Zachriel
Kaiser
And that is exactly why superior firepower loses sometimes. The leaders cannot even imagine losing to an "inferior" enemy. They do not take their enemy seriously.
Unit strength
- Thread starter Chinois
- Start date
And that is exactly why superior firepower loses sometimes. The leaders cannot even imagine losing to an "inferior" enemy. They do not take their enemy seriously.
French tanks in 1940 had superior tech and firepower compared to the Germans.
The U.S. Cavalry had superior tech and firepower to the Sioux at Little Big Horn.
The British Army had superior tech and firepower to the Zulus at Rourke's Drift (and won, barely).
The Russians had vastly superior tech and firepower when they tried to invade Afghanistan in the 1980's.
The U.S. had vastly superior firepower in southeast Asia in the 1960's.
Batista's army was superior in tech and firepower to Castro's rebels in the 50's.
The British Army and Navy were superior in tech and firepower to the American rebels in the 1770s/1780s.
The Roman army was superior in tech and firepower to the Huns in the 5th century AD.
The Athenians were superior in tech and firepower to the Spartans in the Peloponesian wars.
The European colonial powers were superior in tech and firepower to every nation in Africa in the 50's and 60's.
The Russian Navy was superior in tech and firepower to the Japanese in 1905 (although they didn't use their newer ships).
Few and far between? No, there's plenty more where those came from. And most of those are entire campaigns, not single units. Polish cavalry in 1939 held out against Panzers far better and longer than anyone expected. Sure they lost in the end, but the Germans took heavy losses. That's actually a better analogy to the game mechanics, and far more common than the "rare" examples cited above (except maybe Rourke's Drift).
The U.S. Cavalry had superior tech and firepower to the Sioux at Little Big Horn.
The British Army had superior tech and firepower to the Zulus at Rourke's Drift (and won, barely).
The Russians had vastly superior tech and firepower when they tried to invade Afghanistan in the 1980's.
The U.S. had vastly superior firepower in southeast Asia in the 1960's.
Batista's army was superior in tech and firepower to Castro's rebels in the 50's.
The British Army and Navy were superior in tech and firepower to the American rebels in the 1770s/1780s.
The Roman army was superior in tech and firepower to the Huns in the 5th century AD.
The Athenians were superior in tech and firepower to the Spartans in the Peloponesian wars.
The European colonial powers were superior in tech and firepower to every nation in Africa in the 50's and 60's.
The Russian Navy was superior in tech and firepower to the Japanese in 1905 (although they didn't use their newer ships).
Few and far between? No, there's plenty more where those came from. And most of those are entire campaigns, not single units. Polish cavalry in 1939 held out against Panzers far better and longer than anyone expected. Sure they lost in the end, but the Germans took heavy losses. That's actually a better analogy to the game mechanics, and far more common than the "rare" examples cited above (except maybe Rourke's Drift).
Chinois
Chieftain
While Custer lost to the Sioux at Little Big Horn, he did so because of overwhelming numbers. Without the huge numbers, the calvary wins. It's obvious. Who won the West? Not the Sioux, although in some circumstance the won a battle.
In Civ3, even without overwhelming numbers, the guy with axe beats the guy with the gun. This is illogical and historically inaccurate.
I note that many of your examples are rebels fighting for freedon/revolution. These troops are inspired and/or dealing with a tired empire. Civ3 doesn't have these elements so it's note a fair comparision.
By the way, didn't Athens beat Sparta?
In Civ3, even without overwhelming numbers, the guy with axe beats the guy with the gun. This is illogical and historically inaccurate.
I note that many of your examples are rebels fighting for freedon/revolution. These troops are inspired and/or dealing with a tired empire. Civ3 doesn't have these elements so it's note a fair comparision.
By the way, didn't Athens beat Sparta?
Well, I just had my first real set-to with this. I have had a number of strings of 5 or 6, and you would expect that in random numbers. Even truly random--ask any craps shooter.
But I sent my cav to take one small city infesting my continent. I am in the process of eliminating the Aztecs anyway. They declared war on me, but I will probably get blamed.
I sent a couple of cav units against a pop on city. Both lost--retreated. the rifleman healed, of course. So I sent some more. Finally, wanting to get rid of this blot... called up and sent 12 veteran cavalry units. Two of them died after the defending rifleman got down to one hit point. That is 36 hits on me to 3 on him. City was pop 1, no walls, flat terrain (plains).
