Tomek Piorkowski:

• More realistic bomber control. I had bombers in 1880, for example, and the time is calculated in such a way that the bomber takes ONE year to complete a bombing run!

• An option for 'patrol' for fighters. This will be similar to fortify but in the surrounding area (equal to half the fighter's movement) you will always know about enemy units (the fighter will do regular reconnaisance) and will strafe all bombers that wander into the patrol zone (this represents the fighter engaging the bombers).

• An option for retreating in combat.

Henrik Lindholm:

• Another thing which i think would be neat is the inclusion of leaders. These would gain experience and lead armies more and more effectively. They also could become obsolete with a change in tactics. Bribery and assasination of these men should be possible.

Mike Liff:

• There should also be special units like in the scenerios for the civ2 scen pack. Like Genral Lee in the civil war, Alexander the great in some other one, Stone Wall Jackson in the civil war and others.

• I think during battle there should be a even more complicated battle plan. You could say watch and command certin movement and during plane battles you could acully fly a plane in the battle.

• There should be differant kinds of naval units, land units, and air units. There are new kinds of planes, There are differant kind of aircraft carriers like the old ww2 carriers (which there are now subs that are bigger than them) to the new super carriers that can carry up to and over 6000 crew, docters, reporters and other perfesionals.

(Unknown author):

• Military: A tunnel\bridge builder of somekind. Everywere in the world there are big tunnels\bridges cros the ocean. (the tunnel under the chanel)

• When you take over a city there should be two option. One: make the city to a conquired minor (from empirers in arms, boardgame). It is what civ2 does now, two: make a free state, it means that the city is a civ. But the civ. is controled by you. The civ doesn´t have effect on your own civ, economics etc.

Anssi Tillonen:

• When taking over enemy cities, you should have the opportunity not just to plunder it but to destroy it completly.(How many are the cities that are burned down in war.) The same goes for caravans vice versa.

Drew Stephens:

• Planes can't move very far. If I have railroads all over a large land mass, I can move a unit anywhere in 1 turn. But it takes forever to move a plane from one side of a continent to another. This doesn't seem right.

Patrick Shirley:

• Riflemen should be upgraded to Marines with Leanardo's as Riflemen are less modern.

Frank Pullen:

• Try using a transport jet, or also atolls (cities on water) should be allowed you could have some unit that is equivelant to a settler, but can move only in water.

Adam Gitner:

• As for units, what about desertion? If you order a phalanx to attack armor, don't you think they'd run away. Also, where are all the soldiers coming from? In the real world, they must be conscripted from the population. Maybe if you have so many soldiers, the population will go down.

Sean M. Punch:

• New combat rules: Patrol routes. Patrolling your territory by hand is boring. Yawn. Why not allow ships and aircraft to have established patrol routes that they will automatically follow each turn? The computer can hide these unless the patrolling unit spots an enemy unit, in which case the screen zooms to the unit and control of the unit is returned to the player. (Those who've played Empire should know what I'm talking about!)

• New combat rules: Rational stacking rules. The way that all stacked units are presently destroyed en masse if the defender loses is simply incorrect. A large number of units should offer greater resistance to attack, not be more vulnerable. Real-life armies mass troops to increase effectiveness! The present conditions pertaining to cities and fortresses (units engaged and destroyed one at a time) should be the default situation for all combat except missile attacks.

• New combat rules: Zero-risk attacks. Some types of attacks are "zero risk" - the attacker may fail to destroy the target, but there is no real chance that the defender will destroy the attacker. Cases in point: shore bombardment by ships, bombers attacking units w/o anti-aircraft capabilities, artillery attacking infantry from behind friendly lines. Instead, these attacks should simply either succeed or fail, and perhaps weaken the target (like sabotage by a Spy unit) rather than destroy it.

Nathan Mc Coy:

• I once had one of fighters be destroyed by a pikeman. That really isn't that realistic. There should be some sort of attribute for land only attack.

pcdoc88 (Unknown):

• I believe that their should be a bigger gap between propeller aircraft to stealth fighters. To be more realistic, their has been almost a 100 years of motorized aviation history and there have been great changes in aviation technology. There should be biplanes or jet planes added before stealth fighters, in turn certain technologies should accompany these units. This could help roundout those gaps in aviation.

Jason Atkinson:

• Let you be able to control the amount of aircraft you can carry in the rules.txt like you can control the amount of land units you can carry. I do not know if you can carry land and air units on the same ship, but you should.

Jason Atkinson:

• Air units can fly over units with no anti-air defense.

• Make "stealth" a special cabability that can be given to any air units in the rules.txt; stealth can fly over all units, ingnores SAM improvements, and is invisible except when attacking.

• Let Planes and Cruise Missles have the option to attack city improvements or population in cities.

By D. Credé:

• Air units should be able to fly one square OVER their objects; I think that should not so complicated to realize. Actually, this would be a really 3D game...
  (How could this look like? My proposal klick here... (34.3 KB)