Unreal

[BLackraven42]

I also think that in the long run, the combat system is great. Maybe that battle was just a fluke, because they have been known to happen, but it just seemed odd that Id lose both an infantry and a tank to a spearman. (and yes it was supid of me to attck witht the infantry first, but since infatry has an attck of 6 and spearman a defense of 2, I thought it wouldn't matter.

[beorhtwulf]

I'd like to recommend that everyone who is unhappy about the ability of low-tech units to occasionally defeat high-tech ones read this week's Time magazine. There's a lovely article about a unit of Northern alliance horsemen that were assigned to take out a Taliban tank squadron before the assault on Mazar-i-Sharif.

Their strategy: ride like hell straight at the tanks, jump on, pull the tank crews out the hatch and kill 'em. The tanks will get off two or three volleys, then you're on top of them. Guess who won? Hint: it's not just Boeing that needs to install cockpit locks....

[Khannalxytys]

could it?

Soren_Johnson_Firaxis> having said that, the later age units in Civ3 ARE less powerful than they are in Civ2.

I think this could be a solution to the problem .. considering the frustration of loosing a tank to a spearman(or any low tech unit x high tech unit)..

something like an armor value..


I haven't played civ1 and haven't really played the second that much .. (although i loved it.. ) ..

but let's say A unit has a certain amount of Armor value.. like .. 4.. for an infantry or 10 for tanks... this could simbolize the capacity of the unit to easily overpower other units.. this stands for defense (chaingunner's capacity of mowing through a number of knights before one could strike it's neck with a sword.. or a tank's armor.etc..). and attacking units could have something called .. huh .. could be firepower(not related to previous stated firepower as in other civ titles) .. this way .. a unit with firepower 1 .. could never even hit one with armor 4.. but when u stack 4 units with firepower 1 (around the defensive unit's square) this firepower adds up to 4.. enabling the attacker to cause any damage or even killing this high tech unit.. (this represents the fact that .. 1 knight has no chance to reach a chaingunner before the gunner shoots him.. but 4.. this would allow at least 1 knight probably to reach the gunner and slay him .. rendering the gunner far more effective then the knight.. but still not disbling civs without access to resources unable to defend high level units.. since they cost more.. and low tech obviously doesn't .. so it's ok to consider building lots of low tech against one high tech when u dont have access to the resource... and then .. use this horde of low tech .. to get u access to the resource eheh ) Also .. this would be innate to armies.. since they usually stack units.. =]


anyways.. just a thought... i really think this could work .. but .. it would require lots of tests... feel free to discuss any flaws

[Khannalxytys]

This was a design decision based on the resource system. We didn't want the game to be totally hopeless if you were unable to build the newest type of unit because you don't have resource X

And here's the correct quoting :/

also .. another quote :

a unit of Northern alliance horsemen that were assigned to take out a Taliban tank

Unit's like horsmen.. knights and the such .. could have higher firepower(again feel free to change the name of this concepct.. nothing related to previous firepower.. ) due to their high mobility .. while tanks even being able to drive at higher speeds.. have not such mobilty when adressing to weapons.. only raw power.. thus.. some units even high techs .. have more armor then firepower compared to lower techs.. this would also allow for a greater need of diverse units when waging war..

Units with high mobility .. horsemen .. knights.. cavalry ... more firepowder(eheh just so that it doesnt confuse anyone.... not to have people tell me firepower is out.. ) while armored .. fast attacking, long reaching... more armor.. like gunmen .. tanks.. pikemen.. ..

this would require.. defensive units.. to protect artillery that are bombarding.. units with rawpower to blast through the defenses... units with high mobility (and other features.. ) to allow for the blasting..and take down enemy anti-static-powerful units.. (this would not protect cities from being bombarded.. since static cities would have armor 0).. and artillery to lower defense values from cities bonuses..


again my 2 cents

[vmxa1]

It is one thing to say that a low level unit should win against a high level unit once in a while (I have no problem with that), the situation is that the AI low level units win nearly all of the time. All of the cases that irked me were where no terrain bonus applied (everyone was on the same type). In fact the exceptions were my troops some times had the city and walls.Let me stipulate that my tactics are poor. In any event a regular hoplite beating a vet rifleman or vet calvalry? Elite units of a higher level losing to regulars? This is crap, I do not mine a rare one, but it is the norm, even when your superior unit have the bonus of terrain. After a number of these battles, you say why bother. Yes you can win, but it requires numbers or bonuses. These are not just bad rolls of the dice as it will repeat if you do it again. I am not interested in keep old far behind civs alive by letting them win mismatches, let them disappear. While I am at it, I had a whole contenient with around 20 cities, an isle with 4 more and a 4 city beachhead on the other contenient, and the only resources I had was 3 horses and one saltpetter? No iron/cola/oil/rubber/aluminum/uranium. That is way out of line in an easy level game. One other thing, please stop those dam horse/calv from endlessly going in a circle, it is very boring to watch every turn. One Greek town had 9 or 10 of them that could not get out of the city and yet took turns going no where. The trade really stinks as well, they alway want too much and get mad at me, while I am number one ranked? Talk about no respect!