1 unit/tile overkill

Shabbabaram pretty much nails it on the head.

1UPT works when you have lots of hexes to play with. 1UPT is not working well at Civ5 scales. Which is why I think some sort of limited stacking needs to be re-introduced. It will help clean up the movement issues and it will help make armies feel a bit more epic again.

I think if the Civ5 grid was about 2x larger in both X/Y dimensions, then it would be a lot more effective. But that would require cities to be 7 hexes in size and would do all sorts of weird things to the game balance as cities would need to be able to work tiles within a distance of say 5 hexes of the capital. Which would mean instead of 6+12+18 tiles, you would have an additional 24+30 tiles to deal with (total of 84 tiles since the inner 6 would count as city tiles, or 120 workable tiles if depending on the radius you allow).

Personally, I'd love to see 7-hex cities with 120 workable tiles. That would be a lot closer to the proper scale for 1UPT. Big cities would allow up to 7 defenders, while small hamlets would tiny and you'd only be able to fit a single defender inside the walls. Big cities with all those worked tiles would also be truly epic power houses compared to the tiny villages and hamlets.

Cities would start as 1 tile, then slowly expand to fill out the other 7 tiles of the central hex, displacing existing improvements as they grow.

1 upt works and dont work at the same time.

Logistics are a pain, even with railroads.

Now I just sell units when a war is over, because the return trip takes actually more turns to do than producing new units.

This is also especially aggravating when you need to lay down railroads quickly...

Shabbabaram said:

This whole point of contention would go away if they changed the relative scale between the various entities.

The fact is that units/armies/whatever should not take up the same space as a city, or even a farm.

My proposal then is simple:

The objects sitting on the hex grid should be scaled according to desired game mechanics relative to each other.

the key being "relative to each other."

For example:
A city and a mountain could be a 7 hex size.
A unit could be one hex.
Rivers might span 2... So bigger rivers mean longer bridges / traversals


I think this would work well... Plus it's scalable throughout the eras...

I don't wanna see CIV go into tactical map and strat map (like Total War). I want the board game feel for CIV, and the tactics for TW.

Click to expand...

I repeat: add more movement points and different firing ranges and you got Civilization General...

...i would be awesome but capable to kill every computer on the planet

Opellulo said:

I repeat: add more movement points and different firing ranges and you got Civilization General...

...i would be awesome but capable to kill every computer on the planet

Click to expand...

When I first heard the design team is going to use 1UPT, this is the exactly what I thought they are going to do: Civilization General. With lots of standard wargaming rules like line of fire, supply route, suppression fire, opportunity fire, air superiority, sea superiority, different firing range, ambush, need for recon etc, it would have brought Civilization to a totally different level of greatness.

Then I get Civ5 and open up the help and saw that most units have 2 movements per turn... oops.

The limited number of move per turns have really hindered the tactical aspects of combat. I have an idea though. Not to say my idea is the perfect solution, but it just seems it is easier to implement to alleviate some of the tedious aspect of the game as it is now:

Allow units to stack at any tile, but combat units that stack together is going to suffer a progressively reduction in attack/defend strength the more units are in the same tile during that turn.

The idea is units are stacked together to make movement across maps easier. When they are stacked together, they are mainly travelling and not exactly ready for combat, such as a land convoy. Hence if they get jumped by enemies and have to attack/defend in a hurry, they cannot achieve their full combat strength. A unit has to be deployed as a single combat unit in a single tile in order to have full combat strength during that turn.

With units being able to stack together as a mean to travel (not combat ready), it will remove the tedium associated with just sending units to the frontline, meanwhile, a crafty opponent may be able to sneak attack them if line of sight/recon rule is implemented. How to deal with air raid in such arrangement, I am sure design team can work something out; maybe provide air screening or special rule for anti-air escort etc.

When the stack reaches to frontline, they will need to be deployed in typical 1UPT fashion in order to achieve the full combat strength and tactical advantages in such game like this. The AI needs to know how to defend/attack effectively which it seems that this area requires more work at the moment as well.

