New XP announced

[ktaek]

Re 2nd Punic Wars

Certainly debatable, but imho Hannibal didn't even play a factor in the resolution of the 2nd Punic Wars. What decided Rome's continued domination of that area was the same twist of fate that led the US to defeat the Japanese in the Pacific. Intercepted intel.

All chance of conquering Rome died with the defeat of Hasdrubal at Metaurus.

"The first intelligence of his return, to Hannibal, was the sight of Hasdrubal's head thrown into his camp. When Hannibal saw this, he exclaimed, with a sigh, that Rome would now be the mistress of the world."
- Byron

The defeat of Hasdrubal's larger army and Hasdrubal's death made the rest of the conflict as meaningless as the battles after Midway and Yamato's assassination. The turning point was decided and even Hannibal knew what the final outcome would be.

Not suprisingly the battle at Metaurus was decided doubly by cavalry. When Nero intercepted the message meant for Hannibal, he took only his cavalry on a death march to reinforce Livius. The speed of his cav to reinforce allowed Livius to attack. Even against Livius' augmented army, Hasdrubal's army fought them to a standstill, until Nero took his cavalry and flanked the core of the Carthaginians, the Spanish and Numidians. Once this elite core fell the Gauls and others quickly fell as well.

Cav > All

[ktaek]

Hmmm my personal list of who should be on the civ XP:

1. Mayans (Scientific/Religious)
One of the handful of civs to independently invent writing and not derive it. IMHO far more interesting than the Aztecs or Incas.

The game also has only 1 civ with the sci/rel combo.

The Mayan warriors used shields and weapons made from flint and jade, so it might be interesting to have a UU defensive unit (1/2/1) that does not require Bronze Working and is a smidge cheaper than a spearman.

2. Hungarians/Huns (Military/Religious)
So far the Huns are the only culture not represented by Civ3 + PTW that appear in Creasy's "Fifteen Decisive Battles of World History." Atilla himself was one of the most legendary figures of europe. When your enemies write epic poems about you (eg Niebelungen Leid), you da man.

The mil/rel combo is one of my favorites, and very much replicates Attilla's style. He conquered by force, and once he did he used the religions and local beliefs to cement his position as either a God incarnate or Anti-God depending on whatever would benefit him.

The only bad thing is yet another military powerhouse with a cav UU :P

3. Minoans (Scientific/Industrial)

The Phaestos Disk predates the printing press of China or Europe by like 1700 years or something ludicrous. As of 5000 BC they had *flush toilets*. These guys had it goin on from a tech standpoint, unfortunately they got a sucky start position.

Racially speaking not European, possibly Asian/Libyan/Egyptian. This would help flesh out the lack of Asian/African cultures.

And best of all, they were a naval power so they should naturally have a galley UU! Yes!

The other civs should definitely fill out Africa/Asia, as they are lacking in representation.

If the new XP in any way resembled the TET scenario, i would be psyched. I love playing this (except for the performance hit) as much as normal Civ. Although what's with the uber ninjas?

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
I doubt that this will happen, America was given a late game UU because its traits are deceptively powerful, esp on Huge maps. It should also be noted that a high percentage of the wonders are either Industrious or Expansionist so achieving a GA throuh a wonder is very likely unless you play at high levels. If another Civ was given an Ind/Exp trait combo it would likely have a Modern age UU as well.

But on the other hand, what if one of those ind/exp civs had a very ancient UU? It might balance out all the other GA possibilities... just as the Aztecs are a potent civ, given the traits and UU combo, but balanced somewhat by the fact that their GA is gone early, so might another civ be checked by the strong traits and early UU.

[riiha]

Originally posted by ktaek
Re 2nd Punic Wars

Certainly debatable, but imho Hannibal didn't even play a factor in the resolution of the 2nd Punic Wars. What decided Rome's continued domination of that area was the same twist of fate that led the US to defeat the Japanese in the Pacific. Intercepted intel.

All chance of conquering Rome died with the defeat of Hasdrubal at Metaurus.

"The first intelligence of his return, to Hannibal, was the sight of Hasdrubal's head thrown into his camp. When Hannibal saw this, he exclaimed, with a sigh, that Rome would now be the mistress of the world."
- Byron

The defeat of Hasdrubal's larger army and Hasdrubal's death made the rest of the conflict as meaningless as the battles after Midway and Yamato's assassination. The turning point was decided and even Hannibal knew what the final outcome would be.

