Civ battle system

[Naokaukodem]

Let's face it: Civilization 3 battle system is boring.
As it has always been boring in Civilization series.
At least in Civ2 it was easy to war lately with 1. howitzers (google translation) and 2. railroads, and one must say it is boring to move all the units in Civ3, the most when battle system requires even more units than Civ2 or Civ1.
Well, i don't know, war in Civ3 is more difficult, well more interesting, but unit moves ends up to be boring in any way anyway.

[punkbass2000]

The fact that howitzers and railroads made it very easy to win quickly is not a plus, IMO.

[Maquiladora]

Combined arms with stacked combat is the way to go, but they wont.

[Akka]

I second that. Let's just hope they actually DO it.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

my votes for units and combat would be:

1) Operational Range and Stack Limits.

2) A call to power combat mini-screen which allows you to resolve combat between multiple units.

3) Within (2) the ability to alter unit tactics between combat rounds.

Well, fingers crossed eh?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Sava]

CTP had the best combat system... I wish Civ could integrate something like it.

[Dauphin]

CTP was good, I also liked its model for army upkeep where better units cost more to maintain.

[Jon Shafer]

I (gasp!) really didn't like the CTP combat system. It just felt so artificial having certain units always lined up in certain ways and a maximum number of units available for each battle.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Look, Trip, I will be the first to say that the CtP system had some flaws-and could readily do with improvement. That said, though, it is a darned sight better than Civs 'Lets all line up, in an orderly fashion, and take a shot at that unit' approach. It's like some really bad Martial Arts movie !! I will give them credit, though, by saying that at least civ3 got rid of that 'kill one, kill all' stack system and introduced a seperate bombardment system-these two things alone (not to mention cool graphics ) made the civ3 combat engine WORLDS better than that of civ2! That does not mean, however, that the best elements of the CtP and Civ3 battle system could not be intergrated.

[Panzeh]

Civ3's one unit vs one unit combat system sucks and needs to be changed to something better.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Panzeh
Civ3's one unit vs one unit combat system sucks and needs to be changed to something better.

[techtedg]

I like the civ3 battle system. Yes it requires more time especially during battle compared to earlier versions but i see this as added functionality. I feel with the wider spectrum of units i can control my wars better. Makes things more interesting.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Look, Techdegd, I'm not complaining about whether or not one system is more or less time-consuming than the other! My sole problem is that the current system does not allow for the degree of massed combat that we have actually seen throughout history-just as it does NOT allow for a truly tactical combined arms system-instead encouraging a fairly lazy 'stack o' death' approach! A tactical mini-screen, OTOH, allows for much greater tactical control of your battles, whilst also making the game more immersive!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Dave L]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Combined arms with stacked combat is the way to go, but they wont.

Even if they don't want to implement a completely upgraded comabt system using a mini-screen, a modifier bonus for a combined arms stack should be a fairly simple thing to implement.

Categories of foot soldiers, mounted, mechanised and ranged units shoudln't be too hard to do. Air and naval support might be more problematic though.

[Jon Shafer]

Why do people want stacked/army combat so much?