Civ3 Combat is unbalanced?

[Pedrunn]

Civ3 army is unbalanced! You can only build army with Elite units. and needs a small wonder. You can only buid 1 army for each 4 cities. And instead of a battle view they will add defesnse/Attack points.

Those ideas are all unballancing features.

1) The only civs that can build armies are military civs that already have experience in combat (Elite Units). That means if a military civ decides to attack a pacific one . The pacific one can be considered dead. Since they will never get Elite units. The armies of the military civ will be much stronger and kill the ones that try to reach that level. And not getting Elites they will never have armies. So they will never win a war (Armies are way too powerful).

2) Big civs will be able to build more armies. So they will be much militaristicly stronger. What will keep mantainig this civs bigger and bigger.
Without mention the ICS characteristics wich should be avoided.

Conclusion
The army is too hard to get and the ones who get those will be much stronger. In a effect that really look like the CTP1 Space Layer. The first one to get to it wins. It also is getting away the Rise and Fall of civs concept.

[Urban Ranger]

AFAIK you can build stacks with any units and you don't need a wonder. If you have a contrary source of info please let me know.

[Pedrunn]

You are right Urban Ranger. I got that wrong. But still the combat is unbalanced. It does not change my explanations.

[isaac brock]

if you have an elite unit and it forms a great leader, you can, yes, have an army. you can also create armies through a small wonder. If pacifist civs needed an army, and had no elite units, they could build a wonder that could help form armies. These armies would never make anything too unbalanced, because they can only have a fixed number of stacked units, and a fixed number of total armies.

This also raises the interesting question of why a pacifist civ would need an army in the first place

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Pedrunn
You are right Urban Ranger. I got that wrong. But still the combat is unbalanced. It does not change my explanations.

Not really unbalancing per se.

It is always a decision of how to distibute resouces a player has. Consider that in Civ 3, you need 2 pop points to build a settler, so a militaristic civ will tend to be smaller, since it builds units instead of city improvements and other items that assist with population growth. Also, a pacificistic nation tend to have a lead in civ advances and city improvements. These are important because:

- a high cultural rating reduces barbarian attacks
- having more advanced units is a good thing

So it's not a one-sided game. A lot of thoughts have been gone into Civ 3 to allow for different strategies.

[genghisvick]

Originally posted by Pedrunn
Civ3 army is unbalanced! You can only build army with Elite units. and needs a small wonder. You can only buid 1 army for each 4 cities. And instead of a battle view they will add defesnse/Attack points.

Those ideas are all unballancing features.

1) The only civs that can build armies are military civs that already have experience in combat (Elite Units). That means if a military civ decides to attack a pacific one . The pacific one can be considered dead. Since they will never get Elite units. The armies of the military civ will be much stronger and kill the ones that try to reach that level. And not getting Elites they will never have armies. So they will never win a war (Armies are way too powerful).

2) Big civs will be able to build more armies. So they will be much militaristicly stronger. What will keep mantainig this civs bigger and bigger.
Without mention the ICS characteristics wich should be avoided.

Conclusion
The army is too hard to get and the ones who get those will be much stronger. In a effect that really look like the CTP1 Space Layer. The first one to get to it wins. It also is getting away the Rise and Fall of civs concept.

That's how the real world is why would the game be any different?

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by isaac brock
This also raises the interesting question of why a pacifist civ would need an army in the first place

Parade duty