Some miscelaneous thoughts on the game - Page 2

vmxa1 · January 18, 2002, 22:33

I agree. I almost never make new Calv after infantry and not many after riflemen. I make riflemen instead as they will become mech inf and calv will still be calv. That does not mean I would scrap my old calv, but I do not want them much after tanks and mech.

Jaybe · January 20, 2002, 02:55

Totally OT:

Arathorn,
You've misquoted your signature:

"One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them.
One ring to bind (not "bring") them all,
And in the darkness bind them!"

Thank you in advance for correcting it.

JB

Arathorn · January 21, 2002, 10:58

Jaybe,

You're just wrong. What I have is absolutely correct. The ring brings them all and, then, in the darkness, binds them.

Check out:
http://fan.theonering.net/middleeart...nghistory.html
http://www.timefold.com/mythman.html
http://www.thelandofshadow.com/mordor/mordor2.htm
http://www.sleepwalker.net/quotes/in...es&cid=fantasy

or the actual books or any other source and you'll see that.

Now, I may not know a lot about Civ3 (only beat deity the first time Friday), but I do know my Lord of the Rings !

JLPOWELL · January 23, 2002, 23:18

"One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them.
One ring to bring them all,
And in the darkness bind them!"

Such a cool quote, got to have pity on Jaybe but he should have known better than to 'correct' someone using a quote without checking the facts first.

Well enough of facts how about opinion.

Blitzer stated in his post that he basically melts down his cav units once he gets infantry. I disagree with this tactic quite a bit, but of course will get rid of once tanks and modern armor become available. (You do want to keep the elites for picking off weak enemy units and having a chance at getting that GL) I think the next poster “notyoueither” had a much better view on the use of cavalry.

Mobility is the most powerful force multiplier. For sure in real life, and it works pretty will in Civ3 as well. The ability to strike, fail and still live is a tremendous advantage in the game. In real life the ability to engage and disengage is a key to survival and success. Mobility also allows one of the most useful axioms to be utilized to the utmost: "Hit em where they aint" This is what Sun Tzu called the indirect approach, and that he is required reading at every military school 2600+ years later says something about 'his' opinions.

Mobility is the key factor the only other factor which even comes close is intelligence. (I am mostly talking about battlefield tactical intelligence here) As there is virtually (sorry a pun was inevitable here) no fog of war in the game there are only 4 factors in Civ3 combat: 1. Raw power (unit strength) 2. Mobility (Get there firstest) 3. Numbers (with the Mostest) 4. Terrain effects

Mobile units in Civ3 also are more survivable and thus more likely to achieve elite status and start generating the Great Leader units (which are mostly logistical not combat leaders at all) In Civ3 it is better to swarm with a lot of elite horsemen than crush with swordsmen. Mobile units in Civ3 loose battles but usually survive to make the (fast) run back to the barracks.

BTW Blitzer makes some very good points in his post, particularly regarding use of artillery and infantry units in armies. I do disagree with the mixing of tanks and mobile infantry in armies. I usually build all tank or all mech infantry armies and mix individual units or stack two armies to get the desired combined arms effect. Unfortunately armies move at the speed of the slowest unit, and I like my mobility as you may of guessed from this post.

-Gee looks like I need to find a cool signature line, but one of the best was already tolken…

Arathorn · January 24, 2002, 11:02

[QUOTE]As there is virtually no fog of war in the game[\QUOTE]

Quote:

-Gee looks like I need to find a cool signature line, but one of the best was already tolken…

Groan. What a punny post.

I enjoyed it. Thanks!

Ol' Gaffer · January 24, 2002, 18:14

-Gee looks like I need to find a cool signature line, but one of the best was already tolken… [/QUOTE]

don't you mean tolkien?!

Blitzer · January 25, 2002, 20:04

Quote:

BTW Blitzer makes some very good points in his post, particularly regarding use of artillery and infantry units in armies. I do disagree with the mixing of tanks and mobile infantry in armies. I usually build all tank or all mech infantry armies and mix individual units or stack two armies to get the desired combined arms effect. Unfortunately armies move at the speed of the slowest unit, and I like my mobility as you may of guessed from this post.

My comments on the 3 modern armor/mech infantry army were a bit of a joke... Generally my armies are exclusively infantry until the game is well in hand. Using mech infantry in armies does not help me much, as I don't want my army outrunning my artillery. Towards the end of the game, the game can get a little repetitive and you have to do what you can to amuse yourself

.

Many of my comments in this thread are outdated, I'll be posting a new thread sometime today with some updated observations. Strategy is a fluid thing, not constant.

My outlook on Cavalry has changed. but I think your point on mobility is a good one. It actually further supports my love of infantry in this era, as the infantry can take advantage of your railroads, not to mention the railroads of the newly captured cities.

godinex · February 1, 2002, 18:16

I think there is no other use for the army than defend the offensive units. When You have 4 or 5 armys of modern armors you can manage an invasion of amys, but that is late in the game.