[another rant]Civ III...

[Straha]

A. We see statistics when it isn't supposed to happen AT ALL! Let's be honnest about this now, in real life how often do you think the army that tore through bagdhad would lose to the Babylonian Empire in the same region? One out every thousand times? Or every damn frieken time, even if they just run over the damn guys?

The army wouldn't lose. Individual tanks might be lost once in a while, which is exactly what it represents.

So a large advancing army would lose tanks to the babylonian empire, like we lost tanks the Iraqis, scoff scoff.

B. The Game DOES depend on Combat, I've played hndreds of individual games of Civ, and not once have I ever not used combat to help me kick ass all over the game. The Fact is that Combat is what made Civ Great, and when you screw that up when you had a much better system in Civ II well what do you expect?

Combat isn't what made Civ great. Civilization was made great by every aspect other than combat. Namely the infrastructure building.

So you say that without the combat part of the game Civ would be just as popular? Or are you defending a stupid, and undefensible point? let's be realistic here, Caesar II had a option where you could play just the infra-structure and city building part of the game instead of the whole thing. You know how many friends of mine who played the game (which were many) in that mode after their first try? Zer0 times!

Or to be more pertinent on Civ I challenge one person to honnestly say that they would play Civ games if it was only the infra-structure, and the Combat was a total piece of crap (like it isn't in Civ III)

C. No it's not small enough to be ignored, but you missed the point of my statement.

Yes, 0.2% is small enough to be statistically ignored.

By that logic the Babylonian army should beat the American army 0.2% of the time. That idea just brings up the giggles in me.

THey fixed combat so they would not have this exact same problem, and yet they returned it to this system when they knew there would be a prolem.

Because the problem is so rare that it doesn't really matter.

Hmm... from what I have heard and experienced it really does matter. And in fact happens all the time, STFU if that's all you are going to say over and over and over again.

Also I would like to ask you how do you think you alone in a tank would fare against 500 pre-bronze age men?

Me alone in a tank? I would expect that if they had good leadership I would simply not wake up one morning. And you still haven't shown what numerical ratio the units represent.

So you would die when you have the ability to lock yourself in the tank, and then can machine gun the Pre-Bronze age men away with your tank? And more over you expect a whole tank batallion to lose to 500 pre-bronze age men as happens in the game? I rest my case.

[Graeme Dice]

So a large advancing army would lose tanks to the babylonian empire, like we lost tanks the Iraqis, scoff scoff.

Are you telling me that the U.S. has not lost a single tank in this conflict?

Hmm... from what I have heard and experienced it really does matter. And in fact happens all the time, STFU if that's all you are going to say over and over and over again.

What I am saying is that it is only because the human mind sees patterns that do not exist that you see such a pattern. If you want to know the real results of any conflict in the game just go to:
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3combatcalc.html
You cannot argue with probability when the mechanics are known.

So you would die when you have the ability to lock yourself in the tank, and then can machine gun the Pre-Bronze age men away with your tank?

So tanks can support me for a whole year without my ever leaving?

And more over you expect a whole tank batallion to lose to 500 pre-bronze age men as happens in the game? I rest my case.

I'm still waiting for your proof of what numbers are actually represented. A tank unit might only represent a single tank, while a unit of warriors might be 200,000 men. You have made no argument as to what the actual sizes of the units are so I can just say that the sizes are such that the results make sense.

[Straha]

So a large advancing army would lose tanks to the babylonian empire, like we lost tanks the Iraqis, scoff scoff.

Are you telling me that the U.S. has not lost a single tank in this conflict?

To my knowledge, no they haven't in combat casulties.

Hmm... from what I have heard and experienced it really does matter. And in fact happens all the time, STFU if that's all you are going to say over and over and over again.

What I am saying is that it is only because the human mind sees patterns that do not exist that you see such a pattern. If you want to know the real results of any conflict in the game just go to:
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3combatcalc.html
You cannot argue with probability when the mechanics are known.

Fair enough, but once again the point is that it should NEVER happen. As the odds for this would be inconcievable (greater then the millions) for this to happen.

So you would die when you have the ability to lock yourself in the tank, and then can machine gun the Pre-Bronze age men away with your tank?

So tanks can support me for a whole year without my ever leaving?

A year? Unless you are an idiot. and it is becoming apparent in your posting that you are, you shouldn't have a problem for a year. The journal would go like this.
Night One:Slept soundly, even if it was stuffy in here
Day One: Woke up, machine gunnned down all close by enemies, and then ran over those that were left.

That wouldn't take a year now would it?

And more over you expect a whole tank batallion to lose to 500 pre-bronze age men as happens in the game? I rest my case.

I'm still waiting for your proof of what numbers are actually represented. A tank unit might only represent a single tank, while a unit of warriors might be 200,000 men. You have made no argument as to what the actual sizes of the units are so I can just say that the sizes are such that the results make sense.

