No 1UPT

[KrikkitTwo]

One other solution to 1UPT is to get rid of tiles, at least for unit movement. This would also get around the strategic problems of a spherical world map w/ hexes (mainly because such a map is mathematically impossible without creating imbalances). Cities would still have "tiles" to work corresponding to the land around them, if you retain the Civ concept of 1 citizen working 1 tile (something which I find kind of bizarre, but is an accepted convenition in the series).

City defenses ought to be tough if people took the leaf technologies to get them. It's a pretty big tech sacrifice to get that defense when it would be truly overpowering and spend production building them. If anything, cities are far too weak in Civ5 and BE, given how hard it is to stop ranged units from bombarding them in one round.

The best city defense needs to be viable against late game units, given that there's no natural progression as with civ5. The third-tier promotion units are usually sufficient against CC cities, or cities that took defense perimeters + whatever the other thing was, and brute-forcing a strong city is possible with decent production. The fourth-tier units have gamebreaking abilities that render city defenses quite moot and by that point field armies can get so huge that a city alone can't do much.
What is a problem is that AI doesn't tech or prioritize city defenses, and the AI has no idea how to operate a field army (with 1UPT or MUPT).

All weak cities do is further limit strategy. In Civ5, try seeing how long a hill/castle city holds out against a human player's assault without a relief army - the answer is "not very long at all". BE makes this possible in the early game, but in the early game going for defensive leaf techs means not getting stuff that boosts your economy and it doesn't help you take other cities directly (though it does mean that you're not obligated to pull back a significant force if attacked - not that strategic planning is really rewarded by 1UPT, due to the constraints on army composition.

I haven't played enough BE multiplayer but if it's like Civ5, siege is really hard to use in MP games due to clickspamming.

Well City Defense could easily be given a natural progression. (Ideally combined with buildings)

what I'd like to see

City Base Strength: Affinity Factor * (X+Population)
Defensive Buildings add a % bonus to city strength

HP=Y+ Population + Buildings

Defensive buildings could also give certain abilities (give the city an additional ranged attack, boost city hp regen, boost units adjacent to the city)

However, I do think Cities should only counter attack (ie only do damage to units that attack them, melee or ranged) This way if their cities are too strong but their armies are too weak, you pillage them to death. (until your army gets strong enough to beat their cities or their army gets strong enough to beat your army)

 

[nimling]

Pillaging a heavily fortified opponent is pretty common strategy, in real life and in civ. I don't see even the strongest city holding off 10-12 units from pillaging, let alone a really big army. A strong city defense does mean that a smaller field army is capable of breaking sieges, which is perfectly good.

I've played Civ5 mods with reduced city strength and the result is brutal - so easy to break the AI and run a rampage with early game units, and walls merely bring a city up to the level they would be in the normal game plus some HP, which isn't very much. A city should be able to hold off 3-5 units long enough for someone to break the siege, otherwise you get a situation like Civ4 where cities became death traps due to city raider and siege units ripping through them.

If someone techs all of the defense buildings in BE, then their cities probably ought to be nearly invincible against land armies until late game. I would think a 90 defense city against tier-3 units would die to brute-force, if that is their last city and enough units are spammed.

I do think that missile rovers in BE ought to gain indirect fire, in order to differentiate them from rangers/gunners. 3 range is a bit too much for anything but the late game, and some affinity units like SABR.
Cover promos and better embarkation movement for soldiers would be useful as well... although later soldiers have some really nice promos for blockers, especially purity soldiers.

 

[Galgus]

I don't think cities should be able to hold off 3-5 units alone: they should need an army to protect them and high enough health values that the army can arrive.

The issue with the AI when city strength is lower them not producing enough of an army, not managing it well, not retreating units before they die, and not replacing slain units.

On the other hand, if you make the AI produce many more units their typical tactics against cities are far more effective with reduced defenses.

 

[DefiantMars]

Random thought without much effort behind it, but what if cities were multi-tile so they had to be fought IN to claim?

 

[poom3619]

Good idea, but in would against Civ5 design. I imagine a city grow a tile around it when their pop increased like settling city in BE.

 

[Galgus]

Random thought without much effort behind it, but what if cities were multi-tile so they had to be fought IN to claim?

I like the idea of it, but I'm not sure how it would work with hex based combat.

It reminds me of Rome Total War, where the city battle screen changed with fortifications and it's size, with tactical advantages from them in the real-time combat.

 

[DefiantMars]

Good idea, but in would against Civ5 design. I imagine a city grow a tile around it when their pop increased like settling city in BE.

I like the idea of it, but I'm not sure how it would work with hex based combat.

It reminds me of Rome Total War, where the city battle screen changed with fortifications and it's size, with tactical advantages from them in the real-time combat.

I agree. It would require a complete rethink of how cities work and would probably not be viable for the V engine. Again, was a very "in the moment idea".

 

[Azem.Ocram]

If they change 1 Unit per tile into 1 Army (Batallian/Squadron) per tile, I would be all in favor of the change (especially if the AI can be improved). An Army Squadron could consist of up to 4 units of the same type (Melee or Ranged) or 3 units of different types (Melee, Ranged, or hybrid affinity support) that move together (using the slowest unit's speed). Escort squadrons to workers or colonists should be limited to 2 melee or 2 ranged and escort squadrons to explorers should be limited to 3 melee or 3 ranged. Boat units would not stack nor would affinity vehicles, and especially NOT colossal units (Lev Destroyers, Angels, Zeno Titans, Cyborg Seige Worms, Floating Earthquake Generators (Mjolnir), Thrones).

The squadrons could have some interesting actions (for unified attack or coordinated support) that the AI should be programmed to take advantage of.