Civ3 sucks as a wargame

[RO]

He he, perhaps a bit provocative but true nonetheless.

The loss of ZOC makes defense very difficult. You must create a defensive line and the AI just has to concentrate all it's attacks on the weakest stack to break through. Once it's through it can spread out and wreak havoc. A hexagonal grid would have made life a bit easier, but it wouldn't really solve anything.

Also, the 1-1 attack is infuriating. Your battleship is incapable of stopping three galleys because it can only attack one of them before "expending it's ammo".

And there is still the anachronism of e.g. longbowmen taking out tanks.

OK, you can attack instead of defending, but it plays havoc with your economy and brings down your democracy (see http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=39088 ).

I know, Civ isn't supposed to be a wargame, but face it, to a large extent it is

[notyoueither]

Re: Civ3 sucks as a wargame

Originally posted by RO
He he, perhaps a bit provocative but true nonetheless.

The loss of ZOC makes defense very difficult. You must create a defensive line and the AI just has to concentrate all it's attacks on the weakest stack to break through. Once it's through it can spread out and wreak havoc. A hexagonal grid would have made life a bit easier, but it wouldn't really solve anything.

Yes provocative, but what the hey... it's not a war game in the purest sense.

Try this. Defend forward cities with strong force (3 or 4 defensive units). Maintain mobile reserve of offensive units (Horse/Knight/Cav/Tank/ModArm). The AI will either expend itself on your fortified defensive troops (unlikely) or try to bypass them to weaker cities (most likely). Mobile reserve counter attacks most vulnerable AI units first, then others. Works like a charm for me.

Oh, make very sure that you never get gang-b*nged by every AI in the game. That would be the role of diplomacy, but then again, it's not just a war game, right?

BTW, do you recognize the Wermacht tactics from the Russian Front from 1943 to 45? They were pretty good at war. Very good in fact. It's a good thing (for me) that they were hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned.

Also, the 1-1 attack is infuriating. Your battleship is incapable of stopping three galleys because it can only attack one of them before "expending it's ammo".

Agreed. CTP did this better for my tastes. BB wades in and either kills all the galleys or dies trying. I would prefer combat by stacks, but the designers decided to go a different route. I think it has something to do with play balance and the perils of the resource system. There have been some very good suggestions on how they could have balanced this better, and hopefully they will in future patches/versions/releases. Civ4 anyone?

And there is still the anachronism of e.g. longbowmen taking out tanks.

Dunno, haven't had this mythical event befall my forces as of yet. It's been close a few times, but I always use combined arms to tip the balance in my favour. Hmmm kind of like war. Fortune always plays a roll, but the better prepared are less seldom the victims of misfortune.

OK, you can attack instead of defending, but it plays havoc with your economy and brings down your democracy (see http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=39088 ).

I know, Civ isn't supposed to be a wargame, but face it, to a large extent it is

I can wring about 50 turns of war out of democracy before the bad really hits home. I think there is a bug in here maybe, because going back to war after a prolonged peace had the War Weariness back to 50 turn levels inside of 3 turns. Maybe they can fix it. But then again, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the best of all possible worlds all of the time. The strength of Democracy is cash. The strength of Communism is war. Why should a Democracy be able to be almost as good as Communism at war? I don't use conscription, so I don't count that. Can't stomach seeing all those Conscript 2 hit units running around. They're fun to kill though.

Salve

[HalfLotus]

Lucky for us, Civ3 is not a wargame.