True that Ironikinit.I dunno just say "change it please" because I´ve seen Dan from Firaxis wandering around these forums, maybe he will take notice if enough ppl add "change it please" to their posts.
Am not so sure an e-mail will do the trick either,because so many of us had so many ideas,and posted so many,but so few were implemented in the game (this line sounds like a Churchill quote)
On it being an easy fix or not,I really wouldn´t know why it should be a tough one.I edited armies to pillage,because I really couldn´t understand why this had been left out,likewise can´t understand why units in armies cant be upgraded.Think in some regards the army concept has only been halfheartedly implemented anyway.I used to play Imperialismus and Conquest of the New World,in both games I prefered the "Leader" and army concept.Don´t know if you tried these games Ironikinit,they had their faults too,no doubt but on this matter they were better.
You would build a leader in Conquest otNW,from what I remember the more advanced one´s military research was the better the leader one could produce,one would have a certain amount of points and would devide them among certain skills of the leader,like movement,how often it could attack,how many units the leader´s army could consist of etc.Then one would just load units into the army and march into battle,being able to use every unit as one wanted and benefitting from the leader´s skills,giving movement bonus might have been good in order to move through tough countryside, enabling this army to catch up with any enemy one,but might cost dearly in battle if it had too few attack points.
Can´t remember Imperialismus so well either,if the leader had an effect on the army or not,but what was better was that one would send armies into provinces these being defended by the AI army,all would be decided in this battle,instead of letting every single unit fight.
Both concepts can´t be implemented in Civ3...at least not anymore,but both show how much more could have been done if they had taken the time to think the entire concept through.
Am not one of the guys who gets annoyed with tanks losing to spearmen,but I do believe it would have been time to change the military system in the Civ series,as an old fan of the original Panzer General,I would have loved to have seen a similar concept in Civ.These two games aren´t that far apart anyway, both use single units,which one slides across the map,they weren´t gathered in armies,since every unit represented a dozen single units and both games are strictly turn based.PG even used a similar shield sytem,the prestge points.Civ2 left out a lot of improvemements which were made in Colonization,and sadly all Civ parts ignored PG.
Yet,there was so much to gain;
Elite units really were elite in PG,they would fight better,maybe too good at times,but elite units are not only elite because they survive a battle,that too,but because they know how to use their weapons effectivly,this they knew by gaining experience,would also solve the tank vs. spearman quarrel once and for all.
Experience points were gained faster by destroying superior forces.
If a unit had lost hitpoints one could either supply them with elite replacements or normal ones,it depended on prestige points,in Civ that could be gold or a resource.Waging too long wars,would show by new troops lacking experience since the costs would be too high in the long run.
Units could run out of ammo or fuel,or cut off from supplies, likewise could have easily been implemented by Civ3´s resource system.
The upgrade system was basically the same,one could upgrade after the tech was there,same as in Civ.
Artillery units would defend ground units being attacked within their range.Anti-Aircraft guns would do the same,if it was an aerial threat,fighters could be placed along side bombers as escort,opposing fighters would have to fight through the escorts,to attack the bombers.
Strategic bombers wouldn´t kill a unit but weaken it,esp. by blowing up supplies of the unit,decreasing it´s ammo and fuel.
Tactical bombers would be able to destroy the unit.
Sounds a bit unfitting for Civ,since a lot of this sounds so modern times,but it could be done.Zachriel said on one of the threads, that nations go to war amongst other reasons because of pride,I´d find it just as bad if software companies ignored other good games, because of similar reasons.
Of the games I enjoyed most after Civ and Col,all had an improved military system,Master of Orion 2 is another one.
Some may complain now this is too much micro management,way too complicated,I think the game would have benefitted far more than it would have lost.Especially since the concepts overlap,I never liked realtime strategy that much,for one reason,I didn´t give a **** about my units,you´d produce thousands without ever liking any of them especially,this was changed by the original Civ, that´s what made this game good,one would care about one´s cities and civilization,they were owned and made by oneself,the same should go for military units.
OMG so lost for words,am sorry
Think I´m gonna start a thread on this
It will take 10 or 12 cav attacks to get the infantry and 4 or 6 for each rifelman. In fairness, I have watched Rome, my ally, do the sam thing... losing attack after attack. If I had more than one army, I would wait for them. Now that tanks are here, I will create tank armies, and eventually a mix of 2 tanks and one mech infantry. I am creating armies, and will soon have one on the line... but no wars at the moment. When I do go to war it will be a world war... Rome has an mpp with England, and China doesnt count, but they will no doubt join.
, People´s General!!Well that´s like Panzer General,so he should be aware of the concepts I´m talking about. 
