One of the real weaknesses for me with Civ III has been the rudimentary nature of overseas trade, and the consequent meaninglessness of naval units in a strategic sense. In both World Wars, Germany (and in the second Japan) knowingly gambled that they could secure a windfall of resources from defeat of Russia (or SE Asia in Japan's case) before blockade of international trade would force them to capitulate.
*Trade in the modern age should require deep-water ports, and should be buildable only on a suitably-designated terrain hex.
*Coastal batteries/aircraft should be able to sink ships. It was an axiom of naval thinking up until the nuclear age that ships couldn't be used to attack coastal fortifications.
*Food, like other resources, should be a tradeable commodity. To take two examples, Rome in its day, was dependent on Egyptian corn, and England ceased to be able provide enough food its population after the mid-1870s.
Adding these developments, would force me to actually face building a navy rather than just a few destroyers and submarines to pick of damaged enemy ships.
Bill
*Trade in the modern age should require deep-water ports, and should be buildable only on a suitably-designated terrain hex.
*Coastal batteries/aircraft should be able to sink ships. It was an axiom of naval thinking up until the nuclear age that ships couldn't be used to attack coastal fortifications.
*Food, like other resources, should be a tradeable commodity. To take two examples, Rome in its day, was dependent on Egyptian corn, and England ceased to be able provide enough food its population after the mid-1870s.
Adding these developments, would force me to actually face building a navy rather than just a few destroyers and submarines to pick of damaged enemy ships.
Bill