Well lets use logical sense here. It can't be one tank, because you wouldn't guard a city with one tank, because then some anti-military dissedent with explosives comes along and kills you. And since these units are used in gameplay to effectivley battle, capture cities, and cost the resources they do I think a batallion is a fair enough representation of a tank unit, no?

The pre-bronze age warriors must then be taken into account. And since this is supposed to be a relativley historically accurate game, I would say that 200,000 men is a tad high for concentrated area and feeding. ditto with 20,000. I would however say that 2,000 is probably a large end estimate for one militia unit.

Now lets take an American Tank batallion, throw them at 2,000 pre-bronze age men, and for parity's sake remove the main gun ammo from the tanks. How many of these people do you think the tanks could simply run over?

Now I propose something for you, figure out a logical way for a group of pre-bronze age men to take out a tank batallion. And when you have one post it.

[Pablo Sanchez]

So tanks can support me for a whole year without my ever leaving?

The tank in CivIII would most likely represent a real-life tank division, which has many different tanks, attached infantry, artillery, and logistical units, and is generally prepared to undergo combat in almost every condition imaginable. There is no way, even with warfare so assymetrical that it can be compared to a shattered fucking mirror, that a unit of troops could take on a modern tank division with any level of technology lower than WWI (unless--before you nitpick it--they were operating in the Amazon basin or some other ludicrous theatre.)

I'm still waiting for your proof of what numbers are actually represented. A tank unit might only represent a single tank, while a unit of warriors might be 200,000 men. You have made no argument as to what the actual sizes of the units are so I can just say that the sizes are such that the results make sense.

And you're the one who saying they should use logic?

If you want to estimate the relative strength of the units, look at the amount of resources ("shields," is it?) they each need for support and construction. After rough adjustment for the vehicles involved, you can guess how many men you're dealing with.

[Ted]

So a large advancing army would lose tanks to the babylonian empire, like we lost tanks the Iraqis, scoff scoff.

Are you telling me that the U.S. has not lost a single tank in this conflict?

To my knowledge, no they haven't in combat casulties.

Have you NOT been watching the news?

The Americans have lost several tanks, most of which were due to combat, RPG hits, etc...

[Straha]

Are you telling me that the U.S. has not lost a single tank in this conflict?

To my knowledge, no they haven't in combat casulties.

Have you NOT been watching the news?

The Americans have lost several tanks, most of which were due to combat, RPG hits, etc...

::Shrug:: Okay fair enough. but could the babylonian empire do the same thing?

[Ghost Rider]

So a large advancing army would lose tanks to the babylonian empire, like we lost tanks the Iraqis, scoff scoff.

Are you telling me that the U.S. has not lost a single tank in this conflict?

Bullshit Misdirection...point 1

He said An advanceing army losing to the Babylonians...not the Iraqis

Hmm... from what I have heard and experienced it really does matter. And in fact happens all the time, STFU if that's all you are going to say over and over and over again.

What I am saying is that it is only because the human mind sees patterns that do not exist that you see such a pattern. If you want to know the real results of any conflict in the game just go to:
http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3combatcalc.html
You cannot argue with probability when the mechanics are known.

Probability which is skewed to favor chances that shouldn't exist, when taken into account of warfare...unless my generals are numbskulls and my men complete morons.

A German Panzer has the CHANCE to lose against Bear skin, stone axed wielding troop?

Oh yeah, they fucked up clear and simple. He dies at virtually any range...and the fact he has even the slight possiblty says how they wrong they did it.

So you would die when you have the ability to lock yourself in the tank, and then can machine gun the Pre-Bronze age men away with your tank?

So tanks can support me for a whole year without my ever leaving?

Again nice try...you don't require a year to kill that many men.

You have range, firepower and the ability to kill them by simply running them over...none of which is accurately represented in Civ 3.

And more over you expect a whole tank batallion to lose to 500 pre-bronze age men as happens in the game? I rest my case.

I'm still waiting for your proof of what numbers are actually represented. A tank unit might only represent a single tank, while a unit of warriors might be 200,000 men. You have made no argument as to what the actual sizes of the units are so I can just say that the sizes are such that the results make sense.

And you've provided no proof that one unit of archers represent 200,000 men or that one tank represents one tank.

If such it's either 1=n

So you want to keep hurling?

[gravity]

I was quite dissapointed in Civ3, it was a huge backward step from Alpha Centauri in most aspects, at least in my opinion. It was like they ignored all the innovations of SMAC and just went with a minor upgrade of Civ 2 instead.

[Thunderfire]

The combat system of civ3 sucks. But using combined armes
will reduce the losses to inferrior units. Just do it the the coalition
forces in iraq. Bomb the enemy before you attack him and add
some artillery and infantry units.