1 unit/tile overkill

The Snug

The Civ Heretic
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
1,008
Location
Seattle
Why not allow 2 or 3? Why go from infinite to 1; there was no suitable number between those two extremes?

Why not permit army groups ala civ3? An army group that could permit 1 mounted unit, 1 ranged unit and 2 infantry units. That would seem reasonable to me.
 
And why exactly is that reasonable to you? 1upt seems perfectly reasonable to me.
 
because if you have any limit on it at all, then it essentialy because 1upt anyways, where one unit = one full stack. if you have a 3upt limit, then no one is going to field less than 3 units on a tile.

its simper to just do 1upt. have you actually played the game? it works fantastically. easily the best change they made, combat is fun now.
 
Yeah, I've played it, and it sucks. What's cool about ancient units defeating modern units? Or not being able to protect units that are damaged?

What's cool about having units that are one-dimensional sitting on a tile, as if they have no knowledge of other types of combat. What I mean is, what's cool about having mounted units alone without spearmen to protect them? There's no armies like that in real life. This game still has not implemented some form of combined arms.

It should be that a more complete army defeats a less complete, or well-rounded army.
 
Except I do that. I put melee in front, then bring my cavalry around the back of the enemy, while my archers/crossbows plink away. Combined arms is there.
 
It makes the game slow, the AI weak, and gives an overwhelming edge to whomever has the latest tech. It also clashes with the scale of the game and creates numerous annoying glitches (e.g. I end up not being able to use those nifty roads and railroads a lot of the time, because in the civ 5 universe they haven't mastered the technology of a 2-way footpath).
 
now you have total control of the battle lines, archers in back cavalry on flanks. Punch a hole through the line and wipe out the archers then encircle and annihlate
 
Yeah, I've played it, and it sucks. What's cool about ancient units defeating modern units? Or not being able to protect units that are damaged?

What's cool about having units that are one-dimensional sitting on a tile, as if they have no knowledge of other types of combat. What I mean is, what's cool about having mounted units alone without spearmen to protect them? There's no armies like that in real life. This game still has not implemented some form of combined arms.

It should be that a more complete army defeats a less complete, or well-rounded army.

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.
 
Yep the new combat system is damned well a huge improvement. I knew it would be - I remember reading one modder who posted the first thing they would do once Civ 5 is released is bring back stacks....

Bleurgh! But at least that means your prayers could be answered Snug!
 
My preconception is that a mechanized infantry should be able to defeat 1,000 crossbowman.

I understand the mechanics of the game, that's why I'm criticizing them. I think "plink" is the operative word in your post. The idea that men shooting iron-tipped bolts of wood at an armored vehicle, and somehow winning is absolutely ludicrous. No matter what the numbers.

Spear-chucking Zulu's defeating gunpowder British units pales in comparison to this.

I don't want stacks, I want combined arms.

@rab Battles aren't won by "punching holes" in a formation. They are won by flanking and encirclement, which is what causes the line to break.
 
I find it somewhat hard to protect embarked units since I can't stack them with my war-ships. Not that any AI has showed me a decant navy anyway...
 
If there was any stacking then it would ruin the entire point of 1upt. You no longer can counter archers with horses because now they have spearmen right on top of them. Same goes with siege.
 
Snug darling, there is already lots of combined arms. I was using artillery units, infantry units and tank units with different roles. It helped me to win battles against the AI to do so. In Civ 4 i pretty much shifted a mountain of troops from one city to another.

The system encourages players to take advantage of different units more so than Civ 4.

Um... battles can or can't be won with this or that? What an unnecessary discussion. We're talking abstract strategic combat across terrain tiles that probably represent hundreds of square miles, where a turn is more than an entire year! I think that negates any 'specific' opinion about what wins battles in particular hehe.

I also don't think crossbowmen should automatically fail against mech infantry. They will most likely fail 99% of the time, but of course if the circumstances are in their favour that should be reflected. Is it really a stretch of the imagination, that a well fortified unit, if attacked by a more modern - often damaged unit, could actually win?
 
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
 
plinking a mech inf a long time to death by crossbowman is >>>>>>>>>>> spearman killing tanks as sometimes before, so definite improvement.
tactical wargames generally are played by 1upt rule so civ finally got a normal combat system, which is great.

it is true it creates some transport problems, around which it might make sense to consider relaxing the restrictions, though as a simple rule its a superior choice.
 
The people answering this thread must be playing a different game than I am: in my game the AI presents no challenge at all. You only need a handful of units to win - six or so is usually enough. The slowness of the game and clunkiness can be directly attributed to the one unit bit. I just did an emperor culture win (agonizing, by the way - would have been done 3,000 game years earlier with military.) I had to build a railroad detour around an AI ally unit sleeping on the road between my capital and other cities, and had to walk around it through the jungle until I did.

There are lots of ways to avoid the infinite stacking problem, and building armies out of a small number of units is significantly more creative and makes more sense on this scale. The AI would be much better if they could guard the weak units with stronger ones.
 
I believe the intent of the 1upt was to alleviate the burden of dealing with SOD's that could number upwards of 100 or more. Permitting 2 or 3 or 4 units per tile certainly accomplishes that goal without creating the headaches of moving units around, or of being unable to protect mounted units from attacks by spearmen. It was an over-reaction, one with good intent, but still an over-reaction.

First of all, spearmen should never be able to attack mounted units. I mean, really, how are persons equipped with 10 foot spears really going to be able to chase down men on horses?

This should be a game mechanic that spearmen can't even attack mounted units; defend, yes, attack, no.

Battles should be fought by cavalry on the sides, and infantry in the middle, with the winning cavalry being allowed to flank the lines. Prohibiting infantry units from attacking cavalry units would help this mechanic play out.

This way, mounted units would be able to move about and attack without impunity, all the infantry units could do is build a wall and entrench themselves. Now this, this would make the game believable and make it feel more authentic.

And yes, we should be able to stack naval units with embarked units as protection. That's so obvious.

The rule is too strict, and is hurting game performance.
 
There just needs to be a way to make it less annoying during peacetime.
The actual combat is boatloads of fun though, even though it's a bit hard for the AI to comprehend sometimes.
 
Top Bottom