Veiws on Civ3

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by scavenger
remember, the USA has lost something like 3-4 men in Afghanistan, how many hundreds or even thousands of Al Queda members have we killed?

Yes, and we killed 5-10 million Vietnamese, and only lost 50 thousand. Guess that means we won.

(You may not understand if you are not old enough to remember. The U.S. government kept telling us we were winning the war because of how many people we killed. They did not take their enemy seriously. How could we lose against a "primitive" third world country? Turns out Ho Chi Min read how George Washington beat a "superior" army, and following Washington's battle plan, led his country to independence.)

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Yes, and we killed 5-10 million Vietnamese, and only lost 50 thousand. Guess that means we won.

(You may not understand if you are not old enough to remember. The U.S. government kept telling us we were winning the war because of how many people we killed. They did not take their enemy seriously. How could we lose against a "primitive" third world country? Turns out Ho Chi Min read how George Washington beat a "superior" army, and following Washington's battle plan, led his country to independence.)

Sigh...

How many times will I need to repeat this ?

Viet-Nam was a POLITICAL DEFEAT and a MILITARY VICTORY.
We are talking about the COMBAT SYSTEM in Civ3 (read : military unit against military unit), not the POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES (like war weariness), which were the true reason for the USA retreating from Viet-Nam.
What happened, Civ3 speaking, in Viet-Nam, was :
American Civ bring regular/veteran mechanized infantry, carriers, jet fighters and bombers over vietnam.
Viet-nam bring conscript infantry and conscript jet fighters.
USA destroy waves after waves of the Vietnamese infantry, loosing very few of their units.
Though, during this war, the war weariness of the American democracy is increasing dramatically, while the communist government of North Viet-nam has not to worry about such thing.
At the end, the war weariness forces the american civ to make peace.
It still had loose 10 mechanized infantry units and 1 or 2 jet fighter/bomber units, while the Viet-Nam lose 180 infantry units and 10-15 jet fighters units.
Still we see that the combat system of Civ 3 is FAR to be real.

Now, I DO NOT ask for such a real combat system, where just the mechanized infantry makes you able to destroy so utterly infantry, which is just the next best defense unit. But stop arguing stupidities like "history is filled with low-tech units winning against high-tech ones". The truth is that history just prove the reverse, and that Viet-Nam is in fact a proof of that.

 

[scavenger]

thank you Akka

 

[Zachriel]

In Vietnam, they celebrate a victory over the Americans. Interesting. . . . Should we let them know that they actually lost, or should we just let them continue to delude themselves?

Actually, of course, it was a political and military defeat. The strategy and its execution were unwise, and in game terms, an "advanced" civilization lost to an "inferior" one.

 

[scavenger]

we lost the war in terms of we did not accomplish our goal, this is true, but we did not loose the war militarily in the sense of causalties, the vietnamese may have been celebrating, but they were celebrating with a much smaller country then they started the war with.

 

[Zachriel]

One way to analyse the Vietnam War, trying to support the point of view that the American's didn't really lose the war there:

The real battle was a global struggle between the Communists and the West. The Communists supplied some advanced weaponry to Vietnam, including SAMS. The Americans sent in a large number of infantry units and heavy bombers, expecting an easy win. Well, the easy win did not materialize, and they suffered substantial losses (don't you hate it when you send in your best units and they get wiped out). The Americans withdrew, but eventually won a cultural victory.

Of course, it follows that the American Revolution was actually "just" a footnote in a global power struggle between the British and the French. The British didn't really lose the American Revolution, they just withdrew.

 

[cutiestar]

don't forget America also provided advanced weapons to their enemy aswell, as they always do

If you ever watched Mcgyver, you'd not be having this discussion, because as unreal as Mcgyver certainly was as a tv show, it did show that a very smart, resourceful science whiz could probably take out a tank with a piece if string and some magnesium.

Throw 3 elite SAS from (not american, Hong Kong, Israel, NZ or something) in a dark rain forest with a simple rifle and a knife. then send 50 US troops in with whatever top notch equipment you like, spread them all out and see who wins, it isn't about advanced weapons, it is about skill.

If it was so simple to just roll over an army with less superior weapons, the US would have been more keen to just send in their troops instead of letting the Northern Alliance struggle.

The only sure things in fighting should be, maybe a spearman can't kill a bomber, infact no ground unit except anti air artillery should be able to kill aircraft. Yes I know a lucky bullet, but please.

While everyone is trying to be so reaistic, maybe we should also make it that knights, cavalry, horseman need to stop off at some fresh water source every so many turns out of their city. lol

 

[cutiestar]

hahahahahaa

ofcourse the British withdrew, as if any sane minded person believes the american revolution was won over the might of the british empire, haha, the British could have slaughtered them.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Moderator Action: Guys, this isn't the Vietnam forum. Please get back to expressing your "Views on Civ 3" or this topic shall die a painless death.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Meglomania]

Originally posted by Bob Hitchen
Replying to Meglomania - now that was a fun game on the Nintendo.

It isn't about random number generators although date time gives a different base especially if utilised correctly. The issue here is one of how much disadvantage the AI would have by losing. I played one game where there were 33 German Knights stacked up which were on grassland unfortified and I attacked with 4 different types of unit infantry regular mostly won veteran about even and elite lost most. Cavalry were largely useless except for finishing off; Longbowmen mostly won (they must have imported them from Agincourt); archers mostly won. Very strange!
The situation is even stranger with fortified regular spearmen I suspect they would survive Nukes. I would expect a different result every time there was a battle between the same 2 parties after reloading even if that was only damage to the victor. That's why I smell a rat.

Yes, I was a big Meglomania fan on the much hated (by PC owners at the time) Amiga - "We've Nuked em".

I really dont think that the AI decides to selectively cheat when large / crucial battles are involved. If you have the same battle on a different turn then the result IS different, or if you use your units that are attacking in a different order.

I have noticed something strange though (maybe related to the Knights experience that you had). Even if a unit is not damaged by an attack, the next attack on the same unit quite often caused a serious amount of damage / destroys the unit. Maybe there is some hidden code in the game where the unit is weary from the last battle and this affects their combat abilities (so that longbowman that follows up after the tank has a reasonable chance of victory).

Well, I better get back to launching my tactical Nukes and ICBM arsenal at the French, lets see if they can survive 50+ warheads raining down on them (I bet that all the spearmen survive!)