Not suprisingly the battle at Metaurus was decided doubly by cavalry. When Nero intercepted the message meant for Hannibal, he took only his cavalry on a death march to reinforce Livius. The speed of his cav to reinforce allowed Livius to attack. Even against Livius' augmented army, Hasdrubal's army fought them to a standstill, until Nero took his cavalry and flanked the core of the Carthaginians, the Spanish and Numidians. Once this elite core fell the Gauls and others quickly fell as well.

Cav > All

Something strange happened with Hasdrubal in Italy. He was working his way down eastern Italy nad had crossed, I believe, the Po river. Then when he got word of the Roman opposition and positioning he decided to retreat back across the river in the night, which was a disaster and left them disorganized. The question is why retreat across a river in the night when you know you have the superior army, and why was it such a disaster when you had just crossed the river not 12 hours before?

From what I read they could not find the ford. This sounds rather fishy.But the end result is that Hannibal was let down by the Carthaginian government's slow reaction to support him and by the incompetence of the other Carthaginian generals.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

have you tried to play with the editor , or have you tried the balancer bix yet , ......

try the scenarios in ptw , ......

have a nice day

Of course I have. I'm not talking about changing a few numbers with the editor. I'm talking about hard-coded items that we cant change cos they are not in civ3.

For example:
we need the concept of supply for units,
we should have trade units again (yes I know they were a pain sometimes but it gave a reason for a navy),
we need to be able to give specific units advantages and disadvantages against other specific unit types i.e. fortified pikemen vs cav compared with fortified pikemen vs cannon. In the first case the cav would lose unless they can outflank the pikes (of course elite pikes (a la the swiss) could change their facing quickly enough to counter the flank movement (did I mention we need to be able to give some units 'unit facing') while formed units were usually slaughtered by cannon.

AI cant cope with these complexities but (some) humans can. SP and MP are two completyely different games.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Mad Bomber


I doubt that this will happen, America was given a late game UU because its traits are deceptively powerful, esp on Huge maps. It should also be noted that a high percentage of the wonders are either Industrious or Expansionist so achieving a GA throuh a wonder is very likely unless you play at high levels. If another Civ was given an Ind/Exp trait combo it would likely have a Modern age UU as well.

hi ,

it depends how you play and it has only a small part to do with the level you play on , .....

the combination of america's traits are indeed very powerfull , from start to the end

not to mention that its UU rocks , and really puts you in an easier position later on to keep what you have and to expand , .....

there are other civs who could also do with a later age UU the fact that the US has the last has nothing to do with its traits , .....

but lets hope we shall see later age UU's in the new XP aswell , .....

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Of course I have. I'm not talking about changing a few numbers with the editor. I'm talking about hard-coded items that we cant change cos they are not in civ3.

For example:
we need the concept of supply for units,
we should have trade units again (yes I know they were a pain sometimes but it gave a reason for a navy),
we need to be able to give specific units advantages and disadvantages against other specific unit types i.e. fortified pikemen vs cav compared with fortified pikemen vs cannon. In the first case the cav would lose unless they can outflank the pikes (of course elite pikes (a la the swiss) could change their facing quickly enough to counter the flank movement (did I mention we need to be able to give some units 'unit facing') while formed units were usually slaughtered by cannon.

AI cant cope with these complexities but (some) humans can. SP and MP are two completyely different games.

hi ,

why on earth would be bothered again with an old outdated trade system , ......

the new inovated trade in civ III and ptw rocks , .....

the need for a navy can be changed by clicking " build lots of naval units " , .....

if you have a map with 20% water there is no need for a navy , .....

and why should we go back to the howitser thats lethal , that can also be changed in the editor btw , .....

as for the specific unit advantages , well there is the editor and a new XP on its way

and as for the hardcoded items , we should not mess with them , its that simple , ......

the source code for civ II aint revealed yet , so why should civ's III be revealed before civ II , .....

have a nice day

[CobraA1]

I haven't posted since Civ III first came out, but I've loved Civ III, and have both Civ III and PtW. I hope this expansion is every bit as good as PtW was. Despite its flaws, PtW added multiplayer and excellent editing options (Despite being disappointed that we acually had to buy multiplayer ).

