 0 and win.

[trickey]

nah, no fun in that.

[vmxa1]

Hum, not flawed? Well if you mean broken, no it is not broken, but a flaw or two may be found, but that is alright.

[Inverse Icarus]

Re: 1 good argument why combat is not flawed

Originally posted by Fistleaf
If a spearman can defeat a tank so often, anybody can win civ3 deity by simply building a whole military comprised of spearman and go conquer the world.
It is so much cheaper, you can set science to 0 and win.

but then you couldn't ATTACK. you'd need to be babylon and use their archers

[Alfonsus72]

Re: 1 good argument why combat is not flawed

Originally posted by Fistleaf
If a spearman can defeat a tank so often, anybody can win civ3 deity by simply building a whole military comprised of spearman and go conquer the world.
It is so much cheaper, you can set science to 0 and win.

I guess that reducing things to absurd doesn´t work here. For the same reason you could say that CIV1 military model was as good as CIV2 and CIV3 ones, or even a model with 2 units: AncienteraArmy and ModernArmy would be consistent with that.

The problem about CIV3 is that the combat model is simpler than in CIV2. Some problems of CIV1 that were fixed in CIV2 appear again in CIV3, like that spearmen beating tanks or that "Stupid model Armies" mixing swordmen and nuclear missiles.

[Arc]

I think he was just being ironical, no need to bash

[Carver]

Re: Re: 1 good argument why combat is not flawed

A good argument?

Originally posted by Alfonsus72
"Stupid model Armies" mixing swordmen and nuclear missiles.

Ah, but bearing in mind the Temporal Dislocation Unit Evolution Theory (tm) that swordsman is more of a low intensity guerrilla fighter - analogous to rebel armies that go around macheteing people in the third world. They can exist together.

[Alfonsus72]

Originally posted by Arc
no need to bash

That was not my intention, I just tried to declare my oposition to the Civ3 combat model in an ironical way, but with respect and consideration to the thread starter , who give us the oportunity to criticise civ3 combat once more. Sorry if it didn´t sounds like that, I have to improve my english.

Originally posted by Carver
Ah, but bearing in mind the Temporal Dislocation Unit Evolution Theory (tm) that swordsman is more of a low intensity guerrilla fighter - analogous to rebel armies that go around macheteing people in the third world. They can exist together.

Yes, all you need is imagination .