View Full Version : Possible Issue with 1 unit per tile - allies getting in your way.


Col Kurtz
Jun 29, 2010, 09:37 PM
I just realized that with the switch to 1upt, we may have an old problem rear it's head once again. In previous Civs (2, 3?) I believe, you couldn't share a tile with another civ's unit, even if you were at peace. This could occasionally be really annoying if an AI got in your way. With the new 1upt, I'm really curious if you will still be able to share tiles with civs you are at peace with or allied with. With armies more spread out this time around, it seems like you'd have to be able to share tiles with non-enemies or things would get messy. On the other hand, fighting 2v1 would then give the allies a huge bonus, since they could concentrate their combined forces 2 to 1 against the enemy at the front.

Is there any evidence suggesting it will be done one way or the other?

Thoughts? Did I miss a discussion of this already?

Aussie_Lurker
Jun 29, 2010, 09:43 PM
The lowest movement rate in the game is 2, & units can pass *through* squares occupied by their allies. So the chances of *actually* getting blocked by your allies is quite small.

Aussie.

playshogi
Jun 29, 2010, 10:02 PM
I can see the ally occupying a key hex with a weak unit that prevents you from putting a stronger unit there.

Aeon221
Jun 29, 2010, 10:09 PM
Small price to pay, and, if you've read any history, you'll note that a very similar issue is a common problem of coalition armies.

I'm sure it'll rear its head in game after game, what with all the city state's that'll be hanging from your imperial teat. Hopefully there will be a GTFO mechanic for the units of subservient powers.

qwerty25
Jun 29, 2010, 11:25 PM
The lowest movement rate in the game is 2, & units can pass *through* squares occupied by their allies. So the chances of *actually* getting blocked by your allies is quite small.

Aussie.

Well, couldn't that be solved by putting 2 units in that mountain pass???

cccv
Jun 29, 2010, 11:34 PM
Well, couldn't that be solved by putting 2 units in that mountain pass???

How many mountain passes do you think will be on each map?

duckofspades
Jun 29, 2010, 11:59 PM
From what I understand units will take longer to create and possibly smaller armies as well. So that should cut down on a ally blocking your key location. But he's right this happens in the real world.

qwerty25
Jun 30, 2010, 12:23 AM
How many mountain passes do you think will be on each map?

Not many, but even if it is 3 tiles wide with 6 units you could still block it. Is it expensive?? Maybe, but surely possible.

Schuesseled
Jun 30, 2010, 01:14 AM
Not gonna be as big of a problem as civ 2 and 3, units are less expendable to be wasted in a blocking attempt, plus choke points are likely to be more than just a single tile wide.

Plus for accidental, i'm in your ways, you can bunny hop over them.

kaltorak
Jun 30, 2010, 01:45 AM
Since there will be ranged units, I guess most battlefronts will consist of a line of mele and a line of rangers behind. So even moving 2 tiles you can't cross your allies battlelines. Looks real, but could really be annoying too

12agnar0k
Jun 30, 2010, 02:01 AM
Also if you get annoyed just declare war on your ally and crush them under the heel of your mighty empire!!!!

oynaz
Jun 30, 2010, 03:34 AM
This problem could be helped with a better way of controlling and guiding your ally. In Civ4 you could tell them to attack a city. In Civ 5 I would like to see this expanded, with options like Defend this city, Concentrate your forces here, Defend this pass, etc.

Shards
Jun 30, 2010, 06:04 AM
So, if you can move through a unit as part of your movement points allocation, could you push a unit through your (or your allies) front lines to attack the enemy? If so, where does that unit end up afterwards if it doesn't defeat the enemy utterly?

Also, can you do a "swap position" move with an allies troops?

Tomice
Jun 30, 2010, 06:25 AM
Some "concentrate forces here" or "avoid putting units here" commands for your ally would be nice indeed.
A possible problem is that you could abuse your ally as meat shield to easily if he always does what you say. You could spam orders and make him leave his own cities undefended.
If an algorhythm is programmed to make your ally disobey sometimes, it could lead to odd AI behaviour. So it's no trivial task to implement IMO.

oynaz
Jun 30, 2010, 06:38 AM
Valid point, but why not turn it into an advantage?

A mechanism which would give diplomatic penalties with your allies if they suffered a disproportionate number losses, and perhaps made a disproportionate number of kills, would be great. It could work the other way too. If your heroic soldiers sacrificed themselves in order to protect an ally, you would gain a diplomatic bonus.

This would solve the problem with phony wars, and add another layer of depth to the game.

I realise it might be tricky to implement, but I think it is worth it.

lietkynes
Jun 30, 2010, 06:56 AM
I just realized that with the switch to 1upt, we may have an old problem rear it's head once again. In previous Civs (2, 3?) I believe, you couldn't share a tile with another civ's unit, even if you were at peace. This could occasionally be really annoying if an AI got in your way. With the new 1upt, I'm really curious if you will still be able to share tiles with civs you are at peace with or allied with. With armies more spread out this time around, it seems like you'd have to be able to share tiles with non-enemies or things would get messy. On the other hand, fighting 2v1 would then give the allies a huge bonus, since they could concentrate their combined forces 2 to 1 against the enemy at the front.

Is there any evidence suggesting it will be done one way or the other?

Thoughts? Did I miss a discussion of this already?

I think (hope) that units will take longer to build and will be more expensive to mantain, so that as a result we will have way less units on the field, comparing to Civ4.

There is really no need for an army of 40-50 units, especially with 1upt.

arkguy
Jun 30, 2010, 12:58 PM
Firaxis games seems to have taken a step backwards on this one. The problem of not being able to get your units where you want or need them in time was a definite problem in Civ II which I was glad to se fixed in Civ III & IV. With the limited number of troops you will be able to have in V it will become even more annoying and very eerily a serious problem rather than an annoying one.

StStutter
Jun 30, 2010, 01:35 PM
Firaxis games seems to have taken a step backwards on this one. The problem of not being able to get your units where you want or need them in time was a definite problem in Civ II which I was glad to se fixed in Civ III & IV. With the limited number of troops you will be able to have in V it will become even more annoying and very eerily a serious problem rather than an annoying one.

That is a very grim outlook on things. If this is to be a serious problem, I'd hope they'd discover it in beta testing fairly quickly. if it happens so rarely that they don't encounter it, it probably won't be a major problem (and would simulate the odd time this happened in history).

Earthling
Jun 30, 2010, 01:41 PM
Firaxis games seems to have taken a step backwards on this one.

Yes, they are trying to make a simpler, newby-friendly game in their minds regarding combat mechanics, but it might not actually succeed at that if the AI still isn't up to snuff or easily abused by the player.

StStutter
Jun 30, 2010, 01:46 PM
Yes, they are trying to make a simpler, newby-friendly game in their minds regarding combat mechanics, but it might not actually succeed at that if the AI still isn't up to snuff or easily abused by the player.

Sarcasm? I can't tell... the combat system is definitely not simpler although other areas may be.

King Jason
Jun 30, 2010, 01:58 PM
Yes, they are trying to make a simpler, newby-friendly game in their minds regarding combat mechanics

I don't see how it gets any simpler than having every unit you've built in a single stack and then moving it across an opponents empire city by city until it's destroyed.

Having difficulty winning? Build more units and increase the size of your stack.

Arguably, there was not combat aspect of to civ in the pass, as military might was 90% dependent on your productive capabilities. Can you produce more than your opponent? is your army larger than your opponent? can you recoup w/e losses faster than your opponent? then the technological aspect, where does your military tech stand vs your opponent?

The tactical question was such a vastly minor aspect of the game because if all of the above questions were even remotely in your favor, you couldn't lose because you'd always have the option of throwing more units at the problem.

Schuesseled
Jun 30, 2010, 02:10 PM
combat seems to have been anti-streamlined, compared to the rest of the game.

Col Kurtz
Sep 15, 2010, 08:31 PM
Well, Greg's gameplay video confirms it. Neutral units will block movement. In his game, the city state's units (when the city state was still neutral) blocked France's units from getting to his, Greg even said so. Two bad things about this.

1) Occasionally, the AI will get in your way somewhere, such as on a land bridge. There will be no way to make them move. Even though the AI won't do it intentionally, it's bound to happen given 1upt. Armies will be more spread out, and, for example if you are allied in war with an AI, your forces will likely get in each others way a lot.

2) This is very exploitable by the human. As long as a pass is only a few tiles wide, it will be fairly easy for human players to block it, unfairly restricting the AI (blocking settlers, etc).

Overall, I expect this to make for some unfun moments in Civ 5.

ClasuSiosa
Sep 15, 2010, 08:41 PM
And some fun moments in multiplayer!:D

cccv
Sep 15, 2010, 08:46 PM
Well, Greg's gameplay video confirms it. Neutral units will block movement. In his game, the city state's units (when the city state was still neutral) blocked France's units from getting to his, Greg even said so. Two bad things about this.

1) Occasionally, the AI will get in your way somewhere, such as on a land bridge. There will be no way to make them move. Even though the AI won't do it intentionally, it's bound to happen given 1upt. Armies will be more spread out, and, for example if you are allied in war with an AI, your forces will likely get in each others way a lot.

2) This is very exploitable by the human. As long as a pass is only a few tiles wide, it will be fairly easy for human players to block it, unfairly restricting the AI (blocking settlers, etc).

Overall, I expect this to make for some unfun moments in Civ 5.

Yeah, maybe. Unit embarkment will really help with the land bridge issue, though, even though it will waste a little more time. But when you're in the middle of a continent and trying to get someplace specific that could be extremely frustrating. I'm pretty sure once or twice I actually declared war on people I had good relationships with in Civ II just kill a unit and get them the **** out of my way. Not as part of a sound strategy, but just out of rage.

Bad Brett
Sep 15, 2010, 08:56 PM
Yeah, maybe. Unit embarkment will really help with the land bridge issue, though, even though it will waste a little more time.

That makes things even less fun. Player 1 blocks player 2's settler. The settler builds a boat to sail around it. It seems really stupid.

Though I like the 1upt, there is one simple way to fix this: Let units from different civs share a tile during peace.

Col Kurtz
Sep 15, 2010, 09:02 PM
That makes things even less fun. Player 1 blocks player 2's settler. The settler builds a boat to sail around it. It seems really stupid.

Though I like the 1upt, there is one simple way to fix this: Let units from different civs share a tile during peace.

There is one side affect to that though, and I don't know whether it's good or bad. If you can share a tile with your ally, then that makes having an ally in war way more powerful than ever before. It would allow you to have double the force at the front line. With stacks, that never mattered.

Maybe neutral/ally civs could share tiles in neutral territory. But if they are in a civ's borders, then it's strictly 1upt. Or alternatively, only strictly 1upt when in a third party's borders. I know that's making rules complicate, but it's a difficult problem to solve.

Jmyrm
Sep 15, 2010, 09:17 PM
2) This is very exploitable by the human. As long as a pass is only a few tiles wide, it will be fairly easy for human players to block it, unfairly restricting the AI (blocking settlers, etc).



I don't follow you, that doesn't sound like an exploit at all - that sounds exactly like what the whole 1 UPT was designed for. Block a pass and restrict AI movement. Settlers are civilian units and should not be impacted by military forces blocking a tile - unless of course those military forces are hostile.

Jmyrm

jagdtigerciv
Sep 15, 2010, 09:19 PM
Small price to pay, and, if you've read any history, you'll note that a very similar issue is a common problem of coalition armies.

I'm sure it'll rear its head in game after game, what with all the city state's that'll be hanging from your imperial teat. Hopefully there will be a GTFO mechanic for the units of subservient powers.

I for one am in favour of a GTFO mechanic. (I also lol'd)

Silverwave
Sep 15, 2010, 10:16 PM
It actually came to me that with 1 upt... where the heck do I put my bombers? I mean, they'll still need to land somewhere and have a certain range. This also means you can't back up your bombers with interception aircrafts and that you can't have a defendind unit in your city if you have an airplane in it. That seems wierd!

(this isn't trolling, I actually think this 1 upt is a great idea and that it will make combat very more interesting!)

WNxPowder
Sep 15, 2010, 10:26 PM
what about Forts?

Polobo
Sep 15, 2010, 10:30 PM
what about Love?

faizan
Sep 15, 2010, 11:08 PM
what about Love?

hmm..love...if a unit blocks your way, MAKE LOVE TO IT! excellent idea :goodjob:

Issue resolved! :D

Helmling
Sep 15, 2010, 11:19 PM
Valid point, but why not turn it into an advantage?

A mechanism which would give diplomatic penalties with your allies if they suffered a disproportionate number losses, and perhaps made a disproportionate number of kills, would be great. It could work the other way too. If your heroic soldiers sacrificed themselves in order to protect an ally, you would gain a diplomatic bonus.

This would solve the problem with phony wars, and add another layer of depth to the game.

I realise it might be tricky to implement, but I think it is worth it.

Genius.

adrianj
Sep 15, 2010, 11:50 PM
It actually came to me that with 1 upt... where the heck do I put my bombers? I mean, they'll still need to land somewhere and have a certain range. This also means you can't back up your bombers with interception aircrafts and that you can't have a defendind unit in your city if you have an airplane in it. That seems wierd!
I think it is mentioned somewhere* that certain units, eg, air combat units CAN be stacked.

* I found this on Arioch's Civ V Analyst website, presumably he has some proper reference for it
Air units are an exception to the one unit per hex rule. Aircraft and missiles can stack in a city (limit unknown) or on a Carrier (up to 3). Missiles can also stack on a Missile Cruiser (up to 3) or on a Nuclear Submarine (up to 2).

Zhahz
Sep 15, 2010, 11:54 PM
I don't really see a problem, since I haven't played yet and seeing one particular occurance of one particular thing in one particular gameplay example from a complex game where things rarely play out exactly the same twice, is not something to get excited about.

In greg's game, the monaco troops were both in they way at times and useful at times as blockers - pikemen that would've got mowed down by gun toting frenchmen were accidentally walling off greg's injured units so he could heal. Not a bad thing.

Really have to play to to know. Really have to play to know how often such a tight choke point will exist and be a factor. In some cases, via exploration, you'll know where a serious choke point will be. React and plan accordingly. Control it rather than being controlled. Make the decision.

Cilpot
Sep 16, 2010, 04:24 AM
Actually, one of my gripes with IV was that friendly units could pass right through my units. I liked being able to block foreign settlers from going through my land to settle still unoccupied sweet spots.

Disgustipated
Sep 16, 2010, 07:44 AM
settlers are civilian units, so you can't use military units to block them, you'd have to use a worker presumably.

Feyd Rautha
Sep 16, 2010, 08:47 AM
I see some possible fixes to this being easily done in the XML. I also see an error in logic.

As the poster above me mentioned... you cannot use military units to block civilian units. You can use civilian units, but it would seem excessive to waste a settler or worker to slow down (not even stop due to the "embark" function) another players settlers at a natural choke point.

As for a fix for the problem, you COULD mod it (I imagine) to allow YOUR unit to convert into a civilian unit when you enter an ally's tile by manipulating and copying the code from sea travel. This would allow for fewer problems in terms of manuverability in a war where you have multiple allies. The problem for that strategically would be that if he is attacked and falls, then both units would be lost (since your perhaps superior unit would still be a civilian).

Bad Brett
Sep 16, 2010, 10:22 AM
There is one side affect to that though, and I don't know whether it's good or bad. If you can share a tile with your ally, then that makes having an ally in war way more powerful than ever before. It would allow you to have double the force at the front line. With stacks, that never mattered.

Maybe neutral/ally civs could share tiles in neutral territory. But if they are in a civ's borders, then it's strictly 1upt. Or alternatively, only strictly 1upt when in a third party's borders. I know that's making rules complicate, but it's a difficult problem to solve.

Though it may seem stupid to some, the best solution here would be to bring back the old system: Both units get killed. Of course, you could still hide your wounded units, but that would actually add some strategy to the game and make alliances more useful.

Bibor
Sep 16, 2010, 10:27 AM
There are numerous examples through history when friendly units (of the same army even) blocked each other and caused problems.

Seven05
Sep 16, 2010, 04:48 PM
As for a fix for the problem, you COULD mod it (I imagine) to allow YOUR unit to convert into a civilian unit when you enter an ally's tile by manipulating and copying the code from sea travel. This would allow for fewer problems in terms of manuverability in a war where you have multiple allies. The problem for that strategically would be that if he is attacked and falls, then both units would be lost (since your perhaps superior unit would still be a civilian).
I don't know if it's really a problem but your solution actually sounds like a cool idea for a mod, especially for later era military units such as motorized infantry. You could 'embark' them turning them into a weaker non-combat unit with a better movement rate at the risk of them being utterly destroyed if caught like that. Even ancient units could do it, call it forced march.

Of course this does create the issue that you would suddently be able to stack (albeit inefficiently) two military units on a single tile. I would also make it possible to use military units to block AI civilian units. And then there is the issue of not actually solving anything if everybody is running around with these 'embarked' units in peacetime.

I still think it sounds like something that would be fun to try and mod in. :)

ranger999
Sep 16, 2010, 05:22 PM
God, this brings back memories of playing CivNet with my buddy. My caravan crossed one of his city squares on its way somewhere. Since the primitive Civ 1 engine had no notion of a truely invisible "friendly" unit, all production in that square stopped, as if it had been occupied by a neutral/enemy player, throwing his city into disorder due to loss of trade arrows needed to pacify the populace...

R0gue
Sep 16, 2010, 05:32 PM
The whole point of having 1upt is so there is much more combat strategy, unlike civ 4 where a stack of death could wipe out a civ. another point, if you think the minor civs is going to be a burden then turn them off. Think about wars. you do not say to another friendly unit to move because they have a better defensive tile. You get it first, otherwise its your own fault. So the combat is going do be one of the best things about civ 5. Choke points. Get there 1st or live with it.

alpaca
Sep 16, 2010, 06:42 PM
I see some possible fixes to this being easily done in the XML. I also see an error in logic.

As the poster above me mentioned... you cannot use military units to block civilian units. You can use civilian units, but it would seem excessive to waste a settler or worker to slow down (not even stop due to the "embark" function) another players settlers at a natural choke point.

As for a fix for the problem, you COULD mod it (I imagine) to allow YOUR unit to convert into a civilian unit when you enter an ally's tile by manipulating and copying the code from sea travel. This would allow for fewer problems in terms of manuverability in a war where you have multiple allies. The problem for that strategically would be that if he is attacked and falls, then both units would be lost (since your perhaps superior unit would still be a civilian).

I like that idea. You can put two units into a tile but it's risky. If you also end the turn after a unit returns to war state, I don't think any direct advantage apart from being able to move into the tile would come of it.