1 Unit per Tile Rule

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


  • Total voters
    481
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.
That would require coding two different AI's to use the two different systems. It would also require a bunch of other processes - for example, which defends if a two-unit stack is attacked? This is not something that can be flipped on or off with a switch.

I voted yes, by the way.
 
I hope you can merge units together to make armies with all the strengths of the component units and none of the weaknesses exclusive to one of the component units. But only if they put a limit on the maximum army size. And if armies take damage as a single unit.
 
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."
Err... this is OT but - you have completely ignored the bonuses, including the very important Spearman's +100% against Cavalry. I always build Spearmen ready for their horse archers which are stronger than axemen and chariots... The fact that you are merely citing the strength and movement to support your points shows that you don't understand the importance of these bonuses and yet they are a basic aspect of the combat system (or have I missed some subtle parody?).
 
I like the idea. I have been playing Panzer general in the old days and Civ I, II, III + now CIV IV. Now I get a panzer general like combat system in the a new civ game.

It just perfect :)
 
If there is a unit limit that is proportional to the total population then I think that 1 unit per tile could work quite well, avoiding maps with an army in every hex and massive stacks. The unit limit could be raised or lowered with different civics or buildings.
 
I do not like the idea. While we do not have all the informations nor we ever played it, the battle isn't going to be more tactical - it is just going to be mathematical in different way (counting hexes where every single unit of enemy can shoot/go/attack and how to counter it in a way he can't, if not possible retreat) - with fog there are some possibilities, but so are in civ 4 - skirmishes etc. Fact is, SoDs are less interesting, but 1 unit per tile is always going to be more micromanagement (which is imo less interesting :mischief: ). I would completely appreciate 3/4 units per tile, as more difficult math is also more interesting, as long as it isn't too micromanagementy :)
We will see how it will end but this is what I predict.
Also, if it is going to be slower than civ4, it might make 1 unit-per-tile much more time consuming.
 
If there is a unit limit that is proportional to the total population
There will be a unit limit based on resource, but we have no details yet. Apparently this is supposed to prevent building all units of your best type (say, praetorians) and force a mixed army. So although it's not tied to population, there will be a limit based on resources you control, which are tied to the amount of land to control. I'm unsure whether warriors and archers would require resources, though, so all units may not requiree resources?
 
I love that they're not afraid to try out radical changes. As for 1 unit per tile, I think it sounds like it will make war much more focused on strategy - what units you should build and where they should be placed - rather than a 'my stack is bigger than yours' arms race. (A good thing!)

Also, as they've said in previews, battles will be more varied as they won't be so focused on city sieges any more.

One good thing about SoDs though was that they made it quick to move lots of units around at once, so hopefully they can find a way to accomplish the same thing with 1 unit per tile.

Don't worry, trust them! I'm sure they wouldn't have made such a big change without trying it first.
 
Possible problems
1. Playing Puzzle (unit 1 can't move because unit 2 is in the way)
2. having to move massive numbers of units
3. How do cities build units if there is already a unit in the city.


MY solution
1. One unit per tile
2. Unlimited "Size" of the unit.
3. Units Don't repair, instead they have to combine with reinforcements
4. Most units can move at least 2 squares and can move through each other (assuming they are friendly)

A unit can combine with another unit of the same type (ie Tank with Tank) to create a bigger unit (not sure if you would be able to split it up)

SoD would be handleable because Units wouldn't repair... if I have a Tank unit (size 100) then every time I engage in combat, the stack size will decrease.. if I want to restore that Size I have to build more Tanks.

Adding in Flanking (if a unit is attacked from a direction behind where it was last attacked) and you will be using Clusters of units ie 3-9 'units' making up an army which would not be that hard to eliminate.

This has other advantages, because this means I can produce Any type of unit in one turn. Make the Size of the unit equal to its mineral cost.

So if I have a city producing 100 per turn it produces a 100 size Tank unit each turn. If the city is producing 2 per turn it produces a 2 size Tank unit each turn.

This solves a Number of problems with the production model as well.

