Frasco
Drunk costarrican civer
How about taking your army across the water? There's a tiresome task...
its more general, its to make the generally terribly dull warring in civ actually tactically challenging. so importing a mini wargame into civ is the way to do it.believe the intent of the 1upt was to alleviate the burden of dealing with SOD's
The other major issue I see is not being able to swap units on adjacent tiles. Think about it, If the front line unit is getting hurt, and a fresh unit was behind it, the hurt one would fall back, and the fresh move up. But assuming you have an army so you have units on either side and there is a forest tile or hill, you can't do it. Even though technically at the end of the turn, both units would have ended on a unique tile. To solve this, you would just need a swap option, that would let you swap two units on adjacent tiles that had movement points to do it.
DK
none of the things you say here are true. there certainly are combined arms, just not on the same tile. as far as ancient units defeating modern units, well played tactics and/or a simple numbers advantage can make up for a couple tech levels. if you are serious about crossbowmen beating your mech. infantry like you posted in the other topic though (why did you feel the need to start 6 new topics about how you don;t like civV?) I'm going to have to chalk that up the a tactical blunder on your part. your units have 10hp, cities pack a punch, and if you let a bunch of crossbowmen plink away at it and even some of them do 1 damage per attack, your going to lose a unit.
pretty much all your complaints in your various threads tell me that you are trying to play civ4 with civ5 running. stop that. its a different game, it requires a very different approach. play civ5 as civ5, forget your preconceptions and whatever play styles you developed for civ4, and you will find V much more enjoyable.
1 is just as far from infinity as 2 or 3 or a billion is.Why not allow 2 or 3? Why go from infinite to 1; there was no suitable number between those two extremes?
Jeez enough of the whining... its like we're coming up with ridiculous hypotheticals that really occur as exceptions in the game. If you have mech infantry and are fighitng crossbowmen, how often are your mech infantry really winning? Probably if your a half decent player hehe 90% of the time!
I find it insane to think that the civ with the crossbowmen (while your trecking across there lands in mech infantry) are all kitted and geared up like medieval warriors. I roleplay a little in my head perhaps, when i say that in the modern era, if there lumped with such obsolete units, its probably among there crossbowmen they've snaffled a few RPG's and other guerrilla gear!
Actually I agree with the OP. My favorite design so far has been the armies. I'm not so in to the strategic combat though, so I understand if some people like the strategic combat style better.
I didn't like the endless stack of random units either.
I like the idea of a limited number making up an army that is one tile. Like you could have 4 or 5 and they add offense and defense. Archers add offense and no defense, swordsmen add both, pikemen some defense and a little offense, etc.
Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy if they took units out of the game completely. Have a budget sheet for military research and military upkeep and drafting, and split to navy, army, etc. Then when you declare war, click strategic locations to fight on the map and let the military advisor handle it! I'd be just fine with that.
Dude, a mech infantry shouldn't have to worry about a crossbowmen (or 1000) shooing from a distance, especially since irl a modern military unit would outrange a crossbow.
This has been discussed to death
"limited stacks" are stupid because if you don't have the maximum number of units on the tile than you're mini-stack is simply fighting at lower than maximum capacity. At that point, why not just simply make it so you can only have 1 unit per tile?
i said nothing about irl. i do not care about irl, irl should have no bearing on discussion of game mechanics. the way the game works, a large group of ranged units grouped around a city can, through focused fire sometimes take out a more modern unit. i don't have a problem with that, because its a serious tactical blunder to send a single mechanized infantry unsupported against a city that is even a little defended.
this whole thread is degenerating into yet another realism vs. gameplay debate. and its a stupid, pointless debate. if you want true realism out of the game, start a mod, but don;t be surprised when the majority of people don't enjoy it.
V's combat is set up, and balanced very well (it would be if the AI knew how to handle it anyways) the mechanics are balanced. I think its a lot of fun. moving away from 1upt and into a system when each tile holds one of each class of unit just homogenizes the whole mess. its neither interesting nor dynamic, its just bashing stacks together. we did that for 4 games. change is good.
My preconception is that a mechanized infantry should be able to defeat 1,000 crossbowman.
My issue with the 1upt is it makes movement a pain in the arse when you aren't at war, and in general is very tedious. I like it for the combat strat though.
One thought I had was maybe a unit can be stacked (max 2), but any stacked unit is ineffective, or takes a very heavy combat modifier. That would really help with non-war movement around the map.
The other major issue I see is not being able to swap units on adjacent tiles. Think about it, If the front line unit is getting hurt, and a fresh unit was behind it, the hurt one would fall back, and the fresh move up. But assuming you have an army so you have units on either side and there is a forest tile or hill, you can't do it. Even though technically at the end of the turn, both units would have ended on a unique tile. To solve this, you would just need a swap option, that would let you swap two units on adjacent tiles that had movement points to do it.
DK