Drafting is too powerful?

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by Greadius
I also think it is very realistic... in my opinion, Nationalism reflects that WW1 period when they could drag out millions of people with guns and line them up, but couldn't successfully take any territory. Nationalism is also supposed to reflect the idea that those people will die trying to defend their country against your aggressive army. People defending their homes have a huge intangible advantage.

Even in WWII... Take the Japanese as an example. Near the end of the war, they had lost all of their "empire" except for the home islands, and the whole population was instructed and trained to fight for every last inch. In Civ terms, this would not be "killing the defenders and taking the city", it would be "kill every citizen before you can take the buildings".

In my opinion, drafting is very realistic. And it's not as if it's free either - my opponents have very nearly destroyed themselves through population loss trying to defend themselves on numerous occasions.

 

[loki]

All right, I will bow to the vast majority and live with drafting
I hate being caught by surprise, that's all

loki

 

[Zirnike]

I hate to have my second post be off topic, but I can't let this go by without a correction... Even though it's probably a troll, I've found enough people who don't understand science that I try to be informative...

Gravity is a law not a theory.

Actually, gravity is a theory. It's called a 'law' because it's been around so long that it seemed like it was fact. In actuality, gravity doesn't work in classical form over very small (sub-atomic) distances. It also results in some odd things (the event horizon, for example, is a pretty strange concept). Science never calls _anything_ fact, except numbers determined experimentally (and those are only fact as long as they can be consistantly reproduced). ("If it cannot be expressed in numbers, it is opinion, not fact. What are the facts and to how many decimal places?" -L. Long)

As for evolution, even though there's just as much if not more supporting evidence for it than for quantum dynamics, it's still a theory. Like everything else in science. 'Theory' in scientific and common use have very, very different meanings. When you hear 'theory', you are actually attaching the meaning of 'hypothesis'. Theory means at the least there is overwhelming evidence that supports the conclusion.

Remember Newton's 'Laws of Motion'? They're approximations only good at low velocities.

Damn, that's too long for an off-topic post... If anyone wants to hear more about it, you can get ahold of me on ICQ or AIM as 'Zirnike' (there's only one, luckaly for you all...)

Oh, on topic: Nationalism might be a dead end tech, but if you're scientific, it's the one you get for free... So any scientific culture will end up with it. Unless it's just a quirk in the half-dozen games I've played so far that got that far.

 

[Ironikinit]

Dead end but important. While you can get by without the rifleman unit and the draft ability, I'd rather not. Not to mention the mutual protection pacts that I believe are associated with nationalism.

Further, while I might avoid dead end techs like monarchy prior to the industrial age, when building the theory of evolution, I go back and trade for all the techs I may have skipped. One way or another, I'm going to end up with nationalism.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Originally posted by Jimcat
And to assume that any of the other creation myths are true requires an equal leap of faith and the total abandonment of logic.

Quite the opposite. To believe in atheism requires the complete ditching of logical. The historcial facts are facts. There is a reason the vast majority of the world has some sort of religion.

Evolution sucks. Whether it is true or not is not relevent to finding whether Christianity is true. Atheism is as a good as dead with out evolution to save it. Matter is never created nor destroyed. The universe has an age (something billion, proven) meaning it did not always exist.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Drafting is quite powerful. Once I saw English cavarly win every time against a lot of Chinese riflemen (they won like 6 in a row.)



















The theory of evolutions sucks bad in Civilization 3.

 

[Zirnike]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal


Quite the opposite. To believe in atheism requires the complete ditching of logical. The historcial facts are facts. There is a reason the vast majority of the world has some sort of religion.

Evolution sucks. Whether it is true or not is not relevent to finding whether Christianity is true. Atheism is as a good as dead with out evolution to save it. Matter is never created nor destroyed. The universe has an age (something billion, proven) meaning it did not always exist.

First... to quote G. Carlin:

"Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money!"

And atheism, in which god is not beleived in because there's no evidence, is a 'ditching of logical'...

There is a reason a lot of people have some sort of religion. First, because it's always been done that way, and second, people want to feel that they're special. That god created the universe and that they're the chosen of god. That some being created everything and then made them in his image.

And atheism doesn't require evolution, or vice versa. Just to clarify that bit...

And now for a sidetrack onto astrophysics... Time didn't exist before the universe. It's a phenomonon of matter (and acceleration, that's why time slows down closer to a large gravitational body)

And onto some quantum physics (I have an esoteric hobby, to say the least...)... Matter can be created, and in fact, often is. As long as it occurs in a very short period of time (Plank time) That's actually how black holes dissolve over time (Hawking radiation, but that's a whole 'nother sidetrack). But if you have no actual time before the universe, then 'after a while' (so to speak) the random fluctuations in the singularity would create enough matter to create the universe. Actually, theory says that a huge amount of antimatter would have been created. The preponderance of matter is a statistical thing (kinda like if you roll 100 dice and 50 of them are 1 or 2.) You can see discrepencies in the background radiation that show the fluctuations, you know...

I love these kind of discussions. Good thing this is the 'General Discussions' forum.

Regardless, I prefer Discordianism. Hail Eris!

 

[Grey Fox]

The Theory of Evolution does not suck in Civ3, you just have to plan it right... When I was researching to get it I traded almost every low level tech I could, researched Communism, and Espionage before I built it and then I started researching The Corporation, and I already had Medicine and Sanitation, so when I got the Theory of Evolution I got Atomic Theory and Electronics.
And because I saved a Leader (It hurt to save it for so long...), I hurried the Hoover Dam as soon as those techs were min.

And another time I got modern techs for free


About drafting. Yea it's good, and Yea it's realistic. But it also has it's downsides. I went into Anarchy and suffered great population losses once (In on off my early games...), because I HAD to draft.

 

[Ironikinit]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal


Atheism is as a good as dead with out evolution to save it.

Just wanted to point out that atheism, as a concept and the word itself, predates Darwin.

Also that atheism isn't organized. While there may be atheist organizations, they don't seem to have much of a reach. Sort of hard to "kill" something so tenuous.

Umm... what's the topic? Oh yeah, well in Civ 3 you wanna set it up so that you get higher techs with the ToE, as Grey Fox illustrated. And I like to draft as a communist, as communism seems to have a hard time with resisters and reversion. I don't mind losing conscripts so much.

 

[Ralendil]

Originally posted by loki
I find drafting to be too easy. ....Considering the number of shields it takes to produce a riflemen (or an infantry unit ), I think it unbalances the game too much in favour of the defender.

loki

Yes it seems to be easy but thinks it is not an AI advantage. You can draft to. So that's not unbalancing the game.

I think it's a great idea.

 

[chiefpaco]

Thanks for the topic post, Loki. I've had to do some re-thinking about drafting myself. A couple of things from my latest game, where I've used them effectively in an offensive war:

- Used them to at least help hold down newly conquered cities. Then my vet defenders can protect my border cities, artillery, and offensive units left after fighting. Also, if the city flips, I haven't lost my best units.

- Where did I get my draftees? Mostly out of the newly captured cities where the resisters have been put down (using a pack of swordsmen to quell them all). These cities are beyond my corruption zone so this makes a good use for them. Add in the odd draftee from my happy core of cities and you can get a lot of free units to help your offensive campaign.

Anyone else with more helpful tips for using draftees?


BTW,
- In the combat calculator, a vet cavalry beats a conscript rifleman fortified in a grasslands city about 57% of the time. Send in an elite cavalry, and you should have a dead rifleman.
- An elite cavalry beats a conscript infantry fortified in a grasslands city 45% of the time! That sounds almost too good to be true, but the HPs really matter.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Surely you are wrong...

"- In the combat calculator, a vet cavalry beats a conscript rifleman fortified in a grasslands city about 57% of the time. Send in an elite cavalry, and you should have a dead rifleman.
- An elite cavalry beats a conscript infantry fortified in a grasslands city 45% of the time! That sounds almost too good to be true, but the HPs really matter."

Maybe I need to sleep, but from what you have written it appears to me that the elite cavalry did worse!

 

[Grey Fox]

The chance to beat a Riflemen with a Veteran (Which is mainly what your troops consists of) Cavalry is quite large.

I'll post some examples here.

If a conscript Rifleman is fortified in a Metropolis (Over 12) built on a hill (Worst city scenario), the chances are as follows:

Veteran Cavalry Win Chance: 40,25%
Conscript Riflemen Win Chance: 59,75%

Odds that the Riflemen will loose one(1) point and win is 30,8%
Odds that he won't loose a point is 28,9%

Odds that the Cavalry will win and don't loose a point 7,1%.
Odds that the Cavalry will loose one(1) point 10,4%.
Odds that the Cavalry will end up with one(1) point 11,2%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another example:

If a conscript Rifleman is fortified in a Town (up to 6) without a wall, built on grassland, plains, desert or tundra (best city scenario), the chances are as follows:

Veteran Cavalry Win Chance: 70,55%
Conscript Riflemen Win Chance: 29,45%

Odds that the Riflemen will loose one(1) point and win 18,5%, odds that he won't loose a point 10,9%.

Odds that the Cavalry will win and don't loose a point 18,1%.
Odds that the Cavalry will loose one(1) point 20,8%.
Odds that the Cavalry will end up with one(1) point 13,7%
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you can see that the results you get from battling against Riflemen Is all up to the Terrain and City Size.

Now this test only included Conscripts, because this thread is about drafting.

Here is the Combat Calculator if you have never tried it out:
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3combatcalc.html

 

[Ironikinit]

Yes, sleep might be in order. The operative words you overlooked were "rifleman" and "infantry".

I didn't check the numbers, tho.

The civulator is verra innaressin.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Originally posted by Ironikinit


Just wanted to point out that atheism, as a concept and the word itself, predates Darwin.

Also that atheism isn't organized. While there may be atheist organizations, they don't seem to have much of a reach. Sort of hard to "kill" something so tenuous.

Umm... what's the topic? Oh yeah, well in Civ 3 you wanna set it up so that you get higher techs with the ToE, as Grey Fox illustrated. And I like to draft as a communist, as communism seems to have a hard time with resisters and reversion. I don't mind losing conscripts so much.

All because it predates darwinism does not mean that it is "logical". The origin of the universe is still being debated with many theories. If there was no evolution and you are an atheist where do you think the diversity of species came from?

I had trouble logging in is why it took so long to respond

 

[Ironikinit]

I was going to send you a private message, Reich, but that option doesn't seem to be available. So I was going to email, no soap. I guess I'll leave it at that instead of going off topic.

A really good time to draft is when your cities fill up to 12 and you don't feel the need to build more workers. I got the idea from Sirian's Great Library and it works pretty well.