The other issue in this current game is flipping. Never been a problem before. occasional flips. However, I lose an Aztec city back aboaut every other turn. I learned real quick to leave only minimal garrison in them until I finally finish off the Aztecs. I will not leave a city standing... I normally move forward (in the modern era) re-homing bombers as I go, so they can reach tehnext city(s) That would have been disastrous. It would have happened, but I still have 2 turns to go before I get bombers. I was not really ready for this war... but ready enough to finish it. Since I would not sell them saltpeter, at least I dont have to face cavalry.
But I sent my cav to take one small city infesting my continent. I am in the process of eliminating the Aztecs anyway. They declared war on me, but I will probably get blamed.
I sent a couple of cav units against a pop on city. Both lost--retreated. the rifleman healed, of course. So I sent some more. Finally, wanting to get rid of this blot... called up and sent 12 veteran cavalry units. Two of them died after the defending rifleman got down to one hit point. That is 36 hits on me to 3 on him. City was pop 1, no walls, flat terrain (plains).
The other issue in this current game is flipping. Never been a problem before. occasional flips. However, I lose an Aztec city back aboaut every other turn. I learned real quick to leave only minimal garrison in them until I finally finish off the Aztecs. I will not leave a city standing... I normally move forward (in the modern era) re-homing bombers as I go, so they can reach tehnext city(s) That would have been disastrous. It would have happened, but I still have 2 turns to go before I get bombers. I was not really ready for this war... but ready enough to finish it. Since I would not sell them saltpeter, at least I dont have to face cavalry.
Zachriel
Kaiser
Rumsfeld said the Afghan war pointed out the value of strong U.S. Special Forces, who fought alongside anti-Taliban forces on horseback in the assault on Mazar-e Sharif.
Well if you're so convinced the guy with the axe beats the guy with the gun, why don't you just build axemen and send them up against riflemen?
I already know why you won't. You know it's bad odds and you'll lose far more than you'll win. Just like in real life. Superior tech gives you an advantage, but doesn't guarantee a win every time.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chinois
Superior tech = superior fire power = conquest. It's that simple and this game misses it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see anything mentioned there that would specifically exclude cases involving overwhelming numbers or inspired forces struggling against a tyrannical empire. None of the examples I cited were either illogical or historically inaccurate, and all of them reflect the very real possibility of inferior technology beating superior technology. So if those possibilities were excluded, the game would be historically inaccurate, wouldn't it?
It's not all that simple, so I wouldn't be surprised if you missed it.
Also, I suppose that when you play Civ3, none of your wars are campaigns of conquest where you're going up against natives who are defending their homelands. We certainly can't expect those folks to be inspired in any way, now, can we?
Oh, sure, you'll say that things like troop morale and inspiration aren't part of the game. Who are you to say what's part of the game and what isn't? How do you know that the designers didn't take these factors into account when putting together the combat engine and determining appropriate odds? Do these things exist in history? Would a game be considered "historically inaccurate" if it neglected to account for them?
IMO, making a game with a formula so idiotically simple as "Superior tech = superior fire power = conquest" would not only be illogical and historically inaccurate, it would be no fun to play.
Oh, and by the way, the city-state of Athens surrendered to Lysander of Sparta in 404 B.C., ending the Peloponnesian war. He did have considerable help from an defecting Athenian general named Alcibiades (not that it would constitute a cultural flip or anything).
I already know why you won't. You know it's bad odds and you'll lose far more than you'll win. Just like in real life. Superior tech gives you an advantage, but doesn't guarantee a win every time.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chinois
Superior tech = superior fire power = conquest. It's that simple and this game misses it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see anything mentioned there that would specifically exclude cases involving overwhelming numbers or inspired forces struggling against a tyrannical empire. None of the examples I cited were either illogical or historically inaccurate, and all of them reflect the very real possibility of inferior technology beating superior technology. So if those possibilities were excluded, the game would be historically inaccurate, wouldn't it?
It's not all that simple, so I wouldn't be surprised if you missed it.
Also, I suppose that when you play Civ3, none of your wars are campaigns of conquest where you're going up against natives who are defending their homelands. We certainly can't expect those folks to be inspired in any way, now, can we?
Oh, sure, you'll say that things like troop morale and inspiration aren't part of the game. Who are you to say what's part of the game and what isn't? How do you know that the designers didn't take these factors into account when putting together the combat engine and determining appropriate odds? Do these things exist in history? Would a game be considered "historically inaccurate" if it neglected to account for them?
