I do not want to have to merely smash unit after unit into enemy cities to bring down an enemy! I want my cannons to be able to blast down their city walls. I want my bombers to destroy their harbors and ruin their trade. I want to be able to bomb their bridges and radar towers. I want to be able to blockade their ports and drain them of their life blood, trade. I want lines of supply to limit me and my opponents so that the game will not be over by 1000 AD. I also want to be able to strategically expand to certain locations first to hold resources that will be essential later. MAKE LOGISTICS IMPORTANT!

True, I DO want new units and unit capabilities but I only want this is in the strategic scheme of a war. I want to be able to let my troops retreat if they are clearly going to be defeated. I also want POWs captured after a defeat so that I can use them as leverage in diplomacy. This is how I want tactics to be incorporated into the overall strategy.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

Dom Pedro II.... aka Hannibal3

I agree the strategy is the key.

It's what makes the game fun! I want more ways (hopefully accurate the real world history)to challenge an enemy. I want to engage in a trade war! A cold war! A Hundred Year's War! A blockade! A blockade runner! Energy shortages! Civil war! Morale of military units! More realistic military rules and behavior! I want my enemy to be smarter!

We are all tired of the AI sending ship after ship to it's death on our coastal fortresses. That's boring and I hate winning that way.

Scenario 1: So It's oil you need, well I control the oil and your not getting any.

Scenario 2: Oh no! please Mr. Stalin, don't send that massive amphibious army against me! Oops, I just cut off it's supply lines and it surrendered to me, too bad for you Mr. Stalin.

Scenario 3: Ah. General Tompson, so your the chief of our special operation group. I want all dockside facilities along the french coast disabled before our amphibious assault.

Scenario 4: Aghhhh, can't write anymore scenarios, too .... much .... happy ... thoughts.

Ain't strategy grand.

------------------
- Biddles

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 10-30-2000 04:42 AM STRATEGY! I just thought I'd resate my point.

I was hoping for a few more of your scenarios!

STRATEGY. That's the battle cry!

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 10-28-2000 02:18 PM Nikolai, thats the BEAUTY of better Strategy! You can simply position your territories in major areas of iron and oil deposits. You can build the most cotton plantations and have the most potato fields. If you do, who will dare to oppose you? Any civilization with machinery in warfare will be crippled if they ever attack you! They would be unable to feed and clothe their troops. You will dominate the world without firing a shot!

I that case; S T R A T E G Y ! !

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove on 10-31-2000 12:18 AM I'd love to see someone make a Civ type game with a real tactical element. Each time a battle broke out the computer could generate a custom-made battle map on which it and the player, or in the case of a multiplayer game, the 2 or more players, could fight out the battle, or choose to let the computer decide the results if they so desired. The game could be called "War, The Operational Art of Civilization." But heck, that's not going to happen anyway.

That's the best idea that will never happen

I don't mind an increased role of war and combat, but I'm sure you have read all the posts of folks who don't want a wargame.

Cool idea!