I bought PtW, and I'm buying this next expansion. Already have $20 saved up.

I hope I get a lot more details about what's been improved on the multiplayer/editor side.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

My view on trade falls somewhere between SpencerH and Panag!
No, I do not want to see the return of excess micromanaging through the old Caravan/freight unit and, yes, I do want the importance of a navy to be better emphasised through the trade system! The solution? CtP I and II!!
Yes I realise that, for the most part, they did suck, but what they did get right was the idea of trade routes-particularly over sea!! The ability to trade should be dependant on you building a "trade unit", but not one you move around the board. Instead, like CtP, the number of "Trade units" you build determines the number of trade pacts you can effectively enter into. By sacraficing one of these units, you get a trade route!! Where my idea differs from CtP is that, in each era, the " defense strength" of your trade unit increases-as does the production cost! This defense strength would determine how easy the trade route is to see by enemy units and how susceptible it is to disruption by either piracy or direct attack!!! A navy would become vital as a means of patrolling overseas trade routes, and defending them from constant attack (which would require you to rebuild a trade unit, and renegotiate the trade!!) This should work is much for internal trade as it does for external trade!! Oh, in addition, it should be possible for a city to trade food, production shields and commerce, both internally and externally-as was suggested by Spiffor!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[ktaek]

Something strange happened with Hasdrubal in Italy. He was working his way down eastern Italy nad had crossed, I believe, the Po river. Then when he got word of the Roman opposition and positioning he decided to retreat back across the river in the night, which was a disaster and left them disorganized. The question is why retreat across a river in the night when you know you have the superior army, and why was it such a disaster when you had just crossed the river not 12 hours before?

From the account i read Hasdrubal retreated because he heard the calling horns and banners of Nero, who he knew should have been in the south engaging Hannibal. This led him to believe both forces were aligned against Hasdrubal's army, which was not the case it was only Nero's cavalry that made that quick reinforcement move.

Thinking he was facing both armies his plan was to retreat into friendly Gaul, & re-establish a new plan with Hannibal.

However at this time his guides all betrayed him & left, leaving his army unable to find the crossing points of the river in the dark.

If Hasdrubal knew that he faced basically the same army with more cav, and attacked on his terms there is quite a good chance that he would have either won at Metaurus considering he was barely defeated while being attacked in a very unorganized condition.

As to why Carthage ultimately lost i agree, they were made up of mostly traders who had no real taste for warfare and just left their generals out to hang. Quite frankly, they should have not let up on Rome during the FIRST punic war.

I shudder to think what would have happened if Hamilcar and his sons were born as Romans or Germans.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
My view on trade falls somewhere between SpencerH and Panag!
No, I do not want to see the return of excess micromanaging through the old Caravan/freight unit and, yes, I do want the importance of a navy to be better emphasised through the trade system! The solution? CtP I and II!!
Yes I realise that, for the most part, they did suck, but what they did get right was the idea of trade routes-particularly over sea!! The ability to trade should be dependant on you building a "trade unit", but not one you move around the board. Instead, like CtP, the number of "Trade units" you build determines the number of trade pacts you can effectively enter into. By sacraficing one of these units, you get a trade route!! Where my idea differs from CtP is that, in each era, the " defense strength" of your trade unit increases-as does the production cost! This defense strength would determine how easy the trade route is to see by enemy units and how susceptible it is to disruption by either piracy or direct attack!!! A navy would become vital as a means of patrolling overseas trade routes, and defending them from constant attack (which would require you to rebuild a trade unit, and renegotiate the trade!!) This should work is much for internal trade as it does for external trade!! Oh, in addition, it should be possible for a city to trade food, production shields and commerce, both internally and externally-as was suggested by Spiffor!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

I was going to mention the CtP model where you could interdict a trade-route with your vessels when at war or with a 'pirate' ship. Hey, maybe then there would be a use for the (now useless) civ3 privateer unit.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

why on earth would be bothered again with an old outdated trade system , ......

the new inovated trade in civ III and ptw rocks , .....

see above

the need for a navy can be changed by clicking " build lots of naval units " , .....

if you have a map with 20% water there is no need for a navy , .....

