I've been following this thread with bemused interest, and learning a whole new definition for
fanatic. I used to get into really heated discussions like this about how to treat respiratory infections in cockatiel chicks or whether a pet bird's wings should be trimmed, but those were matters of life and death, literally. This is.. after all.. just ... a ...
game!!
IIRC, this whole discussion started with the idea that the F-15 is not a realistic UU for America. Did anyone ever actually disagree with that starting premise? Hmm.
I am trying to gain some perspective on Civ III, and learn to view the combat units as more like pieces in a chess game. The attributes, movements, and strengths are arbitrary. You don't try to make
sense of them, you just learn them. I am at a disadvantage in the game if I don't like attacking with cavalry (supposedly one of the better offensive units, especially in its time) because the death animation of the horse falling (and dying?) bothers me.
Realistically, there should be about a 50/50 chance of the horse (or elephant) surviving and returning to its stable (barracks?) every time a mounted unit is defeated. These trained mounts should then be able to be used in the creation of another unit for about 1/2 the cost, or something like that... Perhaps it shouldn't be a veteran, but certainly one can put a half-trained recruit onto a well-trained cavalry horse and have a new 'unit' that can go out and do
some damage! ?
The whole spearman/tank thing is a fine example. Sgt York (whoever the heck he was) notwithstanding, no human being on foot that doesn't have a bazooka or rocket launcher could stand up to a tank. For that matter, anything less than a rifleman really shouldn't be able to do a whole lot of damage to an elephant. Well, maybe there are more than one spearman in our mythical "unit," but then how many elephants or tanks are in a "unit?" It might be more realistic if there were size factors. A tank or elephant should really have an attack bonus for size against any kind of a unit that is supposed to represent a human 'on foot.' A modern battleship should be able to overrun a galley or probably even a frigate, too. Isn't it really quite ridiculous to think of an old sailboat attacking one of our modern battleships? Although some of the sailors might actually get hurt; they'd be laughing too hard to remember to move out of the way of the cannonballs... There's no realistic fear factor, either. I'm betting than realistically, some RNG percentage of warriors and archers are going to turn tail and RUN at first sight of an elephant, or a modern tank.
And how much sense does it make that units who win battles get more hit points? Can soldiers and warriors who have experience take more damage? No, they are better at fighting and avoiding injury. So, really, veteran and elite units should have attack and defense bonuses, including a higher chance for not being hurt at all and/or a chance for completely destroying an enemy unit in one combat turn by having the experience to hit a fatal spot. A precision attack, so to speak.
I could go on and on and on and.. - and so could most of you. The point is, it is not really possible for the the game to be realistic, any more than chess or tic-tac-toe. So while we could perhaps all agree that the F-15 is a sucky UU and something like a minuteman or a buffalo soldier might serve the Americans better, arguing against it on the grounds that it isn't realistic is fairly pointless, IMHO.
I can hardly
wait for the responses I will get to
this post!!
:ripper:
:rocket: 
