More units per tile

[kornelm1978]

The game has the same problem as CIV V. One unit per tile. It is ridicoulus for me becasue of 2 reasons:

1. AI will never be competent in waging war. The number of tiles is limited when attacking, there are mountatins, rivers, forests and now even clifs and the will never be AI to keep somheow pace with the player. Making 3 or 5 unists per tile would make AI to attack you more "efficiently". Even landings on island would be more vialbe for AI. The buffs which AI receives are tremendous and it still looses.They will not improve that singnificantly as they couldn't with CIV 5.

2. Not less important. This is strategy game and you should not be bothered mainly with moving your units (there should be more interesting things to do during war). It is not realistic and not interesting to have wars which take few eras. Moreover, before you reach city your units may be obsolete already. I am really tired with shuffling units of mine (and especially AIs).Wouldn't it be better to have more wars, but quicker ones (more realistic as well)? Take one city quickly and you may loose it quickly again. Pillage quickly the other civ when you cannot conquer city. Wouldn't that be more fun than rolling through whole world with 30 units?

The solution which comes to my mind is Amry unit (apart from single units which will still exist), which constis of i.e. 3 units. In firs eras it could be:

- combined amry - archer, swordsman, pikeman (depanding on you tech level in each area) - ovearall good for everything (easy to use by AI), especially sieges
- foot army - 3 swordmans -
- cavarly army - 3 horseriders - used to support and pillaging (easy to do by AI, hard to cath, hard to kill)
- no armies for archers and catapults, just single unit (those units should be uses just to support not as strong army, realistic and easier to teach AI this)

The above (combined with obviusly changed sieges rules) would make wars quicker than 500 years, more interesting and realistic. More wars! Quicker Wars!!!

Note. With that there sould be obviously changes in other mechanics, diplomacy, sieges, warmongering (by the way it's to severe to be called warmonger when just declaring the war, it should be based more on number of wars you declared recently, cities capture etc.)

 

[Zuizgond]

I agree. 3 or 4 units per tile would solve a lot of issues.

 

[ichbinsehselber]

having more than 1 combat unit per tile is a very big design change (many new conditions and logic need to be coded for that). Actually a bigger change than the difference between civ5 and civ6. So it will need a new civ version to happen.
Civ4 had the multiple units per tile feature. The issues about stacking and big stacks appearing was the biggest problem of civ4

 

[Kougar7]

I am confused, are we talking about Civ VI here? You can group identical military units three per single hex. You can stack a support unit and a general in the same hex, making 5 military units in a single hex.

Keep in mind you can't stack military until early-mid game until you unlock the corps / army capabilities as the game progresses. The AI already makes extensive use of this ability, to can denote grouped units by the # of gold stars on the icon.

 

[kornelm1978]

If there was really code behind AI war, that would be a lot to change. I think that there is just coded: "move randomly". AI moves units constantly even if there is no war.

 

[fatgordy]

I agree, 1UPT is just too hard for the AI to grasp. And combined with the new rules for movement points, it just takes forever moving units around in this game and waging wars. I would love to see your Army units idea implemented.

 

[ichbinsehselber]

civ6 already allows to form corps and armies (and fleet and armadas) which covers these points from the OP
- foot army - 3 swordmans
- cavarly army - 3 horseriders

 

[Mustakrakish]

Spoiler kornelm1978 :

The game has the same problem as CIV V. One unit per tile. It is ridicoulus for me becasue of 2 reasons:

1. AI will never be competent in waging war. The number of tiles is limited when attacking, there are mountatins, rivers, forests and now even clifs and the will never be AI to keep somheow pace with the player. Making 3 or 5 unists per tile would make AI to attack you more "efficiently". Even landings on island would be more vialbe for AI. The buffs which AI receives are tremendous and it still looses.They will not improve that singnificantly as they couldn't with CIV 5.

2. Not less important. This is strategy game and you should not be bothered mainly with moving your units (there should be more interesting things to do during war). It is not realistic and not interesting to have wars which take few eras. Moreover, before you reach city your units may be obsolete already. I am really tired with shuffling units of mine (and especially AIs).Wouldn't it be better to have more wars, but quicker ones (more realistic as well)? Take one city quickly and you may loose it quickly again. Pillage quickly the other civ when you cannot conquer city. Wouldn't that be more fun than rolling through whole world with 30 units?

