Yet Another 1UPT/Stacking Whatever Thread

Sonereal

♫We got the guillotine♫
Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
14,926
Posted this in BE:GD. Realized it is totally valid for Civilization V.

Probably won't be implemented, but whatever. Discuss.

Civilization V's entire economic system works different from CivIV's for the sole reason that costs had to be balance to limit the number of everything. Yeah, "tactics" are fun, but it is hard to feel like you're fighting a massive total war when there are only a handful of units, especially compared to CivIV where I'm regularly sending dozens of units into the meatgrinder every battle.

In that sense, what can help a lot is simply making units easier to kill and lowering the cost for units.

Make it so units can't heal outside controlled territory for free. Replace the very idea of unit "health" with "supply/manpower" that cities can produce, and healing units drains.

Make the amount a unit can heal in the field dependent on how flanked they are. If a unit is on a hill surrounded by six hexes, three enemy-controlled hexes and three non-enemy controlled hexes, halve the amount the unit can heal.

Allow stacking, but decrease the rate each unit in a stack can heal based on the number of units in a stack. If there are four units in a stack, then each unit can only heal 1/4th the usual rate. A stack of ten units that is nearly completely surrounded? Easy pickings.

That way, the natural tendency will be to try to spread out, protect your flanks, and try to surround the enemy stacks. Stacks, on the other hand, are something you would use to bust a hole into something, like a front. There wouldn't be the forced 1UPT of Civilization V, nor the unlimited benefit of massive stacks of Civilization IV. You'll have a system that has pros and cons for stacking and not stacking.

As there should be. You see in other GSG games, like Paradox games, that there are pros and cons to stacking, including attrition.

Meanwhile, units would be cheaper. Supply could increase naturally based on a settlement's production, or can be built like wealth and research. During peacetime, supply stockpiles. War will drain your natural surplus quickly, and while units may last a while in the beginning, they will begin dying in droves as you run into crippling supply shortages.

Unit placement no longer would be just tactical decisions, like Civilization V. Unit placement would be strategic decisions as well. You can't just level a handful of units to godmode and cheese your enemies to death.

TL;DR. Cheaper units. Replace health with supply. Make cities produce supply like they produce wealth or whatever. Allow stacking, which lowers the rate your units health. System now naturally balances out to favor a limited number of units spread out across several hexes instead of being forced into that situation via game mechanic, or forced into one mega stack due to imbalance.
 
The "build support" part seems interesting. Because in history wars have always drained countries economies. It's represented in Civ5 with solely gold maintenance of units (+upgrades), which is not enough IMO. In older Civs it is also represented with war weariness. But it was kinda separated from actual units and separated of economy, the gold hit being only a side effect of unhappiness. I think it could be interesting to directly link wars and economy, and maybe unhappiness. Indeed, unhappiness is not caused by wars, but by taxes needed in order to make wars. It could be interesting to add a new tax layer.

Other than that I don't think adding hammers support is that wise, because in total wars cities already build units, so their production is already entirely dedicated to war. I think one should find a way to make gold entirely dedicated to wars however. There are units purchases, upgrades and maintenance. But you don't purchase, upgrade or pay maintenance when you don't have gold, so your people can't become unhappy from it. The two should be linked somehow, but not in the way of Civ4, where it was unhappiness that caused gold hits (rather science hits in fact) and not the contrary.
 
I like your general idea Sonereal. In fact, it's not that far from what my proposal have been for a few years now.

The first and most important aspect imo is that healing has to go. It's toxic. I don't support healing inside your own culture either. Healing(as in regains hitpoints for free over time) makes the difference between losing and winning simply too large. This is also valid for Civ4.

But a unit obviously needs a method of regaining power. A 1hp unit is currently useless in both Civ4 and Civ5. To me, most natural way is forcing the player to simply build replacements and moving them to the unit they want to merge with. Having an automatic "support build" option is a clean idea. Less micro. You could potentially have both in the same game (civic/social policy/tech unlocks (better) remote support).

A difference between my view and yours is probably that I don't see a hp limit. I don't mind if we get "Infantry unit(4000 men)" where a city potentially could build just 1 man or 500 men each turn. Think MoO.

I'm not sold on allowing stacking (different unit types on same tile) since it opens a tons of questions on how the rules of combat works and if you just remove the hp cap (essentially allowing same units to stack) you do get the possibility to concentrate firepower. I also think its important to remember that this ability is very AI-friendly since it allows the AI to exploit its production advantage.
 
Top Bottom