Advanced Tactical Warfare

[Urban Ranger]

No to everything, except a variation of #1. If you have more than one of your units attacking an enemy from different sides, you gain an advantage. This is especially true if you surround the enemy unit on all sides with your own combat units.

[Urban Ranger]

DarkCloud,

There has been some previous threads on unit formations. I have this one in the archives. An older one started by Hannes can be found here.

[Nick-oh]

Sounds pretty good except for one small point on No. 3, Whilst increased elevation does result in marginally increased range, it does not increase the accuracy of the weapon in question. The effective range of the weapon is virtually unaltered (except perhaps on cliffs) therefor negating any benefit with regard to range.

------------------
Common sense is not so common - Voltaire

[Sir Shiva]

Hmm...

Camouflage isn't all that tough... Or at least, some kind of 'line of sight'. But think about it... You have dense forest on either side of a mountain pass. How tough can it be to 'hide' a couple of archers in the forests ready to rain arrows down on an unsuspecting enemy.
Attack against a unit who didn't know where the attacker was should give the attacker an advantage. Like subs attacking a ship or something.

And about the map being too small for tactical battles, I really feel that the map needs a major overhaul to represent smaller scale stuff - increase the number or tiles/points used to represent something and increase movement rates correspondingly...

------------------
Get paid for every second you spend online at http://referral.jotter.com/join/bulk
Refer people (like what I'm doing) to earn even more. $50 a month is not uncommon.

-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980

[Hannibal3]

Camaflouge really isn't that tough. It shouldn't be that much of an issue. Civilization II: Test of Time already had an invisibility feature which is the same thing, so just leave that as is.