Tweet
Heres my point
terrain
terrain need to have a much bigger effect on battles. Example: your the United states you have just landed in the jungles of the Amazon with 30 armor groups. Aztec partisans should be able to easily stop the attack because
1. armor doesn't work well in jungles, neither does mech infantry only infantry does.
2. infantry defenders in the jungle should always have the advantage because of hiding positions, knowledge of local terrain, and immunity to diseases.
on the mech infantry vs armor
Modern day example
grassland no plus or minus on defense
US marine mech infantry attacks US army armor
armor wins
US marine mech infantry attacks US army armor in mountains the mech infantry would win because of the rocky terrain, trees, coverage to unload troops
its hard for a trooper to get a good spot to hide and launch a rocket at a tank in the open but in the mountains with the trees, rock outcroppings, streams its not as hard.
Terrain needs to have different effects on different units. Upgrades to units could change the game as they do in real life. Getting trappled by tanks cuz you only got infantry, upgrade infantry with armor piercing shells or rockets. Getting wiped by helicopters(if they are more useful in civ3)
give tanks AAA missles and bye bye helicopters. There definately needs to be supply chain management for upgrades so the helicopters or tanks could intercept the shipments and how is infantry on an island supposed to just magically get rockets. Counters to Jungle and mountain counter effects could be engineer unit upgrades to divisions, clear the jungle as you go, clean up debris in the mountains to give the tanks clear attack and defense strong points.
Artillery-
artillery needs to be real artillery
if it gets attacked its dead it is for support and support only. Artillery can deal out a great deal of damage on tanks and mech infantry but is weak vs infantry. In late game no attack should be without artillery because artillery should be the able to kill things and break down city walls and forts. In civ2 you lose way too much attacking a very heavily fortified city, which if artillery were correctly handled your army could sustain minimal casualties. I think military actions too abstract in civ2 and needs to be overhauled severely. I was reading a report about a wargame colorado between army mech infantry and armor. Armor lost horribly because of terrain but infantry could have done better because many apcs were 'lost' to tank fire before they could unload. Conversly in a grassland wargame in california the armor defeated the mech infantry handly losing only a few tanks. Civ2 seems to lose infantry late game and people only use partisans this needs to change, people need to still use riflemen.
------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
terrain
terrain need to have a much bigger effect on battles. Example: your the United states you have just landed in the jungles of the Amazon with 30 armor groups. Aztec partisans should be able to easily stop the attack because
1. armor doesn't work well in jungles, neither does mech infantry only infantry does.
2. infantry defenders in the jungle should always have the advantage because of hiding positions, knowledge of local terrain, and immunity to diseases.
on the mech infantry vs armor
Modern day example
grassland no plus or minus on defense
US marine mech infantry attacks US army armor
armor wins
US marine mech infantry attacks US army armor in mountains the mech infantry would win because of the rocky terrain, trees, coverage to unload troops
its hard for a trooper to get a good spot to hide and launch a rocket at a tank in the open but in the mountains with the trees, rock outcroppings, streams its not as hard.
Terrain needs to have different effects on different units. Upgrades to units could change the game as they do in real life. Getting trappled by tanks cuz you only got infantry, upgrade infantry with armor piercing shells or rockets. Getting wiped by helicopters(if they are more useful in civ3)
give tanks AAA missles and bye bye helicopters. There definately needs to be supply chain management for upgrades so the helicopters or tanks could intercept the shipments and how is infantry on an island supposed to just magically get rockets. Counters to Jungle and mountain counter effects could be engineer unit upgrades to divisions, clear the jungle as you go, clean up debris in the mountains to give the tanks clear attack and defense strong points.
Artillery-
artillery needs to be real artillery
if it gets attacked its dead it is for support and support only. Artillery can deal out a great deal of damage on tanks and mech infantry but is weak vs infantry. In late game no attack should be without artillery because artillery should be the able to kill things and break down city walls and forts. In civ2 you lose way too much attacking a very heavily fortified city, which if artillery were correctly handled your army could sustain minimal casualties. I think military actions too abstract in civ2 and needs to be overhauled severely. I was reading a report about a wargame colorado between army mech infantry and armor. Armor lost horribly because of terrain but infantry could have done better because many apcs were 'lost' to tank fire before they could unload. Conversly in a grassland wargame in california the armor defeated the mech infantry handly losing only a few tanks. Civ2 seems to lose infantry late game and people only use partisans this needs to change, people need to still use riflemen.
------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
so ...
Comment