some ideas

[Vietcong]

1, moral, witch efects troops atack and defenst rateings.
2, surdendering, toops encerlceed for so many turns shold surender
3, partisan units
4, units with guns have a sertant pracentage added to close combat units to ther atack and defnes
5, armor aefact flag, this whold give armoed units (tanks) an avatage of no at units (units that arent made up of mosty at guns or wwhat ever) and no avateg agisnt at units for ex. other tanks, at guns, flak units, ect

 

[SilverKnight]

Since HP used to be connected with guns and such, higher HP units could have a lower % of surrendering. Great idea! But do you mean just armies or all units? Would workers and settlers still have to be attacked?

 

[Colonel]

ok not to make fun of you but could you rewrite some of that cause i cant read it

but anyways 2 and 3 seem like good ideas

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

A big yes to points 1,2 and 3. As for 4 and 5, I have long advocated a morale and armour rating for units, to give much better outcomes for combat between units who are especially unevenly matched. For instance, that spearman is NEVER going to damage that tank, unless he gets an outrageously good hit, because his damage (i.e. firepower) will never penetrate its armour! Even if it were, the damage done would be infantessimal!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[BassDude726]

Colonel, give him a break. His sig says he's autistic.

Anyway, that seems like a good way to end the whole tank/spearman debate.