Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,952
The danger with a one unit per tile is to create trenches wars in the antiquity...
Please play civ or civ 2. In these games, there IS a one unit per tile limit. It's not a hard limit, it's a limit that comes into play because when one defender is killed, the whole stack is killed. This wasn't true in cities nor forts, but remained true on most of the map, and bringing a stack to take a city was risky because a single defender (or bomber) would take out your whole stack.Just imagine how the game would be with a one unit per tile rule. It wouldn't be a civ game anymore but rather a combat/war tbs.
Give it a try in civ or civ2, and you'll see there's no such issue.Just give it a try. Play a game of civ4 and limit yourself to one unit per tile as best you can, you will imminently find mobility to be a HUGE issue.
Trying it in Civ4 wouldn't make any sense. It would be an incredibly bunk test of the system.
Let me tell you what I like most about 1 per tile. Because the area you can place your armies are so limited, you quickly run into diminishing returns if you build too many units. This means that thoughout the game, wars will be decided with a small number of units when compared to Civ4.
I love this! In the early Civ4 game you can conquer vast lands with 10 or so units, and it's fun! Late game in Civ4, you can't do anything without multiple stacks of 20+ units. There are some tools in place to help manage the logistics, but I find this exhausting. Late game wars make the turns last for hours, and putting together an effective army takes more turns as well. The result is that late game wars are an exercise in unproductive drudgery! You slog away for hours just to capture one city!
I think that 1 per tile will be a huge improvement for the late game.
I'm just wondering, what is the source for this 1 unit per tile thing? Is this official word?
I'm taking this from here ...Jon Shaefer said:"one of the first changes we made was to remove the possability to 'stack' units. Now that you can only place one Military unit at each tile, there would be created large fronts between the players that battle each other"
NOOOOO!!! I think that the lowest limit they can justifiably put is 20-30. And different units take up more or less room, so some units should take up more slots than others.
I don't think you necessarily need to allow stacking in cities. The reason you had that in previous civ titles I think is because you really couldn't effectively prevent people from moving into your city. Historically, it isn't feasable to pack large armies into a single city and wait. It's more common to the bulk of your defensive forces into the field, and if they die the city becomes vulnerable.
For examples, the French couldn't stick all their forces inside Paris during WWI. They had to defend Paris on a broad front. Scipio Africanus defeated Carthage at Zara, allowing them access to the city of Carthage itself. City sieges are usually relatively small actions. Rarely do they decide the outcome of wars, but rather more like a mop up operation.
So will the 'stack of doom' be replaced by the 'carpet of doom' where the whole area inside each civ's territory is covered by units, 1 on each tile, and if you want to invade, you have to plow through them one at a time, taking extra time and micromanagement to get the best unit in place to attack the next enemy unit?