Thread Tools
Old November 14, 2001, 22:47   #211
jbird
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 34
Re: Broken broken broken...
"Are you playing a different version of Civ3 than me? Because all combat happens one unit at a time. There is no giant battle where 40 units have at it, there are 40 battles."

First, I don't understand your vehemence. Making accusations of not having played previous games in the series won't make me convert to your school of thought more easily, but perhaps you're more interested in the arguement than the subject, and that's fine by me.

As for it being 40 battles, yes, of course it is. However, if it's my 2 tanks and one infantry against his 4 knights, and I lose a tank, I just lost 33% of my force, and 50% of my offensive units. However, if it's my 20 tanks and 10 infantry, and he's got 40 knights, and I lose even 3 tanks, that's only 10% of my force, and 15% of my offensive punch.

My point is that when the number of combatants is smaller, and an unlikely result occurs, it is much more jarring than it is when there are large formational battles.



"What kind of nonsense is that? I swear you guys actually haven't played another other game in the Civ series - a technology allows you to field new more powerful units. This in turn gives you an advantage in combat. Discovering mobile warfare doesn't "determine" the combat in any game..."

Mobile warfare *does* give you an edge in Civ3. I'd much rather have a force of cavalry than a force of knights. I'd much rather have a force of mechanized infantry rather than riflemen. However, the advantage in civ 3 is an edge, not a determination. My units, no matter how advanced, will not be invincible in combat.

You hate this.

I don't mind it.

If I want my units to be able to roll over other units, i'll play a real wargame (heck, I still play Panzer General, the original one, just to watch my FW-190's mop the floor with those pesky Spitfires, and just scorch those Yak's).

Now, I'm not entirely opposed to a compromise position, where the industrial age units get a bit of a boost over their ancient counterparts.

One statement though, saying that "A bowmen unit should not beat cavalry 50 percent of the time, PERIOD" is not entirely an honest assessment. A cav unit defending against bowmen without terrain modifiers or support and of equal experience will lose a bit more than 50% of the time. Why leave your cav unit exposed? Why not support him with cannon? Why not garrison the city with an infantry-type unit instead of cavalry? Why rush in to take an objective that unit type can't hold? Personally, I use my cav as my breakthrough unit, and to secure important terrain, as well as to counter-attack quickly. Leaving them unsupported or in small numbers in isolated positions is just asking for them to be massacred, imo.

Jbird
jbird is offline  
Old November 14, 2001, 23:22   #212
davwhitt
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally posted by dexters
Looking at the last few pages of posts, it looks like we have forgotten the point of the thread.

the thread has lost its point anyways. If you hate the combat system, go home. Stop whining.

What's the point in having a forum if everyone is going to agree with one another? Our point isn't to just b!tch and moan for no reason but rather to raise valid points about a broken system which we hope will be fixed.
davwhitt is offline  
Old November 14, 2001, 23:28   #213
dexters
Apolyton Storywriters' Guild
King
 
dexters's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,141
I can tell you the point of forums isn't for people to close their minds and log on to make whining noises then get angry when people disagree.

When you want to present a dissenting opinion, expect other people to answer back. And for all involved, an open mind to discussion doesn't hurt either.

All I see are people, especially the people complaining about the so called "broken" combat system getting angrier and angrier with each post. Heck, half of the last page's post was made by one person, saying some very unflaterring things about people who disagreed.

I would say people who come here just to argue and refuse to discuss openly are worse than having a forum where everyone agrees. At least you have some peace and quiet with that.
dexters is offline  
Old November 14, 2001, 23:39   #214
davwhitt
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally posted by dexters
I can tell you the point of forums isn't for people to close their minds and log on to make whining noises then get angry when people disagree.
I have an open mind to ideas but not so open that my brain falls out. Most of my posts have been about the fact that in Civ3 it is far more common for ancient units to defeat more modern units than the historical record indicates. I am open to the opinion that in some rare cases a musketman may defeat a rifleman but I'm not gullible enough to believe it should happen 50% of the time.

Quote:
When you want to present a dissenting opinion, expect other people to answer back. And for all involved, an open mind to discussion doesn't hurt either.
Funny how you say that and then get into a diatribe about those who disagree with you. Who is closed minded again?

