Small nation VS Large Nation

V

Veteranewbie

Prince
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
402
In civ 3, large nation are guarantee to beat up small nation EVERYTIME!! But then if this is true in real life, then why can Alexander beat up Persia? Why can Japan invade China in second world war? Why can Japan defeat Russia in the Russo-Japan war? Why can Genghis Khan wipe out everyone then?
 
Well, when Alexander died, Macedonia wasn't that small anymore ;-)
But, did they stay at that size? No....
Do the great Civ-nations stay at their sizes, if they happen to meet the human player? No...

So, it all depends on the leader - on us. That is, why most players like the game.
 
Dude there is no garantee that Large Nation can wipe out small nation on Civilization. Well of course Large AI Civ can destroy small AI Civ, but when it is a human?

I play only on Demigod (for now, I was playing on Deighty on the classic Civ 3), standard map. Never got more than 10-12 cities.
Well it happends to me so many games that AI have whole continent with 30-40 and more cities. Ok then the AI deceided that as he is "large and strong" as the Soviet Union was after several turns his navy is gone and then he begs for mercy, to spare his citizens from the carpet bombing.

Why do u think its not possible in a game, which copies the real life?
 
HOw bout large human civ vs small human civ?
If u stil alive, then most likely its cause that big guy enjoy pushing u around
And wat u do before bomber and tanks?
 
Yesterday, as the Celts, I took down the mighty Babylon empire which was at least twice the size of me.

Just because they were the largest nation on the planet didn't mean they also had the best army. They didn't. They didn't have all required Strategic Resources, and were behind in techs due to isolation, so they didn't stand a chance when I sent a stack of 75 of my best against them -- Modern Armors, TOW Infantry, Mech Infs, Stealth Bombers...etc against the Babylonian Riflemen.

You can imagine who won. ;)
 
Well, Civ3 tried to fix large vs small balance, by giving high corruption levels.

But, it failed.

Personnally, if large empire could have even more trade corruption then currently (without increasing waste), maybe it would be possibile to get smaller nation with better tech and economy, with larger nation having only a bigger army.
 
yep, i wish they fix it that way, adjust shields and corruption
but then with less wastes, this mean large empire can build improvements easier, which means that in the end they wll still overwhelm small nations in economy and science in the end.
I think they should increase corruption (not wastes) a bit more.
 
may be if corruption produces unhapyfaces so you'll need a large garrison in each city taking a toll in your army so you can't mobolize you forces for fear of cultural fliping and rebelion things that will be unknow to the little nation.
 
Large Empires are easy to take down. The AI is horrible at city placement. Sure they'll have 30 cities, but those cities either overlap or are hopelessly corrupt. I can easily conquer them. Tech lead = power lead for me.
 
but let's say you are the big nation and that corruption produces unhapy faces.

you'll need a strong garrison to prevent cities from rebellening and from flipping allience. most of your army will not be avialible to you when a war agains a small nation which can dispose of all of its military migh while you can not.
 
I recently killed those crazy Dutch after they took over almost all of the larger of two continents in my game ( that i wasn't on, unfortunately) and killed several allies before I could muster a D-day-esque assault. ( they were approx. 3 times larger than I was). My amphibious landing of dozens of tanks, infantry, and overwhelming airpower easily annihilated their infantry and cavalry.

Just because a nation is larger does not mean they have a superior army( and in fact, all the real-world examples you cited were won because of a superior army and tactics, not because they were smaller and Civ III is 'incorrect' ).
 
in civ2 it was worse :p
but having a large empire doesn't mean having more productive cities.
you can have 40 cities of which 30 are corrupt as hell
and the small civ would only have 10 uber productive cities.
 
Veterannewbie, how could Leonidas and his 300 Spartans delay 3.000.000 Persians, among them the infamous Immortals? This war actually turned out to be a desaster for Xerxes.

If the AI is the large one and I am the small, I can do the same regularly.

If I am large and the AI small, I will win, but sometimes I will pay a higher blood toll than expected.

I gave you the example of the Thermopylae simply to show that even small nations can give large ones a beating. Just to show the opposite. :)
 
Longasc: I severely doubt those numbers are correct. 3,000,000 Perisans? Are we talking total population? I thought the invasion force was 30,000, and I know that the Persians had already lost 3,000 before the Gates of Fire. The Perisans had superior tactics (bowmen, falulcon movements), while the Greeks were fighting on home terf, down mountains, and militia available whenever they were needed. However there are other perfect examples that are caused purely by tactics. Alexandrian conquests and the first 100's years war are such. and the Japanese defeat of Russia was caused by modernisation on Japan's side.
 
Originally posted by Longasc
Veterannewbie, how could Leonidas and his 300 Spartans delay 3.000.000 Persians, among them the infamous Immortals?

Click to expand...

Of course the Spartans successfully delayed the Persians at Thermopylae, amd smaller civs can defeat bigger ones, but if you check out this site

http://joseph_berrigan.tripod.com/ancientbabylon/id28.html

you'll get a better perspective on the figures. Don't you find 3 million is a gross exageration?:eek:

the site says

"By 480 BC, Xerxes had built up an enormous army of some one hundred fifty thousand men and a navy of six hundred ships."

This seems more realistic to me.
 
Anyway 20.000, 200.000 or even 200.000.000.000 doesn't matter if ur figthing only 300 men.
Only few of your warriors will be able to fight them at the same time, specially if ur foe is defending a tiny path on a small beach, surrounded by mountain.
 
i'm sure they wouldn't get tired :p
and their weapons would get blunt and also the bodies would block the way for more units :p
 
Small empires beat large empires pretty much all the time. Size doesn't matter - technology does. For example. Look at China. They have the largest population in the world and are the... 2nd largest country (I think). But their armed services are lacking. Just because they're large doesn't mean they're powerful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Caesar of Bread
Please do not do this Civ
Replies
7
Views
715
Patine
Patine
innonimatu
Oppressive empires - a false argument of liberals?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
3K
Angst
Angst
Henri Christophe
The Mongol conquest
Replies
5
Views
1K
lerrocco
L
Ruin
Warlord 100K Large 4th Place Babylon
Replies
13
Views
568
Ruin
Ruin
C
Will Millennia have an Earth map?
Replies
2
Views
905
Saxo Grammaticus
Saxo Grammaticus
Top Bottom