The AI Always beats my Tanks with Warriors

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Boy do I get tired of hearing complaints like that all the time. It
seems like at least once a month someone complains that the AI must be
cheating because they lost more units in battle. I wonder if these
people complain about everything life that someone has it better than
them.

I just watched one of my units take out 6 enemy attackers with the
same attack value as my defense. I had place the unit on a mountain
to give it extra support. I doubt most of these people understand the
math involved in the fighting. Or that it is possible to still kill
an infantry with a bow and arrow.

Than again I come from America where I learned how a bunch of farmers
where able to defeat the superior Briish army. According the movie
Braveheart the Scots did the same thing. Superior forces and fire
power doesn't mean you are always going to win. Just that the
percentages are in your favor.

 

[Chris]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

First off I like to say to you that this is just something I like to say in
defence for newbies to civil and nothing against you. Except the fact that
your an american and you've proved that with your "America beat so and so"
;o). Oh by the way those battles against the british. America had help from
France. If your baseing things on movies, the Patriot is a good example.

This is a newsgroup. I joined to get questions asked about the game. I was
one of em who started off saying "What the hell is wrong with this game, a
warrior killed my tank". All part of the learning stage my friend. On that
note, back to Civil where Im still learning like alot of us.

Question for you though, what is the "Preserve random seed option.
"P12" <nomail@all.com> wrote in message
news:ignqg0hat5k45n83tj80pes431mu3uh7fq@4ax.com...
> Boy do I get tired of hearing complaints like that all the time. It
> seems like at least once a month someone complains that the AI must be
> cheating because they lost more units in battle. I wonder if these
> people complain about everything life that someone has it better than
> them.
>
> I just watched one of my units take out 6 enemy attackers with the
> same attack value as my defense. I had place the unit on a mountain
> to give it extra support. I doubt most of these people understand the
> math involved in the fighting. Or that it is possible to still kill
> an infantry with a bow and arrow.
>
> Than again I come from America where I learned how a bunch of farmers
> where able to defeat the superior Briish army. According the movie
> Braveheart the Scots did the same thing. Superior forces and fire
> power doesn't mean you are always going to win. Just that the
> percentages are in your favor.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 04:30:33 GMT, "Chris" <cf2000@telus.net.invalid>
wrote:

>First off I like to say to you that this is just something I like to say in
>defence for newbies to civil and nothing against you. Except the fact that
>your an american and you've proved that with your "America beat so and so"
>;o). Oh by the way those battles against the british. America had help from
>France. If your baseing things on movies, the Patriot is a good example.

In the movie the patriot the French didn't show up until the very end.
And no I am not basing American history on the a movie. The movie
just barely touched on most aspects of the war. For instance the
enlisted army was getting slaughtered. It was the common folk using
unconventional fighting which won out against the odds. It is why I
am one of the few who still believe in the right to bear arms.

I take it you have never competed agains't someone who was in every
way better than yourself and came out a winner. Perhaps one needs to
have done so in real life in order to understand this concept. I have
been underestimated countless times in my life.

>This is a newsgroup. I joined to get questions asked about the game. I was
>one of em who started off saying "What the hell is wrong with this game, a
>warrior killed my tank". All part of the learning stage my friend. On that
>note, back to Civil where Im still learning like alot of us.

That part of the game isn't going to change as you get better though.
What does change is you learn how to get better cities so you can
build larger and better armies. Then from there you can start to
learn strategy.

My first few games I was slaughtered fairly quickly. I never thought
it was my units but how I was playing the game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 10:49:04 +0100, "Nats"
<nstutt@nstutt.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>Problem is the americans rewrite their own history using movies as the main
>medium and then the american people start to believe these things. Take U551
>and Pearl Harbour for example - completely and utterly inaccurate! Americans
>in the Battle of Britain! I mean come on, really?!! Who actually believes
>this rubbish.

http://www.taphilo.com/history/BofBamericanpilots.shtml

You're welcome.

Steve

--
www.thepaxamsolution.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Steve Bartman" <

> >Problem is the americans rewrite their own history using movies as the
main
> >medium and then the american people start to believe these things. Take
U551
> >and Pearl Harbour for example - completely and utterly inaccurate!
Americans
> >in the Battle of Britain! I mean come on, really?!! Who actually believes
> >this rubbish.
>
> http://www.taphilo.com/history/BofBamericanpilots.shtml
>
> You're welcome.

Anyone who has read anything about the BoB knows that American pilots,
flying for the RAF or RCAF, took part in the BoB. Even the end title of the
movie BoB (Theme played on above web site) gave a credit line to those
pilots who gave their lives in the BoB, and that included Americans.

Of course, that's not to say that, at some time in the future, or perhaps
they already have, the Americans will produce a movie/TV show telling how
they won the BoB single-handedly, as we all know they did WW II, 'cause all
their movies tell us so.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 02:32:49 -0500, Steve Bartman <sbartman@visi.com>
wrote:

>http://www.taphilo.com/history/BofBamericanpilots.shtml
>
>You're welcome.
>
>Steve

Seems they had a lot of other help too:
'The Few' were 2353 young men from Great Britain and 574 from
overseas, pilots and other aircrew, who are officially recognized as
having taken part in the Battle of Britain."

Yet I am sure you would never hear that out of an Englishmen's mouth.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"P12" <

> >You're welcome.
> >
> >Steve
>
> Seems they had a lot of other help too:
> 'The Few' were 2353 young men from Great Britain and 574 from
> overseas, pilots and other aircrew, who are officially recognized as
> having taken part in the Battle of Britain."
>
> Yet I am sure you would never hear that out of an Englishmen's mouth.

Obviously, you didn't read my previous message, so I'll quote it again.

"Anyone who has read anything about the BoB knows that American pilots,
flying for the RAF or RCAF, took part in the BoB. Even the end title of the
movie BoB (Theme played on above web site) gave a credit line to those
pilots who gave their lives in the BoB, and that included Americans.

Of course, that's not to say that, at some time in the future, or perhaps
they already have, the Americans will produce a movie/TV show telling how
they won the BoB single-handedly, as we all know they did WW II, 'cause all
their movies tell us so. "

So there you have it Bud, right from an Englishman's mouth.

Even in the Movie, BoB, there were Poles, Americans, French and yes, even
Americans portrayed as pilots in BoB.

Now, tell me again, how did the Americans win W.W.II, and W.W.I for that
matter, even though they joined that little fracas when it was all over? Oh
yes, and didn't they win it single handedly?

I also understand, from watching numerous American TV shows and movies, that
they fought in the Pacific single-handedly, beat the Japanese in Burma
single-handedly, took Italy single-handedly etc., etc.. Seems that the
American media, and politicians, over look or give only passing mention to
any other allied countries efforts in even the most recent conflicts.

So, if any nation as a reputation for winning wars single-handedly, it's the
Americans. "Yet I am sure you would never hear that out of an American's
mouth.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 10:09:45 -0700, "Roger T."
<rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote:

>Now, tell me again, how did the Americans win W.W.II, and W.W.I for that
>matter, even though they joined that little fracas when it was all over? Oh
>yes, and didn't they win it single handedly?

Almost over? We fought for numerous years and lost many lives. No
American says we single handedly won those wars. But if we hadn't
joined in you would likely be speaking German right now. England was
getting beat badly. Enemy allies foolishly set their sites too high
going after Russia and America and that is what weakened them.

If you seriously believe England would have survived WWII without
America's help you need to go back and read some of the data again.

>I also understand, from watching numerous American TV shows and movies, that
>they fought in the Pacific single-handedly, beat the Japanese in Burma
>single-handedly, took Italy single-handedly etc., etc.. Seems that the
>American media, and politicians, over look or give only passing mention to
>any other allied countries efforts in even the most recent conflicts.

You must be watching different tv and news than I. During both wars
with Iraq it was mentioned that others where involved. Yet because
we where leading the efforts people like you point out that it was
just the Americans.

>So, if any nation as a reputation for winning wars single-handedly, it's the
>Americans. "Yet I am sure you would never hear that out of an American's
>mouth.

What wars where ever in single handedly? Every war I can think of
involved someone else. Except of course the cival war.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Roger T." <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message
news:03a7bc4572e27333288fa3766430e0d2@grapevine.islandnet.com...
>
> Great Britain, why do Americans insist on calling the U.K. "England"?,

Great Britian = 3 syllables

U.K. = 2 syllables but implies the former world empire

England = 2 syllables and implies the inclusion of the "states" Scotland,
Wales and Ireland

If some discussion requires the separate identification of one or more of
the individual British "states", we are happy to do so.

Hope that helps

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"The Stare"
>
> "Roger T."
> >
> > Great Britain, why do Americans insist on calling the U.K. "England"?,
>
> Great Britian = 3 syllables
>
> U.K. = 2 syllables but implies the former world empire

Wrongo. Where did you take geography?

U.K. = the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I think that's it. It doesn't imply any former empire.

