different ages, different battles

[general_charles]

First of all, I would like to say that I am a big civ2 fan and I have played this game for many and many hours (I have finished the game by conquering several times in king mode) and I would like to say that it is the best game ever and in order for civ3 to work, I think something has to be done on the battle scene.
1. There should be a battle screen similar to CTP's one, which I think works quite well at least for the earliest stages of the game.
2. For the late stage of the game, when you come to the modern era, I would say since WWII, there are a few problems with the game.
i) the limitation to 9 units on one square (9units in battle is enough but there should be more than 9 units allowed on 1 square)
ii) the fact that air supperiority is very important is not that well implemented in the game.
iii) no army can be defeated only with artillery, especially when they are in a city, and street combat should be made available somehow.

However, the idea to bombard is quite good from CTP.

3. There is also something which could help a lot: trains should be re-thought of and in fact the whole travelling system should be.
i) there should be speeds for the units, units on horsebacks should have something like 5 miles an hour and could hold for hundreds of miles while units by foot should have 3 miles per hour but would have to rest more often, of fight not as well, and so on.

[tniem]

I believe that all of those ideas have been said before, but welcome to the forums.

I personally am against seperate screen battles. I think more can be done with the main map to show stacking attacks and such things like that. Major change needs to be there should be no collateral damage from units such as legions and others. It is impractal to believe that a legion attacking three others, kills the one that he is fighting and the other two units sustain damage watching the battle. Catapults, units with guns, etc. though need to keep collateral damage.

The reason I don't like a pop-up battle screen is that by warring on the map you have to use more strategy in moving your troops. Putting your men in the place they are needed and then you are fighting on the same place that you are going to build that city.

Anyway that is my two cents on the topic.

[WarVoid]

I'm stuck halfway. I love theway civ2 is set up with the battle as they are, quick and simple. But sometimes I feel the need for more in a tactical engagment. Why not implement another great game into civ3. MoO2, this way you can choose tactical engagments or play the battles out the same old way. It will be up to the players own choosing. BotF is another great game that uses tactical MoO2 style engagments.

[general_charles]

Let me explain myself once more:
If I did not really like civ2's battle strategies, it is because I managed to win the game by building around a hundred howitzers and attacking the enemies in a real blitz way, tacking as much as 12 or so cities per turn. What are the odds of that happening in real life, sure if you have artillery you can put a lot of damage on your enemies, but can you really conquer a country with only howitzers??? I think that the battle scene should be re-thought of and should show us that if you use artillery to damage the other player's troops, use tanks to attack on the first line then use marines for after attack support, taking care of the prisoners and capturing the buildings.
Besides that, I think the game should insist more on training soldiers, experienced marines are 2 to 3 times as effective as conscripts, but conscipts are cheaper get. Besides, tank crews for example of fighter pilots are also trained intensively and fight in a better way once they are.
There might also be an advantage in battle if for example you have ships near-by that can bombard enemy positions, or if you have air supperiority and you can get either helicopter of airplane support. Well, think about it, do you think the american government only sent ground troops of air raids during the golf war or did it use a combination of it to ensure victory?

[Az]

I remember that general . when I built huge armored armies , they've got all poped up in one single siege on a city . the same city was captured with a single howitzer ... that costs less production than that tank btw . CTP made this work better I suppose...