In continuation of this topic: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...dditions-civ2uia.623515/page-15#post-16355538
The last pages discuss what I thought was an interesting topic: controversial elements of the game that can be interpreted as both a developer error and an intentional gameplay element. However, the forum section and this thread are dedicated to technical support. Therefore, I would prefer not to clog this thread with further discussion, but to open a new topic. So, while reading the discussion, I remembered a few more situations in the game, which can be interpreted in two ways: both as a mistake and as an acceptable trick. The situations under consideration are possible only in multiplayer (tactical tricks used by experienced players against each other). If you prefer single player - most likely these game situations you have never met and will never meet, since the AI does not use these tricks.
Example 1. In a multiplayer game, it is sometimes possible for one of the players to want to create an insurmountable line of defense against an invading opponent. To create such fortification lines, narrow isthmuses covered with difficult terrain (mountains, hills) with maximum protection indicators are most convenient.
In the drawing, the Roman player has blocked the mountain range with three forts. Forts can have an unlimited number of mechanized infantry. It seems that this defense is impossible to break through. On each defended tile: 1). a sufficient number of units with maximum protection indicators; 2). maximum protection indicators for the landscape; 3). fort, guaranteeing the impossibility of destroying the stack. Let us also assume that the attacking side cannot bypass the given line of defense from the other side (for example, it does not have dominance at sea), and breaking through the line of defense is the only way to invade. As practice shows, there is no problem for an experienced player to break through this line of defense. It is enough to have n+1 attacking units (eg howitzers) to capture one of the key forts. This will require great advance preparations and a developed economy. However, it is quite real.
How to create an absolutely insurmountable defense? It turns out that in CivII it's very simple. It is enough to hang a bomber over each fort with mechanized infantry on the mountain (and, accordingly, change it every turn with a backup from a neighboring city or air base). Now no one will be able to attack the fortified infantry on the mountain. A howitzer, a battleship bomber, and even a nuclear bomb will give you that message:
The only unit that can attack the stack is the fighter. If in the first case there was a completely equivalent exchange of mutual losses (for example, a howitzer for infantry), and the victory of the breakthrough was ensured by a simple formula of n + 1 attacking units against the defenders, then in this case the situation is already clearly absurd. Of course, one can imagine a player producing enough fighters to spend 10+ of each infantry on the stack in a crazy meat grinder to kill. In my opinion, such actions are already beyond realism and more like a game error. What is your opinion: is the bomber hovering over the stack a bug, or a valid trick?
Example 2. Using units that ignore zones of control. The paradox, however, is that even such absolutely insurmountable "Maginot lines" dug in by bombers can be broken through. The most obvious way is to wait for the defending player to make a mistake, and wait until he simply forgets to hang the bomber over the stack again. I remember cases from games when this happened. However, mistakes against a fairly methodical player can never be expected. The second trick is to introduce units into the breach that ignore zones of control (diplomats, spies, caravans, freight). In this case, the attacking player will be able to pass the stacks of forts on the "road paved with spies" and enter the "operational space":
Obviously, this trick will only work in a situation where there is terrain at the breakthrough site that allows you to build a road in one round (a sufficient number of engineers will allow you to do this): steppe, desert, grass. Other types of terrain will cause Engineers to skip the round, and on the next round, the defending player will be able to destroy them. However, the attacking player can also cover the breach tile with the bomber+infantry stack. And if the defending player is not sufficiently supplied with fighters in the breakthrough area, he will be doomed. Also, it is obvious that the trick does not work if there are no gaps in the line of defense, and the line is solid.
Of course, one can give an explanation that caravans and spies in this situation are reconnaissance and sabotage groups of the attacking player. However, in my opinion, the cost of producing spies is disproportionately low in relation to the costs of the defending player (it would be realistic to oblige the attacking side to bear a large cost). In any case, the second trick is more like a poorly thought out game balance than a clear game error. Your opinion?