IMO, making a game with a formula so idiotically simple as "Superior tech = superior fire power = conquest" would not only be illogical and historically inaccurate, it would be no fun to play.
Oh, and by the way, the city-state of Athens surrendered to Lysander of Sparta in 404 B.C., ending the Peloponnesian war. He did have considerable help from an defecting Athenian general named Alcibiades (not that it would constitute a cultural flip or anything).
a person with knife made of flint can kill ya just as easy as person with a sword
a person with a bow can kill just as easy as a person with a rifle
a tank still has crew inside it who can be killed by the aforementioned knife
just because you got machines or technolgy does'nt grant immediate victory as too variables come into play
muskets vs swordsmen? ya screwed if its raining
riflemen vs swordsmen? ya screwed in urban combat where people can ambush you at distances of a few feet and your range advantage means nothing
i'm getting sick of this belief that technical superiorty grants victory
it doesn't, its an enabler, that is it just makes it more likely but there are still many situations where technology makes little difference
ultimately all the tech is used/directed by people against people and if you can't effect the tech you go for the person
it isn't always necessary to kill/destroy something to neutralise it
as long as it ain't doing its main function its effectively "killed"
i've said it before that civ3 ain't a wargame but an abstract one
it means you gotta use some imagination
stop thinking literally that people armed with axes are trying to hack through tank armour
the tech lvls are merely a guide to what they are generally using during the struggle
if a tank is beaten by a warrior unit it could (bear in mind turns are years long) simply refer to the fact that the population never accepted the rule of the conquers and turned partizan
this would mean people using rocks to throw at soldiers whenever possible/ ambush attacks to beat people with sticks and rocks/ traps/ petrol bombs and all sorts of other things
the occupying military would constantly have to waste manpower against these attacks thus that "unit" is effectively "killed" as it can't forfill its main purpose but is tied up in policing actions, and as the population is not assisting the unit (they would be hiding/ ambushing/ trap setting/ pillaging units supplies) then the area is not in effect controlled or conquered
in situations where the city population doesn't accept the "rule" of the occupying forces the miltary simply does not have the manpower to control it (and in civ3 terms the unit "dies", that is it is wasted trying to route out or control the populace)
i mean think about it, can you imagine a military battalion of say 10,000 men trying to control an area and population the size of an american city
if you "tried"to kill or dominate and control every person in the city do you have any idea how many years it would take to find em all and what would happen if the entire population decided to "kill" you or hinder you in some way
stop thinking in wargame terms of "destroying or killing" units but start thinking in civ3 terms of neutralising units
if you can change ya thinking in that manner you can see why cities are so difficult to take by force and that the abstact idea of culture (getting them to basically accept your rule) can be more effective
likewise bombardment where you level the city and its resources to make it unhabitable (food/water and such destroyed) effectively "neutralises" the city
the idea of culture, getting the city population on your side by destroying city improvements by spies (imagine it as using agents to hinder the running of the city and making life difficult compared to your "pristine" cities) or bombardment (making the city unlivable forcing the relocation of the population and inabilty to do anything but "survive") or war weariness (causing populations to become refeguees and flee and also reducing populations due to conscription, causing discontent due to restrictions on things due to divertion of resources to war effort) and so on can be more effective than the "40+" stack of miltary units attacking a city as that is a massive waste of resources
civ3 is not, *and i repeat for the hundreth time in a chanting voice*, a wargame...