> England = 2 syllables and implies the inclusion of the "states" Scotland,
> Wales and Ireland

Wrongo. England implies the country of England. Period. The Scots, Welsh
and Irish take great exception to being called "English".

It's as bad a the Brits calling ALL the peoples of North America
"Americans", which annoys the Canadians, Mexicans, all the peoples of the
Caribbean Islands, including Cuba, all who are a part of "North America" and
don't like being call "Americans", which equals the U.S. of A.


--
Cheers
Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway
http://www.highspeedplus.com/~rogertra/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Roger T." <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message
news:f11ef7b1a72a08b80d9766d456e40b74@grapevine.islandnet.com...
>
> "The Stare"
> >
> > "Roger T."
> > >
> > > Great Britain, why do Americans insist on calling the U.K. "England"?,
> >
> > Great Britian = 3 syllables
> >
> > U.K. = 2 syllables but implies the former world empire
>
> Wrongo. Where did you take geography?
>
> U.K. = the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland.
> I think that's it. It doesn't imply any former empire.

I understand it and was simply answering your question. 1 1/2 islands
composed of 4 separate entities is a concept americans cannot understand.
Therefore it is referred to generally by referencing the major political
power.


> > England = 2 syllables and implies the inclusion of the "states"
Scotland,
> > Wales and Ireland
>
> Wrongo. England implies the country of England. Period. The Scots,
Welsh
> and Irish take great exception to being called "English".

Again, i understand. We have no problem refering to the separate identities
where required. It's kinda hard to think of such a small island group as 4
separate entities when only one of them counts as a major power.

It's a size thing. Americans don't understand the concept of many small
separate entities not connected by one central authority. I'm a New Yorker,
but also an American. If i go to a different state, i would call myself a
new yorker. If i go to a different country, i would call myself an american.
That's the way we think of the scots and the welsh... ireland is a different
story.


> It's as bad a the Brits calling ALL the peoples of North America
> "Americans", which annoys the Canadians, Mexicans, all the peoples of the
> Caribbean Islands, including Cuba, all who are a part of "North America"
and
> don't like being call "Americans", which equals the U.S. of A.

The world stage such as it is right now... we don't really give a damn what
they think. We tend to be nice and polite when an ally acts like one
however.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Roger T." <rogertra@highspeedplus.com> wrote in message
news:f11ef7b1a72a08b80d9766d456e40b74@grapevine.islandnet.com...
>
> "The Stare"
> >
> > "Roger T."
> > >
> > > Great Britain, why do Americans insist on calling the U.K. "England"?,
> >
> > Great Britian = 3 syllables
> >
> > U.K. = 2 syllables but implies the former world empire
>
> Wrongo. Where did you take geography?
>
> U.K. = the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern
Ireland.
> I think that's it. It doesn't imply any former empire.
>
> > England = 2 syllables and implies the inclusion of the "states"
Scotland,
> > Wales and Ireland
>
> Wrongo. England implies the country of England. Period. The Scots,
Welsh
> and Irish take great exception to being called "English".
>
> It's as bad a the Brits calling ALL the peoples of North America
> "Americans", which annoys the Canadians, Mexicans, all the peoples of the
> Caribbean Islands, including Cuba, all who are a part of "North America"
and
> don't like being call "Americans", which equals the U.S. of A.
>
I don't want to get into this argument, but thought I should point out that.
Americans is a loose fitting term which covers all peoples of NORTH and
SOUTH America. Not just the United States of America. There are many in
the world and in the States that don't realize the little word OF which
seperates our country's title (United States) from our continents title
(America). The South Americans i.e. Ecuador, Columbia, Peru, etc... would
love to be called Americans, but the US and other major powers have decided
that American means only people in the US... Just as you are debating the
meanings of UK, England and Great Britain.
Suffice it to say, that we mean no disrepect when mentioning any particular
country by any particular name. We use the names taught to us by our
educators and by the news media. Were this a major problem for the Queen
and Prime Minister, they surely would have corrected us by now.
That is all you will hear from me on this subject...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Tzar Sasha" <tzar_sasha@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BK0Uc.3646$FV3.1987@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> U.S. of A.
> >
> I don't want to get into this argument, but thought I should point out
that.
> Americans is a loose fitting term which covers all peoples of NORTH and
> SOUTH America. Not just the United States of America.

It might be intended to work that way but it isn't used that way. When
people say American they mean the US variety. I am a Canadian and while I am
fully aware that Canada is in North America I prefer not to be called an
American because of how the term is used most often.