Since units are freely allowed to stack together, it is now possible to easily build escort stack: (1 unit + worker/settler), and non-military units should be able to freely stack together as they move around, and combat strength is not a concern for them.

The progressive reduction in strength can be computed in linear form or non-linear form, depending on the design choice. For instance, 100% -> 80% -> 60% -> ... minimum of 5%, or 100% -> 60% -> 35% -> 25% -> ... etc.

This also does not preclude someone in desperation to attack even when stack together, in order to take advantage of special situation. For example, a stack of 2 tanks attacking a lone defending rifleman in a city, before reinforcement arrives.

The reduction in strength is computed at the beginning of turn, so if 2 units stack together, even if they fan out into separate tile, during that turn the reduction of strength applies. They will regain their full strength at the beginning of next turn. This is to prevent someone move a stack of units to a location 2 tiles away from a city, then move out a single unit to stand next to the city, and able to attack the city with full strength. So stacked units need to spend one turn to be "deployed" before they can regain full strength.

If 2 units of different tiles ends their turn in a single tile during a turn, their strength penalty applies immediately. So if attacked during opponent's move phase, they suffer strength penalty.

Just some idea to start it off, maybe there are still flaws and further refinement is needed.

DripInc. said:

I don't see the point in having something between the two opposing radicals. Why only allow two or three? Having a random number like that leaves the player saying, "Why?" which is a no-no, at least for me, when it comes to game mechanics.

Click to expand...

So you want your arbitrary limits at the min and max...not at another arbitrary point.

The problem is the scale of the map. We should not have a battle between two units take up 2 entire grid squares. We either need

1. MoM-style/MoO-style tactical battles (with hexes still, sure), OR
2. much much smaller hexes, OR
3. Call to Power-style stack battle system.

The current system is absolutely ludicrous.

Cast my vote for the 1-defender per tile rule. Also allow sharing of tiles with neutrals. Consider a 1-attacker per tile rule as well.

DripInc. said:

I don't see the point in having something between the two opposing radicals. Why only allow two or three? Having a random number like that leaves the player saying, "Why?" which is a no-no, at least for me, when it comes to game mechanics.

Click to expand...

The player saying "Why"? is a no-no? Are you kidding me? Ok, why do Libraries give 1 science per 2 citizens? Why not 2.5? Why not 2.4? Why not 2.3?

Master of Magic had 9 units per tile allowed. Nobody was whining "Why 9?". It worked just fine.

You set these numbers for balance reasons. Not because you pick a number the player will accept without questioning.

apotheoser said:

The player saying "Why"? is a no-no? Are you kidding me? Ok, why do Libraries give 1 science per 2 citizens? Why not 2.5? Why not 2.4? Why not 2.3?

Master of Magic had 9 units per tile allowed. Nobody was whining "Why 9?". It worked just fine.

You set these numbers for balance reasons. Not because you pick a number the player will accept without questioning.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Are people predisposed towards picking either one or infinity and anything in between is just confusing as hell?

I think a lot of problems with fixing the system is that increasing the complexity of the combat system needs to be documented and programmed well so that it's not merely another cakewalk.

Say what you will about stacks, at least they were an effective means to an end for both human and AI alike in a game about building a civ.

1UPT is one of the best things about Civ 5. In another 1-2 expacs when the AI sucks less at tactical combat it's going to be beastly too.

The AI struggles already with 1 UPT. How much harder is it to design an AI that could handle nuanced additional rules for limited stacking?

mercury529 said:

The AI struggles already with 1 UPT. How much harder is it to design an AI that could handle nuanced additional rules for limited stacking?

Click to expand...

Judging from the AIs of other games, I suspect it's pretty hard. This is probably the real problem with the Civ5 tactical AI. With SoDs, you could compensate for inherent AI stupidity with enough units. With the 1UPT, they just get in each other's way.

