1 Unit per Tile Rule

Willowmound said:

So...no one remembers that Civ the original (1991) effectively had one unit per tile? Sure, you could stack more on, but if a unit was defeated, the whole stack was lost.

No one remembers? No, you probably weren't born yet, were you...

Click to expand...

Civ II was the same, was it not?

Willowmound said:

So...no one remembers that Civ the original (1991) effectively had one unit per tile? Sure, you could stack more on, but if a unit was defeated, the whole stack was lost.

No one remembers? No, you probably weren't born yet, were you...

Click to expand...

I kept saying this too! I guess noone reads my posts.

Modiga-Disabled said:

Civ II was the same, was it not?

Click to expand...

Yeah but Civ 2 is an old game - I much rather enjoy Civ 4. Just because a game is older doesn't mean it's better.

I like the idea, if 1 unit equates to an army composed of archers. swordsman, horseman, etc... There would be no production queue for these - you would build an army from your populace and give it a general and then move that army as 1 unit. When you hover your mouse over an army it would say something like 2000 archers, 10000 swordsmen, etc... and your combat losses could be in the 100s or thousands. If one army is much larger than another it could overrun it without loss of movement. I think I'm thinking of the combat system in Europa Universalis.

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... This is NOT a thread for how you think a 1 unit per tile should be implemented

Click to expand...

How can you say whether you like or dislike it without knowing how it will be implemented/

That is just ill-informed prejudice for one or the other.

galdre said:

It's an interesting point some are making about it allowing the strengths/weaknesses of certain units to be used more, but that's not how it works with real armies - cavalry isn't is able to go out and face just infantry (for example), they'll have to deal with an army made up of combined infantry, pikemen, archers, etc... the whole point of combined forces is the units support each other

so I vote no...

it would be interesting to limit the number of units that can be on one tile, but a single unit per tile is a bad idea. What would be even more interesting is working in some way to figure out supply lines, so you can have as big an army as you want as long as you can supply it, and of course protect those supply lines against the enemy. Would make invasions much more interesting on both sides

maybe that's all been said before, I didn't read the whole thread

Click to expand...

That's not necessarily important if "counter" units are taken out (which they might be). In that case (let's say defense and offense come back) you'd just have your defensive units on the front lines and have your strong attack units behind ready to move to attack weak spots/cities. Or some other system that we've never dreamed of before could be implemented. The point being that there are many factors which make your argument entirely speculative.

depends what kind of units we're talking about.

it would be stupid to have regular units as in civ 4 or 3 only able to occupy a tile to the exlcusion of the rest. but if each unit costs more, does more and is more special like a 300 spartan army for instance, then the one tile rule makes sense.

Modiga-Disabled said:

Civ II was the same, was it not?

Click to expand...

yes.

I used to use all offense, and almost no defense. You could use enemy rails, so if you build enough howitzers... You could conquer nearly an entire nation in one turn.

edit: I just remembered, because of rail movement being available, you didn't have to use stacks. Just road/rail up to the enemy and you could move your howitzers in one at a time and conquer nearly his entire nation in one turn as I said. Not as applicable in ancient combat of course. I think this is why I often waited till tanks before doing major combat in civ2. I'm ashamed I abused the hell out of the mechanic lol.

I hate the idea of one unit per hex, but I have no problem with 3 or 4 or 5 units per hex. Any higher and its a stack of doom, any lower and its pointless to have more then 1

I'm skeptical that they can implement this well, but intrigued to see them try.

I think the poll question is stupid. I vote "too soon to tell".

I'm skeptical that they can implement this well, but intrigued to see them try.

Click to expand...

Agree completely. It could be the best thing or the worst thing that happened to civ.

