4 Unique units I'd like to see

[Elucidus]

Originally posted by Dry


As useless as artillery.
In classic strategy there is following rule:
Artillery destroys, cavalry conquers and infantry holds.

Of course, modern air power is a little bit more than just destroy (recce, air/ground interdiction,...), but bombers can be seen as heir of classic artillery.
You need it to break the defense.
But then you need an equivalent of cavalry to conquer the ground, and later infantry to hold it.
Each one must play its role.

Ever hear of smart weapons? Air power or should I say air superiority makes the life of infanty, amoung others a hell of a lot easier. I never said they weren't necessary, but to wage war without air power is just plain stupid. Artillery on the other hand can't hold a candle to an adequate bomber. They are more strategic than artillery.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Elucidus
Ever hear of smart weapons? Air power or should I say air superiority makes the life of infanty, amoung others a hell of a lot easier. I never said they weren't necessary, but to wage war without air power is just plain stupid. Artillery on the other hand can't hold a candle to an adequate bomber. They are more strategic than artillery.

That was more or less the meaning of my post. The words 'useless' and 'little' were of course ironical.
When I spoke of 'classic artillery', I meant the artillery of Napoleonic times. To wage war in that time without artillery was to just plain stupid.

Note: Artillery lost its destuction effect when people learned to dig. At first world war artillery had lost much of its destruction ability because of the trenches. The main effect that remained was the morale effect.

Note2: Air power today has taken most of other arms missions. It is able to:
- recce (light cavalry)
- destuction (physical & morale: artillery)
- tank hunting
- interdiction (move restriction, cut supply lines: cavalry)
- ...
but it still is unable to hold ground.

[Elucidus]

Okay, I agree with you then. Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. Yeah, it is a given without ground forces Air Power cannot hold any ground.

[lorddread]

Re: 4 Unique units I'd like to see

Originally posted by chocoballs

The Chinese rider represents the fact the the stirrups were invented by the chinese but chinese armies were rarely noted for the blitzkreig style of attack the mongols were famous for. Where are the Mongols? They ruled China for crumb's sake!

Again we have history being rewritten. For the record, the Mongols did not invent the stirrups. The Tuetonic Knights did. The ability it gave them to crouch a lance was the reason they were able to withstand the Mongol Hoards.

What the Mongols did invent (sort of) was silk armor. As crazy as it sounds the silk shirts they wore saved many from a death from wonds inflicted by arrows. The silk wrapped around the arrowhead lessening the damage it caused and making it easier to remove!


LD
KATN

[lorddread]

WWII Tanks

Originally posted by Beren
I'm not sure, but my cousin told me that originally the French had better tanks, but they could not use them properly.

At the start of the war the French had the best tanks, and in reality best army. Their problem was their leaders could not grasp modern tactics and paid the price for it. The French generals though WWII would be like WWI hence the walls they built to keep the Germans out of France. They could not comprhend that they simply would go around the walls.

Germany showed the world that you cannot fight the last war over again you must be able to look ahead and take advantage of modern equipment.

I would have loved to see Heinz Guederian (sorry if I butchered his name) and Sherman slug it out. These were probably the most inovative, tactics wise, generals of the war.

[siredgar]

The Vietnam War does bring in the question, "Does Civ3 focus too much on conventional warfare?" I wonder how guerrilla warfare tactics could be introduced into the game. Anyhow, what the hell happened to Partisan units?

[Beren]

Certainly: too much conventional warfare, but it has been a great improvement over Civ2. Though no partizans near captured cities, you have retreating units. Ideal for partizans. With a few patches or even XP, it might beat the original partizan.

It could still be more realistic, but that would have to include:
-Training of units based on terrain. You can train units for combat in different terrain types.
-Movement factor depends on distance to capital. Units move slower when they are far away, because of supplies and communication problems.
-Defence bonus, when coming closer to your own destruction. They fight harder then.

All of these changes will decrease the gameplay and clarity. We might have to reconsider...