1 unit/tile overkill

[Mîtiu Ioan]

he he ... this seems to be "Total War" curse somehow ... they managed to design such an interesting combat system in the last versions that the AI which was wrote couldn't raise at a decent skills !!

[Lawrie]

Faizan, chess does not purport to be a simulation, thus it is relatively free from such accusations.

since when is Civ 5 a simulation?

[SlothMD]

Originally Posted by The Snug

My preconception is that a mechanized infantry should be able to defeat 1,000 crossbowman.

I understand the mechanics of the game, that's why I'm criticizing them. I think "plink" is the operative word in your post. The idea that men shooting iron-tipped bolts of wood at an armored vehicle, and somehow winning is absolutely ludicrous. No matter what the numbers.

So...and I mean this in the nicest possible way...your complaint is that the combat system is not as militarily ignorant as you are?

[SlothMD]

Originally Posted by dannythefool

I'm not saying that the range of these units in game is accurate. I think it's not important at all how wide a tile is (scale is out of whack anyway and has been in every Civ game so far). The point is that there are different roles in a battle, and these *roles* are accurate. Pretty much all modern rifle combat is close range. Longbow never was.

More accurately, the definitions of close and long-range have changed over time.

And a lot of the confusion from the Civ system is that the tactical scale and the strategic scale are different, but presented on the same map.

[Rince]

I see it much more pragmatic: If it's fun it's OK. After all, it's a game and not a simulation.

Repeatedly loosing a tank to a spearman for example is not much fun. Having the same thing happen once in a lifetime is funny though.

Also, some people really don't seem to get the 1UPT system. If you could stack 2 units per tile, you could simply combine a ranged with a melee unit to protect it and park it on a hill outside your enemy's city. Been there, done that. With 1UPT on the other hand you protect your ranged units by blocking access to that unit by the enemy. Suddenly, unit placement, terrain, chokepoints and the enemy's available (and visible!) units become actually meaningful. How some people cannot see this as an improvement over Civ4 is beyond me.

And I totally like how with 1UPT you can line-up your army on the enemies border, with his units shuffling uneasy on the other side! With Civ4 you would just have my stack vs. his stack.

[GhengisFarb]

Originally Posted by Jimbo30

And why exactly is that reasonable to you? 1upt seems perfectly reasonable to me.

For a board game. In real life and real military tactics you usually augment one force with another type so the idea of having 2 artillery units with one infantry unit would be historical.

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Originally Posted by Rince

With Civ4 you would just have my stack vs. his stack.

Yes - but the AI could be implemented to handle this quite decently ...

[MonorailCat]

Originally Posted by GhengisFarb

For a board game. In real life and real military tactics you usually augment one force with another type so the idea of having 2 artillery units with one infantry unit would be historical.

Last I checked Civ V was a game. Not a real life war....

[GeneralMatt]

Originally Posted by MonorailCat

Last I checked Civ V was a game. Not a real life war....

Unfortunately all the other aspects - civilzations, leaders that were chosen, city names etc - give the impression they were trying to create something with at least a slight resemblance to history.
Now we are to believe that is not the case and that it is merely a coincidence that there is any resemblance to historical events, places, and people?

Seriously, the only war that I can think of where 1 Upt would work on a strategic scale would be the Great War, on the Western Front, but even then it was cramped and concentrated in a small enough area, that this may not even be appropriate.
I would like to hear of another instance where there was anything similar. Last I checked, the Romans and Carthaginians used "Stacks of Doom" (86,000 and 56,000 at Cannae), Marlborough used Stacks of Doom (52,000 at Blenheim), Napoleon used Stacks of Doom (72,000 at Austerlitz), Wellington used Stacks of Doom (68,000 plus 50,000 Prussians at Waterloo), and the Prussians and Austrians used Stacks of Doom (221,000 Prussians and 206,000 Austrians at Koniggratz).

At any rate, I do think some limitation is justified, but I would base it on some simple logistical calculation, such as, for example, 1 unit per tile on tiles with no roads, two with roads, four with railways, and so forth. It could be expanded even further by taking into account the type of terrain, whose borders they are in, if its farmland/town, and other things. Specific numbers could be toyed around with, but the general principle is worthwhile I think.

[Drawmeus]

A "peacetime footing" for a military where you can put additional units (say, up to 1 per adjacent land tile) into your cities with the caveat that if you go to war they'll all be ejected would be wonderful.

[noid]

Originally Posted by GeneralMatt

At any rate, I do think some limitation is justified, but I would base it on some simple logistical calculation, such as, for example, 1 unit per tile on tiles with no roads, two with roads, four with railways, and so forth. It could be expanded even further by taking into account the type of terrain, whose borders they are in, if its farmland/town, and other things. Specific numbers could be toyed around with, but the general principle is worthwhile I think.

I like the idea, somewhere on the forums a read an idea to introduce mass to the stacks value. Different terain could home a certain amount of massed units (and different units would have different mass).

For instance, you could stack a knight unit(2 mass) and 2 x pikemen(2x1mass) on a flat grassland tile you own(it would have 3 mass limit + 1 mass with road on it), but if you wanted to move those units over your border to a forest tile w/o a road(e.g. 2 mass limit) you would have to split the stack up. Following this logic civilian units wouldnt have any mass (workers, setllers etc) and they would be able to move freely.