it is in many respects a kinda history sim, although an abstract one, where you get to shape the emerging world
a person with a bow can kill just as easy as a person with a rifle
a tank still has crew inside it who can be killed by the aforementioned knife
just because you got machines or technolgy does'nt grant immediate victory as too variables come into play
muskets vs swordsmen? ya screwed if its raining
riflemen vs swordsmen? ya screwed in urban combat where people can ambush you at distances of a few feet and your range advantage means nothing
i'm getting sick of this belief that technical superiorty grants victory
it doesn't, its an enabler, that is it just makes it more likely but there are still many situations where technology makes little difference
ultimately all the tech is used/directed by people against people and if you can't effect the tech you go for the person
it isn't always necessary to kill/destroy something to neutralise it
as long as it ain't doing its main function its effectively "killed"
i've said it before that civ3 ain't a wargame but an abstract one
it means you gotta use some imagination
stop thinking literally that people armed with axes are trying to hack through tank armour
the tech lvls are merely a guide to what they are generally using during the struggle
if a tank is beaten by a warrior unit it could (bear in mind turns are years long) simply refer to the fact that the population never accepted the rule of the conquers and turned partizan
this would mean people using rocks to throw at soldiers whenever possible/ ambush attacks to beat people with sticks and rocks/ traps/ petrol bombs and all sorts of other things
the occupying military would constantly have to waste manpower against these attacks thus that "unit" is effectively "killed" as it can't forfill its main purpose but is tied up in policing actions, and as the population is not assisting the unit (they would be hiding/ ambushing/ trap setting/ pillaging units supplies) then the area is not in effect controlled or conquered
in situations where the city population doesn't accept the "rule" of the occupying forces the miltary simply does not have the manpower to control it (and in civ3 terms the unit "dies", that is it is wasted trying to route out or control the populace)
i mean think about it, can you imagine a military battalion of say 10,000 men trying to control an area and population the size of an american city
if you "tried"to kill or dominate and control every person in the city do you have any idea how many years it would take to find em all and what would happen if the entire population decided to "kill" you or hinder you in some way
stop thinking in wargame terms of "destroying or killing" units but start thinking in civ3 terms of neutralising units
if you can change ya thinking in that manner you can see why cities are so difficult to take by force and that the abstact idea of culture (getting them to basically accept your rule) can be more effective
likewise bombardment where you level the city and its resources to make it unhabitable (food/water and such destroyed) effectively "neutralises" the city
the idea of culture, getting the city population on your side by destroying city improvements by spies (imagine it as using agents to hinder the running of the city and making life difficult compared to your "pristine" cities) or bombardment (making the city unlivable forcing the relocation of the population and inabilty to do anything but "survive") or war weariness (causing populations to become refeguees and flee and also reducing populations due to conscription, causing discontent due to restrictions on things due to divertion of resources to war effort) and so on can be more effective than the "40+" stack of miltary units attacking a city as that is a massive waste of resources
civ3 is not, *and i repeat for the hundreth time in a chanting voice*, a wargame...
it is in many respects a kinda history sim, although an abstract one, where you get to shape the emerging world
Ironikinit
Prince
Well, we can rationalize the results in a lot of different ways. When we take an unlikely loss, we can say:
Our tank commander was drunk
Our infantry was hooked on smack
Our calvary had a dose of the clap and nasty hangovers
The enemy spearmen were armed with bazookas
But really, it's just luck. The game emphasizes luck more than some people like. Luck evens out, of course, but people tend not to remember the times when they got lucky and remember when they were unlucky.
It's been pretty much proven, so far as I'm concerned, that the combat dice are fair. I've yet to see a knight beat a tank, let alone a spearman, and the knight has a much better chance, at least on the attack.
It just looks awfully funny seeing cavalry attack tanks and win. Of course, the simple fact that my tanks are fighting cavalry shows that I'm way ahead and should be playing on a harder level or otherwise handicapping myself.
Our tank commander was drunk
Our infantry was hooked on smack
Our calvary had a dose of the clap and nasty hangovers
The enemy spearmen were armed with bazookas
But really, it's just luck. The game emphasizes luck more than some people like. Luck evens out, of course, but people tend not to remember the times when they got lucky and remember when they were unlucky.
It's been pretty much proven, so far as I'm concerned, that the combat dice are fair. I've yet to see a knight beat a tank, let alone a spearman, and the knight has a much better chance, at least on the attack.
It just looks awfully funny seeing cavalry attack tanks and win. Of course, the simple fact that my tanks are fighting cavalry shows that I'm way ahead and should be playing on a harder level or otherwise handicapping myself.
Chinois
Chieftain
I've read the instruction book several times over. There's no mention of troop morale or inspiration in it. There's no action the player can take to directly influence these elements. Even the presence of a Great Leader does not increase hit values (it's just the total of the loaded units).
I remain puzzled by references to "going partizan (sic)" and the like. Perhaps these concepts are taken into consideration when developing the odds for combat. My point is that they are given too much weight. Guns v. axe shouldn't be 50/50; it should be more like 80/20 with the "20" representing morale, revolution, home defense etc.
As for inspired folks with rocks fighting superior tech, ask the Palestinian kids throwing rocks whether they would rather have an F-16 or Cobra attack helio. Those folks have been throwing rocks for a generation without damaging Israeli Army (I'm not refering to terrorist action against civilians which is something different and not an element in Civ3).
While the rock throwing David occaisionally kills Goliath, it is so rare as to be divine. In Civ3, its mundane.
My other point is that the game itself emphasizes developing tech. You choose what tech to develop in what sequence. You allocate resources between tech and entertainment. All of this suggests that a civ with certain tech should have certain advantages and disadvantages based on those choices. In playing the game, however, it seems to me that military tech doesn't translate to military strength. Again, this doesn't make sense.
ill say it again, you don't have to kill a unit to neutralize it
those kids with rocks are tying up 10-20 troops and an armoured vehicle
the time its wasting on those kids is time its not doing other military actions and thus its "neutralized" or in civ3 terms "killed"
the units diplayed in civ3 do not translate directly into that kind of unit but rather the "tech" lvl of the equipment/tactics in use
its only cities where the lower tech units stand much of a chance or places of extreme defence bonus and thats for the reasons already mentioned earlier, outside of these places the lower tech units have no chance of neutralising units
try the units on floodplains and have your tank attack a spearmen and see the "advantage" of tech
those kids with rocks are tying up 10-20 troops and an armoured vehicle
the time its wasting on those kids is time its not doing other military actions and thus its "neutralized" or in civ3 terms "killed"
the units diplayed in civ3 do not translate directly into that kind of unit but rather the "tech" lvl of the equipment/tactics in use
its only cities where the lower tech units stand much of a chance or places of extreme defence bonus and thats for the reasons already mentioned earlier, outside of these places the lower tech units have no chance of neutralising units
try the units on floodplains and have your tank attack a spearmen and see the "advantage" of tech
Zachriel
Kaiser
I believe that is close to the ratio that exists in the game. Riflemen are 4/6; Warriors 1/1. That means 4x on attack, 6x on defense, 80-20 would be 4-1.
Zachriel
Kaiser
Good example, by the way.
Yes, of course they would rather have something better than rocks to fight with. But fight with rocks they do, and they have tied up one of the most advanced armies in the world.
(IMHO, in the long run a political solution is the only viable answer.)
Ironikinit
Prince
Well, that 4-1 is going to be at least 4-1.25 given that the warrior will be on defense.
Nitpicky, I know.
I think a lot of what's annoying people is that the defender gets bonuses: bonus for terrain, for fortification, walls, being in a city, defending against an attack across a river, etc. Since it's not really spelled out like in a lot of games (no combat advisor), players are taken by surprise when an obsolete unit beats an attacking unit that's a few steps more advanced.
Wouldn't it be cool if the obsolete unit taunted the player? Face, you lost a tank to some guys with sticks, da-yum! You suck.
Worst... general... ever.
Like that.
What people want is to have their hands held, and Civ 3 isn't good at that. It pretty much sucks in the hand holding department, and that's the #1 source of complaints. Like how Zouave pitches a fit because he can't be bothered to keep track of the AI progress on wonders. And how everything's a bug, even if it's covered in the rules. Suck it up, jerkuses, this is how the game is and complaining won't help. Deal with it.
Nitpicky, I know.
I think a lot of what's annoying people is that the defender gets bonuses: bonus for terrain, for fortification, walls, being in a city, defending against an attack across a river, etc. Since it's not really spelled out like in a lot of games (no combat advisor), players are taken by surprise when an obsolete unit beats an attacking unit that's a few steps more advanced.
Wouldn't it be cool if the obsolete unit taunted the player? Face, you lost a tank to some guys with sticks, da-yum! You suck.
Worst... general... ever.
Like that.
What people want is to have their hands held, and Civ 3 isn't good at that. It pretty much sucks in the hand holding department, and that's the #1 source of complaints. Like how Zouave pitches a fit because he can't be bothered to keep track of the AI progress on wonders. And how everything's a bug, even if it's covered in the rules. Suck it up, jerkuses, this is how the game is and complaining won't help. Deal with it.
Zachriel
Kaiser
Civ3 is a tough game, but I really hate to see people cry. If they were taunted, they may have a nervous breakdown. . . .
Then again. . . .
Or to quote the losing French general at Agincourt, "Shame, shame, eternal shame."
LOL about the taunts. Now I REALLY can't wait for MP to be released (if ever).
I wonder what folks will say when the combat odds don't change for MP, since they're so convinced now that it's so tilted in the AI's favor.