I have played many games on many different map types where I never built a single ship. Why bother? It's not worthwhile to colonize other continents or even islands because of corruption. There are no trade units (or routes) to interdict and I can counter effective naval attacks with arty fire and railroads. Sure you can force the issue by reducing corruption and using maps with 80% water but unlike real life...............navies are relatively worthless in civ3!

and why should we go back to the howitser thats lethal , that can also be changed in the editor btw , .....

Who said anything about lethal howitzers? And yes I know that can be changed in the editor. Why state the obvious? Maybe you're refering to howitzers as used in civ2. Thats not what I said (or meant) at all.

as for the specific unit advantages , well there is the editor and a new XP on its way

I've heard it all before.

and as for the hardcoded items , we should not mess with them , its that simple , ......

the source code for civ II aint revealed yet , so why should civ's III be revealed before civ II , .....

have a nice day

I didnt say we should mess with them, but they should be messed with, thats the point.

[ktaek]

I have played many games on many different map types where I never built a single ship. Why bother? It's not worthwhile to colonize other continents or even islands because of corruption. There are no trade units (or routes) to interdict and I can counter effective naval attacks with arty fire and railroads. Sure you can force the issue by reducing corruption and using maps with 80% water but unlike real life...............navies are relatively worthless in civ3!

Yes you've summed up the greatest (yes greatest) problem with Civ3. All the corruption and uber cav and blah blah are nothing compared with the fact that once i plant my capital down & Rex that's my empire.

Starting location makes such a difference in this game it's ridiculous, and it's because of this.

Not to mention the difference between conquering your island and fighting on a pangea.

All this because water is an incredible boundary because naval is useless in Civ3.

This game would really gain new legs (and not to mention realism) if an expansion came out focusing on sea trade, naval warfare, and exploration.

[timbrom]

Originally posted by ktaek


Yes you've summed up the greatest (yes greatest) problem with Civ3. ...

All this because water is an incredible boundary because naval is useless in Civ3.

Couldn't agree more. The corruption algorithm is horrendous. Trying to generate more than one shield from a city on another island is virtually impossible without spending vast sums on improvements, and even then the return is negligable. How about being able to build more than one Forbidden Palace?

As for the maritime arts, it can take until the late first millenium to be able to cross seas safely, way later than in Civ2, which seriously cuts down on exploration. Realistic in terms of world history maybe, but not good gameplay. Particularly as the same restriction doesn't appear to affect the AI players. The Zulus, not a well known maritime civilization, seem to be able to cross oceans with impunity.

I would like to see Courthouse reduce corruption by a large percentage (say 50%) and then some other improvement further halve it. I would also like to see the higher maritime arts available much earlier in the game. Perhaps on a single tech' branch, so that if your world requires you to get on the briny, you can do so sometime before the opposition turns up with tanks!

[SpencerH]

To be fair, if you're playing SP you can add new buildings fairly easily with the editor (now, it used to be a hell of a task especially since we kept finding hardcoded limits and bugs-hence my sig) that will give you another forbidden palace. There are two problems with that though. In SP it unbalances the game cos the AI will probably not use them well-i.e. my argument for a seperate MP game. Its less of a problem for MP except everyone needs to use the same mod.

[Bane Star]

The New terrains to be editable... the Scripting for the 'volcano' to be editable... either to turn it off if you dont want it, or to add it to ANY and ALL terrains...

The Increase of 8 races to be to the MAXIMUM races also.... making a total of 40 Race playable Maps...

The 8 new scenarios to have script language that we as editors can Unitilize

Multiplayer Features to include/allow up to 30 Multi-Player games, Hotseat/PBEM or LAN-Turnless/Turn.

If this is in the game, and nothing is taken away.... I will buy it

What I'd like but doubt is even being thought over.... The editor include ADD ERA, I'd like to include a few other Era's that Earth had, ADD COMBAT EXPERIENCE. having the 4 only is ok... but building a troop from a barracks and a troop winning a real battle are two different things.. also another 2 higher levels where the chance of leadership increases per level, Who says he HAS to be a leader.....
BARBARIAN LISTINGS... currently a warrior/horseman or trireme... Hmmm, AT LEAST make them change per Era... if not allow further units when the least technological race gets a given tech....

RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS for TECHNOLOGIES??

BUILDING REQUIREMENT for UNITS??