Note: a 'size' 1 Tank unit would be better than a 'size' 1 Warrior



Perhaps separate Movement and Attack too.

You can only move into an unoccupied tile (during movement)
To make that tile unoccupied you have the seperate combat action where you attack things in range. (and they attack back if their range can reach you.)

So all "attack" is ranged attack (even if the range is 1.. for melee units)
 
I want to see how this is implemented in-game. If they are retaining any form of the classic Civ combat system, where one unit is obliterated and one unit emerges from battle and can be restored to full strength with only time and no resources, then I can't see this being a good design decision.

It also seems far too suited for modern campaigns and not for older ones. As much as people hate stacks, that is probably the accurate way to model ancient armies all the way up to the Industrial period; the modern corps system, mile-long fronts, entire armies acting in flanking maneuvers instead of individual units, and the like are all very recent inventions. This is a little concerning since most of the game (presumably) takes place before the modern period.
 
I voted Don't care. As long as the combat system is engrossing and challenging, I am pretty much agnostic on many of its details.
 
. . . It also seems far too suited for modern campaigns and not for older ones. As much as people hate stacks, that is probably the accurate way to model ancient armies all the way up to the Industrial period; the modern corps system, mile-long fronts, entire armies acting in flanking maneuvers instead of individual units, and the like are all very recent inventions. This is a little concerning since most of the game (presumably) takes place before the modern period.
That was originally my view - a SOD-killer is great for modern wars, but SOD still makes sense pre-20th century. Problem is, how do you implement that? Allow stacking in the beginning but progressively take it away? It would be a weird mechanic to try and build into the game and open to exploits (example: if the tile limit were decreased with technology, players have an incentive to avoid that technology, etc.).

Also, I've come around to thinking that it's really just an issue of abstracting the scale (which already happens in the game).

This is the kind of battle that the 1UPT system will simulate very well:



Units spread along a front, breakthroughs exploited to maneuver and surround the enemy, etc. The battle overall taking up a lot of physical space.

Now, consider a battle that we would consider so small as to take place within a single tile (and thus best simulated with a SOD):



The mechanics are still the same. You have armies that consist of multiple units arranged in a line, facing units opposite them. Breakthroughs and flanks are exploited to give the armies advantages on the field, etc.

Sure, it might be weird to have the latter battle take up half of the Italian peninsula, but that's the kind of abstraction players have always dealt with in Civilization. The best part is that it allows all eras to make use of the opportunities provided by 1UPT.

It would be far weirder if the game basically said that hoplites, legions and cavalry (and knights and pikemen and longbowmen and musketeers and grenadiers etc. etc. etc.) were just units to be haphazardly tossed at an enemy stack while reserving an entirely different system, with its own set of deep and nuanced rules (maneuver, flanking, fronts, ranged attack, etc.) for modern infantry, armour and marines.
 
Also, I've come around to thinking that it's really just an issue of abstracting the scale (which already happens in the game).

Very good post. Pictures are always a great way to bring across a thought.

While the scale might be wrong in some eras, the manoeuvring tactics used in battles during all eras are now represented in the game. In my view, representing those tactics is more important than representing the scale as scale is something that's misrepresented in almost every element of gameplay of civ.

By the way, it's likely that you have less units in the ancient era than in modern eras. So if it's hard to maintain a continuous front during a war in later eras, then it's likely impossible to do so in the early eras.
 
It is to early to for me to judge yet. It does sound interesting as SoD is not the only combat system.
 
Now that 1UPT has been implemented, I'm not going to like any future games that don't have it. Who cares if you can't make huge armies anymore? The other civs won't be able to either. Finally you can tactically control your troops and maybe defeat a stronger opposition.
 
Well, like/dislike may be a bit too black and white way to look at it. One the one hand, it does feel a lot different to the old Civs, but then again it raises a lot of new tactical possibilities. Especially the siege combat feels a lot better now imo.
 
i think that 1 tile per unit is a lot better because with many units in one the strategy part is lost and its all a continiusly clicking on the enemy.some say that a space problem can occur but as long as i have played i didnt ever had one
 
Top Bottom