eddie_verdde
Warlord
UNIT MOVEMENT:
with exception of artillery, most units are able to cross every single square of the landscape...what about geographical barriers? physical borders such as impassable mountains (eg: the Pirenees, the Everest, etc.) or lethal deserts (Sahara, Gobi)... you just can't cross a cavalry army along a mountain full of snow!!
There should be more of these geographic features that itselves constitute an obstacle to armies...
UNIT MOVEMENT 2:
maybe the number of moves of ships should be increased in order to be accurate with real world...especially in the Ancient Times. In the previous civ games, they move so slow that sometimes it 's not worthy to build a fleet and carry a large number of units to other continent or from a point to another....this discourages invasion of other continents and surprising landfalls far from the war fronts.
Travelling by sea is not only a way of crossing continents but also a faster way of travelling, probably faster than what is suggested by the proportion of 3:1 observed in the number of moves of sea units and land units. I believe this is true especially in the anciente times.
UNIT MOVEMENT 3:
I don't like the idea of a ship being able to make landfall everywhere we want to...in real world there are coastal areas impassable to ships, and unless you are unloading alpinists you just can't make landfall near a cliff!!!
I hope that in CIV4 some coastal squares are not available for unloading ships...this would be important specially in scenarios such as the Mediterraneum Sea, or those with more detailed maps...
SURVIVAL OF UNITS IN HOSTILE LANDS:
units shouldn't be able to survive for more than a limited number of turns when they are CROSSING big deserts or tundra for instance (similarly to triremes navigating in ocean squares)....and if they do they should receive hit points penalties for that.
imagine if Caesar decided to cross the Sahara with his legions...
MERCENARIES:
what if civilizations could recruit barbarian troops as mercenaries?
with exception of artillery, most units are able to cross every single square of the landscape...what about geographical barriers? physical borders such as impassable mountains (eg: the Pirenees, the Everest, etc.) or lethal deserts (Sahara, Gobi)... you just can't cross a cavalry army along a mountain full of snow!!
There should be more of these geographic features that itselves constitute an obstacle to armies...
UNIT MOVEMENT 2:
maybe the number of moves of ships should be increased in order to be accurate with real world...especially in the Ancient Times. In the previous civ games, they move so slow that sometimes it 's not worthy to build a fleet and carry a large number of units to other continent or from a point to another....this discourages invasion of other continents and surprising landfalls far from the war fronts.
Travelling by sea is not only a way of crossing continents but also a faster way of travelling, probably faster than what is suggested by the proportion of 3:1 observed in the number of moves of sea units and land units. I believe this is true especially in the anciente times.
UNIT MOVEMENT 3:
I don't like the idea of a ship being able to make landfall everywhere we want to...in real world there are coastal areas impassable to ships, and unless you are unloading alpinists you just can't make landfall near a cliff!!!
I hope that in CIV4 some coastal squares are not available for unloading ships...this would be important specially in scenarios such as the Mediterraneum Sea, or those with more detailed maps...
SURVIVAL OF UNITS IN HOSTILE LANDS:
units shouldn't be able to survive for more than a limited number of turns when they are CROSSING big deserts or tundra for instance (similarly to triremes navigating in ocean squares)....and if they do they should receive hit points penalties for that.
imagine if Caesar decided to cross the Sahara with his legions...
MERCENARIES:
what if civilizations could recruit barbarian troops as mercenaries?
