Originally posted by Lord_Vetinari
I have to go along with the "it's just a game" people here. If we took all realistic aspects into consiceration cavalry and infantry would never be able to conquer a city with city walls with out the aid of seige weapons. Ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? Altough Lancelot manages a few stabs at the castle wall I seriously doubt that they would have taken the castle (even if the french hadn't counter attack with the deadly catapult-cow weapon)
Also, I haven't played civ2 for ages, but I seem to recal the manual mentioning something about units with firearms and/or massive steel armour (ships-tanks) gaining significant combat bonuses against other units. Anyone else remembering this? If my memory is working corectly, and if this system existed in civ2, why removing it civ3? Sounds like devolution to me.
just my .02$
That's definitely one thing that's missing in Civ 3: specific unit bonuses against specific units. In my opinion, pikemen should get a decent bonus against knights, as that was their main function, no? Longbows and archers should get an advantage over pikes and spears (due to all the free shots the archers would get against the very slow troops), and so on... Of course, it would make Civ III a little more like Age of Kings, but it would deepen the war aspect of the game if there were counterbalancing units in the game. As it stands now, the war sim part of Civ is pretty subpar compared to most games, be they RTS or turn-based. I know Civ ain't a war sim, but it's a huge aspect of play that should be given more depth...