AzNtoccata,
quote:
Combat should strike a balance between CivII unit move onto another unit combat and the Shogun: Total War of micromanagement entire individual battalions to kill each other. I suggest a combat field that should be small and units can traverse it quickly
|
AzNtoccata's original words.
The thought of adding a Shogun style battlefield had occured to me, but I kept my mouth shut simply because I thought it would be too ambitious...Something for Civ 4, perhaps?
Think about it. In Shogun, you have a fairly narrow mix of infantry and cavalry. In Civ, you have stone-chucking goons, musketeers, tanks, bombers, jets, NUKES(!), battleships, etc...I could go on all day!
Would you not agree that this asking a little too much of Firaxis?
In the perfect world, of course, Civ III would be a mix of a souped-up Civ II and Shogun. This is the computer game they play in heaven.
Another point: You say that rifle infantry would loose out to cavalry in open ground. Are you sure? Don't you mean musketeers? Accurate, repeating rifles vs. cavalry would whup ass!(Yes, I am a pedantic git).
In Shogun, the way infantry fared against cavalry was determined by formation, morale, fatigue, unit facing etc... Civ III's battlefield engine would require tactically accurate representation in this vein...A logistical nightmare, given the sheer number and variety of units at the player's disposal...
------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com
