December 20, 2001, 18:02
|
#61
|
|
Born Again Optimist
Local Time: 14:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: This space reserved for Darkstar.
Posts: 5,667
|
LOL!  God, I love people who don't 'get it.' Things here would be so boring if, after I was attacked, my counter-attacks were actually understood! 
__________________
I've been on these boards for a long time and I still don't know what to think when it comes to you -- FrantzX, December 21, 2001
"Yin": Your friendly, neighborhood negative cosmic force.
|
|
|
|
|
December 20, 2001, 18:38
|
#62
|
|
Prince
Local Time: 19:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Prince
Posts: 359
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Bugg
Does anybody think that 5 battalions of tanks could hold New York City?
|
Perhaps, perhaps not. They should be able to hold a 2-pop. town like Mayberry without succumbing to annihilation. I understand that Aunt B's pies generate ALOT of culture, but hey. As for tanks holding on to large cities...ask Hungary how that revolt vs Soviet tank brigades faired in Budapest back in the 50's. They vastly outnumbered the incoming troops, but as much as movies and video games hate to admit it, civilians simply are not equal to combat-hardened troops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 21, 2001, 05:03
|
#63
|
|
Warlord
Local Time: 19:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Zeeheldenkwartier
Posts: 104
|
Sorry to be apologetic, but I think the city reverts due to the now invisible and highly effective CivIII partisans, which you can NOT challenge or fight in a conventional manner (unlike the CivII partisans, which were just an annoyance and easily taken care of)
PS I am mainly defending the main idea idea behind this game design decision, which I think is ok because it makes conquering more difficult. I do think that some implementations should be better (like what happens to your troops, or how many troops will always, i.e. 100% of the time, be able to hold the city)
|
|
|
|
|
|
December 21, 2001, 15:16
|
#64
|
|
Chieftain
Local Time: 13:40
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 91
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Bugg
The reason that revolutions are allowed to happen is to prevent the players like myself who have no morals from giving the A.I. a few luxuries and gold per turn for a Rights of passage treaty and then waltzing next to a city that has the Colossus, Newton, Copernicus and the Pyramid and taking it over in a turn and then suing for peace. In civ 2 when we had an alliance we could freely travel in A.I. territory but when war started we were kicked out, this doesn't happen in civ 3 you just get a bad rep. To prevent you from doing this you have the culture flips. It's not worth having the bad rep if you are going to lose the city two turns later.
|
The AI ought to be smart enough not to give you a Right of Passage agreement if you have displayed such ruthlessness in the past. Compensating for the AI's lacking is a not very good excuse for a poor game concept.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:40.
|
|
