So, I´ve played for ages. After hours of thinking here are my thoughts on the game!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Rushton


This is no doubt true Zachriel. However, in a democracy (we come again to the gouvernment problems) you just don´t have time for that before your civ falls into anarchy. The game forces you into Blitzkrieg and then peace. Fast ground units that can retreat and don´t usually get killed are worth so much more.

Only proviso: You get infantry and artillery long before tanks. So it may at this period be useful in a limited way for a short war.

Paul

Keep imagining you are the victim. Your government will be as disrupted as the enemy. Anyway, try Republic. It has most of the advantages of Democracy without the crushing war weariness.

The bombard technique also works when attacking musketmen before cavalry, or impi on a hill before knights, etc. My swordsmen were stopped cold by impis on a hill. I couldn't go around. Had to use catapults. They worked and the rest of the war was downhill. Fortunately, I was already prepared and didn't waste my swordsmen, which I still needed to bring the war to a succesful conclusion.

 

[chiefpaco]

I have to disagree with a lot of your points. I can address some of your larger issues, which I will group, just to save space in my reply.

Graphics (points 1-3). You're right, the graphics are mediocre & non-impressive by today's standards. However, I believe they are very acceptable & they probably made a tradeoff in the game design for AI intelligence & strategy instead of flashy movies.

Say what you will about the AI, but if they had sacrificed any more of it for better graphics, I think the game could have been much worse. I would play a game even worse graphically than this that has an even more challenging AI. I take your point, but would keep it minor, myself. I have experienced many games with flashy graphics that were fun for about an hour until I realized that there was no challenge.

Strategy (4, 7, 10): You make it sound like there is only 1 govt & 1 way to play. Later on, you say your democracy can't accept war weariness. There are alternatives like Monarchy & Communism. Each govt has a tradeoff of advantages & disadvantages. Then you said there are too few govt types. I don't understand where you're coming from.

I also disgree that bombard units are a waste of time. There are many people that swear by them. It's a matter of how we all use our military. If I could extend Zachriel's point; if the AI knew how to use the bombard units & were able to kill ours too, I imagine there would be many people upset how realistic it would be for a couple of catapults detroying my army of horsemen!

I find your arguments acceptable, since they are valid gripes. I wanted to point out that the game is full of options & tradeoffs and think this leads to great game design & not a poor one.

 

[Mapache]

Originally posted by Beard Rinker
Ancient times. ...With the use of catapults you can knock the attackers down a few hp before attacking and win the majority of the battles.

Catapults are really weak. They mostly miss and don't have a defense value. Better build some Spearmen/Pikemen! There is something like war economics. My resources are limited.

 

[Beard Rinker]

Originally posted by Mapache
Catapults are really weak. They mostly miss and don't have a defense value. Better build some Spearmen/Pikemen! There is something like war economics. My resources are limited.

Yes catapults are weak but in a war of attrition it's all about getting the kill ratio in your favor. This is especially true when your resources are limited.

With catapults you can knock their attacking horsemen/swordsmen/impi/whatever down a few hp. This improves your chances of killing their attacking units and decreases their chances of killing your defending units getting the kill ratio in your favor. The catapults never die and can also be an upgraded all the way to artillery.

This strategy does not work in all cases but does work well when you are out numbered and behind in technology. Once you have more advanced units such as pikemen or knights it becomes less effective.

 

[SCPete]

Catapults can be upgraded all the way to Radar Artillery. Which are devestating. A handfull can decimate a city within a few turns(crucial in the Modern Era against multi-Mech. Inf defended Metros). All the more reason to build Catapults.

 

[Rushton]

I think the arguement about bombarding or not comes down to whether you are prepared to enter a long drawn out war or not. I tend to avoid them. Only in a tight game playing a religious civ (so you can change out of democracy in 1 turn) would i contemplate it.

I would still never make catapults or bombers as they are too expensive considering the large number you need to soften up a well defended city.

Paul

 

[marshalljames]

I find bombers very useful,when combined with Carriers(need I say it's nice to have a big navy=Battleships) you can really take the war to your enemy's core cities.Bombers have a very high sucess rate in destroying improvements.And you don't need that many 8-12.Fighters are useful as many of my bombers have been shot down,but AI usually only has one in some cities.And now bombers can sink battleships(Which is stupid,suicidal maniacs strapped with dynamite couldn't sink battleships effectively).Although this does make a carrier stocked with fighters an essential part of any armada.

