Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by AznWarlord, Oct 8, 2007.
least likely, but the check/roll is made every turn, from the very early point in the game!
Yes, but knights come with an optional tech, while horses come with a required tech. Also, knights are considerably more expensive than MWs (70 shields vs. 30). So you're spending 40 more shields for that one additional attack point and two defensive points. Is it a good bargain? I guess it depends on the game. I frequently bypass Chivalry and head straight for Military Tradition. I'm probably even more inclined to do so if I have MWs than if I have horsemen, but if I'm losing lots of horses to pikes, I may pick up Chivalry for the knights. They are handy, but the question is whether they're worth the cost.
MWs fare decently against pikes, too. Now, I wouldn't recommend using them against a healthy pike in a walled city on a hill across a river, but if you're redlining pikes on open ground with artillery units, I wouldn't worry too much about using MWs against them.
If you're asking about whether to build pikes or MWs, well, you've hit the nail on the head. Pikes require iron, cost the same as MWs and defend 2 points better. So build pikes to protect your stack of arty and send your MWs to pillage and kill.
As pol1 pointed out, the check for depletion is made every turn. Iron simply has many more chances to deplete than, say, aluminum or oil.
No question that the Knight is a better unit than a MW. But I'd rather have 7 MW than 3 knights.
Yes, but this also brings up another consideration. Depending on the gov/support at the time this decision could cost as much as 12 gpt if you were over support limit.
and another also : they are built to be used, so will probably offset support cost by conquering some city(ies) to support them.
btw : imagine situation 7*horse/3*sword vs (maybe 3?) 3*spear, and 7*MW/3*knight vs 3*pike -
[cost of production ratio only for MW/knight 7:3, horses & swords rather to show increased attack of the latter]
without calculations : 7 horses have better chance of taking city than 3 swords, so then 7MW have greater chance than 3 knights
back to topic : and with them You might conquer other iron source.
Why must resources deplete? -- it makes the game fun
My two cents -- the Mounted Warrior is in the top 3 best UU's.
Actually not, because the horsemen/MWs will just keep dying, bringing the defender's hp up, making it harder to capture the city.
That's exactly why I prefer less stronger units than more weaker units.
Actually, I don't mind resources disappearing as much as I do luxuries. Sure,loss of resources can set you back, but they are easier to trade for. In the later parts of games, luxuries are nearly impossible to trade for. Everybody wants them, and if you haven't had a longstanding deal in place for them, then they are all spoken for. I think it's particularly stupid for things like spice and silks to deplete, as they are renewable resources, so it's particularly annoying when they do.
luxes, rubber and horses do not 'deplete', six other strategic resources do.
Are you talking about Civ2 or Civ3?
Bull. I've had spices and dyes deplete many times. I once had silks deplete. I had rubber deplete once when I was playing as Japan in C3C WWII pacific scenario. I think that's where I had silks deplete, too, as the Chinese.
Lots of things can be changed in the Editor for scenarios, but luxes, horses and rubber never deplete in a standard epic game.
What gmaharriet said .
[sound of buzzer] Wrong answer, try again.
This has got to be the most bogus thing I've heard since someone said that artillery units could be aimed!
Well one time my silk worms caught the jungle disease and died -- effectively depleting my silk. I was so mad because it is so hard to trade for these things.
Do you play many "normal" civ3 games, or do you just stick to scenarios, because alot of stuff is changed in the mods and scenarios.
Has anyone ever seen a resource deplete that wasnt hooked up?
No. I've seen that issue mentioned in an SG and I think the conclusion reached was that resources that were not hooked up don't deplete. However, I've never tested that theory.
What is not hooked up cannot deplete.
Separate names with a comma.