The solution which comes to my mind is Amry unit (apart from single units which will still exist), which constis of i.e. 3 units. In firs eras it could be:

- combined amry - archer, swordsman, pikeman (depanding on you tech level in each area) - ovearall good for everything (easy to use by AI), especially sieges
- foot army - 3 swordmans -
- cavarly army - 3 horseriders - used to support and pillaging (easy to do by AI, hard to cath, hard to kill)
- no armies for archers and catapults, just single unit (those units should be uses just to support not as strong army, realistic and easier to teach AI this)

The above (combined with obviusly changed sieges rules) would make wars quicker than 500 years, more interesting and realistic. More wars! Quicker Wars!!!

Note. With that there sould be obviously changes in other mechanics, diplomacy, sieges, warmongering (by the way it's to severe to be called warmonger when just declaring the war, it should be based more on number of wars you declared recently, cities capture etc.)

This sounds a lot like something I had in mind since V vanilla...

Here's a short version from my recent posts:

Spoiler :

If I could mod, I'd make a mod that I'd call "My Little Baby SoD" (thanks someone in this thread for the "baby" part).

In that mod you shall be able to stack up to 5 melee & cavalry units. You shall not stack ranged units, I dislike how ranged dominates V and VI. However, the more units on a tile, the more damage is dealt to that tile by ranged (including air). Say base attack of an archer would be 30dmg, 37dmg when 2 units, 44dmg to 3, 51dmg to 4 and 60dmg (double) to full stack. The damage will spread more or less equally among the stack (60dmg that is, not 60dmg x 5).

That's how I would make it. Though I would consider cavalry only making it's own stack considering their unmatched mobility by other classes, gotta think on that. Allowing one ranged into the stack may be a good idea, again for the AI's sake.

...and diplomacy to support those fast and more frequent wars you want:

Spoiler :

Yeah, the whole system is a mess right now. The whole casus belli thing is almost meaningless, because you still get massive penalties.

Besides the whole obvious "your friends or others" don't hate you for joining their war I'd make it so that casus belli give zero warmonger penalties in the first place, up to the first city you take. Then it starts to grow with each city afterwards (again, people warring the same civ shouldn't care as long as they are at war too). The only casus belli to give penalties should be the "formal war". That is so that everyone wouldn't be declaring left and right. Other casus bellis should have zero. Well with the exception of colonial war and territorial expansion (the latter doesn't even make a lot of sense as casus belli). They should also come online earlier.

So...

Formal war - moderate
Colonial - minor
Territorial - moderate
The rest - zero

The first city you take always part of the casus belli, so no penalties. Only the second one and forward. IMO it's ridiculous that you get penalties for declaring and then also for taking one city.

These changes are to encourage more city swapping, make casus belli more meaningful and generally more fun.

This is just a raw fix to current diplo / warmonger penalties which are surely going to change (possibly a few times even) via patches, but those obvious changes would encourage more "border skirmishes" so to speak with 1 or 2 cities changing ownership back and forth and occasionally larger conquests, as IMO should be.

- - -

"My Little Baby SoD" needs to happen and I swear if no one else, come summer I'll look into civ modding and try to make it happen. There's too much coding projects at university right now for me to bother.

EDIT: Most importantly to the guy above, but also to OP just in case. I'm against the whole merging of units into one VI style. It's a different system and defeats the point of baby SoD (well my vision of them). The primary point is logistics. VI style corps / armadas just create a stronger single unit. You nor AI won't march 1 melee army, one cavalry army and one ranged corp (to mix it up) i.e. 3 units to war. Well... AI could because it's stupid, but under NORMAL circumstances you'll achieve nothing. You will however achieve a lot with 3 melee, 3 cavalry and 2 ranged.

With My Little Baby SoD (I want to trademark this ) you still march 3 melee, 3 cavalry and 2 ranged in 3 stacks (or 2 stacks and 1 unit, however you want). The stacks would have negative sides to them. They would take increased ranged damage, damage that is spread to all units in stack.

The point is to allow blitzkrieg tactic from AI, they would come and hit hard and fast, but still can be dealt with by superior tactics and positioning. If they don't hit fast and hard enough and get bogged in defenses, the stack is doomed, because A: increased ranged damage (collateral) and B: individual units still get adjacency bonuses (flanking etc.), a stack doesn't. Units may leave the stack at any point to get better positioning and avoid collateral, which you / AI might do depending on the situation. But if the target city have zero or next to zero defenses, it indeed should and will fall to Baby SoD blitzkrieg.