You Know What I REALLY Miss From Civ 2?

Mr. Do

Emperor
Joined
Oct 9, 2003
Messages
1,970
Location
UK
How when you sink enemy transport ships, you get told how many units just got destroyed along with their ship. There's nothing like being informed that you just destroyed seven enemy troops in one go! It's not something that makes Civ 3 any less fun for its absence, although any extra opportunity to be able to laugh evilly at the AI would be nice.
 
I remembered how you could do that the other day, but I just couldn't shake off the feeling that it was "wrong" to be avle to use your enemy's infrastructure...
 
useing rail would be wrong and unrealistic but useing roads isnt, if you think about it, other then bridges you cant really destroy a road but rail you need trains and what not to use it
 
kevincompton said:
One thing I think that should be in CIV III is how in CIV I you could'nt build roads over rivers until you had construction.
It's already the case.
 
I would be good to be more informed about how many unit's you had destroyed, I'd like to see that come back, as well as stats on your losses/kills.


Colonel said:
useing rail would be wrong and unrealistic but useing roads isnt, if you think about it, other then bridges you cant really destroy a road but rail you need trains and what not to use it

I've always thought of it as advancing cautiously, I don't imagine your soldiers would move as quickly as they would on your own roads because they don't want to be charging into an ambush (even though you really know there aren't any units in their path).
 
Colonel said:
useing rail would be wrong and unrealistic but useing roads isnt, if you think about it, other then bridges you cant really destroy a road but rail you need trains and what not to use it

You can always mine a road. As far as I am concerned, my troops do not get teh movement bonus while in enemy territory becase they are checking the roads for mines.
 
Randy said:
I miss the that you could move on AI road and rail.

I found that always made Civ2 much too easy. I could takeover an entire enemy civ in one turn if I spent enough time building howitzers and armor.

I've always felt that (modern-era) wars in Civ3 felt more realistic and more challenging because they disallowed the use of enemy infrastructure, among other things.
 
You can already tell how many units are on a square. It's the little white lines under the health bar. You only can't see it on enemy cities.
 
The little white lines are only good up to six or seven. Units above that can only be determined by right-clicking on the stack. I learned this the hard way during a barb rampage.
 
It's seven on my monitor and I've heard other very reliable persons say six so it must be one of those things that depends on either a user's monitor or eyesight.
 
sealman said:
You can always mine a road. As far as I am concerned, my troops do not get teh movement bonus while in enemy territory becase they are checking the roads for mines.

What about in the ancient and medieval era?
 
bob rulz said:
You can already tell how many units are on a square. It's the little white lines under the health bar. You only can't see it on enemy cities.

Why are you volunteering this information..?
 
I wish that in Civ3 workers would turn into a unit like the Engineers from Civ2. It's funny to see little men using shovels to build roads and such in modern times. They should be driving little backhoes or bulldozers.

Same can be said about settlers. In the modern ages, rather than have a dude walking around with a knapsack on his back he should be driving a little U-Haul truck.
 
redstoner said:
I wish that in Civ3 workers would turn into a unit like the Engineers from Civ2. It's funny to see little men using shovels to build roads and such in modern times. They should be driving little backhoes or bulldozers.

Or more realistically taking a break and smoking while backing up traffic :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom