1 Unit per Tile Rule

Do you like the possibility of a 1 unit per tile rule in Civ5?

  • Total voters
    481
I hated the way you could include every unit type in a stack and be guaranteed a favorable defender.

Wars were bus trips from one city to another.

Catapults next to a city too vulnerable? Give them a firing range of 2 hexes. Solved

Having played the Panzer General series alot, and also Fantasy General I'm pleased by the change in focus. I just hope that the number of units don't overwhelm the map but I'm sure they will do a good job.
 
I don't particularly care - I trust the developers to do good by the game no matter what odd new rules they choose.
 
Hopefully they discuss this in depth in the upcoming GamePro article. I voted Don't Care, only because I want to read/see what they have planned before declaring my love or hate for the Civ5 combat system.

Edit: Took me 5 years, but 50 posts!
 
On the surface of it, it appears to be a really horrible idea. But the whole combat system is supposedly going to be changed, so it's impossible to tell whether it will be good or bad, or even if 'unit' means the same thing it has in previous Civ games.
 
This change will hopefully put military tactics up there in equal importance of empire management. If you wish to win via conquest, you really should have to outwit your opponents on the battlefield as opposed to just composing a better stack.
 
l3illyl3ob said:
This change will hopefully put military tactics up there in equal importance of empire management. If you wish to win via conquest, you really should have to outwit your opponents on the battlefield as opposed to just composing a better stack.
Click to expand...

Good lord I hope not. That would be an absolute abomination. Civ is an empire management game. Military tactics should not be anywhere near close to equal in importance.
 
Camikaze said:
Good lord I hope not. That would be an absolute abomination. Civ is an empire management game. Military tactics should not be anywhere near close to equal in importance.
Click to expand...

Civilization *was* purely an empire management game. It may or may not continue to be. I for one like the idea of a tactically strong underdog repelling an attack from a superior nation.
 
AlpsStranger said:
Civilization *was* purely an empire management game. It may or may not continue to be. I for one like the idea of a tactically strong underdog repelling an attack from a superior nation.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense though. Why would someone skilled in tactics be bad at empire management? Civ was never an RTS game which requires high level of technical skill to be good at.
 
1 unit per tile will make tactics more important, but I wish people went back to play Civ or civ 2 once and look at their "stacks". You could stack units. But outside cities, it was a very silly thing to do.
The real question to me is whether zones of control are back or not.
 
Bob the Barbari said:
Wodan said:
I don't see how rushing to judgment is a good idea.
Click to expand...
It's pretty simple: just ask yourself how would you do this if you were to make the game.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple.

The poll and topic of this thread is "do we like it".

So, as you say:
1. we imagine how we would do it (i.e., we make an assumption),
2. then we base a conclusion off that assumption,
3. and then we form a judgment of our conclusion to answer the poll.

How in the world is that even close to being fair? It's fairly idiotic, in fact.

Now, if the thread was about "How do you think they will implement 1 unit per tile?" that would be a different question. The thread would be speculation about the implementation, which would be interesting.
 
I think that will finally get rid of that stupid combat we see in Civ series and bring in some wargame fun. Seriously, combat isn't that fun in Civ series, empire-building was more interesting.
 
I don't like the idea based on the scale of the game. We're talking about a map that spawns the globe. Having a single unit per tile is kinda like living in Wyoming where the population density is nil.

Sure there could be some limits, like an idea I suggested in a different thread on this topic. Maybe weight each unit and have each tile have a max number of units based on weightings. There are so many ways that units could be made more 'tactical' without resorting to the brute force method of only allowing a single unit per tile.
 
It really is a meaningless question.

Any system (1 unit, limited units, variable units, infinite units ...) all work equally well so long as the combat and tactical factors are designed and developed to accommodate the rule. This is absolutely a case of you decide this after you decide the nature of combat and tactics you want to be available.

Without knowing all the elements of the combat system and combat objectives and unit production capabilities, there is no way to hold a meaningful opinion on this question. Anyone expressing an opinion at the moment on whether this is a good idea or not either knows what is happening in these areas or is making a whole raft of unverifiable assumptions.
 
I don't like the idea mainly because it would make moving the units around annoying. It depends a little of how many movement points the units get exactly. I don't much like SoD either, but I'd rather have a some sort of soft penalty rather than an absolute ban of stacking. Let's say, for example penalty for both attack and defense because of "disorganisation" and collateral damage for every unit, no matter what the attacking unit was. If that is not harsh enough, CivII style is also an option.
 
Wodan said:
So, as you say:
1. we imagine how we would do it (i.e., we make an assumption),
2. then we base a conclusion off that assumption,
3. and then we form a judgment of our conclusion to answer the poll.

How in the world is that even close to being fair? It's fairly idiotic, in fact.

Now, if the thread was about "How do you think they will implement 1 unit per tile?" that would be a different question. The thread would be speculation about the implementation, which would be interesting.
Click to expand...

That's right. I suggest we imagine how we would do this based on nothing more than our imagination. Assume that we would like it the way we would make it and then make a judgment based on it. While it is true that it is idiotic to assume that this is fair I never said that fair it is. At this point the only way to answer the question in the pool seems to be imagining things as we have close to none information on the actual mechanics.

Of course I am not to say that perhaps you have a better way to come up with an answer to the question that has been asked. Perhaps even a way to answer this question in a fair way (assuming, of course, that simply stating your feelings despite having no actual knowledge of game mechanics is not a fair way of answering a question that fails to address any actual knowledge of the game mechanics).
 
Bob the Barbari said:
That's right. I suggest we imagine how we would do this based on nothing more than our imagination. Assume that we would like it the way we would make it and then make a judgment based on it. While it is true that it is idiotic to assume that this is fair I never said that fair it is. At this point the only way to answer the question in the pool seems to be imagining things as we have close to none information on the actual mechanics.

Of course I am not to say that perhaps you have a better way to come up with an answer to the question that has been asked. Perhaps even a way to answer this question in a fair way (assuming, of course, that simply stating your feelings despite having no actual knowledge of game mechanics is not a fair way of answering a question that fails to address any actual knowledge of the game mechanics).
Click to expand...

Oh I wasn't nitpicking you... I was nitpicking the poll itself.

Most of the posters have taken the step to posting their speculation about the implementation, which is great.

But I would suggest that the results of the poll itself are fairly useless and should be ignored, for the reasons I stated.
 
Hey, the point and purpose of the thread is to see what percentage of the overall community likes, don't likes, and those who think the 1 military unit per tile rule is irrelevant, similar to the Religion poll. This is NOT how a thread for how you think a 1 unit per tile should be implemented, or I'd have solution A, B, C, D etc, and because we now have half a dozen threads for that.:)
 
Panzer General and Civ are two different games.
The combat system from PG would be horrible in civ.

Archers and other units having a ranged attack makes no sense at all.

An archer has the equivalent range of 200-300 meters. So unless they plan to make cities in real scale giving anything short of a battleship ranged attack makes no sense period.

CIV is supposed to be about large armies and SODs.
 
Matt0088 said:
Hey, the point and purpose of the thread is to see what percentage of the overall community likes, don't likes, and those who think the 1 military unit per tile rule is irrelevant
Click to expand...
And, as I said, I think that purpose is preamature and foolish. Just me. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Limited Passive XP Gain For Units
Replies
3
Views
238
Tekamthi
Tekamthi
King Phaedron
Indian Graveyard and Casino - Random Trade Routes and Pillaging
Replies
2
Views
318
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
Navelgazer
Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
Patine
Patine
S
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (5-20) Withdraw From Melee Changes
Replies
5
Views
1K
axatin
A
K
[GS] Dear developers, please add these as a Civ6 game expansion feature!
Replies
9
Views
405
karakzorn
K
Top Bottom