It would make wars even more tactical, and would remove most of the annoyences of the 1upt system, w/o introducing the dreadfull SODs back to the game.

[DragonKnight]

Originally Posted by Drawmeus

A "peacetime footing" for a military where you can put additional units (say, up to 1 per adjacent land tile) into your cities with the caveat that if you go to war they'll all be ejected would be wonderful.

The forced ejection could get tricky though, I never liked units getting the magic bump to far off tiles... But I favor let them be stacked to 2, but when stacked the unit with the highest strength becomes the primary unit, the others get no bonuses and a 50% penalty. If the primary loses a battle the secondary dies too. That way it is only to facilitate better movement, and doesn't effect the strategy of an attach formation.

But I also agree with others, the maps feel like they have too few hexs. And if you turn the map size up, you can't support large empires due to the happiness issues.

DK

[hemeyou]

I have to agree, I hate 1 unit 1 tile. I think in principal is good as the Civ IV AI liked to make HUGGEEE unit stacks, but the map sizes just don't suit 1 unit 1 tile. I think that maybe only stacking of same unit types up to 3 or 4 would be a much better system.

But it doesn't matter because the 'base' Civ games have sucked for a long time, its all about the mods that the fans come up it that improve the game.

[revengeofmakno]

Originally Posted by hewhoknowsall

... they're putting tactics into a strategic scaled map where each hex is tens of km, and half way trhough the tech tree they suddenly switch back to strategic. Thus, you have tactically scaled units vs strategically scaled units on a strategically scaled map.

The problem has several levels but that quote above zeroes in on what might be the worst of it. The map is strategic, the game is strategic with turns that are year length and more. The logical thing for that would be a combat system that is also essentially strategic or at least very high level operational but no, somehow a viciously stripped down attempt at battlefield level combat is superimposed on that. It is fundamentally absurd and contradictory and the ridiculous things that happen are a logical consequence.

Now I get that some people don't care much about any of that and will have fun anyway whatever the abstractions might be. That is fine, knock yourselves out, but its a kool-aid that some others cannot swallow. I don't think the two camps can ever agree.

But what is crazy and really baffling is that there are a number of people actually trying to argue that this system and what it allows to happen is somehow realistic or reasonable.

[Sofar Sogood]

Originally Posted by Scramble

Far superior and specialized guerrilla training against a bunch of green mech infantry.

Just how green would these mech infantry need to be to be totally caught off-guard by a bunch of Crossbowmen, and then subsequently be defeated?

While the scenario is technically posssible, the game would seem to suggest it's a lot more likely than it'd actually be.

Also, what happens if their fairly green Crossbowmen take out my fairly veteran Mech Infantry?

sounds like you are asking for all range to dissapear as soon as one player discovers Gunpowder...

Artillery.

Anyhow, it just seems pretty silly having archers fire at a longer range than guns that can totally shoot farther. Not to mention having Crossbowmen WIN because of this ugly "fact."

The easiest solution, as I see it (as in, not messing with the ranges), is to reduce the amount of damage, say, Riflemen onward, take from Crossbows and other archery stuffs.

There'd just seem to be something off about having Crossbows just pick units off from range that those units would realistically be able to fire over.

[Gaizokubanou]

Originally Posted by faizan

In chess Horses move in L shapes...does that happen in reality? no! so I don't see people ing about chess!

Why can't you people just accept the rules of the game and play them accordingly. Or do your tactics end when you find something that makes you have to think more than you would like to?

Fair enough, 3 tiles = billions of miles, who gives a damn, its a game and to keep things fair and working they made longbowman or crossbowman shoot that far, live with it. Just be AWARE of it and use the BRAIN God gave you to work around the problem.

If you still find it a pain, then thankfully a game like CiV allows for MODS, and you can adjust all of these things to suit your specific needs. I am perfectly fine with longbowmans and them killing my early infantry because of distance...doesn't upset me. I will just learn to work around the problem instead of complaining.

Why would you quote me to rant about people not liking 1upt when I actually like it?

[faizan]

what would be pretty epic is to have CIV with Total War type battle...I wonder if we could mod something like that.

[Sonereal]

Originally Posted by faizan

what would be pretty epic is to have CIV with Total War type battle...I wonder if we could mod something like that.

They can't.

[Thoughtful Thug]

Originally Posted by The Snug

Why not allow 2 or 3? Why go from infinite to 1; there was no suitable number between those two extremes?

Why not permit army groups ala civ3? An army group that could permit 1 mounted unit, 1 ranged unit and 2 infantry units. That would seem reasonable to me.

There is a guy quite famous in the modding community that may like what you think about having army groups in the game.


Here is Kael modification. Not what you are asking for, but it is close to what you like.


http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=380955

Ask him to do it.

I prefer the 1upt. The only best change in the series.

[Sonereal]

Originally Posted by Thoughtful Thug

I prefer the 1upt. The only best change in the series.

If only they had made a new AI instead of using the combat AI from the Civ4 Beta.