Military doctrines

oh really i loved civics.

it was fun to be a police state with freedom of speech:(

do they just have one government selection system that they had in civ 3
 
do they just have one government selection system that they had in civ 3

They have said they're going to have a complex set of Social Policies available. But we don't really know anything about them yet, probabably because the system is still subject to change.
 
Personally I always liked the ancient, classical and medieval eras more than the rest. I would like them to be fleshed out to the detail of the modern era, but problem is - whatever we invest in one era is lost in another. They do not have unlimited time and resources to make this game. Five 20th century eras will also get boring as hell.

My thoughts exactly, the pre-industrial era is my favorite part of the game (and the part of history I find most interesting). Modern era already gets a lot of attention.

Adding new units to represent the (relatively) small changes to tanks over the last few decades is akin to stating we should have new sword/archer units represent minor advances in metallurgy in the ancient era, or adding biremes, quinqueremes, and corvus equipped galleys to the classical era.


Military doctrines as something civic-like could be an interesting feature.
 
My thoughts exactly, the pre-industrial era is my favorite part of the game (and the part of history I find most interesting). Modern era already gets a lot of attention.

Adding new units to represent the (relatively) small changes to tanks over the last few decades is akin to stating we should have new sword/archer units represent minor advances in metallurgy in the ancient era, or adding biremes, quinqueremes, and corvus equipped galleys to the classical era.


Military doctrines as something civic-like could be an interesting feature.

Welcome to the CFC forums, Woden9:beer:

I used to advocate bonuses or promotions to musketmen with techs like military science or tradition, to represent the advances of bayonetts and flintlocks. There was a big difference between arqbussiers and civil war precussion-cap muskets. For that matter, cannon improved in rate of fire with flintlocks, and devastation with explosive shells. It seemed to me that was the era that most lacked development in this game.

I wonder if the battle-mechanics of Civ V will lend itself to imperial mortars that could circumvent defensive bonuses?


My two favorite military doctrine quotes are Lord St. Vincent's "I do not say the French will not come; I only say they cannot come by sea." , and Ripley's "Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." :D
 
Why should we have 5 generations of 20th/21st century weapons tech, when we have only included 5 generations of pre-20th century weapons tech (ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, napoleonic)?

That kind of modern detail is better suited for mods than the main game.

How much difference is there really between 1980s "cold war" tech and "modern" tech? With a handful of exceptions (laser-guided bombs, drones) the tech is basically the same - particularly outside the US army.


Because that isn't most of human history.

there is one valid point behind this, and it is that human technological advancement accelerated exponentially as we move towards modernity and beyond
 
Instead of adding an era, I'd rather they just flesh out some eras a little better. Particularly the renaissance/early modern period.

Yes. Definitely flesh out the renaissance a little bit.
 
Back
Top Bottom