separate movement tiles from terrain tiles

I like hexes.

I dislike 1UPT, because it feels so very unCivlike. It tends to make armies and battles seem so SMALL in scope and scale.

Additionally, the scale of the terrain tiles does not logically support the 1UPT, which would make more sense at a much smaller scale.

My proposal is to try to separate the idea of terrain tiles from movement tiles by making movement tiles smaller!

I'm not really sure how to do this EXACTLY, because when I tried to implement my idea, the angles that hexes form when they tessellate don't seem to add up precisely to what I want, but see the png attached. I'm hoping someone can take my idea and make it even better!

Each smaller hex would be a movement or unit tile, whereas each larger red hex represents a terrain tile. The colors of orange, green, and grey are meant to represent a different terrain.

In this way, you could fit 7 units into the same terrain tile, and still maintain the strategy of 1 unit per (movement) tile.

To balance this, the slowest units would get a movement of 3, allowing them to cross a terrain tile and enter a new one (though I could see giving some units like siege weapons movements of 2). All units within a certain terrain type would get the benefits and/or penalties of that terrain type, just like in normal civ.

This would also make ranged weapons much more realistic, as I don't think they should be able to fire so far as they do now considering the terrain scale. I would give ranged units the ability to fire several movement squares away, but not several terrain squares.

This is an interesting idea. It is silly that a massive city uses 1 hex and a group of guys with some swords use 1 hex. You could somewhat achieve your goal by increasing the minimum number of tiles required between cities and then adjust movement speed. Although that doesn't solve the odd city:unit size ratio.

I think the current system is fine as is. I don't like the idea of there being too much mircromanagement. What you are suggesting would make the warfare become almost Hearts of Iron like with countless and countless units having to be moved around each turn. It would be way too annoying.

hardcore_gamer said:

I think the current system is fine as is. I don't like the idea of there being too much mircromanagement. What you are suggesting would make the warfare become almost Hearts of Iron like with countless and countless units having to be moved around each turn. It would be way too annoying.

Click to expand...

While one of the goals of my suggestion is to allow larger armies to work on a Civ5 map, the suggestion itself does not intrinsically allow the creation of any more units than we currently see in Civ5.

The number of units you can create is a function of production ability (of your cities and civ) vs. production/support cost (of the unit). I would obviously like to see a corresponding reduction in unit construction/support cost to allow for larger armies in Civ5, but I don't see where you get the idea of it becoming "countless and countless units" to the point that it is "annoying".

I would like to have armies more reminiscent of the classic Civ experience. So the question is, did you find that number of units annoying? If so, then I guess we can just agree to disagree.

But still the exact size of the armies that would be deployed in Civ5 would continue limited by the 1UPT rule, so no matter what there would be an upper limit of 7x the units we see now. If that is excessive, and I agree it might be, I think that even just a 3x increase would make the game more realistic, enjoyable, and true to its forerunners, and could be easily be accomplished with a 1/3 reduction in military production costs.

Having more units, more space to move them in, and higher movement rates, would result in a much richer strategic and especially tactical wargame. I reject your characterization of my idea as resulting in "countless" units. It would still be less than previous Civs.

I think this a very interesting idea. If such a system were to be implemented, unit tactical maneuver would be greatly improved. Units could actually be built relatively quickly, as in previous Civ games, since you are technically septupling the number of spaces units can take up on a map and therefore alleviating the pressure of the 1up system. But I think there are some matters to be discussed.

Some questions:

1. Should units have their movement points increased to accommodate the large number of hexes they can now traverse?

2. Will workers be able to improve a terrain hex (and settlers settle) using any of the movement hexes or will there be a specific hex (such as the middle hex) or will a number of movement hexes need to be improved?

3. How will line of sight be affected? Does a unit have line of sight limited to movement hexes or terrain hexes?

4. How will fortresses and citadels be affected? +50% or +100% defense on seven movement hexes would be rather over the top, or wouldn't it?

5. How will roads be affected? Is a single movement hex improved with a road or seven?

Again interesting idea.

Kurtbob said:

Some questions:

1. Should units have their movement points increased to accommodate the large number of hexes they can now traverse?

Click to expand...

Yes, I already said that the slowest units should have a movement of 3 to match the movement we are accustomed to in Civ which allows a unit to traverse one tile per turn

2. Will workers be able to improve a terrain hex (and settlers settle) using any of the movement hexes or will there be a specific hex (such as the middle hex) or will a number of movement hexes need to be improved?

Click to expand...

Good question. If Settlers and Workers both have a movement of 3, I don't see how it would matter. Entering a new terrain tile would always effectively cost the same movement ability as it does now. Can you think of a reason why you would require the middle hex only? I tried to think of a possible abuse case and could not. Requiring workers to improve each movement hex seems unnecessarily micro. Since workers improve terrain, you should be able to improve the entire terrain square with one action.

3. How will line of sight be affected? Does a unit have line of sight limited to movement hexes or terrain hexes?

Click to expand...

Another excellent question, it seems that either answer would be fine. Keeping line of sight based on terrain hexes would be simpler to implement and more in line with standard Civ behavior. Line of sight based on movement hexes would be more realistic but more complex. (For example, if a terrain hex is hilly terrain, you should only get line of sight bonuses from the edge hexes, and not from the middle hex as you would be surrounded by obstructing hills)

4. How will fortresses and citadels be affected? +50% or +100% defense on seven movement hexes would be rather over the top, or wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think workers would only be able to build fortresses and citadels on a movement hex instead of on a terrain hex. There might also need to be a limit to the number of defensive improvements per terrain hex (just one maybe?)

5. How will roads be affected? Is a single movement hex improved with a road or seven?

Click to expand...

Again I'm not sure. Requiring roads to be built per movement hex would be very micro but also more realistic. Either way.

Very good questions.

5. How will roads be affected? Is a single movement hex improved with a road or seven?

Click to expand...

To avoid insane amounts of micromanaging, the simple solution would be a two global rules. 1) Workers improve terrain hexes only. 2) Roads link the terrain hexes through their center point.

Atwork said:

To avoid insane amounts of micromanaging, the simple solution would be a two global rules. 1) Workers improve terrain hexes only. 2) Roads link the terrain hexes through their center point.

Click to expand...

I agree this would be the easiest, except for fortresses

except for fortresses

Click to expand...

Possible solutions: 1) new worker type--"military engineer." You build him and expend him like a great person--creates a fortress; or 2) bring the back the Civ 4 idea that the longer a unit is fortified in one place, the more defense bonus it gets--at max fortification, it is graphically illustrated as a small fortress. If the hex is abandoned for 1 turn, it disappears; or 3) simply make an exception--workers can improve a terrain hex by building a fortress on any movement hex you want.

Atwork said:

Possible solutions: 1) new worker type--"military engineer." You build him and expend him like a great person--creates a fortress; or 2) bring the back the Civ 4 idea that the longer a unit is fortified in one place, the more defense bonus it gets--at max fortification, it is graphically illustrated as a small fortress. If the hex is abandoned for 1 turn, it disappears; or 3) simply make an exception--workers can improve a terrain hex by building a fortress on any movement hex you want.

Click to expand...

I think 3 is the easiest.

So next question: is this idea even feasible for the Civ5 engine? Or would it require a major overhaul?