Quote:
All I see are people, especially the people complaining about the so called "broken" combat system getting angrier and angrier with each post. Heck, half of the last page's post was made by one person, saying some very unflaterring things about people who disagreed.
Pot Kettle Black

Quote:
I would say people who come here just to argue and refuse to discuss openly are worse than having a forum where everyone agrees. At least you have some peace and quiet with that.
One of the primary uses for a forum is for those with different views to debate them (you use the term "argue"). I do not know what you mean exactly when you want open discussion unless you mean you simply want concurrent. Perhaps you and I should agree to disagree and leave it at that.
davwhitt is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 00:00   #215
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
If GP dropped dead in a forest, would he still make a post?
Quote:
Originally posted by GP
Venger,

if you're going to make the argument that the game is being unfair* in favor of ancient units, even according to the stated combat system, you'll have to back this up with statistics. The burden of proof is on you.
I HAVE shown you. It doesn't require anything more than looking at the combat values and at the units themselves. A 4 attack bowmen can regularly defeat, in fact often more than 50% of the time, a defense 3 cavalry unit. This, as the french say, is LE BULL$HIT.

The problem isn't that a 4 attack unit should defear a 3 defense unit more often than not. The problem is a new expensive unit costing untold amounts of research and two resources representing a modern era cavalry unit is defeated by a cheap ancient unit that requires no resources and hardly any technology. This doesn't balance gameplay, it unbalances it...

Quote:
*This is a very childish view and lots of the pro-FP people don't hold it. But it is evidence of the wimpiness of the combat loser whiners.
Your story is becoming tiresome. Do you just post to have something to do, or is your life support system powered by your keyboard? Because all you've added to this thread is your "whiners" line, over and over and over.

Go to the store, take out your wallet, and buy a clue.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 00:03   #216
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
It's game over man, it's just game over!
Quote:
Originally posted by orc4hire
Sorry, cyclotron, you're wrong right down the line.

The internal combustion engine is just another way of moving a vehicle. Taken your car for a good push lately?
Owned. Argument over.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 01:28   #217
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Re: If GP dropped dead in a forest, would he still make a post?
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger


I HAVE shown you. It doesn't require anything more than looking at the combat values and at the units themselves. A 4 attack bowmen can regularly defeat, in fact often more than 50% of the time, a defense 3 cavalry unit. This, as the french say, is LE BULL$HIT.
Guess what, if you can prove this, I'll give you full credit. What were the conditions? How often did you test it. (Need both control of extraneous variables and statistical relevance.)
TCO is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 01:42   #218
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
Can you count to twenty with your shoes on?
Quote:
Originally posted by GP

Guess what, if you can prove this, I'll give you full credit. What were the conditions? How often did you test it. (Need both control of extraneous variables and statistical relevance.)
Hold up four fingers on one hand. That's the longbowmen. Hold up three fingers on the other hand. That's the cavalry. Which hand has more fingers up? That's the one that will win more often.

Jesus, are you that daft that you don't get simple math?

Venger
P.S. According to the combat rules a veteran 4 unit attacking a veteran 3 unit without modifiers will win 66% of the time!
Venger is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 02:06   #219
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
How many tests did you run, tough guy? What were the conditions?
TCO is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 02:11   #220
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Re: Can you count to twenty with your shoes on?
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger


Hold up four fingers on one hand. That's the longbowmen. Hold up three fingers on the other hand. That's the cavalry. Which hand has more fingers up? That's the one that will win more often.

Jesus, are you that daft that you don't get simple math?

Venger
P.S. According to the combat rules a veteran 4 unit attacking a veteran 3 unit without modifiers will win 66% of the time!
Calm yourself for a second. There are 2 separate threads in the argument here. One regards wether modern units should get more of a bonus (through FP) and one regards wether the game follows its own rules. My points regarding tests are relevant to the latter, not the former.

Now don't get buttlock so quick. And make sure you deconvolute separate issues...
TCO is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 02:17   #221
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
"Hold up four fingers on one hand. That's the longbowmen. Hold up three fingers on the other hand. That's the cavalry. Which hand has more fingers up? That's the one that will win more often.

Jesus, are you that daft that you don't get simple math?

Venger
P.S. According to the combat rules a veteran 4 unit attacking a veteran 3 unit without modifiers will win 66% of the time!"




That's not a valid comparison and you know it Venger. All you are talking about is longbowmen attacking a cavalry, what about the other abilities of the cavalry unit?


-The cavalry unit, when attacking the longbowmen, has a much higher chance to kill it (6:1) than the other way round (4:3).

-The cavalry unit can attack the longbowmen, then withdraw to a friendly city after winning. The longbowmen, however, will advance and be exposed in the next turn.

-The cavalry has a chance to withdraw if its is losing the battle. Can the longbowman do that?

There, those are the benefits due to technology.

