what would searino would you rather have then ww2 in pacific?

[fififan]

id perfer ww2 in europe personally.

 

[warpstorm]

Over done. The Pacific hasn't been done nearly so many times.

 

[Jaybe]

Civ3 does not recreate ground warfare with continuous fronts well. The AI (or any defender with rails) will hole up in cities except for when attacking.

Can you imagine the Russian front in Civ3? A travesty of historical feel.

 

[warpstorm]

True, rather than a front the attacker will use a Stack-o-Doom (at least I would).

 

[wilbill]

Civ 3 simply isn't very good as a war game. Combat centers almost entirely around attacking/defending cities. There's really no good way to simulate warfare accurately with the current AI.

 

[DBear]

I would've preferred a space race scenario, simulating the Moon landing projects. There would be no military, only researching, funding and espionage while keeping the people happy. This would be a builder's dream scenario.

 

[Ville]

I like WWII Pacific. Naval Warfare is quite fun

 

[globester]

normandy only scenario :/

 

[Red Boxer]

I also like playing the Pacific war, its nicely broken up into smaller theaters, which the AI handles without much problem. Rather than the stuttering ground offenses. I have a great deal of fun whenever I get to use lethal bombartment, as well.

A war in the Atlantic scenario would be cool. The objective would be for the US/Brit Forces to collect victory points by shipping supplies to London vs. German objective of sinking ships for VPs.

 

[Mercade]

I think they made an excellent decision to go for WW II in the Pacific. Continental Europe has been done quite often enough. This is a very nice alternative, and in Europe probably less known part of the way anyway.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I too am very happy they included WWII in the Pacific. There are other Conquests I'd rather see replaced.