I have some more Ideas here......Corruption,... how to fix the code

[Bane Star]

Originally posted by SpencerH we need the concept of supply for units

Since units only heal in your own territory and in your cities, than it is assumed that they are having to return for supplies. If you leave them damaged in the enemy territory then they are having troubles getting supplies necessary to heal-regroup.

we should have trade units again

Easy enough, and you will find it in my Mod, a unit with higher movement, capturable(so dont leave them next to your enemy) tradable - like workers, and you disband them into your town for a chunk of change. (ok yes you can do this with troops too, but troops wont be able to move as fast)

specific units advantages and disadvantages against other specific unit types

Correct me if I'm wrong but every time I've played, If I attack pikemen with mounted, I lose. If I attack Pikemen with ranged (archers) I tend to win, If I attack at all with a defencive unit I lose and If I attack mounted with ground based troops, I also lose... the Editor has function settings for troops: Wheeled, Foot Troops, Attack, Defence, Artillery, Zone of Control, Sentry, Explore, Fortify. These have effects on which troops can out-do other troops. The only thing missing is a description of this in the civlopedia so you can use the knowledge to play a better game...

[Mad Bomber]

Originally posted by Bane Star

Correct me if I'm wrong but every time I've played, If I attack pikemen with mounted, I lose. If I attack Pikemen with ranged (archers) I tend to win, If I attack at all with a defencive unit I lose and If I attack mounted with ground based troops, I also lose... the Editor has function settings for troops: Wheeled, Foot Troops, Attack, Defence, Artillery, Zone of Control, Sentry, Explore, Fortify. These have effects on which troops can out-do other troops. The only thing missing is a description of this in the civlopedia so you can use the knowledge to play a better game...

Actually I have had no real problem killing pikemen with Cavalry or Knights (attacking with Horsies is just stupid) Nor are my archers particularly more or less effective than MEI's. Also My MI's tend to do rather well in the attack if its not attacking another MI or MA. The type of unit has no effect on combat it is simply something that you perceive to be occuring.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Bane Star

Since units only heal in your own territory and in your cities, than it is assumed that they are having to return for supplies. If you leave them damaged in the enemy territory then they are having troubles getting supplies necessary to heal-regroup.

And how am I to interdict those lines of supply? From ancient to modern times maintaining supply to an army has been a critical factor in warfare.

Easy enough, and you will find it in my Mod, a unit with higher movement, capturable(so dont leave them next to your enemy) tradable - like workers, and you disband them into your town for a chunk of change. (ok yes you can do this with troops too, but troops wont be able to move as fast)

Thats not a trade unit though. Imagine being able to interdict your enemies supply of iron by cutting the trade routes between countries rather than just destroying your enemies improvements alone. The inclusion of strategic resources was a big improvement in civ3. They just need to be used better in terms of an economic model.

Correct me if I'm wrong but every time I've played, If I attack pikemen with mounted, I lose. If I attack Pikemen with ranged (archers) I tend to win, If I attack at all with a defencive unit I lose and If I attack mounted with ground based troops, I also lose... the Editor has function settings for troops: Wheeled, Foot Troops, Attack, Defence, Artillery, Zone of Control, Sentry, Explore, Fortify. These have effects on which troops can out-do other troops. The only thing missing is a description of this in the civlopedia so you can use the knowledge to play a better game...

Sorry, you're wrong.

[Bane Star]

Originally posted by SpencerH And how am I to interdict those lines of supply? From ancient to modern times maintaining supply to an army has been a critical factor in warfare.

Well how would you solve it? the only thing I can think of is a unit which heals units in the same stack, regardless of which territory, which disbands to do so, so you have to keep making them and transporting them in.... or you have to re-write the entire engine to allow for subsitance rules, each unit carries X move worth of food and when it expires the health starts to drop, Making a Subsitance troops costs shields and food, but it carries Lots of food... but this is a major game overhaul.

...not a trade unit though. Imagine being able to interdict your enemies supply of iron by cutting the trade routes......

Once again how would you do it.... There is no point saying that this is wrong and that is wrong if you dont have a solution....
Since each game turn is Years at a time, There would be hundreds of 'trucks' (or whatever the transport mode is) taking the materials from one place to the other, By destroying the road on the resource you effectively DO cut the supply lines, but placing a troop over a 'supply line' like in CTP for example is bu****it, the suppliers dont just sail in one line, or transport via one line, they get there however possible to make thier money. going out of thier way still gets the supply through... BUT if you were for example to re-code the game engine to include This Idea here then the system of cutting the trade routes would be possible. and realistic.

