Ben E Gas
King
I agree. The city should be destroyed. I understand that in the new game coming out, Conquests, that bombs leave permanent damage. Hopefully this is true when a bomb such as a nuke is dropped on a city.
-
Our friends from AlphaCentauri2.info are in need of technical assistance. If you have experience with the LAMP stack and some hours to spare, please help them out and post here.
Ever built a U.F.O. (unneeded flying object) ?
- Thread starter kryszcztov
- Start date
I agree. The city should be destroyed. I understand that in the new game coming out, Conquests, that bombs leave permanent damage. Hopefully this is true when a bomb such as a nuke is dropped on a city.
MadScot
Brandy's back!
Voted "yes" for some helicopters built a long time ago, when I didn't realise how "specialised (i.e. lame) they were.
I also build fighters, bombers, jet fighters and CMs, but don't consider any of those "unneeded". Carrier-borne aircraft can make or break a seaborne invasion - you can often cut the AIs ability to reinforce the landing area with some selective rail/road bombing. Also good for taking out resources and luxuries. Fighters and JFs are good for defence, and bomb when there's no enemy air to worry about.
CMs are simply great for attacking enemy cities in the late game, when they have 5 or 6 inf or MI per city. Even with arty and MAs, you'll probably take losses, and nothing is worse than the redlined defenders promoting when you do. CMs aren't my prime build, but having a few (say 10% of the number of artillery) will allow me to bombard until the defenders have say 2 hp each, then CM them and try to kill one or two. And, as stated, they target the enemy. So for retaking a town they can be very nice - they have the neutron bomb effect of leaving the buildings standing
I also build fighters, bombers, jet fighters and CMs, but don't consider any of those "unneeded". Carrier-borne aircraft can make or break a seaborne invasion - you can often cut the AIs ability to reinforce the landing area with some selective rail/road bombing. Also good for taking out resources and luxuries. Fighters and JFs are good for defence, and bomb when there's no enemy air to worry about.
CMs are simply great for attacking enemy cities in the late game, when they have 5 or 6 inf or MI per city. Even with arty and MAs, you'll probably take losses, and nothing is worse than the redlined defenders promoting when you do. CMs aren't my prime build, but having a few (say 10% of the number of artillery) will allow me to bombard until the defenders have say 2 hp each, then CM them and try to kill one or two. And, as stated, they target the enemy. So for retaking a town they can be very nice - they have the neutron bomb effect of leaving the buildings standing
Xerol
Emperor
Cruise missiles should have the "all terrain as roads" ability(although i don't know if that's possible on a unit with no a/d) or perhaps a ridiculous amount of movement like 6 or 10 or something like that. C'mon, it's a missle, do you expect it to move slowly? Another thing to make them more realistic would be to have them sit in their city of origin, or be airlifted to another city, but not be able to move until they're "launched". Once launched, the missile must keep moving at least X squares/turn or it explodes(crashes?), damaging anything in the same square. Which would be a good reason to keep it moving if you're protecting it with some of your own units.
MadScot
Brandy's back!
Why should the missile move quickly when it's not been launched?
When it's at move 1 it's basically sat on the back of a truck. The TEL's at Greenham Common (and other places) in the 1980s were no Formula One racers, so a similar movement to other support units - i.e. artillery - seems fair.
The flight time is much faster - it does two tiles "like that" and goes bang. (Now, maybe 2 tiles is a bit short for range, granted. But that;s a whole other issue.)
When it's at move 1 it's basically sat on the back of a truck. The TEL's at Greenham Common (and other places) in the 1980s were no Formula One racers, so a similar movement to other support units - i.e. artillery - seems fair.
The flight time is much faster - it does two tiles "like that" and goes bang. (Now, maybe 2 tiles is a bit short for range, granted. But that;s a whole other issue.)
apparition
Warlord
I find that air units mostly suck but nukes are definatly good if you want to take a certain city for strategic reasons.
Nukes were also the best sound/animation in CivI![[civ1]](/images/smilies/civ1.gif "Civ39 [civ1]")
Nukes were also the best sound/animation in CivI
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
I have built quite some bombers! But I think the F15 is the only unit in civ3 I have never even seen!
nalves
sailing in a NAU
Try to bomb the american civ, I bet that you will see the F15 in action
kryszcztov
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 2,423
Back in my little poll... 
