Search results

I think I'll repeat somewhat what others have said, but I'll say it!!:p I think MTW and Civ are completely different games. The only thing they have in common is the are strategical/tactic games. Civ, well you know, is more empire-building oriented. I think there are many warmongers who...

Well.... aircraft carriers need protection from submarines, so escort by destroyers are essentiel. But since they are virtually no close combat between ships anymore, at least, where an aircraft carrier is in the fighting force, battleships are no more required. However, US marine see a new...

Well, maybe carriers are or may become obsolete in a few years, but for WW2 and more than 60 years, they have ruled the sea and their existence made battleships obsolete. It isn't what we see Civ.

The fact it they shouldn't. Since WW2, seas are ruled by aircraft carriers. Planes are used to destroy enemy's battleships once they are at range. So the only battle a battleship will see is a bomb falling from the sky:lol: :lol: . In well-planned naval strategy, a battleship will never be...

Yeah.. would be cool. I can't wait to sell weapons to Israël :lol: :lol: .

I do vote for that!!! Automatic "ship" interception by carrier airplanes and giving ship bonus to fighters planes is the way to go. Now the battleships would fear the mighty power of the air force:cry: :cry: . Note that the Pacific battle in WW2 is THE war involving carriers because no...

Yeah... that's what I'm pushing for!!

Well... I think it's too much micromanaging. I prefer limit micro-managing to improve global play. Of course, we could say we build a BIG tunnel to bridge one square, but I think it's more related to SimCity than an empire-managing game ;) . EDIT : Well, I see some seem to be bothered by...

Focus on reducing micromanagement... Yup.... especially a military one. Move and create garrison easilly instead of moving individual units. Have some manager to see and organize military forces and to be able to estimates one's military forces. Don't know that you mean by CTP-like stack...

Protective, expansionism, creative. In course.. those traits have benefits, but other traits are more useful.

The problem is the of the map. A square represents a lot of kilometers. Far too long for a bridge. However, There should be a system to easily dispatch units on islands. I vote for a system to manage army and stack attacks. Instead of promotions, which adds a lot of micromanagement, units...

I do the same.... However, it's a pain in the neck to move all submarines, just keep boring me.

Well... if you want it to be more realistic. But for gameplay, anything that can make moving large groups better would be welcome.

yeah... It's already really costly in term of war weariness just to lunch a war for a few turns. I'm not a warmonger, but I think it's bad and unrealistic to lose half your city production because you attack your neighbor.

Well... not ALL.. Did you ever play PanzerGeneral... late conquest battle are longer but not as much as Civ. Same thing for Warcraft and RTS. Late games did have more units but this is not as tedious as Civ. I think it's have to do with the game concept, where you have a empire to expand...

:mad: Every game I play usually end when... I'm too bored by endgames moving all my units. Now, I've got a prince game with a very good start, get until modern era and I'm giving a final blow to my most serious competitor.. but I probably won't finish it. I've got three little stacks of...

Yeah... after re-reading your post I realized you most pointed out long term financing military force.. but I wanted to argue. :mischief: Things are really though to compare between Civ and real life as in reality civs didn't organize so well in the past as we play our game. Development of...

I agree with most of your points, except that one. Many large armies did exist and conquer most of the known world, sometimes overpower or outnumber their ennemies. I.e. : Romans, Greeks, Napoleon. Even Nazis came close to hold their share over most of the Europe, if it wouldn't be for some...

I just getting off the ongoing discussion about how to limit army size to get back to the OP topic about managing army. But on the way, I don't think SoD represent a so unrealistic concept as big armies have existed and will exist, specially backed by by large nations. Of course, too much...

Graphics are ok. Of course, they aren't impressive, but I wonder how graphics for a turn-based game could be impressive. Maybe combat animation could look better. I don't play Civ4 for graphics anyway. I like bette they put their cash on gameplay rather than graphics.