Improvements in Warfare

[acd]

If I'm engaged in an amphibious invasion of a city, I should be able to call in Fighter Jet support for Precision attacks on enemy units.

If I'm engaged in any battle - land or sea, I should be able to call in Fighter Jet supprt for Precision attacks on enemy units. And, it should be more effective under these circumstances.

There should be a way to select a specific city improvement for precision attack.

There should be some established player level to Air Warfare between air units in the fight for air superiority (so you know if you have it).

There should be a way to assess the constitution of the enemy within a city under seige. This could be acquired through Stealth Aircraft, SATELLITE TECHNOLOGY (BTW - what's up with that??? That technology should provide a whole new interface for country/city observation).

 

[acd]

Paratroopers and Helicopters should be able to be carried by a Carrier. Afterall, its like a floating airport, isn't it?

 

[Lockesdonkey]

These sound like good ideas.

Since I'm anything but warmonger, I don't generally pay much attention to the war threads, so I have no idea if this has already been discussed.

May I suggest a name change for this thread to "Improving the role of naval and air forces"?

 

[searcheagle]

I think, ACD, you should look into the system Aussie posted on my Thread, located here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=115411&page=1

His first post was on #3 on that thread. It consists of a simultaneous combat system where there is a movement system and combat phase, which would dramatically improve combat. Aussie, Have ever posted your own thread on your combat proposal?

 

[acd]

Hi Lockes and Search. I posted the thread for any ideas pertaining to warfare. I had a few others, but they slip my mind for now. I'm sure that I'll have plenty of other criticisms.

Search, as far as changing the combat system, I don't see that its necessary. I've played a lot of wargames - and from the time of their inception. I don't see the 'phase' approach as necessarily any better. People who like to play low level tactical games get fixed on the phase thing. What I like about CIV is that its NOT that. I like strategic wargames, where you are dealing with large aggregate battle formations. On this level (roughly division level by my estimate), you don't have phases, nor do you have simultaneous combat. That's squad/regiment level, which I happen to detest.

 

[searcheagle]

Hi Lockes and Search. I posted the thread for any ideas pertaining to warfare. I had a few others, but they slip my mind for now. I'm sure that I'll have plenty of other criticisms.

Search, as far as changing the combat system, I don't see that its necessary. I've played a lot of wargames - and from the time of their inception. I don't see the 'phase' approach as necessarily any better. People who like to play low level tactical games get fixed on the phase thing. What I like about CIV is that its NOT that. I like strategic wargames, where you are dealing with large aggregate battle formations. On this level (roughly division level by my estimate), you don't have phases, nor do you have simultaneous combat. That's squad/regiment level, which I happen to detest.

While an integrated combat system seems like it would be tactical, it is indeed no more tactical then the current system. It would solve many of the problems that are present with combat in such as weak units have excessive strength, and would allow for units to work together like what you are proposing.

 

[acd]

It is tactical due to the time scale. If its simultaneous combat, you are dealing on a daily, and if not hourly, turn basis. Strategic combat is not simultaneous. It can't be, not only due to the time scale (should be roughly 2-3 months), but due to the formation level at 20,000+. Again, tactical games are the phenomenon with new gamers. At this level of strategy, not only is it unrealistic but its tedious to boot.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't think I have ever posted a thread of my own on this subject, Search, but I HAVE posted my ideas in numerous combat-related threads, as I feel it is something which REALLY needs to be improved.
I also don't buy the whole 'strategic vs tactical' argument to dismiss stack combat. Afterall, though the turns might be from 1-20 years long, but there is NO indication of how much time a full combat turn actually takes. The problem with the current system is that its like a bad martial arts movie, where the attacking unit takes on the top unit of the opposing stack-whilst everyone else in said stack merely stands back and watch. Instead, all units in stacks should fight at once, with ranged units giving support at the start of each 'pulse'.
If nothing else, the system has worked so very well in both CtP and CtPII.
Anyway, thats just the way I see it!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

The called air support suffers from what I call the "archers' dilemma", based on the medieval equivalent situation. Missile troops can certainly shoot at an enemy unit. But if those same enemies are already engaged in melee with your friends, suddenly there's teh whole friendly fire issue to deal with. Called air support and radioed co-ordinated for artillery support are simply the modern equivalents to the same issue. There's no particular reason to believe called fire is any more accurate. As a basic example, the majority of UK casualties in Gulf war Mk I were as a result of friendly fire.

Paratroopers on an aircraft carrier? Yes, it is an airport. But it isn't a barracks capable of housing several thousand soldiers for extended periods.

I agree the air model needs fixing. Even civ2 had a better air model. But its late now and I need my sleep.

 

[Volstag]

I would love to see Civ IV incorporate some form of "supply" with regards to armies/navies in the field. It's way more realistic, and would present some very interesting tactical and strategic choices for the player(s). An army that's OOS would, obviously, have greatly diminished combat power... and, if OOS long enough, might dissappear/surrender completely. While AA armies, and possibly medieval armies, might be able to roam further w/o supply trains/bases, it should be a major consideration for late-medieval, Industrial and Modern armies.

That's one of my few gripes with Civ III -- military action is almost too easy, and it's almost always a viable course of action in any given situation.

-V

 

[calebtheripper]

So, I have a couple of ideas regarding a couple of things.

1) aircraft should be able to sink ships. As far as I'm aware all they can do is get them down to 1 hit point, why? Actually the same for all units I think

2) stealth bombers should be able to target precise city improvements.

3) Naval blockade should be when you have a ship in a sea/ocean/coastal square of another civ you're at war with when they have no ships in their city sqaures which is what real life bloackade is, not that the port is literally blocked off but that any vessel bound for the port city will be intercepted by blockading protagonist.

4) this one is not about battle per say but that civ's should be able to donate military unit to another civ to help their war effort. I think it could make things more political, if you know what i mean. it could be part of the diplomatic set-up, and if discovered causes an international incident and could be a pretext for different civ's declaring war on you.

5) there could be a missile boat unit which you can load cruise missiles onto

I think I have other ideas but it's too late to think, what do people think of my suggestions?