Dealon's Message:
"I have been an avid civ 2 gamer since its debut. I have stayed up days playing. I have missed weeks worth of school just to play civ 2. I can confidently say I have mastered Civ 2 in almost all respects in all almost areas. I did not write to inform you of my various exploits, but I felt it neccessary to provide a base from which to ask my question.
Will Civ III incoroporate a better defined military aspect with regards to how units participate in combat with each other?
I am a General when it comes to civ. I play to win on the battefield. I have found that Civ needs to be modified in the areas of combat in several respects. First, units should be able to be combined into larger army groups. There comes to mind a battle I once fought with a fellow Civgod. It was a ww2 scenario and we had designated 9 units to equal a division. I had placed 2 divisions (18) units in warsaw for its defense. The Russians attacked at warsaw with nearly 8 divisions of tanks, loosing all of them whilst The warsaw defenders only sustained 2 units lost. While taking into consideration the unit strengths and weaknesses, such losses were absurd. If 8 divisions (72) tanks had attacked 2 infantry divisions(18) in reality, there would be horrible losses on the weaker side. Multiple units should be able to attack and defend in the same round of combat. I hope this is addressed, because the Tactical aspects will become engrossingly addictive.
Secondly. One of the most redundant things about civ2 was the uselessness of most unit types except the howitzer types and the cheap infantry types. THis is due in part because the only 4 factors that go into the consideration of building and deployment of units are attack, defense, movement, and cost. When considering to build bombers, fighters, and even armor later on it becomes apparent that the effectiveness does not outweight the cost. However, if different unit types had more special abilities such as aircraft is more effective againts ground units without air cover would make the air war more key in the war arena. More special abilities for individual unit types.
Thirdly. The greatest defeats armies through the centuries have been dealt by hunger and disease rather than another army. In Civ, if you surround an enemy group of units, there they can remain indefinately. This makes the tactical and strategic considerations stale when involved in campaigns. Make the Units require resources through an invisibile supply line system(i.e. when a unit is cut off its strength weakens each turn unless a clear path to the home nation can be restored.) The tactical consideration would be delicious.
Forthly. No two nations ever build units with identical capabilities, strengths and weaknesses. I propose a simple 'unit tech plus' system to be implemented. Quite simply put, the military units of a civ gain bonuses for techs discovered after it. This leads to the fifth point.
Units(comprised of men) should be able to be equiped and trained differently through the ages, for a cost. Simply put. Armies can be upgraded in the field. This would be equal to changing a phalanx into a Legion for a cost in gold, produciton and food. THis would be profound in the military battles.
The list could go on and on for I have so many ideas my brain is about to explode. If I were a programmer or had the money to fund such a project, I would design and produce my own civ game. I would do so because I want to play it. Since I cannot, I will have to settle for such long and extremely boring emails to you, for the fate of civIII is in your hands. You can ruin it for everyone or make it the best game ever. Do nothing with mediocrity. Civ is no game.....
Dealon 'Heinz Guderian' Dyess