The last pages discuss what I thought was an interesting topic: controversial elements of the game that can be interpreted as both a developer error and an intentional gameplay element. However, the forum section and this thread are dedicated to technical support. Therefore, I would prefer not to clog this thread with further discussion, but to open a new topic. So, while reading the discussion, I remembered a few more situations in the game, which can be interpreted in two ways: both as a mistake and as an acceptable trick. The situations under consideration are possible only in multiplayer (tactical tricks used by experienced players against each other). If you prefer single player - most likely these game situations you have never met and will never meet, since the AI does not use these tricks.
Example 1. In a multiplayer game, it is sometimes possible for one of the players to want to create an insurmountable line of defense against an invading opponent. To create such fortification lines, narrow isthmuses covered with difficult terrain (mountains, hills) with maximum protection indicators are most convenient.
In the drawing, the Roman player has blocked the mountain range with three forts. Forts can have an unlimited number of mechanized infantry. It seems that this defense is impossible to break through. On each defended tile: 1). a sufficient number of units with maximum protection indicators; 2). maximum protection indicators for the landscape; 3). fort, guaranteeing the impossibility of destroying the stack. Let us also assume that the attacking side cannot bypass the given line of defense from the other side (for example, it does not have dominance at sea), and breaking through the line of defense is the only way to invade. As practice shows, there is no problem for an experienced player to break through this line of defense. It is enough to have n+1 attacking units (eg howitzers) to capture one of the key forts. This will require great advance preparations and a developed economy. However, it is quite real.
How to create an absolutely insurmountable defense? It turns out that in CivII it's very simple. It is enough to hang a bomber over each fort with mechanized infantry on the mountain (and, accordingly, change it every turn with a backup from a neighboring city or air base). Now no one will be able to attack the fortified infantry on the mountain. A howitzer, a battleship bomber, and even a nuclear bomb will give you that message:
The only unit that can attack the stack is the fighter. If in the first case there was a completely equivalent exchange of mutual losses (for example, a howitzer for infantry), and the victory of the breakthrough was ensured by a simple formula of n + 1 attacking units against the defenders, then in this case the situation is already clearly absurd. Of course, one can imagine a player producing enough fighters to spend 10+ of each infantry on the stack in a crazy meat grinder to kill. In my opinion, such actions are already beyond realism and more like a game error. What is your opinion: is the bomber hovering over the stack a bug, or a valid trick?
Example 2. Using units that ignore zones of control. The paradox, however, is that even such absolutely insurmountable "Maginot lines" dug in by bombers can be broken through. The most obvious way is to wait for the defending player to make a mistake, and wait until he simply forgets to hang the bomber over the stack again. I remember cases from games when this happened. However, mistakes against a fairly methodical player can never be expected. The second trick is to introduce units into the breach that ignore zones of control (diplomats, spies, caravans, freight). In this case, the attacking player will be able to pass the stacks of forts on the "road paved with spies" and enter the "operational space":
Obviously, this trick will only work in a situation where there is terrain at the breakthrough site that allows you to build a road in one round (a sufficient number of engineers will allow you to do this): steppe, desert, grass. Other types of terrain will cause Engineers to skip the round, and on the next round, the defending player will be able to destroy them. However, the attacking player can also cover the breach tile with the bomber+infantry stack. And if the defending player is not sufficiently supplied with fighters in the breakthrough area, he will be doomed. Also, it is obvious that the trick does not work if there are no gaps in the line of defense, and the line is solid.
Of course, one can give an explanation that caravans and spies in this situation are reconnaissance and sabotage groups of the attacking player. However, in my opinion, the cost of producing spies is disproportionately low in relation to the costs of the defending player (it would be realistic to oblige the attacking side to bear a large cost). In any case, the second trick is more like a poorly thought out game balance than a clear game error. Your opinion?
Why should a mechanized infantry be first in line to defend against a fighter when there is a bomber (which the fighter was specifically developed in history to contend with) overhead? Now, if the ground unit were a dedicated anti-air ground unit, sure, that makes sense - but there is none in the base game, only in scenarios.
