Fighting outcomes

[malraux]

One of the things that I found most dissapointing in Civ 4, other than the lack of units until warlords came out was the fighting. In my humble opinion there were two big errors. Firstly, I think it should no longer be possible for a longbowman to shoot down a gunship, or for a modern armour to be killed by a musketeer, or a destroyer being sunk by a ship of the line. I think this could be resolved quite easily and would greatly add to the realism.

Secondly, I think that if a players civilization has 24 ICBMs or is technologically very advanced, that should affect how other civs react in the diplomacy. I thought that the mongols attacking me with camels when I had ICBMs was something that shouldn't happen in Civ 5.

Please do something about this, I think battle outcomes have become a bit worse since they started to get animated in CIV 4 compared to CIV 3.

[thefluffyrocker]

The first part i read was already fixed as even an almost dead tank/gunship etc would have immensly more power than a tech weak opponent and would therefore win.

The second part i agree with, your technology, weaponry and army should have some influence on the AI reaction to you.e.g. making them less (or more) likely to attack, making them fear you etc.

[Procylon]

Yeah as fluffy said, a spearman will never beat a tank again unless perhaps that tank has 1 life.

I also agree that civs with ICBM's should change the diplomatic landscape, BUT only if they have ever been used.

So not only must a manhatten project be completed, but at least 1 civ in the world must use an ICBM on a city before all civs get the picture.

After that, each civ would go out of it's way to not have war with the ICBM civ.


And I would like to see 2 ICBM civ rivals possibly become very belligerent with each other causing a cold war climate in the world.


Lastly, lets have some plane dropped atomic bombs before ICBM's appear... :P