Would you like too keep the current combat system in Civ 6?
- Thread starter Bliss
- Start date
Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions.
plasmacannon
Emperor
A common sense amount of units permitted per tile.
If 1 hex/tile = 10 miles, then obviously one should be able to have more that 1 worker in that tile.
For example, a conversion list like this: 1 tile can hold: 1 Aircraft Carrier & it's fighters OR 2 Cruisers OR 4 Destroyers OR 6 Man-O-Wars OR 8 Frigates OR 10 Caravels OR 12 Triremes.
4 Attack Subs (688 types) could also be in the same tile, because they are below the other ships and wouldn't interfere with their movement.
2 Ohio Class SSBNs could be in the same hex too, but could only fire their nuke missiles when they are in a tile with no ships (or Ice) above them.
If 1 hex/tile = 10 miles, then obviously one should be able to have more that 1 worker in that tile.
For example, a conversion list like this: 1 tile can hold: 1 Aircraft Carrier & it's fighters OR 2 Cruisers OR 4 Destroyers OR 6 Man-O-Wars OR 8 Frigates OR 10 Caravels OR 12 Triremes.
4 Attack Subs (688 types) could also be in the same tile, because they are below the other ships and wouldn't interfere with their movement.
2 Ohio Class SSBNs could be in the same hex too, but could only fire their nuke missiles when they are in a tile with no ships (or Ice) above them.
Bliss
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2012
- Messages
- 231
With the current cost for building units that we have now? We'll barely see more than 4 hexes completely filled, don't you think? I mean the idea is great but it would be incompatible with the size of the current map.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,951
Would be too tough to remember which unit can stack how many times, a more streamlined system would be better.
See this post. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13541100&postcount=227
plasmacannon
Emperor
Naokaukodem's idea does sound easier from a game mechanic stand point.
To me it just doesn't make too much sense to have, say, 40 Carriers in the same tile.
One could do the army thing from Civ3 and it sounds like from CiV too.
I just see some flaws, for example, a spearman Army from 3500BC and an Impi Army from 1879.
Both are roughly the same unit, yet the Impi will have to roughly match the historical size of 10,000 men.
"the easiest ways to improve your armies would be to rise the number of basic slots"
So, would Armies be smaller in earlier time periods?
If so, then account for Ramesses II's battles of 5000-6000 chariots back in the 1200 BCs.
Mounted units would be roughly equal to about 2-3 men on a 2 man chariot. Making his army size on par with the Zulus.
It appears to me that Army size doesn't change much over the years, it's just what the empire can muster up in its current SOD. Perhaps more when you have a population in the billions compared to the thousands, sure. So, if based on pop., not era, I agree.
What I don't want to see is 1 worker having to go around a tile, because another worker is creating a farm in that tile for the next 500 years.
Something the size of an Aircraft Carrier would make sense, as far as a limit of 1 UPT, because of its size and troop compliment is massive.
To me it just doesn't make too much sense to have, say, 40 Carriers in the same tile.
One could do the army thing from Civ3 and it sounds like from CiV too.
I just see some flaws, for example, a spearman Army from 3500BC and an Impi Army from 1879.
Both are roughly the same unit, yet the Impi will have to roughly match the historical size of 10,000 men.
"the easiest ways to improve your armies would be to rise the number of basic slots"
So, would Armies be smaller in earlier time periods?
If so, then account for Ramesses II's battles of 5000-6000 chariots back in the 1200 BCs.
Mounted units would be roughly equal to about 2-3 men on a 2 man chariot. Making his army size on par with the Zulus.
It appears to me that Army size doesn't change much over the years, it's just what the empire can muster up in its current SOD. Perhaps more when you have a population in the billions compared to the thousands, sure. So, if based on pop., not era, I agree.
What I don't want to see is 1 worker having to go around a tile, because another worker is creating a farm in that tile for the next 500 years.
Something the size of an Aircraft Carrier would make sense, as far as a limit of 1 UPT, because of its size and troop compliment is massive.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,951
Well don't forget that we are supposed to start with a tribe, generally tribes don't have armies. Army sizes have scaled little by little, 10.000 men armies haven't been done in one day that's for sure.
Army sizes could vary from an era to the other, but no one would engage them if they knew they wouldn't have a chance to win. People must know other sides' armies for doing so, through spies or various agents. But the fact two armies engage means they have "equal" chances.