Thanks to whoever brought up the issue of defense modifiers. I don't seem to recall any of the "unfair dice" whiners mentioning anything about terrain or defense modifiers. I know that whenever I plan an attack, I always click ctrl-shift-M and take a good look at the terrain and placement of rivers. Rivers in particular make a big difference that can be easily overlooked, and I use them quite a bit for defense as well. I'll even plop cities where they miss out on a couple high-production squares just so that they can have a better defensive position if they're ever attacked. I believe the AI does the same thing. I frequently find their cities on hills and/or surrounded on several sides by rivers.
I wonder what folks will say when the combat odds don't change for MP, since they're so convinced now that it's so tilted in the AI's favor.
Thanks to whoever brought up the issue of defense modifiers. I don't seem to recall any of the "unfair dice" whiners mentioning anything about terrain or defense modifiers. I know that whenever I plan an attack, I always click ctrl-shift-M and take a good look at the terrain and placement of rivers. Rivers in particular make a big difference that can be easily overlooked, and I use them quite a bit for defense as well. I'll even plop cities where they miss out on a couple high-production squares just so that they can have a better defensive position if they're ever attacked. I believe the AI does the same thing. I frequently find their cities on hills and/or surrounded on several sides by rivers.
Sarcastro
Warlord
Take a look at the sticky thread at the top of this very forum. "A Combat Test Map." It's demonstrated pretty conclusively that 50/50 is not even close, and that the results are just about exactly what you'd expect. In the Tank v. Spearman battles, the tank wins 95% of the time.
I think that your memory of poor combat results is a case of rembering the bad and discounting the good. Even though those tests don't include the various defensive bonuses, it shows that the numbers work just fine. And, in my opinion, the defense bonuses make sense, so if they influence the combat, so be it.
Anglophile
Warlord
I don't know why people firmly believe that those warriors are still using axes after 5000 years. The Sioux never discovered gunpowder, they just bought it from greedy Americans to use against the US Cavalry - just like the CIA supplied all those weapons to Al Quaeda to use against the Russians. The warrior in 1900 is not still armed with an axe, it is a motley collection of semi-soldiers poorly equipped with almost modern weapons with attack and defence strengths of 1.They will mostly lose to modern well-equipped troops - in reality and in Civ3; but even a probability of 95% that they will lose means that 1 time in 20 they will win. Stop imagining them as 5000 year old guys with axes and treat them as the game does as a low stength unit and the occasional loss might be a little more acceptable. If any probability of winning less than 99.999999999% is unacceptable, go to the editor and tweak the combat values. Just be warned. as in life, there is no such thing as a sure win here.
Anglophile
Warlord
One more thing, why does nobody ever complain when they win an 'undeserved' victory. I can't be the only player who has been caught unprepared when the AI launched an unexpected offensive, only to have my heroic spearman or two fend off a horde of horsemen/archers/swordsmen/whatever. When your vastly superior army occasionally hits an unexpected wall, console yourself with the memory of those heroic stands against great odds that got you to that position in the first place.
Furry Spatula
...
I'll tell you why. Its the squeeky wheel gets the greece type thing. You don't say good job when something goes your way, but you make noise when something doesn't go your way. Its as simple as that. If you whine your units got beaten and you always want to win. Whats the fun if there is no challenge? Whats the fun if you go into a war and you know for a 100% certanty that you will win because your army is "superior". Frankly the radomness is very good. I like the upsets. Sure they may piss me off once in a while, but it makes the game a little more difficult and not as monotonous.
etj4Eagle
ACME Salesman
This is exactly how I look at the units. To me the name and graphic only represent the unit when it is first invented. After that point the unit changes to keep up with the other units such that its A/D ratio remain the same. Basically it comes down to do you want massive technological gaps to occur or do you want all Civ to advance at relatively the same rate (making use of tech even if they haven't discovered it themselves yet). Method 1 would require far more units to be well played out in the game, complicating it and might pose some problems to the AI. In that you have to ensure that the AI gets rid of its useless units after each age. Or you could do method 2, which maintains the goal of simplicity that the developers were striving for in this sequal.
There other reason why you here so many people complaining is that they don't really take notice of the A/D values and combat modifiers. They rate the units by their names, not their A/D values. Hence to them they don't have a conscious understanding that that outdate unit actually has a 1/3 chance of successfully defending against their unit.
Similar threads
