I can see why someone would draw this conclusion, but I can just as much see why a simple and elegant system of direct and proportionnal comparison works just as well. Better, in fact, because even if we agree that being "three times stronger" (which doesn't mean a lot in reality, considering the multiple factors, how they interact and the inherent incertainty of battle) means we win "much more than three times out of four", it still doesn't answer "by how much ?", so it doesn't allow a more intuitive answer than glancing at the numbers and seeing how much each one has a chance to win.
Actually, I was pointing at exactly the opposite - that is, I pointed that 3:1 was the same as 1,5:0,5.
See below.
Indeed, a somewhat arbitrary but sensible function would have to be defined for this, which might not be immediately accessible for the player (but could be explained via a tooltip, a civiliopedia entry or the manual). But besides being more realistic (which is only of secondary importance imo, since I see Civ as being similar to Chess - a game of abstraction, but cooler
), it also awards the player for bringing enough firepower, as well as forcing him/her to be more strategic when facing a superior enemy (like bombarding, etc., which can be easily be tweaked to accommodate the change in balance). Yes, but I was talking about 1.5:0.5 strength vs 3:1 odds there. You just took a few numbers from my post, mixed them together and wrote one short sentence insinuating that what I wrote was crap. I realize I could have written that better in my 2nd post, but reading both of my posts (actually, the first one should have been enough, especially for people who have actually watched the links from the OP, but either way, both are on the same page and not that far apart) should have been clear enough (but I'll edit it to make it even clearer).
No matter how advance the technology is, I like sitting back and taking all the time I want to think about what I'm going to do next. I don't see a need at all to make Civ into an RTS. It might be a fun game, but just not Civ.
Yep, I totally agree (as long as it is still at least semi-TBS, e.g. 1 turn per day).
Have you not heard of how much complaints players had in the past about spearmen defeating tanks? If we used a system of "direct and proportional comparison", you will have such situations pretty regularly. Imagine your horseman losing to a scout once every four battles!
No, I took a sentence from your post that was unclear, and YOU took what I said and simply inverted its meaning, which is quite worse, all the while insulting several of us for our supposed lack of reading comprehension and intelligence - ironic, to say the least. Let me requote the part you "forgot", which already point all that :
Actually, I was one of the person very irritated by the "spearman vs tank" problem. But it's not just about the system here.
Well, the problem is that it requires two units in fighting position to have a rough idea of the odds. Which means that by that time, it's too late for long-term strategy planning. A simple system allows to evaluate quickly and intuitively the state of your armies and gross guesstimate of how the fights will end in the large scheme of things.
Only unclear if you didn't properly read my previous post(s).
No, I didn't "invert" anything. I pointed out that 3 people were bashing me for something they themselves didn't comprehend.
So? What does that have to do with anything? I'm happy for you that you seem to have understood what I meant - if you had written that right away, instead of your cryptic one-sentence-response where you made it look like 1.5:0.5 strength should be the same as 3:1 combat odds, I might have excluded you from the list. But as it was, you were just the third person accusing me of mixing up the odds, and you were wrong. Just repeating what YOU have written later on will not change that (ozon at least had the decency to admit he overlooked something).
No, they are not better than riflemen, since those people don't stand a chance in an open confrontation.
