Civ IV

[213374U]

Nope, no speed bonus in enemy territory (this was probably an overkill, but they probably wanted to prevent you from jumping on an enemies rail-line and basically zip around attacking whatever undefended city you choose).

Well, that's lame. And I'm still not sure about it.

 

 

It was goofy in the original Civ.  Railline your way to the unprotected cities

If you leave any cities unprotected, you deserve to lose them. "

[alanschu]

Meh, I shouldn't need to worry about having a huge garrison in my inner cities IMO.

[213374U]

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.

[alanschu]

Yeah, you can do that in Civ 3.

 

The original Civilization was harder because the enemy could use your railline.

 

That's the silly part I was talking about. I could just power to the other end of your country unmolested and start attacking

[213374U]

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.

[alanschu]

The thing is, the AI didn't defend the rail lines very well.

 

And if you build your empire like most do, you usually get a twisted web of rail lines everywhere.

 

Even if you blocked them at places, you'd still need additional "off the railroad" defense for the Armored units that have additional movement points to get off the railroad for a second.

 

And if I somehow broke through one spot on your line, I could very well have your entire country at my disposal.

[213374U]

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.

[alanschu]

Well, the twisted web of railroads that I get is because I'm boosting the production of my cities. As my cities are usually in close enough proximity so as to not waste any space, I get a huge railroad network.

 

 

The enemies never get within range of your cities because they can't use your railroads or roads

[213374U]

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.

[alanschu]

Nah. Maximizing my population so that no matter what, 4 turns for research and I can build 20 tanks per turn

[EnderAndrew]

Tanks are boring.

[alanschu]

Well, I could mass produces battleships....but they don't build as fast.

 

 

It's too bad, as I really should be able to build more than 1 unit of certain types with some of my cities :D

[EnderAndrew]

This is the ultimate military unit.

 

[alanschu]

Stormtrooper Elvis is pretty intimidating.

 

Nevermind the +200% attack in cities for being the King, there's also the +100% everywhere for wearing the fantastic camoflage.

 

And te +100000% to accuracy for being a stormtrooper!

[Walsingham]

I've been struggling with playing the Koreans recently. I know it is probably just the luck of the 'dice' but the filthy peasants only seem to win 30% of the time, swordsman versus spearmen. While my korean swordsmen lose 50% of the time against warriors and archers! What the hell is going on?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Not a fan of the Koreans in Civ3. I could never persuade the special unit to trigger a golden age. I never noticed the general combat to be weaker, though. Maybe you're having a run of bad luck. Here, try this:

 

[Calax]

now you see twenty tanks per turn would just overwhelm me. Reminds me of the later era of Call to power where halfway through the later turns you would switch to a unit near a city for no particular reason and you'd attack and it all became so split that you couldn't have a diffinitive turn.

[alanschu]

Well....if I wanted to crush enemies before war weariness kicked in, I needed to have lots of tanks

[Walsingham]

Thanks for the luck, Steve. Maybe I'm supposed to be learning some kind of lesson about peaceful conflict?

[Calax]

i am a god of culture. I really hate using armys when i can just convert my opponent to my way of thinking..... dear god i'm like Kreia (In a vadery voice) NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[alanschu]

Wouldn't this be an appropriate time for one of those classic looping "noooo" sites?

 

 

"Why yes Allan, it would. You are wise and smart beyond your years!"

 

 

Why thank you

 

Have fun

[Walsingham]

My Koreans started fighting a bit better last night.

 

Still rubbish though.

 

Speaking of which, does the experience level do anything other than alter the number of hits a unit takes?

 

Elite units seem to be able to more succesfully engage in each round of combat.

[EnderAndrew]

I've noticed that too, though I don't know if there is a mechanic for it.

 

Combat should be based off the pure attack/defense ratings, and I don' believe those go up with Veteran or Elite status.

[213374U]

This may come in handy.

[Walsingham]

That's what I thought. Obviouslly the overall chance of success or failure will change, depending on the respective hits, but I just can't shake the feeling it goes further. Probably an attribution error on my part. Interesting, for all that.