Gareeth

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Around 8/16/2004 1:50 AM, Roger T. proclaimed for posterity:
>> England = 2 syllables and implies the inclusion of the "states" Scotland,
>
>>Wales and Ireland
>
>
> Wrongo. England implies the country of England. Period. The Scots, Welsh
> and Irish take great exception to being called "English".
>
> It's as bad a the Brits calling ALL the peoples of North America
> "Americans",

Or people calling Americans (in the USA sense) "yanks". I'm from
Missouri and am no more a blasted yank than I am a Ruskie.

--
Brandon Supernaw - <brandon.public@earthlink.net>
-------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Brandon Supernaw" <brandon.public@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2ocmg1F99s8qU1@uni-berlin.de...
> > It's as bad a the Brits calling ALL the peoples of North America
> > "Americans",
>
> Or people calling Americans (in the USA sense) "yanks". I'm from
> Missouri and am no more a blasted yank than I am a Ruskie.

Heh, yeah that term "Yank" doesn't apply to West Coast Americans either

GWB

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 01 Aug 2004 17:32:12 -0400, P12 <nomail@all.com> wrote:

>I just watched one of my units take out 6 enemy attackers with the
>same attack value as my defense. I had place the unit on a mountain
>to give it extra support. I doubt most of these people understand the
>math involved in the fighting. Or that it is possible to still kill
>an infantry with a bow and arrow.

A long-ago battle comes to mind. I was invading a large
continent, I was at war with everyone on it and they all had right of
passage with each other. This was in the era of modern armor and mech
inf and they had hundereds of MA's.

I landed a whole bunch of MI on a mountain. They all died but
it really bled the AI's supply of MA--the kill ratio was greatly in my
favor. The transports brought another load, this one survived.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

And all us Americans, north and south are named after Amerigo Vespucci,
the Italian navigator, because of an obscure German clergyman and
amateur geographer named Waldseemuller who suggested what was then South
America be named after Amerigo who first recognized it was a new
continent and not part of Asia as Colubus assumed.

What I am wondering, is what did all the indigenous peoples of these
continents call these lands for thousands of years prior, and how ironic
is it that now they are named after an Italian?

Life and history are odd things indeed.

Douglas (named in Gaelic after a river which ran bloody from some
ancient battle...supposedly)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

We Missourians are "Yanks" to those whose families have lived in former
Confederate states for decades.

By itself being refered to as a "Yankee" is not an insult; it just
describes us accurately as non-southerners. [US variety]. Southerns
attach the word that sounds the same as "dam" to the front when
intending it is as an insult.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

DigitalXS wrote:
> And all us Americans, north and south are named after Amerigo Vespucci,
> the Italian navigator, because of an obscure German clergyman and
> amateur geographer named Waldseemuller who suggested what was then South
> America be named after Amerigo who first recognized it was a new
> continent and not part of Asia as Colubus assumed.

But the viking Leiv Eriksson was there around the year 1000, so you
acutally should have been named "Leivland"..... something to thing about
when you complain about the name...

>
> What I am wondering, is what did all the indigenous peoples of these
> continents call these lands for thousands of years prior, and how ironic
> is it that now they are named after an Italian?
>
> Life and history are odd things indeed.
>
> Douglas (named in Gaelic after a river which ran bloody from some
> ancient battle...supposedly)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

In article <41e2a998$1@news.broadpark.no>,
"Mr. Pink" <thedeadstaysdead@forever.no> wrote:

> But the viking Leiv Eriksson was there around the year 1000, so you
> acutally should have been named "Leivland"..... something to thing about
> when you complain about the name...

Yes, I guess Leif and his band didn't stick around long enough (or
conquer enough people for gold) to make a lasting impression. I'll bet a
number of people made it to the Americas in early historical times. We
just don't know about them at present, and perhaps never will for
various reasons.

Doug

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:35:27 GMT, DigitalXS <spamshredder@verizon.net> wrote:
> In article <41e2a998$1@news.broadpark.no>,
> "Mr. Pink" <thedeadstaysdead@forever.no> wrote:
>
>> But the viking Leiv Eriksson was there around the year 1000, so you
>> acutally should have been named "Leivland"..... something to thing about
>> when you complain about the name...
>
> Yes, I guess Leif and his band didn't stick around long enough (or
> conquer enough people for gold) to make a lasting impression.

Well, they weren't here for conquest, they were here for the fish and
the timber, both of which they were sending back to the Nordic
parts of the world. Just another trade route with a colony or two.

....and all over 1000 years ago...

Dave Hinz