ax2047
Jul 05, 2005, 01:26 AM
In civ3, the health bar of a warrior, tank or battleship is the same, i think it is unreasonable. Tank , battleship,.....etc should more health.
The maintain cost of warrior, tank,.....etc are the same, i think it cant not reflect the essential of economic power in different age.
Missile is the key role of modern war, the design in civ3 is not enough. For example, the modern ship such as AGIS should carrying missile.
Meleager
Jul 05, 2005, 02:10 AM
Welcome to CFC! [party]
In regards to your points:
1) A tank has a higher strength (attack / defence in civ3) then a warrior in order to relfect its better power
2) Whilst your point is true you do not mention any way (nor can i think of nay) which would implement this without extra unnessesary complexity. Remembering that latter units already take longer to build.
3) I have to agree. The cruise missile is for me one of the most disapointing units in civ 3. I would prefer a city inprovement or something that you can use to fire a cruse missle every turn (crusiers could also have this ability).
searcheagle
Jul 05, 2005, 07:50 AM
Welcome to CFC! [party]
2) Whilst your point is true you do not mention any way (nor can i think of nay) which would implement this without extra unnessesary complexity. Remembering that latter units already take longer to build.
The answer to this is ratios. For every 10 shields (hammers) required in producton, it requires one shield in maintaince. Simple, realistic, and would input strategy into the game.
apatheist
Jul 05, 2005, 09:04 AM
Not so simple, because the shield would have to be subtracted from some city's output, and it's back to civ2 and home cities. Besides, what's the point of having a unit with double the power if it has twice the cost? Why would anyone build 1 spearman if they can have 2 warriors for the same price?