ok your missing something hear in my view at least. If you allow armies to uload they would become way too powerful. You could easitly just load in a bunch of infantry if you see a mob of attackers comming and then switiching it to offensive when you want to attack. Its not realistic sure, but it makes the game more difficult, you need to plan ahead and look at whats more important.
Yes i do agree with one thing you stated though, how garrisons should be able to stop the uprisings, but on other accounts, i remember you mentioning how its dumb not to have leaders, workers or settlers airliftable. Thats for game balance, Firaxis didn't want you to be able to expand onto another continent as soon as you secured one city. Its just that they want it to be more of a challenge.
But honestly, how can you expect a game that has the Americans and Germans and British and French amoung others present at 4000bc to be historicaly accurate? how can you expect a game where you live for 6500 years to be realistic? How can you expect a game where you can have a republic or democracy for over 2000 years and get elected every time to be realistic? How can you expect a game when you can see what technology is avaliable 6500 years from when you start realistic? How can you expect a game where you create a fictional world to be realistic? How can you expect a game as complex as Civ 3 (its got sh*t loads of techs, build options and other variables) to have an AI as flexible as a human and manage to come up with stratagies not even programmed into it?
Absolutly Ludicrous!!!
I mean i think you are being a bit to criticle of the game. But if you like civ 2 better by all means play it I wont stop you
. So guess this debate is realy useless then isn't it?
And just so you know the AI cheats in lots of games. Take diablo 2 for instance, wihtout the map hack, monsters can see you before they are even on your screen, thus you cannot see them. Thats a cheat. WHy should they be able to see you and you not see them if they are even taller than you. However you dont see ppl saying how horrible the cheating AI is because of that.
And i remember one thread before. It asked what AI is better than Civ 3's. Yet no one had an answer, ppl just complained about Civ 3's AI but never mentioned a better one.
sorry, my rant is almost done, just one last point. Why do people think that gaming companies are Charities, just out there to give you everything you want? They are businesses, their main goal is to put out a game and make money, they dont want a 100% satisfaction rate, that would put them out of business and then there would be no more Sid games. Its just like this in diablo 2, sorry i make so many references to it but i played it for 2.5 years now and its a constant Bi**h fest on their forums, people think that Blizzard will give them everything that they want. Also it appears from this pole that the majority of ppl are satified with the game, therfore Firaxis completed its objectives, put out a game, get good customer response (not perfect though, which would be ideal but not plausible), and make money. And also, a company cannot meet everyones taste, how many copies did they sell? over 100,000 i assume. That means there are 100,000 differnt people out there, with different tastes, with different playing styles, that means that there is no way in hell they could accomedate everything everyone wants.
)
)
