3rd January 2004, 8:50 PM
Quote:Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Huh... no, I start wars as soon as I can. It'd be far too boring to just build cities for four thousand years... and I've found I can do just fine in early wars. Sure, you don't move very far, but you can definitely still fight wars. Of course the side-effects are not building as many cities and having less science because you focused on armies, but there isn't much I can do about that...
Oh, I also never play above the lower difficulty levels... I generally play at the second one up. Warlord? I don't play it that often, so I'm hardly great at the game, which is why I play that low... I've won at that level though. One of my best was when I finished conquering the world in the 1200s... I still had catapults and stuff, but that didn't matter much. :)
Oh, and if you say catapults and cannon in Civ II aren't useful, then you've never fought a war in pre-air power times. They are the main focus of your attack strength!
I like to wait so that I can have a good advantage. And I have most certainly fought wars at all times. However, not too long after the Catapult comes Knights and Dragoons, which are far, far more useful than Catapults and Cannon because they can move faster and attack twice, making them, in essence, stronger than even Cannon. To boot, they can actually fend off attacks.
My strategy of war in the middle ages is to send a stream of Knights and Dragoons and overwhelm with sheer numbers. Catapults, Cannons and Artillery are too slow and too vulnerable to bother with. Had either of them just one more movement point, that would make them so much better. But their limitations more than cancel out their attack strength. The only 'bombard' unit I ever use is Howitzers, because that extra movement point makes that much of a difference. And it ignores City Walls too :D
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR