Military phase on Empire building game::: Any thoughts or feedback would be really appreciated

Your combat system sounds very luck based. I think it would be depressing if you built a good strategy and your opponent blows it away with just the right dice roll.

Also a improtant question is, how can a conqueror win?
Do you need Victory points, resources, or buildings in your city?

Is there a way for players to interact in the economic phase?
Is battle against eachother the only way to get resources and to grow your city? because when, i think the game would be decided in the first round when the first winner of the battle is decided. Because he becomes the most resources from his opponents. He can build up a even bigger army than before and the opponents cant even build an army like bevore. How would the other players be possible to optain his strengh without big luck with the dice?

Is it possible that two players who battle against eachother get a draw? Do they get also resources?

Is it woth to battle against a player when you get resources also by not attacking?

When exactly is a player declared as defeated? Means a battle of two players a fight till no units left? And could another Player get a ally in combat?

How exactly looks the battle? Are the units moving like chessfigures and do they have any special abilities besides the effectiveness against particular units?

There appearing many questions for me. I hope i thought in the right directions and that this questions can help you to setup your game to a playable status. I also liked games like civ or aoe but there are already borgames of them. How much do you like your game to be alike them and in which aspekts? Or do you just liked the theme?

Your english was just good i understood everything, mine is also not the best but i hope good enough to understand eachother!
I hope to hear about your game soon again! :)

One difficulty you'll likely face when going to playtest is that players may not play as you have intended. If your players decide that military is the most important part for THEM, their enjoyment of the game will be entirely decided by the strength or weakness of the combat system.

Ultimately, you have to design the whole game. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

I'd like to hear more about the rest of the game. A typical Euro solution for the military component of an empire builder is to make military essentially an auction, where the player who has spent the most money (or whatever) on military by the time it becomes relevant wins. 7 Wonders does this explicitly. Through the Ages does it with the addition of Tactic cards that reward developing certain branches of the military tree. The reason this works is because the choices in phases leading up to a military conflict are made significant by that conflict. Players feel rewarded for making good choices, or can trace their failure back to poor choices. Note that this doesn't rule out some element of luck, but that luck must still allow choice to be the driving factor.

Does your economic phase allow the player enough control that the military phase is a logical conclusion to that phase?

For the record, I'm not a great fan of paper-rock-scissors systems. Have you studied combat systems in other games? I found Lost Battles and Here I Stand particularly interesting, though Lost Battles is very much a maneuver game, where combat doesn't make sense without a map.

Now the whole thing gets more imaginable. You just wrote so much about the military phase and so less abot the economic phase that I thought the game is based on this battlefield board you mentioned. As i read this thing about more or less dices in battle i just thought on games like risk where every battle is mostly dice luck but with a rock scissor paper system this sounds way more tactical.

Luck components arent bad! For exapmple if you roll dice for special abilities you gain from your researches, buildings, gods, culture or whatever and make a 50/50% chance for sucsess or less for stronger abilities would also add a thrill.

I just wantet to say that to much luck would kill a stategy game, because where is the sense in building a good stategy anainst a opponent that dosent have a clue what he does and just win a battle by getting the right dice results. But thats also a matter of how advanced you will do this battlefield tactics.

There are also mechanics such as supplies for an army.
For instance: If you just get supplies by a good working economy this would prevent players from just going one direction. Making things dependable from eachother is a way to request a player to think of his next turn. Maybe he haves the options, between getting more supplies for a bigger army to own more of the neutral fields for the lordship of the battlefield so he gets Vp's in the military arc, or to invest his resouces in research that may give him a discount on buildings for Vp's.

But there are many ways to solve this. I hope i could make some useful examples! :)