General/Military Spending

ancient · May 6, 2001, 09:01

rrrrrr...
[This message has been edited by ancient (edited May 06, 2001).]

Lawrence of Arabia · May 6, 2001, 15:13

This has already been addressed. After every battle, you have a chance of getting a great leader who can change the outcome of many battles to come. You have a few options with him i think.

Instead of posting stupid threads, go read the firaxis website. This topic has already been addressed.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

ancient · May 6, 2001, 21:06

umm its not the same..

Bubba · May 6, 2001, 21:17

Lawrence of Arabia, why do you feel the need to be so rude?

ancient · May 6, 2001, 21:28

the difference is clear. leaders is generally a stupid idea and onyl barely improve some of youre troops while genreals or a better budget with military spending would improve all your troops but at a cost..

ancient · May 6, 2001, 21:29

i typo to often..

Youngsun · May 6, 2001, 23:47

Maybe you can have HQ unit that has no attack/defence pts but can be stacked with an army to increase its efficiency in terms of better communication,info. gathering, planning and execution.

Military officers are mass produced from a military academy and they form the bulk of HQ personnel.

To represent that , you just build a HQ unit and stack it to your army. sounds too simple?

Lawrence of Arabia · May 7, 2001, 21:01

leaders, generals, they're the same things. Dont tell me that "Stonewall" Jackson and Patton arent generals.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

ancient · May 8, 2001, 16:01

ok here it is..

------------------
mean people suck
________________
official boycott list: dont post in their topics..
Lawrence of Arabia
email me @ nyorotono@lycos.com to add more names..

tniem · May 8, 2001, 16:14

Ok, ancient

I don't even know what your original proposal is because it has been edited by you so it would be nice for a repost or something so I know whats going on.

Lawrence of Arabia is correct in saying that Patton and Jackson were generals. He also is correct in saying that Firaxis has said that you have a chance after each battle to become a major general. He went about it in a very harsh way.

Not posting in each other's threads is not the way to go about in my opinion. I have had people here on ACS that have annoyed me. I have either ended up just ignoring them for a while or I simply don't let it bother me in any way. Boys will be boys.

You are both fairly new here, why don't you just both take a deep breath, shake hands and acknowledge that you both have some Civ knowledge. And now can we please get back to discussing my favorite topic - Civ III ?

ancient · May 8, 2001, 21:02

but if you have your own civ their wouldnt ever really be a patton or whatever which is why having a nameless general unit which works by army-general ratio would be the way to go in this situation..

Lawrence of Arabia · May 8, 2001, 22:52

Ive been here for ages, I just didnt register until April.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now