 

[chrome_gnome]

I think we need to remember one of the best aspects of bombardment is population reduction. Most of us starve out the population of towns by making them collect no food and seeting them all to entertainers to quickly quell resistance. A flight of 10 bombers can reduce most citties to an empty shell of thier former selves allowing the ground forces to eliminate the defenders who are ususally weakend without sustaining high casualties. Until the advent of Battlefield Medicine I REALLY want to avoid casualties in my attacking stacks becasue far away from home means no healing until the are parked inside your cultural area of influence. If you run into a well dug in city then bombers or artillery are a must to ensure victory for me. It does boil down to playstyle though and we each have our own. I tend to not bother with towed bombard units but battleships and bombers are standard fare for me. I use to them to greatly increase my city quelling times and save my men alot of waiting for health.

 

[JoseM]

Originally posted by Rushton
Thanks for all the useful comments folks. Nice that all the opinions were constructive.

I think I agree that perhaps 9 plus out of ten should be awarded if only for the way in which the game has dominated my life since it came out.

I can understand the arguement about bombardment perhaps being useful when you are up against superior defensive units - but if that is the case you have little chance in a large scale war anyway.

I think my arguement would be:

For the same number of shields that it would cost to produce, say, eight cannons, you could get about five knights (approx.)

Attacking with all these eight cannon, on average, you would reduce an elite warrior to one, have a couple of misses and perhaps destroy a temple or barracks.

The knights would have taken the city, captured a few warriors and be on route to the next city.

I think you all get my point!

Paul

P.S And my point is even more valid with aircraft as that will be addressed in the next patch.

So Civ 3 will be properly finished about a year after release - all so avoidable!

i see your point, but now here is my point:

Lets suppose you have to capture an enemy city with 30 of size, lets suppose you have 10 tanks, but that enemy city has 7 mechanized infantry, if u attack with those 10 tanks, then all ur tanks will die, and probably one or two of his mechanized infantry die... the artillery is used to send that city to 8 of size and all the mechanized infantry units to 1 HP... u can do that with 20 artillerys in 3 turns, and with 50 artilleries in 1 turn, trust me it works really good, also airplanes can help you bombard the enemy city, thats the real use of bombard, of course u need some defensive units to defend the artilleries..

now lets see the statistics... :
without those artilleries u probably would have wasted 30 or 40 tanks trying to take a 30 size city with 8 mechanized infantry... but with those artilleries destroying the city down to 3 or 2 or 1 then u will need only 10 tanks or u will probably lose one, because the city will be small and the enemy units will be at 1 HP after the bombardment, also if u capture a city with 30 of population the resistence will be like 25 or 29 resisters and will go back to his owner in a couple of turns, with the artillery bombard that city will end in 1 or 2 or 3 after the bombard and then it can be easy to kill the resistence... now u understand the importance of artillery? i use 60 artilleries to do this of course with 10 or 15 defense units, at the end u will lose less units and u will capture the city easily.

 

[JoseM]

Importance of stealth bombers and radar artilleries:

I invaded part of an enemy continent with only 40 tanks but 30 stealth bombers and 15 radar artilleries, the war was 3 - 1 against me, in other words, for every tank i had, they had three... but how did i won? simple, the radar artillery and the stealth bomber made the job to weak the enemy tanks, also i kept destroying the roads towards my new captured cities, so it took 2 turns to them to reach my cities and while they were moving to my city i kept bombarding them until they were only 1 HP and they had to go back or attack and die. thats why bombers and artillery are really important, can make u win a war even if u have the disadvantage in numbers, 3 to 1 in this case.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by JoseM
Importance of stealth bombers and radar artilleries:

. . . u win a war even if u have the disadvantage in numbers, 3 to 1 in this case.

Excellent example.

On the flip side, I just repulsed a massive invasion using defensive bombard. They had dozens of cavalry and riflemen. I only had 2-3 defenders in each city. I was in serious trouble. But I massed my cannon on a hill defended with an "obsolete" army of samurai. As they entered my territory, they took massive damage due to my cannon. At that point they were forced to retreat, as I picked off stragglers with my own cavalry.