5 ms·

Civ 1 had two statistics: attack and defense, which were rolled in a simple way. This lead to lucky Roman legions defeating tanks occasionally. Civ 2 added two

Civ 1 had two statistics: attack and defense, which were rolled in a simple way. This lead to lucky Roman legions defeating tanks occasionally. Civ 2 added two more statistics (health and "firepower") which more clearly divided units into eras. For example, Musketeers will almost always lose to Riflemen even though their stats are very similar apart from the Riflemen unit having 100% more health. There are some things I disliked about the game, for examples city walls turns any city into an almost impregnable fortress until the very end of the game, but the unit health system was satisfactory.

OscarTheGrinch 10y ago
Give me ten good men and some climbing spikes. I'll impregnate the bitch.
waterhouse 10y ago
Actually, in Civ 2, Riflemen and Musketeers both have 2 hit points and 1 firepower. A good replacement example would be Archers (3 attack, 2 defense, 1/1 hit points/firepower) vs Musketeers (3/3 attack/defense, 2/1 hit points/firepower). Regarding city walls: If the units inside are musketeers or weaker, cannons may do well (depending on the units' respective veterancy). If they're riflemen or higher, I think veteran artillery will still generally win. And then, of course, there are bombers and howitzers in the later game.
- rangibaby 10y ago
  Oops! I always thought riflemen had more hit point stats. Your example is much better. Sorry. About city walls: The computer loads cities up with a massive amount of units on deity (usually enough to defend against a one-turn attack, I find it difficult to park enough cannons or artillery next to their cities). The only reliable way I have found to take out cities is to spam their cities with diplomats and sabotage until I get their city walls, it is always the very last thing he will sabotage. It's hard to get a technological advantage for a long time because computer players will always help each other with technologies so in that sense they can get 6x as much science output as the player, although usually less because the computer is not very clever about boosting their trade. I think the balance would have been better if catapults, cannons, and artillery straight up ignored city walls like the howitzer does. The pollution from nuclear missiles contributing to global warming make the endgame frustrating too because the computer loves to use nukes, and you are punished for their pollution squares as well as your own. Sigh, time for a new game. lol
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > The pollution from nuclear missiles contributing to global warming make the endgame frustrating too because the computer loves to use nukes, and you are punished for their pollution squares as well as your own. Sigh, time for a new game. lol For a more realistic and complex treatment of nuclear warfare, I strongly recommend DEFCON. https://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/ https://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/ || http://store.steampowered.com/app/1520/ http://store.steampowered.com/app/1520/

OscarTheGrinch 10y ago

Give me ten good men and some climbing spikes. I'll impregnate the bitch.

waterhouse 10y ago

Actually, in Civ 2, Riflemen and Musketeers both have 2 hit points and 1 firepower. A good replacement example would be Archers (3 attack, 2 defense, 1/1 hit points/firepower) vs Musketeers (3/3 attack/defense, 2/1 hit points/firepower). Regarding city walls: If the units inside are musketeers or weaker, cannons may do well (depending on the units' respective veterancy). If they're riflemen or higher, I think veteran artillery will still generally win. And then, of course, there are bombers and howitzers in the later game.

rangibaby 10y ago
Oops! I always thought riflemen had more hit point stats. Your example is much better. Sorry. About city walls: The computer loads cities up with a massive amount of units on deity (usually enough to defend against a one-turn attack, I find it difficult to park enough cannons or artillery next to their cities). The only reliable way I have found to take out cities is to spam their cities with diplomats and sabotage until I get their city walls, it is always the very last thing he will sabotage. It's hard to get a technological advantage for a long time because computer players will always help each other with technologies so in that sense they can get 6x as much science output as the player, although usually less because the computer is not very clever about boosting their trade. I think the balance would have been better if catapults, cannons, and artillery straight up ignored city walls like the howitzer does. The pollution from nuclear missiles contributing to global warming make the endgame frustrating too because the computer loves to use nukes, and you are punished for their pollution squares as well as your own. Sigh, time for a new game. lol
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > The pollution from nuclear missiles contributing to global warming make the endgame frustrating too because the computer loves to use nukes, and you are punished for their pollution squares as well as your own. Sigh, time for a new game. lol For a more realistic and complex treatment of nuclear warfare, I strongly recommend DEFCON. https://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/ https://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/ || http://store.steampowered.com/app/1520/ http://store.steampowered.com/app/1520/