What aspect of Civ should Firaxis most improve?

[Daz]

I voted AI, but its basically diplomacy that I would like to see get fixed/improved.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am not sure what you mean. Surely more advanced forces had been beaten by less advanced ones in history.

I'm refering to the spearmen beating tank phenomenon.

By inferior I meant a total mismatch.

[SpencerH]

The combat model must be redone. The claim may be that civ is not a wargame, but anyone who plays civ against another human or wants to win quickly knows that is not true.

[MORON]

Civ earth + SMAC political/terraform + civ2 combat + AI + culture = sold for me

simple enough.

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You must be kidding. Tanks are only good on flat, open ground. If the opposition is in a city, in broken terrain, on hills, on mountains, etc. Tanks eat it.

Partly you are correct. Therefore Civ should far more take in consideration the weak and strong points of a certain unit than it does now. Tanks riding in a city have little room to move, but a batallion of tanks firing at a city from a mile distance is pretty destructive. Tanks against fast moving vehicles are of little use, but tanks riding over infantry can cause many casualties. But the main thing why some generals are more succesful than others is also the biggest omission in Civ. Namely the ability the let different kinds of units effectively work together. Especially for offensive purposes this actually is a weak point in Civ.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Um, do you know how many bombs landed in the countryside during WWII? A lot. Bombing wasn't very accurate. That's why when the Brits were going to bust some Nazi dams the bombers were almost skipping on water.

Again you are partly correct. Many bombs missed their targets. But the occasions that an entire bombing fleet totally misses anything at all within the city they were bombing are more rare. I think it was one of the firaxians who once explained that units in Civ should not exactly be compared to single real life units, but more to groups of units. So a bomber actually means a squadron of bombers. And seen this way, even if half the squadron missed their targets the other half that did a good job would cause enough damage to let at least happen something. When I send some WW2 bombers to a city I don't expect accurate bombing, I expect massbombing. And this was effective enough. When I hit a 15 size city with a bomber, I don't expect 4 times after each other "Bombing run failed". This just sucks.

kind regards

[Ljube]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I am not sure what you mean. Surely more advanced forces had been beaten by less advanced ones in history.

When?

[Shogun Gunner]

AI AI AI

A million times, AI.

[Ljube]

A billion times AI won't make any difference.