Ok i have 2 Questions,1. i want to know what ppl think of the bugs in Civ3? eg. archers beating tanks, diplomacy problems ect ect.
2. Now I bet even tho all of yous have at some time noticed one of these things, wether it just be an archer lossing to a worrior or whatever, how many of u have stoped playing?????
lol yes thats right yes, 23 veiws no replys, are you all just to ashamed to admit that civ3 is buggier then ctp2 was, in wich case proves i was wright from the first time i posted here???????
Yes, a thousand men on horses with rifles (19th century technology) can be very dangerous when properly entrenched. Just ask our guys in Afghanistan trying to root out Al Queda (21st century technology).
With proper training, good leadership decisions and a little luck, we will win this battle without substantial losses.
Never attack a well-prepared, fortified opponent without planning. In other words, if you send a single tank or two to take out a phalanx on a mountain or in a city, and your men are subsequently butchered, then you should be courtmartialed.
well, right now, that is no longer happening in my games. The other civs can now keep up in the tech race and can produce advanced units as well. but even if it did happen i would still play...I don't wage wars alot anyway.
First, this was a game design plan, not a bug.
Second, be happy you have the tech advantage.
Third, send defending units along with offensive units. That is the main thing I've noticed in the strange outcomes occurring, it seems that it is usually a modern attack unit that loses. I haven't had many cases of an infantry losing to a warrior.
Originally posted by Tripa Ok i have 2 Questions,1. i want to know what ppl think of the bugs in Civ3? eg. archers beating tanks, diplomacy problems ect ect.
2. Now I bet even tho all of yous have at some time noticed one of these things, wether it just be an archer lossing to a worrior or whatever, how many of u have stoped playing?????
Well, imo you have to be loose to play this game or else you will have times where you feel like going Incredible Hulk and throwing your comp around the room like a PO'ed gorrilla w/ stool laying around.
As much as the "killer phalanx" is annoying, this game (as in Civ nature) is addicting. My tanks get scrapped, my ships explore the ocean bottom, but these things actually give me a good laugh. I can't help but say to myself "why won't this bastard just die?!?!" Is it worth $50...eh, ok not $50. $29.99-39.99 sure, if you find it cheaper, yeah get it.
well im glad im not the only one that was really dissapointed in civ3, i still play civ3 vs the ai when im offline but as soon as i connect to the net its back to the good old CTP2 for me, even tho u can cheat in CTP2, we have learnt ways around it and ways to catch ppl out skaven clan is currently workin on a Cheater report for CTP2 so that ppl know not to play vs these cheats, but still i cant wait to play civ3 online, i just hope it dont get even buggier with MP.
Yes, a thousand men on horses with rifles (19th century technology) can be very dangerous when properly entrenched. Just ask our guys in Afghanistan trying to root out Al Queda (21st century technology).
With proper training, good leadership decisions and a little luck, we will win this battle without substantial losses.
Never attack a well-prepared, fortified opponent without planning. In other words, if you send a single tank or two to take out a phalanx on a mountain or in a city, and your men are subsequently butchered, then you should be courtmartialed.
I will always be completely amazed by the amount of insanity that people can throw just to justify and defend anything they like.
Please, just tell "yes it happens, it's not realistic, but I like it like that" and stop with childish attempts to explain any absurdity in the game.
And please, STOP with completely stupid examples as like comparing the weapons of Al-Qaida to any 19th century rifles.
Stop also with the "well then they just got more modern weapons, in fact they are just not exactly a /warrior/hoplite/horsemen/insert your favored low-tech unit/ but in fact a /rag-tag infantry/militia/partisant/pick your own name/ unit".
And then I'll stop too with my rants
Oh, and Tripa, please : pleaze, do me a favor. Learn about punctuation. Your posts are a pain for the eyes to read.
And Afgahinistahn isnt a realistic exapmle. In Afganistahn the Us isnt dong much other than supporting Northern and Eastern Alliance forces. They are useing WW2 tech. We are just bombing. But regaurdless, they arent spearman, they are WW2 infanty. They have stinger missles, and rocket launchers, they have missle launching vehicles very similar to the radar artillary in Civ 3.So you comparison is flawed from the outset. They have AK-47's and other semi and fully auto weapons, along with greande launchers and sams, and They are essentialy modern troops useing Slightly dated equiptment. C'mon, lets get real if you wanna do comparisons.
I suspect that ww2 commanders would have been delighted with
Afghan military weapons tanks missiles mines guns radar communications. They would probably have won the war.
Originally posted by Bob Hitchen I suspect that ww2 commanders would have been delighted with
Afghan military weapons tanks missiles mines guns radar communications. They would probably have won the war.
sorry about punctuation, i never did do well in english. lol
And as for all you people relating to modern day events, if you take a look at the diffrence it is a matter of 60 yrs or less, where as in Civ3 it is not just a matter of tanks losing to rifle men, but a matter of tanks being killed by worriors this is a matter of 4000 to 5000 yrs in diffrence. This can not be justified.
Any way im about to go play a quick game of Civ3. Im just praying that my combat system dont go screwy again.
There are countless examples in history whereby the army with all the advantages, can reasonably complain about the unfairness of life, or blame the gods of Firaxis:
The French loss at Agincourt; the butchering of hundreds of British infantry by Zulu warriors with pointy sticks in 1879; the recent destruction of the U.S. Destroyer by a couple of guys in a speedboat in Yemen; nineteen guys with boxcutters striking fear into the heart of the most advanced technologically advanced civilization in world history. . .
Here's the way to settle the argument. Give me tanks, or even just riflemen, you take Phalanx's. We'll fight it out and see.
Originally posted by Zachriel There are countless examples in history whereby the army with all the advantages, can reasonably complain about the unfairness of life, or blame the gods of Firaxis:
The French loss at Agincourt; the butchering of hundreds of British infantry by Zulu warriors with pointy sticks in 1879; the recent destruction of the U.S. Destroyer by a couple of guys in a speedboat in Yemen; nineteen guys with boxcutters striking fear into the heart of the most advanced technologically advanced civilization in world history. . .
Here's the way to settle the argument. Give me tanks, or even just riflemen, you take Phalanx's. We'll fight it out and see.
Better idea. You say that the army with advantage can lose. So well, YOU take the phalanx and *I* will take the armored division. I bet you'll be VERY QUICKLY sorry to not be in Civ3 when you'll start to get your chances of getting out of here alive.
@Akka - grief! None of this is real. Its just a game. Think proximations, think relative.
German tanks weren't better in WW2, they had more radios, they were employed better, they weren't made for fighting other tanks.
Hannibal's troops were nowhere near as "advanced" as the Roman legions. Yet he visited a number of most ghastly defeats on a succession of Armies, often cited and rarely copied these days.
Strategy. By the sounds of the way you use your tanks, I would have good chances of winning with a spearman
Of course, you are, because you know that the superior units win most battles, and the superior civilization will win most wars. In real life and in Civ3. You're just upset because occasionally you lose an expensive unit to a cheap one, usually I'm sure, due to frontal assaults on fortified positions.
Funny. The French King was quite upset after Agincourt. He did everything right. Sent his best units with his best Knights, against a worn down, outnumbered, poorly supplied, unarmored adversary --- and lost.
@Zachriel. You're welcome. Grating isn't it? To find out that war doesn't consist of pristine, absolute, crushing, lossless victory.
No, in reality, is more likely to consist of bloody stalemate, rotting away in some trench and drowning in mud because you can't "break out" and sweep to glorious victory. We wouldn't be fighting wars if that was the case.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
