Inconsistency?

[Spoonwood]

Seriously... if rifles don't require saltpeter, because it becomes abundant, why do cavalry *still* require saltpeter when it becomes abundant? I smell an inconsistency.

 

[TheOverseer714]

Rifles are a counterbalance for cavalry, so that the AIs that have Saltpeter don't simply overrun those with none. Cavalry vs Pikes is not a fair fight, but Cavalry vs Rifles is. It keeps every game from being "the haves win, the have nots are toast".

 

[Camulodunum]

thats also why they made longbowmen so rosourceless AIs arent running around with archers until the industrial age

 

[Spoonwood]

I agree with you about gameplay Overseer. But, there still exists an inconsistency, since cavalry require saltpeter the whole game long. Maybe Nationalism should provide an 8/3 unit that only requires horses. I disagree that cavalry vs. rifles is fair. If you use vets and elite cavalry, most of the time you will lose, unless you have a good cannon stack (pre-artillery proper) to seriously wound them first. Now cavs. vs. muskets borders on fair. I also disagree that rifles really keeps the game from ending up as "the haves win, the haves not are toast", if you say buy armies and maybe even bank the AIs cash at a rate of 18 gold per gpt (getting your gpt back through them declaring war is nice... but not strictly necessary)... well, at the levels where they have money. 4 cavalry armies vs. rifles is NOT a fair fight, and even though 3 cavalry armies vs. rifles comes out a little more "fair", I think the advantage still goes to the armies. Who says wonders are useless now?

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: Split from "Bad Advice" thread.

 

[vmxa]

The game is full of these "inconsistencies". Most were done for game play purpose others were simply a mistake.

 

[Camulodunum]

yes there has to be a reason, im sure the civ3 team couldnt have made such a mistake