That's why it shouldn't be taken into account, by mutual observation armies have grown tied, and it would be too much micromagement / futile gameplay mechanics in order to represent it. That's why the basic "unit" would always suffice to represent amries regarless of their sizes, with possible variations though like the number of units or their abilities, but those are relative, not absolute.
Army sizes could vary from an era to the other, but no one would engage them if they knew they wouldn't have a chance to win. People must know other sides' armies for doing so, through spies or various agents. But the fact two armies engage means they have "equal" chances.
That's why it shouldn't be taken into account, by mutual observation armies have grown tied, and it would be too much micromagement / futile gameplay mechanics in order to represent it. That's why the basic "unit" would always suffice to represent amries regarless of their sizes, with possible variations though like the number of units or their abilities, but those are relative, not absolute.
epicivfreak
Prince
We could give each individual unit type a Size (or Bulk, or whatever) Rating and give each tile a Size Capacity Rating. So, if Size Ratings ranged from 1-10, and each tile has a Size Capacity Rating of 10 (for simplicity I'd make all tiles the same rating, but each different tile type could have different ratings if desired), you could plant one Size 10 unit on that tile, ten Size 1 units, two Size 5 units, or any combination that works.
Movement could get a bit complex, but at the same time you wouldn't have the absurd and ridiculously restrictive 1UPT garbage, so it's already an improvement over that and it would still eliminate Stacks of Doom like 1UPT does, without setting a hard artificial limit to the number of units on each and every tile.
Movement could get a bit complex, but at the same time you wouldn't have the absurd and ridiculously restrictive 1UPT garbage, so it's already an improvement over that and it would still eliminate Stacks of Doom like 1UPT does, without setting a hard artificial limit to the number of units on each and every tile.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
I think that for one, I hated Stack of Dooms because they were limitless, and it kind of made it weird that a city was more or less attacked from a single side.
HOWEVER. If I am not opposed to expanding or mixing it up. As long as I feel that I can manage it and build an army that without feeling like the AI can beat me to it (I'm very un-militaristic, I almost never buy/build any units unless I'm attacking or defend my cities with Archery units).
I think the one issue the Civ 5 got is that it just caused carpets of doom because it disallowed unit stacking, and I agree that is annoying, I don't mind stacks, but I want to know that you can't just pile units into a single tile and just attack it from there.
HOWEVER. If I am not opposed to expanding or mixing it up. As long as I feel that I can manage it and build an army that without feeling like the AI can beat me to it (I'm very un-militaristic, I almost never buy/build any units unless I'm attacking or defend my cities with Archery units).
I think the one issue the Civ 5 got is that it just caused carpets of doom because it disallowed unit stacking, and I agree that is annoying, I don't mind stacks, but I want to know that you can't just pile units into a single tile and just attack it from there.
I'm more or less in favour of the current system but with some tidying up - they need to make bottlenecks less powerful, fix the AI and make it easier to maneuver units so maybe allow 3 units to stack on each other? Obviously there can be some penalities to stacking so if a unit in the stack loses a combat round the remaining 2 units take some overkill damage.
The other issue is that it gets too hard to move lot of units on large maps in the end game without stacking - that needs to be addressed somehow.
The main advantages though I think is easier & faster positioning for the AI, protecting range and siege units etc and maybe faster unit movement for the human player - probably most helpful for multiplayer. I think this would go a long way to fixing some of the inherent issues that plague combat in Civ 5
I do think there's plenty of opportunity though for more specialized units that can perform unique abilities.
Helicopters were poorly implemented in Civ 5
AirCav would be awesome as a new American UU - something around the atomic era that can range attack as a helicopter unit and engage in melee as an infantry unit
Paratroopers should be able to launch a sniper attack on nearby infantry units (obviously not armor)
Late game commando units should be able to put a 'Laser Lock' on a nearby target and order nearby (say within 10 tiles) AEGIS Cruisers or stealth fighters/bombers to be able to launch a long distance range attack without risk of interception....
The other issue is that it gets too hard to move lot of units on large maps in the end game without stacking - that needs to be addressed somehow.
The main advantages though I think is easier & faster positioning for the AI, protecting range and siege units etc and maybe faster unit movement for the human player - probably most helpful for multiplayer. I think this would go a long way to fixing some of the inherent issues that plague combat in Civ 5
I do think there's plenty of opportunity though for more specialized units that can perform unique abilities.
