Armies are missing something

[Trifna]

I believe like many others that Civ III is a great evolution of the genre. It is a game that will have its name in gaming history. But there is still something I was surprised to not seeing it implemented, since of its importance in History. I was even more surprised to see it implemented only partially, only in some specific occasions.

10 knights attacking ONE enemy pikeman one after the other isn't the same than 10 knights attacking this pikeman altogether. Also, the present system doesn't permit the protection of a bomber unit or of archers/long range units with some other more defensive units. Such an imbalance on number will even affect the combat by moral (people may even just run away and be killed without doing alot).

Also, by this, it makes that we can't make huge attacks of men, such as battles were commonly fought. 2000 spearmen attacking 3000 spearmen, with archers firing from behind. This can't be represented well in the present system.


Of course, a leader may give a tremendous advantage, but he isn't needed to build an army. Well... of course there will be leaders, but not in the way of Civ III where the leader shown as exceptional leaders sometimes seen through the course of History. The single units attacking now are representing let's say 200 men or whattever, but their number is always the same (except with an exceptional leader).

[HugoHillbilly]

Civ 3 generalizes combat so you dont have to worry about the nitty-gritty details, it is a strategic game not a tactical ones.

Try out Age of Empires style of games, they have the type of combat you describe. Imagine the micromanagement nightmares and complex combat systems needed for this in a Civ game.

Personally I think armies are kinda silly, id rather just have them to rush wonders or maybe give a 'morale' bonus to units stacked on the same square.

Although it is entertaining to watch Napolean throw his arm yelling HO! as modern tanks decimate their enemies