«

[Mucman]

I love all 3 for different reasons. Civ 1 mainly because it's a classic and the first game to keep me up all night.

I have mixed feelings about the automated settlers. In the real world, a leader doesn't have time to micromanage everything in their empite. Trusting the AI to control your settlers/workers is the same as a leader who trusts the civil engineers of the country. I know... a massively stretched out abstraction, but that's still the way I think about it. What I wish for is queue of jobs for workers. I would love to tell them to build a road from coordinates A to coordinates B. It would then allow me to choose each square or let the AI choose. Lastly, I should be able to assign sentries for these workers if I anticipate them going into dangerous land.

Honestly, I think if everyone's ideas for the Civilization series were implemented, the game would pretty much play itself! It's all about balancing the micromanagement with gameplay. Some people love micromanagement others doesn't. It's always a tough call.

[Unknown Hero]

Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Dec 8 2004, 04:18 AM

First, rank of unit really give an advantage against another unit. For example, an Elite unit would have 100% defense bonus agaisnt a regular (if I remember well). This bring your warrior to defense: 2.

Next, if you attack from the side of a river and your target is at the other side, it gives the defending unit 50% defense. Defense 2.5.

The warrior would undoubtly be fortified. +50%. Defense 3.

There is several buildings which can be built to increase the defense of a unit when defending in a city. First, the unit get +50% for defending a city or village even if there is nothing built yet. Then walls add a wall bombardment defense of 8 and +50% defense to all defending units. Defense 4.

So, if your Warrior finnaly get a defense of 4, would it be against a unit with 8 or 16 or attack, there is always a mathematical chance that it win. Would it be only one time per game, then it's not happening that often to my humble oppinion.

Let's say that only bombs, guns and other tanks can destroy tank!
In that case if you discover tank, you will be able to conquer the whole map!!!
I think this doesn't make sence, so I will once more have to agree with Eagle of Fire! k:

[Eagle of Fire]

It doesn't make sense indeed. Even warriors could jump on the tank and get inside, then use the tank on the other tanks just like I seen in a movie not too long ago.

In the movie I am talking about, they improvised "bombs" by using their socks, soaking them with tar and placing inside some bomb charges, then thrown the socks near the wheels moving the treads. Then they made it blow up so the tank could not move, rendering it hopelessly defenseless...

After all, that's what Elite military personel is about. It's almost like commandos.

[Unknown Hero]

Did you ever play Call of Duty? There is one mission where your soldiers open german panzer, and throw granade inside! Pisssss! The tank is gone! :bleh:

[Eagle of Fire]

Yeah. But anyways, the point is that a Tank is nowhere a unbreachable fortress on wheels... Sh!t happens, and sometime they can lose to seemingly stupidly lower forces.

[holyman9]

hahaha, obvioulsy my math was poor!

I suppose it both makes sense and doesn' t make sense. I mean, the Germans RAN over the Polish cavalry in WW1 with their tanks, and a few gunmen (plus disease, but that is another topic in itself) killed so many native south americans (how many people died in peru? a few million. how many spanish invaded? a few hundred thousand).

But yes, a single person could take over a tank if he snuck in, I agree. But for me, it was just a foul smelling cherry on a already-sour cake... Just my opinion, of course. If you enjoyed the game, that's all that matters, and if you did not, go try it yourself and see what you think