You blind or do you use your mind?

[Iskandar Reza]

I played a game once where I was to invade mainland Babylon. To secure a beachhead, I bombarded Ellipi, nearest to my continent and within air strike range, with battleships and air raids. Then in comes the marines. Unfortunately Ellipi was destroyed in the onslaught. Another group of transports loaded with workers were sent down the beachhead. I paradropped troopers ahead of my landing party on to some mountains to secure the beachhead and draw enemy fire. The following turn my workers constructed a fort on the former city site of Ellipi whilst another group of transports unloaded mech infantries, artilleries and tanks. 10 turns later I destroyed all traces of the Babylonian civilization.

That was the best invasion strike force I've assembled, though not the most efficient, but it sure adds realism to the gameplay.

[Blake]

If anything about Civ3 is unforgivable, it is the lack of stacking. In fact it's criminal. Imagine all the time you wasted ordering units individually when they could be stack moved (remember to include all that jungle clearing). Figure out how much money that time is worth. That's how criminal Civ3's lack of stacking is

Armies in Civ3 suck the big one. They are NOT what the players* wanted. The players wanted stacking ala CTP2 style (even if most cant stand the word CTP). But for some reason Firaxis wanted retarded Armies, probably so they could balance Great Leaders wonder-rushing (another rather retarded concept).

If firaxis really wanted to please, they would have had real stacking, and made GL's like MOO2's leaders, you merge them with an army, and the army gets bonuses to attack/defense/movement/healing whatever. That would have pleased pretty much everyone (and especially me).
Fsk. It even would have made the AI better, because AI's can cope with stacks better than co-ordinating individual units.

Anyway, sorry about the , and calling Firaxis . It's just the lack of stacking really does annoy me more than anything else

[Lord Merciless]

Some of my impressions:

- Don't go overboard with combined arms. Three types of units in a stack is more than sufficient.

- Tanks should be supported by Artilleries, and Modern Armors supported by Radio Artilleries. Otherwise, the losses wll be staggering.

- Stealth Bombers are good, but not absolutely necessary.

- Infantry and Mechanized Infantry Armies are extremely tough on defense.

- Swordsman/Legionary/Immortal Armies are dreadful in ancient age.

- I hate Musketmen and Infantries, they literally shut down offensive activities until the invention of Cavalry and Tanks, respectively.

[Iskandar Reza]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
- I hate Musketmen and Infantries, they literally shut down offensive activities until the invention of Cavalry and Tanks, respectively.

That's what cannons and artilleries are for

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Iskandar Reza


That's what cannons and artilleries are for

I never bother with cannons since Cavalry would one tech away by then. Also, until you reach the Metallurgy, it's recommended to suspend your offensive operations.

Artilleries are better: they came along with the Infantry. But since Infantries have such high defensive vs offensive ration (10:6), it would take several artilleris to grind down just one Infantry. Even with only HP left, an Infantry still has a 50-50 chance to overcome a Cavalry.

In my recent war, I had to face 60+ Iroquois Infantries and Cavalries. It took me three Infantry Armies, 40+ Infantries and Cavalries, 40 Artilleries, and many turns to grind down that invasion force. With 20 Tanks, it would only take at most 3 turns to wipe it out.

[Iskandar Reza]

Cannons are easy to build. And they upgrade to artys. That's my point. That will free up your bases to produce other things, like panzers, instead of artys. Just upgrade the goddamn machine.