Defensive positions have always been important no matter where you were. (Read Caesar for many examples.) Hill tops, higher ground, etc. It usually is the defender's tactical advantage (unless they are somehow surprised) that they choose the location of the engagement. (The attacker, of course, has the luxury of choosing the moment of the confrontation.) The actual engagement will then usually happen with the two forces charging into each other (in the case of melee units).
But i do not think that the bonus given by the choice of the place of the battle is as important that it is currently in Civ.
Plus, battle places was often chosen by the two sides in the same time.
Not to mention the fact that an attacker in Civ with the wood bonus will not take benefit of it if he "attacks" a foe in a forest, from a plain, or even from a forest.
Actually, in
massive field battles, in Civ4, the advantage always goes to the tactical attacker (in his territory, which makes him in fact a counter-attacker, it is to say a strategical defender) because of catapults and increased movement, what should be changed.
A contrario, in
skirmish field battles, the advantage usually goes to the tactical defender (with map bonuses), which is either the strategical attacker or the strategical defender. However, transcripted in the reality, this is completely biased, especially for distance units and forest land. Only the melee units with a wood promotion should be able to beat the others in forest land, with no advantage for the defender, what would emphasis the promotion system. Archers should be good only in uncovered terrain, and better yet in high terrain.
This is to counter-balance the advantage of strategical attackers that the defensive bonus of the map has been setted. I think this is a poor way to counter-balance it.
Walls should forbid any attack by horse-based units, though their use be emphasised. Only foot unit should be able to climb walls with ladders, etc...