I´m not sure if i like it. new (and old) strategies will open up.
e.g. a treaty like "open borders" wouldn´t make sense, if units can´t be stacked. i remember civ III where i had right´s of passage with everyone, but wouldn´t let them pass my territory by occupying border tiles, making it easy for me to expand and prevent the ai from expanding to certain areas. the ai however never did and probably still won't take that option.
moreover, now that even your own units can´t stack up having a coastal empire could be problematic, because you probably lack the space to place units. I also wonder how transporters will work if they can carry one unit only. seems hard to me to conquer an oversea empire in that case. on the other hand if carriers can carry more than one unit, they would be good for stockpiling units for future wars. which, again, the ai won't do.
howsoever, in Sid I trust. (and in modding prospects)

I think it's great that they improve the game and make some changes, it sounds like some people don't want it to change at all, but it's a new game! For a new game to be fun, you need some changes and improvements

Padje Dog said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is the main reason I voted yes, anything from the currently boring situation is good

I also LOVE the possibility of seeing war break out once again outside of cities. I had a particularly memorable game of Civ 3 in which I, the French, was attacked by the Romans; I had an advantage in tech but inferior numbers. They invaded me and were smashed against my hilltop fortresses I had built for just such an occasion

I might be less annoyed by this 1 unit per tile thing if:
1. Every unit, or at least most of them, gets more than 1 move
2. They can pass through each other. They just can't end their move on or attack from a tile that's already occupied.

That should make the probable traffic jams much less of a problem. Having less units on board helps too, like the case seems to be.

I still don't see how it's remotely fair to:
1) make assumptions based upon lack of information from a very general statement
2) form a conclusion based on those assumptions
3) make a personal value judgment of the conclusion

I might be less annoyed by this 1 unit per tile thing if:
1. Every unit, or at least most of them, gets more than 1 move
2. They can pass through each other. They just can't end their move on or attack from a tile that's already occupied.

Click to expand...

I think both of these have been implied as present already.

I think perhaps people are incorrectly assuming that we will see these new mechanics on maps of similar size and scale to Civ 4.

I read somewhere that cities will now occupy 3 tiles. If this is the case then perhaps the maps will be similarly scaled, ie 1 square tile will now be roughly equal to 3 hex tiles. This would make sense in terms of the congestion problems many are foreseeing, because I think we can all imagine the problems that would otherwise be seen with, for example, an Earth map. Imagine fighting a war in Italy if it was still only 1 or 2 tiles wide. The new ranged bombardment and 'sprawling battlefield' concepts would be virtually useless when a player is limited to 1 or 2 frontline units and 1 or 2 ranged bombarders directly behind them.

This could also be supplemented by a deeper zooming system, with the ability to zoom out to a strategic viewpoint of roughly Civ 4 proportions, with each hex tile appearing quite small, but to also zoom in to a tactical level for detailed army arrangements and actual battles.

I think the problem at the moment is that we are all taking the few tidbits of information we have, and applying them to the mechanics, scale and general system of Civ 4. From the interviews we have seen so far it would seem Civ 5 is a fairly radical overhaul of the entire franchise, and so until we see the actual game in action or have it all explained to us, all we an do is guess (and hope).

Yeah, I have long hoped for a tighter scale for Civ, with a tile representing smaller area of land than before. That might lead to units having more moves. Having ranged units also implies smaller scale a little, so I'm hopeful.

Personally, I don't really care: it would require a major strategy change for several players (like only one defender per city!). Since so many are on either side, though, I believe it's best to make it an option in the Options menu, where you get to choose whether the 1-unit-per-tile rule is in place or not.

And Kissamies, I believe it was confirmed that in CiV, the "basic" military unit (which I assume to be the Warrior in previous Civ games) will be able to move two spaces per turn, not one, probably due to the smaller, hexagonal grid.

I also feel like giving out a random CIV tip.

The chariot (4/2) is superior to the spearman (4/1). Don't build spearmen, build chariots instead! Oh, and the axeman (5/1) also "obsoletes" the spearman. As said in the CIV manual, "Crush your enemies beneath the wheels of your mighty chariots."

From PC Jeux, cities will be able to defend even when there's no unit inside, depending on fortifications and the buildings inside the city. Of course I have no idea how it will play.