Helicopters were poorly implemented in Civ 5
AirCav would be awesome as a new American UU - something around the atomic era that can range attack as a helicopter unit and engage in melee as an infantry unit
Paratroopers should be able to launch a sniper attack on nearby infantry units (obviously not armor)
Late game commando units should be able to put a 'Laser Lock' on a nearby target and order nearby (say within 10 tiles) AEGIS Cruisers or stealth fighters/bombers to be able to launch a long distance range attack without risk of interception....
Lexicus
Deity
Either make an AI capable of understanding 1upt, or go back to SoD.
Alternately implementing a logistics system which would put a "soft" (rather than "hard") cap on the number of units allowed on a single tile could be a good idea.
The most important thing is whatever the system the AI needs to be able to work with it.
Alternately implementing a logistics system which would put a "soft" (rather than "hard") cap on the number of units allowed on a single tile could be a good idea.
The most important thing is whatever the system the AI needs to be able to work with it.
AuganM
Chieftain
I think I would like to see the stacking of non-combat units.
I want to have an archer on a hill with a great general whilst a worker is building a fort or maybe keep my great engineer and scientist inside my city when barbarians attack, the current system doesn't allow for any of this and it annoys me.
I'm not so much in favour of stacking military units, maybe up to two of different types like a siege and a melee to keep your catapult more defensible but any more or two of the same type and you may have issues.
I want to have an archer on a hill with a great general whilst a worker is building a fort or maybe keep my great engineer and scientist inside my city when barbarians attack, the current system doesn't allow for any of this and it annoys me.
I'm not so much in favour of stacking military units, maybe up to two of different types like a siege and a melee to keep your catapult more defensible but any more or two of the same type and you may have issues.
Unit Stacking is the only logical option. Armies led by Generals should be very much in play (similar to the civ 3 ideology), the max unit number in a stack (army) could be 8, 9 or even 10. No more idiotic one unit per tile rules, it's a stone age rule!
And let us stack non combat, melee, ranged and gunpowder units together, if we like, together with great generals, until the age of tanks, where non military units would no longer be allowed.
And let us stack non combat, melee, ranged and gunpowder units together, if we like, together with great generals, until the age of tanks, where non military units would no longer be allowed.
killmeplease
Mk Z on Steam
i think it should not be stacks but civ3-like armies created by GG
army acts like a whole not like a stack. you can think of it as of a super-unit. it may be composed of different unit types, e.g. 1 horseman, 1 spearman and 1 archer, to shoot before attack (like an impi). melee str would be dynamic, depending on your enemy. e.g. you attack a wounded warrior - in this case the main unit is the horseman as it has a vs-wounded promotion. we take his str, add 1/2 of the spearman's and then all the horseman's promotions.
army acts like a whole not like a stack. you can think of it as of a super-unit. it may be composed of different unit types, e.g. 1 horseman, 1 spearman and 1 archer, to shoot before attack (like an impi). melee str would be dynamic, depending on your enemy. e.g. you attack a wounded warrior - in this case the main unit is the horseman as it has a vs-wounded promotion. we take his str, add 1/2 of the spearman's and then all the horseman's promotions.
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,213
The combat system in civ 5 was great but it had 1 unit per tile and the units were able to be healthier. The only thing that got left out was pollution and the SDI. If the SDI was brought back that would be great because the pollution would then have to be brought back with it too, I'm guessing.
Snipergw
Warlord
Personally, I see a few solutions.
1UPT is a good mechanic, inherently. However, without taking the AI not being able to handle it well into account, the classic Civilization maps cant handle it, either.
Solutions are larger maps, which isn't a very feasible option with the need for a good performance to be taken into account (and it would likely make the AI even worse, if possible!), so we must find another solution.
Such a solution, I think, is smaller hexes. Currently, the average unit can move 2 tiles per turn, a city takes 1 tile no matter the size and a mountain is a single tile.
If one were to split each current tile into X% as large tiles, many options open up. No longer does terrain obstacles need to be so large.
This gives cities the room to grow over time without being overly large (or cumbersome, like Endless Legends). But most importantly of all, this gives far more room to manuever armies, even with the 1UPT system in place. In what is currently one hex, you could fit 7 or 19(?) units. 19 is probably excessive and would lead to problems, so 7 would likely be more viable.
With too large armies, traffic congestion simulator would still be a problem, so production of units could still be kept somewhat close-ish to Civ 5. With seven times as much room, there would be plenty of available space on the map for city expansions, improvements and army manuevering.
If you do not wish to change the tile system, you could use a squad/army based system. Endless Legend does this well. You still get the tactical element of countering opposing troops that you lose with doomstacks, but you keep some of the "the map isn't filled with troops in every tile!" that the current 1UPT gives you.
1UPT is a good mechanic, inherently. However, without taking the AI not being able to handle it well into account, the classic Civilization maps cant handle it, either.
Solutions are larger maps, which isn't a very feasible option with the need for a good performance to be taken into account (and it would likely make the AI even worse, if possible!), so we must find another solution.
Such a solution, I think, is smaller hexes. Currently, the average unit can move 2 tiles per turn, a city takes 1 tile no matter the size and a mountain is a single tile.
If one were to split each current tile into X% as large tiles, many options open up. No longer does terrain obstacles need to be so large.
This gives cities the room to grow over time without being overly large (or cumbersome, like Endless Legends). But most importantly of all, this gives far more room to manuever armies, even with the 1UPT system in place. In what is currently one hex, you could fit 7 or 19(?) units. 19 is probably excessive and would lead to problems, so 7 would likely be more viable.
With too large armies, traffic congestion simulator would still be a problem, so production of units could still be kept somewhat close-ish to Civ 5. With seven times as much room, there would be plenty of available space on the map for city expansions, improvements and army manuevering.
If you do not wish to change the tile system, you could use a squad/army based system. Endless Legend does this well. You still get the tactical element of countering opposing troops that you lose with doomstacks, but you keep some of the "the map isn't filled with troops in every tile!" that the current 1UPT gives you.
Bliss
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2012
- Messages
- 231
This is the best solution that I have ever seen. You should formalize it and send to Firaxis asap until they release civ 6.
Larger maps and smaller tiles are the same thing. The devs just need to find a way to not make the game slow down nearly as much with a bigger map. Personally I would much rather have simple or no animations on the map but have the default game be on a map that's 4 times larger than current. You'd have to adjust city spacing and sizes and all that, but that's the best solution to me.
If not that, then I'd switch to one unit type per tile. So you can have one archer, one melee, one mounted, and one siege unit per tile. The strongest unit defends - ie. melee units will defend against mounted. Archers and siege units would deal a little damage to all units on the tile. Maybe you even bring back the first strike from archers, so that if you attack a tile with an archer and a swordsman together, the archer will be able to get a couple shots in on the attacker before the swordsman handles the main battle.
Even in the classic game, this gives you 3-4x the amount of units possible, which is roughly enough for what we need. It's more like stacks, but it will also mean you'll need to have a more balanced army. Yes, I could attack with only cannons and musketeers, but I'd be "wasting" half my tile space, and you're still limited to how many guys can actually attack a city in any one turn.
If not that, then I'd switch to one unit type per tile. So you can have one archer, one melee, one mounted, and one siege unit per tile. The strongest unit defends - ie. melee units will defend against mounted. Archers and siege units would deal a little damage to all units on the tile. Maybe you even bring back the first strike from archers, so that if you attack a tile with an archer and a swordsman together, the archer will be able to get a couple shots in on the attacker before the swordsman handles the main battle.
Even in the classic game, this gives you 3-4x the amount of units possible, which is roughly enough for what we need. It's more like stacks, but it will also mean you'll need to have a more balanced army. Yes, I could attack with only cannons and musketeers, but I'd be "wasting" half my tile space, and you're still limited to how many guys can actually attack a city in any one turn.
I like to play big maps with lots of cities. Every time I get in a big battle, I get to move each of my units once. Then I have to go through a bunch of cities seeing what happened and deciding what to do next. By the time I get back to my units I have completely forgotten what I was trying to do. Who thought this was a good idea?
MOO got it right, when it's time for combat, switch to a tactical game. Finish the combat before going on to the next turn.
Does anyone else feel this way?
MOO got it right, when it's time for combat, switch to a tactical game. Finish the combat before going on to the next turn.
Does anyone else feel this way?
awesome
Meme Lord
I've never played MOO, but I have played many games that do exactly this and they're usually pretty fun. It might be made even better with forming armies (kind of like the old Ogre Battle games).
Similar threads
