dreadknought
timelord
They really should raise all the unit limits at least up to 10000 plus as I have played several games where I couldnt build more units do to the existing limits. I would like to see it top at closer to 20000.
Max unit limits
- Thread starter dreadknought
- Start date
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
I never had this problem. What is the unit max?
dreadknought
timelord
sealman said:
I think its 6400 or there abouts.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
Is that per civ or total?
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I'd personally like to see a lower unit limit, although it could be a limit that varies with your government or other factors. It would force more difficult choices and make the game more strategic.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I agree DH. If you raise it any more you run the risk of making the game too much like those awful RTS 'churn and burns' 
!
Rather than impose set limits on units, though (which is way too arbitrary), I think that it would simply be better to give units a more accurate cost in population and monetary terms. This will force even the biggest warmonger to consider ALL his options before building up his military capacity. Another possibility (which, oddly enough, was in 'Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds-an RTS game!!) is to tie resource disappearance probabilities into the number of units you have and/or are building, which require said resource! This could force a player to stop building swordsmen, and start building archers instead, as he runs the risk of exhausting his iron supply (in war of the worlds, the more units and buildings you had or were constructing, the lower your 'resource' pool and, therefore, the slower you built EVERYTHING!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!Rather than impose set limits on units, though (which is way too arbitrary), I think that it would simply be better to give units a more accurate cost in population and monetary terms. This will force even the biggest warmonger to consider ALL his options before building up his military capacity. Another possibility (which, oddly enough, was in 'Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds-an RTS game!!) is to tie resource disappearance probabilities into the number of units you have and/or are building, which require said resource! This could force a player to stop building swordsmen, and start building archers instead, as he runs the risk of exhausting his iron supply (in war of the worlds, the more units and buildings you had or were constructing, the lower your 'resource' pool and, therefore, the slower you built EVERYTHING!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Philips beard
Prince
The unit limit works fine, perhaps a little bit higher. After all it will be 2005, CIV 3 was made in 2001, when people had lozy computers!
rupertslander
Chieftain
My computer wouldn't be able to handle any more units than are allowed. On a related topic, however, I think there should be limits on the number of units that can occupy a tile. This could be a soft limit - but if you violate it, your units will suffer from disease, especially before modern times.
dreadknought
timelord
Philips beard said:
Exactly----I think current computers could handle 10000 or so,plus the units should move quicker assuming the ai is at least somewhat upgraded.
dreadknought
timelord
rupertslander said:
Actually, thats a very interesting idea because if there were limits to occupy 1 square that could add to game strategy and it would make it harder to mass bombard the ai. I would like to see a defense bonus added if you were able to (fill up) the square sort of a encamped army bonus.
Mgoering
Chieftain
I think limiting units per tale is a good idea. I don't see a hundred units stacked on a football field. I'm also ok with the idea of being able to cross that limit, but not without consequences, like disease.
What I don't understand is how in the world can you, or all the civs, reach 6400 units ? If you can do it without entering a war, means that you won a long time ago and the game isn't interesting any more, unless you want to kill some time in stupid way.
What I don't understand is how in the world can you, or all the civs, reach 6400 units ? If you can do it without entering a war, means that you won a long time ago and the game isn't interesting any more, unless you want to kill some time in stupid way.
Aussie_Lurker said:I agree DH. If you raise it any more you run the risk of making the game too much like those awful RTS 'churn and burns'
Rather than impose set limits on units, though (which is way too arbitrary), I think that it would simply be better to give units a more accurate cost in population and monetary terms. This will force even the biggest warmonger to consider ALL his options before building up his military capacity. Another possibility (which, oddly enough, was in 'Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds-an RTS game!!) is to tie resource disappearance probabilities into the number of units you have and/or are building, which require said resource! This could force a player to stop building swordsmen, and start building archers instead, as he runs the risk of exhausting his iron supply (in war of the worlds, the more units and buildings you had or were constructing, the lower your 'resource' pool and, therefore, the slower you built EVERYTHING!)
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
This is an excellent point that would add the most reality to the game. Endless units do not make sense in terms of the reality of the World and the game ends up being one of mass producing tanks and foot units in order to conquer the World, instead of using a more tactical approach. From my own experience, there are units I barely have used (longbow for ex). Therefore strinking a balance will not only make it real, but it will also add a more tactical approach.
BTW this would apply to players and tha AI
I agree that less is more interesting, and that the limit should be lower if anything.
A soft stacking limit can make the game not only more realistic, but also better. To tie this into the terrain discussion, I think that limit should be dependent on terrain. You can amass more people in a field than in a jungle. This might have some of the same effects as in Civilization the Avalon Hill board game, where you would be less concerned with neighboring low-density tiles than high-density tiles.
This limit might apply to units passing through a tile as much as ending up in it. Having large armies pass by causes desolation of the countryside and makes foraging and logistics harder. This could be units from any side, but that might cause defenders move back and forth to slow invading armies. This would simulate a skirmishing defence but would also be boring.
A soft stacking limit can make the game not only more realistic, but also better. To tie this into the terrain discussion, I think that limit should be dependent on terrain. You can amass more people in a field than in a jungle. This might have some of the same effects as in Civilization the Avalon Hill board game, where you would be less concerned with neighboring low-density tiles than high-density tiles.
This limit might apply to units passing through a tile as much as ending up in it. Having large armies pass by causes desolation of the countryside and makes foraging and logistics harder. This could be units from any side, but that might cause defenders move back and forth to slow invading armies. This would simulate a skirmishing defence but would also be boring.
Similar threads