Well, as expected, there's a great majority of players who have voted "yes". I wanted the poll to be straightforward, but now I wish I had made an option like "yes but I don't any more", and maybe one like "no but I plan to when the situation needs it".
Still, I'm not sure you really need those, especially since they are quite expensive. Building (or upgrading to
) arties and tanks is a winning move against the dumb AI. Maybe in multiplayer UFO are NFO, who knows ? I'll tell you in one year, when my PBEMs come to this point 
!!
Come on ! Carry on voting and giving your point of view ! I don't know if it was clear enough, but what I was basically saying is that, when I enter the Modern Era, I don't see why I would build air units I know nothing of when I can just sit and wait till my spaceship is launched, or till my dozen tanks are finished with the cripple AI.
Well, as expected, there's a great majority of players who have voted "yes". I wanted the poll to be straightforward, but now I wish I had made an option like "yes but I don't any more", and maybe one like "no but I plan to when the situation needs it".
Still, I'm not sure you really need those, especially since they are quite expensive. Building (or upgrading to
) arties and tanks is a winning move against the dumb AI. Maybe in multiplayer UFO are NFO, who knows ? I'll tell you in one year, when my PBEMs come to this point !!Come on ! Carry on voting and giving your point of view !
I don't know if it was clear enough, but what I was basically saying is that, when I enter the Modern Era, I don't see why I would build air units I know nothing of when I can just sit and wait till my spaceship is launched, or till my dozen tanks are finished with the cripple AI.
MadScot
Brandy's back!
Well, if you are a democracy, you really don't want to take any casualties or risk war weariness.
But if you don't capture any AI cities it is hard to make them come to terms.
And maybe you need to capture a city for e.g. Uranium.
And a lot of Ai cities are HUGE by this stage.
So you need a way to capture AI cities without taking heavy losses, when the defenders are inf or even mech inf in large numbers.
Artillery will eventually make the metro a town, and redline the defenders, But a lot of your shots hit improvements, or plain miss. Cruise missiles will, in theory, allow you to walk into an undefended town if you fire enough. That can be very useful.
But if you don't capture any AI cities it is hard to make them come to terms.
And maybe you need to capture a city for e.g. Uranium.
And a lot of Ai cities are HUGE by this stage.
So you need a way to capture AI cities without taking heavy losses, when the defenders are inf or even mech inf in large numbers.
Artillery will eventually make the metro a town, and redline the defenders, But a lot of your shots hit improvements, or plain miss. Cruise missiles will, in theory, allow you to walk into an undefended town if you fire enough. That can be very useful.
unscratchedfoot
War is a good thing.
Can you say you actually enjoy winning by just building a spaceship? I wouldn't be able to play the game with spaceship or diplomatic win options on cause I'd be too bored. As for your few tanks winning, maybe try a higher skill level or mod your game to make it a little challenging.
kryszcztov
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 2,423
Well, well, well...
I have to admit I find myself bored when waiting for the spaceship to launch. I'd like a tougher challenge in this part of the game, but either Civ2 was tougher, either I'm now tougher than back in Civ2 days (which could be logical, since I lurk and act here now). In most of my games, my goal is clear : win as quickly as I can ! The spaceship victory is usually one of the fastest victory, that's why I go for it. The diplomatic victory is risky, so I don't count on it anymore, unless I was a peace and love hippy in my game.
Conquering the world (even domination) is long, very long, and very boring... You spend half an hour per turn just moving units around, and it delays your victory so much I think I'm losing my time.My few tanks are usually a stack of 100+ tanks, enough to kill the AI, and still quite cheap. I play on Deity, so what ? I'll have to wait for C3C to try Sid level... when I'm sure I can beat Deity anytime !
You're right about trying mods or variants ; I wasn't able to play mods until now, I surely will someday. As for variants, I find it hard to say eg. "let this game be an AW game" at the start and then stick with it while playing a solo game : I need some external rules, like in SG. 
Still, one thought : you always get a chance in any game to catch the AI, and when you do, the game is on its way to victory, and then it becomes boring... So I don't build UFO (
), so as to win as fast as I can without caring to think if I have to attack with tanks or planes or boats.
