安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
maybe a Modern Armour too but its far less likely.
an axemen is 5 strength +50% vs melee.
Axemen is on defenses, lets assume a barbarian axemen. lets assume dunno was he in a forest on a hill? no information is given.
but sure +75% defense.
so its 5+125% so 11.25 strength vs melee.
lets assume he sent the warriors in not in the same turn allowing the axemen to promote.
I can generally see how the axeman survived vs 2 strength warriors.
he could survive vs 2 strength warriors without that, but the archers would have taken him out if he attacked on the same turn.
this is assuming there aren't more enemy units on the same tile.
Warriors don't beat Axeman in Civ IV and Games where Warriors don't beat Axeman are awful => Civ IV combat is awful?
I believe this is the defintion of a logical fallicy. Or put more bluntly a stupid comment.
But yeah, RNG is sometimes evil. I once lost a 99.8% chance, 3 times in a row. I was like "Wtf?"
Civ4's method of dealing with multiple opponents is the old-school kungfu movie tactic of sending one opponent in at a time, which is something OP finds silly because armies in the real world don't work like that.
I like civ4's stack of doom mechanic, I've gotten used to it. But I can understan how it can irk some people not used to it.
I remember watching the big budget Narnia movie from some years ago with the battle scene where they're riding on unicorns and such and charging the bad guys and thinking to myself "That's not how you use cavalry in a combined arms battle strategy you stupid..." and then I said to myself oh yea, it's just a movie for kids and stuff, of course that's what they'll do.
Likewise yes, in reality 5 guys with clubs beat a guy with an axe, but this is a video game, not real life. If you don't like the rules of the game, then not playing it is probably the best option, but the fact that they are not "realistic" is really not worth mentioning.
The alternative criticism is that Civilization games are simply bad at combat, period. This is the major disappointment some of us have with the 1 unit per tile direction the franchise has taken. If you've played any real tactical wargames on computer or as a board game, the type where there are twelve different German panzer division types and nine variables that can be completely different in every situation go into every combat resolution, the combat in Civ games is just stupid, and honestly someone who sings the praises online of 1 unit per tile "tactics" just sounds like a moron...but that's because we have different perspectives on what "tactical combat" means in a game.
The Civ games are strategy games built around the game's economy (which doesn't necessarily hinge on "gold"). You're not supposed to care that 5 warriors can't beat an axeman because you're supposed to be focused on winning the economic game, and someone with an axeman vs a horde of warriors has connected a stratetic resource and researched a more advanced tech and still built a relatively costly (for early game) military unit, so of course they're winning the game's internal economy at that point.