[The Mad Monk]

Supply lines would be an interesting addition, but I've yet to see a game which has modeled them with any degree of success.

[Jaybe]

Here is an Editor ability I would like to see in Conquests:

The ability to enable ANY unit to retreat, not limited to fast units.
A Slow unit's chance to retreat when opposing a Fast unit would be the same as if it had one lower experience (e.g., a Veteran unit's retreat chance would be the same as a Regular unit's).

I'm a veteran wargamer from back in the mid-60's, when Defender Retreat or Attacker Retreat were common combat results.

[Steve Clark]

I come back to do my quarterly check and am still confused as to whether C3C will include event-driven scenarios. I tried to overlook the posts in this thread from those saying we don't need events or ignorant enough to not know what they are. But to clarify again, will we be able to - via a scripted events file:
- bring up a custom message box?
- add a specific unit(s) at a specific location?
- completely change the terrain at a specific tile?
- give you or an AI civ a specific tech, improvement or wonder?
- change the diplomatic status dynamically?
all based on a specific or random event that happened in the game?

[SpencerH]

The latest review by gamespot was pretty positive compared to PtW, but what appears to be the new main feature will be scenarios that allow for short sharp MP conflicts. So to me, it looks like CIV3 is moving toward the RoN (wargame) model, but the problem is that CIV was never a wargame (despite that it's mostly played that way in MP and PBEM). At least, it's never been a good wargame. If they are going in that direction there needs to be many substantial changes to the basis of the game not just eye candy of new units (which we can already do) or a few scenarios.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

I would have to concur about the RoN model and Civ not being (and hopefully not being pushed to be) a wargame per se, but rather, what it is: Civilization.

But, my greatest hope is that we are being misled by the leaderheads they have posted, and that the Hittities, Sumerians, etc., are not "normal" civs but are scenario-specific. It would be a clever marketing ploy. If so, they better rethink the "5 global civ types" model because Europe and the Middle East will be WAY too crowed, IMO.

Also, still rooting for some more Africans, Asians, and the Israelis to show up.

But I'll still buy the damn thing, that's for sure.

[SpencerH]

CFC has links to a lot more info and (assuming it works) it does look as though this will be a worthwhile expansion for most people, especially those who aren't CIV burn-outs.

[Admiral PJ]

First, Spencer - Navies are very valuable, I like playing archipelago large games, and naval exploration and ship transport are vital. Colonisation is better with democracy or communist, where corruption is reduced, but its very useful.. your clearly nitpicking (talking rubbish). It can be annoying if AI civs dont build navies for you to fight, but they do try and match your naval strength if they're greek or another seafaring civ.

Supply can be simulated using supply ranges, from supply points like cities or road supply points, or naval bases.
Birth of the Federation did quite well with supply lines, RON's system is honourable too.. using supply wagons for troops in enemy territory.
Troops that are surrounded, under siege can lose their supplies and take damage every turn or not be able to attack/have their abilites reduced by 50%.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
First, Spencer - Navies are very valuable, I like playing archipelago large games, and naval exploration and ship transport are vital. Colonisation is better with democracy or communist, where corruption is reduced, but its very useful.. your clearly nitpicking (talking rubbish). It can be annoying if AI civs dont build navies for you to fight, but they do try and match your naval strength if they're greek or another seafaring civ.

Well I am thrilled that for you, playing archipelago large games, navies have some relevance. Colonizing the world while a democracy? That style game is as far from the games that most people play as the most heavily modded scenarios out there. In standard games, the world is colonized by 1AD (or before) and navies are of little use.

"Nitpicking" my ass! Maybe you'd like to play a standard game against me so we can see the use of your navy. Hmmm?

[Panag]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Well I am thrilled that for you, playing archipelago large games, navies have some relevance. Colonizing the world while a democracy? That style game is as far from the games that most people play as the most heavily modded scenarios out there. In standard games, the world is colonized by 1AD (or before) and navies are of little use.

"Nitpicking" my ass! Maybe you'd like to play a standard game against me so we can see the use of your navy. Hmmm?

hi ,

1 AD , that must be small maps with a lot of civs , ......

it does not count on a 362X362 map , ......


have a nice day

[Spiffor]

Panag, Your definition of "small" isn't exactly the same as everybody's