Besides, is cavalry vs longbowmen a valid comparison in the first place? A cavalry unit is never intended to defend itself against longbowmen, anybody who do that is a bad commander. In my games, I always defend with infantry (6-10-1). How often can a longbowmen 4-1-1 kill my 6-10-1 fortified on good terrain? There, that's the benefit of technology.

Who says technology doesn't make a difference? Technology gives you an edge, if you know how to use it. If you insist to drive your Ferrari through rugged mountains it won't do you any good, but that's not the fault of the Ferrari. If you insist to use cavalry as city defenders and then complain, that's not the fault of the cavalry, its the user's fault.
Monoriu is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 02:54   #222
jbird
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 08:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 34
Well, now that the discussion has devolved into masking profanity and using "Jesus" as an epithet, I don't think it has any chance of being a mature discussion.

Jbird
jbird is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 03:07   #223
Aendolin
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: blah
Posts: 38
*pokes head above counter*

I think the point Venger is trying to make is that given a normal archer and a normal cavalry on normal terrain, it is not realistic for the archer to be able to out-fight the cavalry when the archer attacks it. Correct me if I'm wrong...

*ducks back behind counter*
Aendolin is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 03:16   #224
Monoriu
Warlord
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 233
"I think the point Venger is trying to make is that given a normal archer and a normal cavalry on normal terrain, it is not realistic for the archer to be able to out-fight the cavalry when the archer attacks it. Correct me if I'm wrong..."


I can't resist, I have to correct you

One more time, cavalry units DO NOT defend itself against longbowmen in open terrain. Nobody, at least no good commanders, will do that. Cavalry units attack the enemy, and then withdraw to friendly bases, or tiles containing infantry/riflemen for defence.

Placing cavalry units unsupported out in the open is a mistake, a misuse of technology and you shouldn't complain if you lose it to ancient units with strong attack values.
Monoriu is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 03:17   #225
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Aendolin
*pokes head above counter*

I think the point Venger is trying to make is that given a normal archer and a normal cavalry on normal terrain, it is not realistic for the archer to be able to out-fight the cavalry when the archer attacks it. Correct me if I'm wrong...

*ducks back behind counter*
Yeah...I got that. He can't deconvolute the 2 issues that I raised.
TCO is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 05:16   #226
Be Quicker
Warlord
 
Be Quicker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Zeeheldenkwartier
Posts: 104
I read this thread yesterday, and played my first game yesterday evening. Since I played on Chieftain, I had a big technological advantage. Therefore my big conquest of the continent I am on was performed with Cannons, Cavalry and Musketman. And I must say the Cavalry ROCKS tha cashba! I conquered I don't know how many cities defended with spearman/swordmen. I lost maybe 3 of them during the whole campaign. And I lost one musketman to an archer (on average the archers weren't able to reach me). So in my personal experience, the combat system is fine. The math is fine. The balance is fine. At least for the units and situations I have encountered so far.
Be Quicker is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 06:44   #227
nato
Prince
 
nato's Avatar
 
Local Time: 11:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: West Unite
Posts: 532
I really think my short post on page 7 of this thread solves this debate.

If high tech units are no better than low tech ones, then you only ever need low tech ones.

Don't bother to research! Save all that science money and effort and conquer the world with spears and arrows!

If this seems feasible, then tech does not matter. If not, then tech does matter enough to justify the huge cost and time of research.

How do you play? Research or no? There is your answer.
nato is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 08:55   #228
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 17:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7


Yeah, like that extra "zing" packed by the transport or engineer that was left in the city.

Really, Civ2 judged defense order by defense values, so hp/fp was not used (i think) to judge who defended first. So it's possible that your lowest D unit has a high hp and that would be a tough final defender, but there was no actual feature in the game that stipulated that the last defender had to be better than its predecessors, or that made the last defender stronger on simple cirtue of being last.
Come on I'm not talking about units like that. Pffff. Must I spell out the entire situation?

Example: City holds 3 vet. riflemen, nothing else. 4 tanks attacking, killing the first two riflemen... THEN the last rifleman always seemed to hold it's ground a bit better than the two others... because it was the last defending unit.

I am fully aware that there was no line in rules.txt saying so, but it is my strong experience that the hardcoded combat system in Civ2 did in fact have this small bias.

That's all I wanted to say... and it still happens in Civ3, where the last pikeman fends off 3 knight whereas the previous pikeman was killed by a single knight.
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 09:00   #229
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 17:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally posted by GP
Grim Legacy, you seem like a whimpy whiner. Civ2 was easy!! And the comp did not cheat on combat. If the others are like you, that is useful info to judge their arguments.
GP. Thanks for the ad hominem attack.

