one single question

[Astat]

i always was an enthusiastic civ2-player, and started to like civ3 after the first few turns - it contains dozens of cool improvements and so i already put the game to my all time favs... until the first siv declared war on me. i wasn't unprepared, for my units were technologically advanced and (automatically referring to civ2) i didn't expect the enemy to overrun my border cities.
but what the §?&%?! my veteran cavalries lost against enemy spearmen while his regular knights killed my musketmen...
(and before you start arguing: i'm no noob and know everything about terrain bonuses and stuff like that )
i soon accepted that there was no other way to win a war than to attack with a superiority, whereby the technological difference didn't make that much difference (couldn't tell you which unit is better, knight or cavalry, spearman or musketman...)
i played regent, so the fights should have been fair;

and this is really depressing for average players like me, cause the cpu enemy always manages to arrange much more troops than me while still expanding it's kingdom and building wonders...


i already asked in some irc channels but earned nothing but a lack of understanding... aren't there any guys around who feel desperate like me for a wonderful game was made unplayable by an unfair combat system?!

 

[allhailIndia]

I guess you have to use a good mod which changes the ADM ratings of the units based on their Civ2 HP and FP. I used on e and got fairly consistent results... for me that is

 

[Astat]

hmmm... my problem is not the fact that the unit's ratings have changed - but the CPU's units fight always better

grr no i even play warlord - there i can beat the enemy because it's possible to arrange armies that match the enemy's troops in size... but i feel like extreme-newbie

 

[MAS]

They don't always fight better, its just a batch of bad luck there.

Units now always have 2, 3, 4, or 5 Hit points. Losing a HP or not is now based on chance. The attack rating and defense ratings of the combating units are used to calculate the chance of a HP lost or not.

Your muskitman has a movement point of 1 while the knight has 2 movemens. Its likely his knights retreat before they die and then the next one in the stack tries again. you did said his knightSSSS, thats more than one.

A musketman has a defence of 4 and the knight has an attack of 4, so when the knights attacks they are equel. (not counting terrain) A musketman has an attack of 2 and the knight has an defence of 3 so the knight is better However, i would make musketman for defence regardless becouse they upgrade to better defensive units wele knights upgrade to better offensive units. You need a bunch of both to have a decent military.

As for the killer spearman, its a know thing here on this forum. its all a matter of chance. Although it doesn't happen very often, a spearman CAN actualy win from a modern armour.
But trust me on this when i say this apply's to YOUR spearman just as well.

 

[Astat]

thx a lot for your answer, although you seem to regard me as a beginner - i knew all off/def values of civ2 units and quickly learned the ones of the 3...

in my current match (warlord), i've got no problems with my swordmen (lots of them), they fight as good as the CPU's troops... on could nearly think that already the quantity of troops determines the upshot of individual fights.

 

[Qitai]

Well, that is true. 2 spearman is better then one musketman in general when attacked by say a knight.