Unit-unit-unit, who should win in battle

[Theben]

Problem is that civ1,2,3 are not tactical games, nor should they be. All combat is strategic and thus abstracted into numbers, with modifiers.

The only thing I can think of is to use terrain to further modify combat, including the attacker. Like a group of warriors will get a bonus to attacking rifleman in a jungle (less opportunity to use rifles at range) but not in the open (plains, grassland). But as has been pointed out even in these cases the results are uncertain.

I would have preferred that Firaxis allowed for more combat options as mentioned (seiges, as well as concealment & and ambushes), as well as an overhaul of the system itself.

[me_irate]

Originally posted by joseph1944

The Bismark was sunk before we the U.S. enter the war and the Yamato was sunk by aircraft as was the Bismark.

The bismark's ruder was jammed by a swordfish bomber and was forced to go in circles or stop moving all together. It was sunk by Several ships, 2 heavy crusiers and some destoryers i think. (might have been battle ships there but i dont think so) Mostly because bismark couldn't move and was a sitting duck.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Grumbold


The basic diplomatic tools have been there. Defensive alliances. Tech donations. Unit donations. All we need from Civ 3 is the AI capable of intelligently using these tools, and the reason to do so. I can remember a good column a few months ago on precisely that subject. With trade being important and cultural factors discouraging your own tactical invasion, protecting your trading partners becomes worthwhile. The AI just needs now to know how to do so effectively!

What I'm proposing is the option of several different levels of intervention such as to be found in real life. Not all the levels of aid I proposed above are currently possible in the existing Civ games.