?????????????????????????????????????????I haven't read the articles (or haven't in a very long time), and don't have an editor handy, but fortification is different than fortification. A unit can be fortified out on open ground.
?????????????????????????????????????????I haven't read the articles (or haven't in a very long time), and don't have an editor handy, but fortification is different than fortification. A unit can be fortified out on open ground.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for clearing that up, Theryman.I think he means that fortifying is different that fortification... and he is right. A fortification is a structure built by a worker action, and of course anyone who ever played Civ 3 knows what fortifying is.?????????????????????????????????????????I haven't read the articles (or haven't in a very long time), and don't have an editor handy, but fortification is different than fortification. A unit can be fortified out on open ground.
Well i think ive had possibly the strangest combat results yet... 2 veteran man o wars sent to sink two galleys on their way to invade me... the result?. Two dead man o wars!
Grrrrr RNG hates me.
I think he means that fortifying is different that fortification... and he is right. A fortification is a structure built by a worker action, and of course anyone who ever played Civ 3 knows what fortifying is.
Ah, OK. "fortification is different than fortification"...Yes, that's exactly what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for clearing that up, Theryman.
Yes, it's 6 - why would it be higher? Infantry is primarily defensive, and a defense of 6 is still as powerful as the previous Attacker (Cavalry).
It would be higher because the infantry is using superior weapons and more of them. . . except that's not the way the designers gamed it. The defense is actually 10, not 6; the defense in this period generally had it over the offense.
Arguably, the difference should be more; infantry vs cav is only 2-1 whereas cav vs inf is 3-5. But I suspect the designers painted themselves into a numbers game corner hard to get out of. You get the flavor of the period, in any case.
kk
The thing is, even if they're 8.10.1 or 8.11.1, attackers will still be at a disadvantage, yet they'll have a chance.And Infantry successfully attacked into other Infantry in the timeframe of 1890-1950 when?
During the time when infantry was pre-eminent, almost the only way an attack was successful is if it followed a blistering artillery barrage. In the game, this is modelled pretty well. Try redlining those enemy infantry, then attacking.
Way better than civ4...They simplified combat in civ4.actually, I think it's better than civ4
They could have introduced something like the R:TW-style of battles. They could use the very same terrain graphics, and just do some storyboarding to make m-units. It wouldn't be too hard... not if you pay those people. I wish civ 4 had gone that way. Civ III is okay the way it is (actually, I think it's better than civ4), but they could have improved greatly upon it with Civ 4, instead of makinf all that cheesy stuff.
Civ III + tactical battles = gaming heaven.
Simplified: To add a tactical perspective to Civ3, you would need a lot of disc space.Civilization 3 is a strategic to grand strategic game. If you want to go to a tactical level game, you are talking about adding another entire game to the setup. That would include a another combat results system, new terrain graphics, probably new unit graphics and animations, and have a game similar to say, Rise of Nations or Age of Empire 2 or 3. Plus, you would need some sort of interface between the town games to shift from one to the other, and have the results from the tactical game transferred to the strategic game.
Yes, that does take a lot of work, bu tit is pretty fun in the long run...You can do that in a campaign game using miniatures, if you don't mind a lot of work and have someone willing to do it.