For example, in Civ4 you could teach the AI to use its SoD in an optimal manner. Suicide siege first, etc. It's much easier, though, to simply increase the size of the stack by giving the AI additional bonuses. That trick doesn't work in Civ5.

revengeofmakno said:

The problem has several levels but that quote above zeroes in on what might be the worst of it. The map is strategic, the game is strategic with turns that are year length and more. The logical thing for that would be a combat system that is also essentially strategic or at least very high level operational but no, somehow a viciously stripped down attempt at battlefield level combat is superimposed on that. It is fundamentally absurd and contradictory and the ridiculous things that happen are a logical consequence.

Now I get that some people don't care much about any of that and will have fun anyway whatever the abstractions might be. That is fine, knock yourselves out, but its a kool-aid that some others cannot swallow. I don't think the two camps can ever agree.

But what is crazy and really baffling is that there are a number of people actually trying to argue that this system and what it allows to happen is somehow realistic or reasonable.

Click to expand...

Yeah, 1UPT is absurdly unrealistic. I can understand how it might solve some gameplay problems, but creates others (the overpowered longbowmen, spearmen vs tank still happening, problem with micromanagement, troublesome AI, etc.).

1 unit/tile is too exploitable by the human to block rival civs from doing what they need to do with their units. the problem is AI doesn't get that the human is blocking him even during peace time.

What might be interesting to see would be an option to "decommission" a military unit into a civilian unit. Once decommissioned, they would need X turns to turn back into a military capable unit. This could make moving units slightly easier as well as give military units a way of escorting wounded units.

faizan said:

In chess Horses move in L shapes...does that happen in reality? no! so I don't see people ing about chess!

Why can't you people just accept the rules of the game and play them accordingly. Or do your tactics end when you find something that makes you have to think more than you would like to?

Fair enough, 3 tiles = billions of miles, who gives a damn, its a game and to keep things fair and working they made longbowman or crossbowman shoot that far, live with it. Just be AWARE of it and use the BRAIN God gave you to work around the problem.

If you still find it a pain, then thankfully a game like CiV allows for MODS, and you can adjust all of these things to suit your specific needs. I am perfectly fine with longbowmans and them killing my early infantry because of distance...doesn't upset me. I will just learn to work around the problem instead of complaining.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Civ is a board game, rules are set to make it playable, and everybody follows the same rule, not a reality simulation game. And the best part, if you don't like the rule, you can mod it. this is a great platform to play around.

The Snug said:

The rule is too strict, and is hurting game performance.

Click to expand...

That's the crux of the matter in my opinion. Workers and Settlers blocking each other across hexes and on roads is silly and annoying. Foreign units blocking your Workers and Settlers is silly and annoying. Embarked units taking up a separate tiles and not being able to stack with naval units is silly and annoying. Slow-playing AI that is paralysed by having its territory completely full of units on the higher levels is silly and annoying.

The restrictions on what can't be on the same tile (i.e. almost everything) are simply too extreme, and are hurting the game - especially on smaller and narrower maps, and on the high difficulty levels where the AI spams its territory full of units in no time.

apotheoser said:

The player saying "Why"? is a no-no? Are you kidding me? Ok, why do Libraries give 1 science per 2 citizens? Why not 2.5? Why not 2.4? Why not 2.3?

Master of Magic had 9 units per tile allowed. Nobody was whining "Why 9?". It worked just fine.

You set these numbers for balance reasons. Not because you pick a number the player will accept without questioning.

Click to expand...

I'm always surprised to see people use Master of Magic as an example of a well balanced game. That game was very fun, but it was absolutely loaded with imbalances and cheesy exploits. One of those was that the AI tended to fill up it's 9 unit stacks with worthless cheap units, so all you needed was one 9 unit stack of doom to slaughter their entire army.

I love the new combat system. Really makes you think about positioning and makes playing an agressive civ just a lot more fun. In previous games I almost always played a peaceful builder civ but now I'm as often a warmonger.