I don't think Civ2 nor Civ3 is hard. I've never even played Civ2 below Deity level and I haven't had much problems winning, even long before the advent of gunpowder. As for cheating on combat in Civ2: on Deity, combat odds were definitely stacked against you. Not that that helped the 'AI' much.

I also don't think it is an outrage that the last pikeman packs an extra punch, or that the older units seem to be more effective than the newer... it's just a feature of the game, and in fact I can live with it quite well. There are even rationalizations at hand (see this thread) as to why these things (seem to) happen.
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 09:05   #230
Grim Legacy
Prince
 
Local Time: 17:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 624
Re: Proof is in the pudding...
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger


Can you provide any documentary evidence about this? Anywhere? An Apolyton thread? Civ2 has been pretty rehashed so it should appear somehwere other than this thread. Can you provide some proof? Cause I've played the game literally a hundred times, on Deity, large maps with 8 Civs, all bloodlust, and have never, EVER noticed a problem killing the last member of a stack.

Venger
Not a stack, a city defender. See my post above. I guess it's my experience and word against yours if you still disagree with the situation I described in that post.

I must add that I find it very odd that I'm met with such hostility on the mention of this AI bias (not particularly your reply, but see how others reacted). It's almost as if it's heresy...
Grim Legacy is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 09:34   #231
Grumbold
Emperor
 
Grumbold's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,732
Re: Can you count to twenty with your shoes on?
Quote:
Originally posted by Venger
Hold up four fingers on one hand. That's the longbowmen. Hold up three fingers on the other hand. That's the cavalry. Which hand has more fingers up? That's the one that will win more often.

Jesus, are you that daft that you don't get simple math?

Venger
P.S. According to the combat rules a veteran 4 unit attacking a veteran 3 unit without modifiers will win 66% of the time!
The cavalry is a much superior unit because it can

- Move and fight
- Retreat from combat if losing
- Attack very well and defend moderately.
- It has a 2 point advatage over the longbow in both Af and DF.

Unfortunately the Civ "one size fits all" terrain effects chart means that cavalry get bonuses in cities and hills just like infantry do. Perhaps in Civ XIV they'll actually reverse this and have terrain effects for mobile units improve in open terrain and get worse in hills or cities. Even at that point it won't be right because of course examples like Agincourt prove that even if the terrain is good, the weather and bad tactics can always mess with you. Having variable values like the bow and cavalry do actually promotes tactics. I happen to think the defensive value of the archers is dire - they were always far more formidable sitting on a ridge letting the enemy come to them - but that is game balance for you. If the game had a range factor like CtP did then we wouldn't be having to argue.
__________________
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. H.Poincare
Grumbold is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 11:39   #232
orc4hire
Settler
 
Local Time: 10:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally posted by Monoriu
"I think the point Venger is trying to make is that given a normal archer and a normal cavalry on normal terrain, it is not realistic for the archer to be able to out-fight the cavalry when the archer attacks it. Correct me if I'm wrong..."


I can't resist, I have to correct you

One more time, cavalry units DO NOT defend itself against longbowmen in open terrain. Nobody, at least no good commanders, will do that. Cavalry units attack the enemy, and then withdraw to friendly bases, or tiles containing infantry/riflemen for defence.

Placing cavalry units unsupported out in the open is a mistake, a misuse of technology and you shouldn't complain if you lose it to ancient units with strong attack values.
Yeah, the open plains is the last place I'd expect to see cavalry....
orc4hire is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 14:33   #233
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy


GP. Thanks for the ad hominem attack.
I don't mean it too harsh. Consider an invisible smiley in the post. Really. Remember our previous exchange from 4 years ago?
TCO is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 14:54   #234
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy


As for cheating on combat in Civ2: on Deity, combat odds were definitely stacked against you. Not that that helped the 'AI' much.
I'm not sure of that. Sounds more like an urban legend (with a hint of whine). Have you proved it with tests? See this definitive thread on combat. Nothing is mentioned about deity level bonus to AI. And these guys have done lots of combat research and are pretty darn sophisticated.

FYI: I posted there to get some direct answer regarding your allegation.
TCO is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 15:14   #235
TCO
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
TCO's Avatar
 
Local Time: 06:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 8,057
Re: Re: Proof is in the pudding...
Quote:
Originally posted by Grim Legacy


Not a stack, a city defender. See my post above. I guess it's my experience and word against yours if you still disagree with the situation I described in that post.

