213374U

Why, of course. You are weird. Wasn't that obvious?

Actually, according to Ender, this is not the 100th, but the 12th. And as long as the movies they make are the same quality as this one, I really don't care when they will stop.

Just saw it today. Good stuff.

Yup. This thread is pretty On a side note, I think the present record is held by some Calax who has like 35 ppd :ph34r:

Well, that may be so. The city micromanagement part of the game somewhat bores me so I tend to spread all I can, but with the least possible amount of cities.

Well, the AI just sucks at strategy, but I was talking about what one can do to defend against the stupid plunder-and-run AI tactics. Sadly enough, there is no difference in strategy between barbarians and 21st century armies, as far as the AI is concerned. And no, I don't get a crazy twisted web of rails, I only build it to either boost production, or communicate between cities, never for the sake of it. I don't have lots of entry points into my railroad network for my enemies to choose. And about hit and run tactics using the railroad, in case the enemy manages to evade your line, he should still be within range of your fast moving units (because you should have those ready to strike) since they started their movement the previous turn from behind your units. The only way I see this could be a problem is if you build huge invincible stacks. I usually lose more units than if I used stack tactics, but the enemy never gets within range of my cities, ever.

How exactly would you do that if I had the raillines well defended? That's the part I don't get. I think your problem may be that you move your forces in "stacks of doom". I never have more than 4 units (not counting artillery) in one stack, it's just not practical.

Perhaps. But then you should make sure no hostile units get past your forces, by controlling communication routes. Counterattacks are a very effective maneuver in war.

Well, that's lame. And I'm still not sure about it. If you leave any cities unprotected, you deserve to lose them. "

No power has ever embarked in a war contrary to their interests. If the US were the first to do so, the only logical conclusion is that the leaders that were responsible are idiots. I do not think that is the case, though. All that bs about democracy and the WMDs is just a coverup for something much simpler. A power that is protecting their interests (though perhaps not in a short term) by means of force. It's been that way since the dawn of time, and I don't see the trend changing. Force is the ultimate authority, and the ultimate constant in human affairs. Was it right? Was it wrong? Was it moral? Was it legal? I don't know, and quite frankly, I don't care. Those notions are relative and will change anyway. One must know to choose who their allies are, or suffer the consequences. Saddam's regime was not supported by his people at large and he lacked allies to ensure his control over his huge oil reserves. On top of that he mocked and denied international laws and authorities, but was quick to hide behind them when it was convenient. The world needs oil. It was just a matter of time before somebody went in and smacked him. You don't like it? Too bad. I'd rather have a polar world than one without a clear hegemony. And I'd certainly have the US on top rather than China or the USSR. Is that a selfish attitude, with taints of fascism? Perhaps. But I don't really care, because unlike most westerners these days, I don't have a guilt complex for living in a rich society while most of the world is poor. Nobody gave us for free what we have today. We have paid for every single thing we have with blood and sweat. Despite all your bitterness, your historical illiteracy, your bigoted attitude, and your denial of reality, the bottom line is, the US win, YU0 LOSE!

Then the conclusion is: your leaders are stupid. Really, I think they deserve more credit than you give them.

Why do you keep trying to prove the obvious?

Well, it doesn't matter. For all I care, they can stay in my mountains all they want, my cavalry (or panzers) will be waiting for them just outside. I don't know about enemy roads not giving a bonus to speed. That's stupid at any rate. But even if they don't, that's only an advantage for you. You can move your troops faster than they can, thusly being able to plan your defense in advance. I don't see how you could need overwhelming numbers in order to provide effective defense.

Are you sure you are playing Civilization 3?

Asteroids don't concern me, Admiral. If only Lucas had been able to keep the pace of the beginning RotJ for the whole movie...

You know... once you begin attacking each other's usernames, the quality of the flaming goes down real fast.

That is why fast-moving units and planning your communications and fortress networks are important. The AI is very predictable, and won't cross through mountains to avoid your well fortified army. Odds are, they will follow the road to the fortification and then proceed to get effortlessly slaughtered against the walls. The importance of knowing the terrain around your own cities... " I agree. That's why I'd like some sort of supply line simulation to be included. No. As I said, even the most modern units can't move very fast in regular terrain. That gives you enough time to wake up your defenders and send them to your fortifications or prepare a good defensive strategy and call for reinforcements if necessary. And if they do use your roads/rail network, you should be ready to repel them with ease using artillery and infantry, regardless of the era.

Now, now. We don't want any children having their progress capped, do we?

Yep. You're just slow. Don't despair though. The first step in the way to improvement is to acknowledge one's flaws. And you really have a long way ahead.

No, really.

That would just not be realistic. There are no such "control zones" in real warfare. The only real limitations to troop movement are logistics and supply lines. I'd like the inclusion of such things in Civ4, but artificially limiting the way your troops can advance with "control zones" or "established fronts" would seriously decrease the strategical factor in Civ warfare.

Ask and thou shalt receive. EDIT: Oh, wait...