Which combat system do you prefer?
- Thread starter Copernic
- Start date
I love playing chess - against computers.. And waiting a bit is no problem for me.
From a gameplay perspective 1upT is vastly superior to stacking although it does make it harder for the AI but you have to start somewhere and now they have taken the first steps one can only hope that things will improve over time.
I do really question why people who moan about scale and realism play games at all, especially games like civ as nothing is to scale or very realistic...because it's a game, an interpretation created for fun and enjoyment, a real world isn't created when you start a game, real cities aren't created and real people don't die.
I do really question why people who moan about scale and realism play games at all, especially games like civ as nothing is to scale or very realistic...because it's a game, an interpretation created for fun and enjoyment, a real world isn't created when you start a game, real cities aren't created and real people don't die.
I've thought about this a lot and have come to a lot of the same ideas myself.
I agree with the idea of supply chains, severe encirclement bonuses/maluses, era dependency on morale depending on size of army and casualties.
However, the problem with stacks of 3 (or more) units per tile is that because of their vastly superior stats compared to a single unit everyone's going to consolidate. Otherwise you need to be able to retreat, like always. Or be able to get adjacent units to join in the battle. And so you'll either have a huge battle (for which there are already the Total war series) or nothing's gonna change except the size of the front. And the wars are going to be short, crucial and 2 wrong deployments and you can be overrun.
Still I do think that a more tactical battle on a smaller field is necessary, especially during the early ages. But the balance of how complex it should be and how many units can join a battle is a tricky one. And then there is the question how's the AI going to handle it if they can't cope with 1UPT. At the moment indeed playing on bigger maps is somewhat of a remedy for these issues. Let's hope Sid Meier manage to come up with an ingenious and original solution in the next installment
historix69
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,402
Real life warfare is not a simple game of paper-scissors-rock but a warfare of Combined Arms. If you don't cover paper, scissors and rock at the same time, you are lost ...
There was a time when battles seemed to be fought like paper-scissors-rock, having spearmen fighting against cavalry which attacked bowmen. Maybe the bowmen and spearmen switched places right in time ... some units were small and mobile in ancient times. If your opponent is known for cavalry, bring at least your spearmen for battle but if you know that he has no cavalry, you can save the money (upkeep, supplys) for bringing the spearmen.
Another Example : In modern times you have infantry units equipped with machine guns, very strong against attacking infantry but weak against armor (tanks), and you have Anti-Tank-Guns which instead are stronger against tanks but weak against infantry. It is obvious to place infantry and Anti-Tank-Guns in a way that they can protect each other by overlapping their sphere of action ...
A hex in a Civ-Game usually represents an area of several hundred or thousands of square kilometers so the distance between two hexes is usually bigger than the range of action of most units. However a game which forces 1upt and does not allow units protecting each other is just unrealistic. Imagine placing infantry in one hex and AT-Gun in the neighbouring hex. Your opponent attacks during his turn, taking out infantry with tank and taking out AT-Gun with infantry and you can do nothing.
... so a good combination of stacking units and controling fronts and flanks and supplies is necessary.
There was a time when battles seemed to be fought like paper-scissors-rock, having spearmen fighting against cavalry which attacked bowmen. Maybe the bowmen and spearmen switched places right in time ... some units were small and mobile in ancient times. If your opponent is known for cavalry, bring at least your spearmen for battle but if you know that he has no cavalry, you can save the money (upkeep, supplys) for bringing the spearmen.
Another Example : In modern times you have infantry units equipped with machine guns, very strong against attacking infantry but weak against armor (tanks), and you have Anti-Tank-Guns which instead are stronger against tanks but weak against infantry. It is obvious to place infantry and Anti-Tank-Guns in a way that they can protect each other by overlapping their sphere of action ...
A hex in a Civ-Game usually represents an area of several hundred or thousands of square kilometers so the distance between two hexes is usually bigger than the range of action of most units. However a game which forces 1upt and does not allow units protecting each other is just unrealistic. Imagine placing infantry in one hex and AT-Gun in the neighbouring hex. Your opponent attacks during his turn, taking out infantry with tank and taking out AT-Gun with infantry and you can do nothing.
... so a good combination of stacking units and controling fronts and flanks and supplies is necessary.
Similar threads