I must add that I find it very odd that I'm met with such hostility on the mention of this AI bias (not particularly your reply, but see how others reacted). It's almost as if it's heresy...
Khan,

This kind of assertion needs to be better backed up with facts. That kind of claim was the norm in the old days, but we are more scientific nowadays from all the OCC and Oedo stuff. You need to have more than a feeling. Read the Civ2 Strategy forum to see how well people understand the game nowadays...
TCO is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 15:59   #236
Wrong_shui
Warlord
 
Wrong_shui's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: a field
Posts: 183
Some ppl dont seem to be able to listen to reason.

Nukes would kill any unit. The end.

A knight cant kill a tank. The end.

A musketman cant kill a tank. The end.

Making modern units not able to womp lower tech units is a piss poor way of equaling the playing field, its just bad design.

Its a good game though.
Wrong_shui is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 16:08   #237
dexters
Apolyton Storywriters' Guild
King
 
dexters's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,141
Ummmm... the game rules is all the matters.

Don't try to patronize the community by implying all real world rules must apply. Plenty of games break and bend those rules.

Saving each turn is not realistic. Or how about units taking ten years to move in a small area? That's obviously a gameplay design. Do all wonders look exactly the same? I highly doubt the Aztecs would even conceive of the great wall even if they tried. If you really want to get into this reality argument, it should be argued that Wonders must be Civ specific. And that instead of dealing with war weariness, we also have to deal with pesky hippies spreading hate.


So please. Stop patronizing us and play the game. I launched a massive attack with 30 infantry on the low-tech Aztecs last night. I lost 8 or so Infantryman to their fortified spearmen/pikeman. I find that perfectly realistic. And BTW, I reached my objectives.
dexters is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 16:31   #238
BlueO
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 144
I think the combat system works just fine.

Look at the American indians, they don't have the technology to make guns. Yet they managed to acquire guns.

The afgan fighters don't have the technology to make heavy machinguns or stinger missles, but they got them too.

When a swordsman defeats a tank, don't think the swordsman just ran up to the tank and chopped it to pieces. They probably have a few bazookas or mines in their swordsman unit... Its the combat values that should matter. A swordsmen unit of a modern time won't just be consisted of swords.
BlueO is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 17:40   #239
Ranulf
Settler
 
Local Time: 16:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally posted by Transcend
Zulus with only spears and arrows wiped out an British Army of several thousands at Isandlwhana in 1879.

Afghan Tribesman destroyed an British force of 12000 in 1842.

Ethiopian warriors armed with primitive rifles destroyed an Italian Tank Division in 1934.

A Morrocan insurrection of few thousands tribesmen destroyed a Spanish Army of at least 30,000 men, killing as many as 19,000.

Grr. Finally got my registration to work. So, now I can reply to this. Of course it prolly has no bearing on the latest posts..

Which Morrocan insurrection are you citing here? The Rif War? IIRC, (I did a slipshod term paper on this a year or two ago =) the Moroccan resistance to Spain and France's colonization in the 1920s was due to several factors. One, they had modern weapons, rifles (bought from Spain and France itself) and stolen arty etc.. The terrain was to their advantage (guerrila warfare) and Spain's army was totally and I mean totally inept. Their was widespread CORRUPTION in Spain's officer core and their army was not trained in how to use their WW1 type weapons. Still, in the end due to massive troop amounts and airpower France and Spain were able to defeat the Moroccans.
Ranulf is offline  
Old November 15, 2001, 18:20   #240
davwhitt
Settler
 
Local Time: 11:37
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally posted by BlueO
I think the combat system works just fine.

Look at the American indians, they don't have the technology to make guns. Yet they managed to acquire guns.

The afgan fighters don't have the technology to make heavy machinguns or stinger missles, but they got them too.

When a swordsman defeats a tank, don't think the swordsman just ran up to the tank and chopped it to pieces. They probably have a few bazookas or mines in their swordsman unit... Its the combat values that should matter. A swordsmen unit of a modern time won't just be consisted of swords.
Your analogies are flawed. The American Indians aquired guns through trade and theft, neither option are available in Civ3 unless you count the capture of artillery. The Afghans got their stinger missiles and machine guns from the United States - again no such concept in Civ3. You can give another Civ the technology to produce such weapons but not the actual weapons. You say when a swordsman defeats a tank you don't think he "just ran up to the tank and chipped it to pieces" yet when it happens in Civ3 that's exactly what you see him do. A swordsman uses a sword, not a bazooka, or did I miss that part in the Civ3 manual? If so, when does the low-tech civ's swordsmen aquire bazookas and can they only use them against a high-tech enemy's tanks or can they also use bazookas against another low-tech enemy's archers? Perhaps the archers should be equipped with laser-guided titanium arrows?
davwhitt is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:37.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team