CIV shouldn't have Siege Units

[meriadoc]

Originally posted by Jaybe
meriadoc, my siege-unit interpretation is that you aren't losing units to cause collateral damage: you are expending effort or (especially in the case of artillery) ammunition. All that ammunition has to be transported to the front in virtually continuous supply-chains.

That's not a bad model either, and it's certainly fairly realistic. Actually implementing it in the game without causing higher levels of micromanagement might be a bit of a challenge, but the model itself isn't bad.

I've never been a fan of collateral damage, but then again if I didn't have to sacrifice my artillery to perform it, things might be different.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by meriadoc
... if I didn't have to sacrifice my artillery to perform it, things might be different.

Oh no, you never sacrifice artillery -- you INVEST it, with collateral!

[Aradae]

The whole stack system needs a revamp in my opinion. Why is it always the strongest unit for that situation that's the defender. In reality you won't always have the right people at the right place at the right time.

There should be a chance that the weaker units in the group should be attacked instead.

We'd have units and promotions that allow units a greater chance to attack weaker units in a stack or give a greater chance that a stronger unit will appear to defend.

As for siege units they will never be able to destroy units outright, they'll only be able to weaken units to a point. Siege do not run the risk of counter fire when attacking however if they are attacked they automatically lose.