This would allow for better defensive strategy based on high ground, because troops on high ground with a defensive position would have a greater range of attack. Then the battle model would work like this. Attack power determines the potential for damage, and the defense power would determine amount of damage taken.

Far-ranged attacks such as cannons and artillery would have two factors. Attack power and accuracy. Mortars of the 1400's were less accurate than the howitzers of WWII (DUH!) they should inflict damage accordingly. Also when a unit "bombards" another unit, damage would also be inflicted accordingly.

Speed should factor just as importantly as distance. Afterall, it doesn't matter if you're far away, so long as you can get there quickly. An approaching infantryman will have to endure many more mortar rounds than a tank. Also, mobility is one of the traditional keys to battlefield success. Whether it's used to get to the flank or the rear, or to feint and surprise, or to overrun unprepared defenders, speed is just as essential to success as firepower, armor, range, accuracy, experience, and leadership.

With all the effort supposedly being put into upgrading the diplomatic models, I don't understand why Firaxis insists on using a childish combat model. Perhaps they think that this "classic" touch will make the game more accessible to soft-core civers. For me, at least, I only tolerated the "classic" combat model because I had to - I enjoyed the game in spite of the combat, not because of it. And, honestly, would it be so hard for soft-core civers to pick up this slightly more complicated combat system? Would it be any more difficult than learning the diplomatic model, or the tech tree, or the wonders, or cultural points? And it certainly wouldn't tax a computer's power to any great degree, nor would it be that hard to code in.

Also, about the armies being contingent upon discovering Nationalism - what the frag? Coordination of forces has always been important to warfare - just look at how Alexander had to use phalanx and chariots in a coordinated plan using the speed of the chariots to encircle his enemy, while the phalanx dominated the enemy's attention (speed again!) Nationalism has NOTHING to do with warfare - it's a state of mind of the general populace, a philosophy of cultural/national preservation and dominance. And while the nationalistic spirit may help conscription rates, it has nothing to do with how a general organizes his forces or plans an attack!!!

Of course, if I'm the almighty ruler of a Civ, I'm not going to give any quarter, nor demand any. I'm going to let my army fight to the death - because I don't want to lose! Sadaam Hussein sure didn't want his troops to surrender in the Gulf War, nor were Hitler and Stalin pleased with the surrendering of troops. However, the morale of the soldiers and the compassion of the on-site commanders often made surrender inevitable. Maybe soldier morale would be dependent on cultural points, the diplomatic relationship between the two enemies, and the balance of forces on the battlefield (if I'm hopelessly outnumbered, I'm not going to fight to the death - because it'll likely be my death)?

Another thing about combat - I hate how the size of one's army is only directly dependent upon production, not population. If I have a small civ that happens to own mineral-rich land, then I can build a huge army - but where did all the soldiers come from? It's much easier for China to field an army of 10 million than for France to. People are just as critical a resource for war as the metal used to fashion the guns.

I think the most needed changes in the military AI is when the
modern era is entered.

Cavin forever,

I had ideas for air combat. In my other post about time increments I touched on an idea of setting orders for your units then starting the turn in which all of the Civs units moved at the same time. During the age of Flight, when enemy planes/jets are detected, sentried planes would automatically scramble and engage in air combat. The level of detection would depend on how fast the fighters got scrambled; i.e. Pearl Harbor. And when two squadrons already airborne meet, they would engage each other.

The first thing an enemy will see before ground attack is large squadrons
of fighters. These fighters will initially take on anything that flies.
To entice the air force of the opponent to respond they attack any
ground units. Once the air is ours the bombers concentrate on large armies
and the fighters start taking out infrastructure, especially transportation
improvements and support the bombers. Once the key targets other then the
cities are neutralized you turn the bombers on the cities as you invade
the enemy territory with the ground units. As these ground units approach
the cities they are supported by the fighters. If ground units have
bombard capabilities they will be first to reach the cities.

Also before this starts Intel is collected about the capabities of the
opposing forces.

This is one example how the Military AI should attack a human opponent.

Just think, here's the media preview for CIV 3 intro.

"AI kicks human butt all the way to Alpha Centauri."

Cavin forever,

quote: Originally posted by Gammaray fan on 05-17-2001 09:35 PM There are two critical things that MUST be in civ3. A surrender option from the diplomatic screen - winning power could demand reperations etc.

There IS going to be something like this in the Dip. Screen, if someone whom you are crushing wants a peace treaty you can demand all types of different things from them.

quote: Originally posted by Gammaray fan on 05-17-2001 09:35 PMRetreat command for the army after x number of battle rounds. These two concepts will FUNDAMENTALLY change the nature of battle and war in CIV from 'win or lose battle, conquer enemy or fail to conquer enemy' to 'been pushed back by the enemy, win war lose war (as distinct from conquer). Thus Firaxis could make limited war a viable option in the game for conflict over resources, land etc. but make total war VERY risky. This further adds to the rise and fall of civs because even if a civ loses wars and land in one era, they may bounce back (with unique units) in another era, whereas if they had been completely wiped out they could not bounce back!