Battle

[Par4]

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

[general_charles]

I totally agree with you, OrangeSfwr and Par4, units should get terrain bonuses. With the eventual use of borders in civ3 (see thread BORDERS), I think that units inside their borders should get a 50% bonus attack, I mean, units know the terrain, they know exactly where to put mines or ambush the enemy. Besides, I do agree that units should have special attack skills in different terrains, so how about using a percentage of their attack?

For example:

- unit / percentage in open land(plains, grassland) / percentage in forests, jungle and city / percentage in hills / percentage in mountains

- marines / 50% / 150% / 100% / 200%
- tanks / 200% / 50% / 50% / 25%
- mechanised infantry / 50% / 50% / 150% / 200%
- fighter / 150% / 50% / 25% / 10%
and so on...


------------------
-- Capitalism slaughterer --

[The Mad Viking]

GC - I agree about the fighter radius, and I said that bombers should not take damage unless they are attacking a unit with special (AA) capabilities. Unescorted battleships destroying bombers is ridiculous.
This is a very good thread; I often thought that terrain was oversimplified. Armor in particular struggles in any difficult terrain.

How about the ridiculous notion that a city gets its defense bonus from its terrain. I don't see how extra trees is going to make much of a difference against any ground attack, although rivers and hills would help somewhat. My big complaint is that you get a huge bonus for city walls and no bonus for being a city! Obviously buildings provide premium defensive concealment, good protection, ambush sites and special familiarity to the defender.

I think the fact that you pay shields in support generally covers the concept of modernizing your units over time, although you could certainly argue that for navies, aircraft and armor, that the cost is too modest.

I think that morale and supply should "damage" a unit - if it is behind enemy lines without a realistic supply line to a friendly city at the start of a turn, it should lose a couple of HP out of the 20 or 30 it has. (Modern era)

What should be done to make helicopters more valuable? Special attack bonus against vehicles?

[Az]

" if US armored units would land and face aztec warriors in the jungle .." first . they wouldn't have to face them in the jungle coz aztecs dont live in jungles!!!!!!! they live in mexico , not in nicaragua ,as mistakinly was written in CTP.
and then : armor never comes alone , coz in every armor brigade has a riflemen company and agree with me the warriors will flee after the first shot so ...

P.S. and all that self-propelled artillery will burn down the hous... ehh .. the " jungle " . if you can call a place with sand and cactuses a Jungle

------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .

Amazon Jungle - he probably meant Incas. I agree that in real life armor doesn't usually attack by its lonesome, but that's what he was trying to correct. If just an armor is attacking then the 'aztec' warriors should get a bonus (at least I think that's what he was saying)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Par4]

I probably didn't word this right but the Aztec jungle thing is this-
It was supposed to represent a civ3 game with the realistic terrain stuff ie if in a game your aztec and I'm american and I attack with the new and improved battles of Civ3 then I'll lose because I'm tanks and your in the Amazon jungle. It wasn't supposed to be real life attacks. I know the Aztecs were in Mexico. Of course this scenario is just if we still have the individual units attacking instead of armies in Civ3. I don't think the Incas were in Civ2 were they?

The stuff at the bottom about the TRADOC wargames were from military records and were replying about the armor should get bonus on this thing I thought wasn't realistic.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[general_charles]

First of all, I'd like to reply to this:

quote: I think the fact that you pay shields in support generally covers the concept of modernizing your units over time, although you could certainly argue that for navies, aircraft and armor, that the cost is too modest.

I don't think that the problem is the cost, it could be reasonable, but the technology, the main reason why Germans lost the eastern from is because their armor, although it had excellent mobility could not destroy even the early war russian heavy tanks (KV-1), and when the russians finally got organised, they destroyed the Germans because they built those tanks in large quantities. When the germans finally got some more armored tanks, it was already a bit too late; the russians were now really started on their war machine and producing an incredible amount of tanks.

Besides that, I think that units fighting with each other should have a bonus, say for example infantry fights in the forests, if they have tanks, they can be even more effective, even if tanks alone are not: forests are never only forests and when in open grounds, the tanks can help out, or when troops have to fall back, soldiers hide behind tanks, which provide good cover. This is why i think that in civ3, there should be combined attacks, say infantry have 5 attack strength, armor has 8, but because you are in forest, armor gets 4 and and infantry gets 7.5, you now have 11.5 firepower.

No, the Incas were not in Civ 2. I hope to see them in Civ 3 for two reasons...

1) historically they were the major South American civ. They were conquered by the Spanish in the 1500s (not exactly sure, correct me if I'm wrong)

2) a civ to settle in SA. Australia and South America are untouched in Civ 2. When playing on Earth, I don't even bother with them because no one's there!

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[general_charles]

that is a problem as well, what are the odds in real life that there would be no one on a territory as big as australia or for example some islands in the pacific? They are almost inexistant in civ2 and that is a shame, but what can be done to improve this?

[Az]

well that's true . empty lands . must admit I always used them as last refuge . coz I always kept loosing in the Deity level . just couldnt cope with those production levels . btw . does any 1 know , will this nosense continue in civ 3 , coz this is a very pathetic and player-frustrating way to compensate lasyness in AI algorythms building .

if you agree with me , dont be ashamed shout it out !

------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .

[Par4]

Just 'Bumping' up a good thread for some new ideas.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse