One unit per tile?

[CivIVMonger]

Honestly I think this was the stupidest implication they have ever done to a game. That is so unlogicial... I know Civ is not a military simulator but it just makes more sense to at least keep combat how it is and not to ruin it. Two things...

1.) Tell me your opinion on the matter.
2.) Is there any confirmation of a mod/alternative to this?

 

[GhostWriter16]

It is the best thing that has come to Civ. It will take combat out of cities, and help the game tremendously.

 

[Ahriman]

There are many, many, many threads on this in the general discussion forum:
eg:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=363507

1. Its great. No more stacks of doom, a more tactical approach to combat. No more ridiculous "best unit always defends" that makes rock/paper/scissors inherently favor the defender.
2. Its unlikely. You might be able to remove the requirement with modding, but you'd have to completely rewrite the combat AI in order to get the AI to understand the change.
The combat system will be completely designed around 1upt.

 

[MrHan]

1UpT is much less unlogical (sic) than theoretically being able to create a neutron star out of swordsmen (i.e. SoD). Plus, it gives a significant boost to tactics as have been already discussed in numerous threads.

I was put off by 1UpT at first, but the more I think about it the better it sounds than SoDs.

 

[Schuesseled]

I was never put off by 1UpT, its a great idea. As others say, it gets the combat out of cities. More so it gets your armies OUT OF YOUR CITIES!, you will have them roaming your land or setting up a defensive line on your borders. Usually you just stick all your army in one city and leave it there to rot till you are in war.

If you think 1UpT is illogical, then either your stupid, or YOUR STUPID. I know Civ doesn't represent scale very well, i.e you have giant soldiers walking around massive pieces of land like thier some towering beomoth. BUT, the fact remains, In Civ 4, technically you could have 1 trillion trillion trillion military units on 1 space of land, which even though I know scale isn't the best thing about Civ, infact 1 tile represents miles of land but it also represents the limit of that land. 1 trillion trillion trillion tanks just wouldnt be able to fit on that land. Even though the scale doesn't make sense imagine we are playing total war here and each tile represents just enough land for one regiment of soldiers to occupy, thus 1 hex in Civ 5 can't have stacks on units as their is only enough room for one unit.... as it's a giant towering mutant beomoth unit. The total war mention, just picture it, two armies facing each other in lined formation, strategically position with melee infront and archers behind and flankers on the.,.. flanks. This is how armies will be position in Civ 5, using the games tiles. FIGHTS WILL BE EPIC.

Ignoring that, it also plays massively into improving strategy. As others say, it isn't best defender defends first as stacks pour onto one and another, but how you place your units is crucial. If you can't work that out yourself then your a lost cause. Goodbye.

 

[CivIVMonger]

You might want to improve on your grammar a little...

I think Civ should model off of Europa Universalis III's model of attrition, supply limit, and manpower. Honestly, this is not that confusing. Firaxis tries too hard to make Civ inviting to new players that it is killing its replay.

I still think it is so ridiculously stupid I just want to rip my hair out because they ruined my favorite game. This also means that luck is the key factor of your success and not numbers. Getting more numbers depends upon your strategy. The fact that archers could fire their arrows over the English Channel disgusts me. You're analogy of "a trillion trillion trillion" tanks on one tile is stupid. You could *never* produce even close to 1,000 units per tile without making it a games focus and hindering yourself.

Like you said, a single tile represents many, many, miles of land, even on huge. That said, you could fit thousands of tanks *in one tile* of even only 2 or 3 miles, when a tile actually would represent much, much more than that initially.

They have killed the Civilization series past 'IV. They really should add a little more logic and realism to their games. Is that too much to ask? Just a little!

RIP THE GOOD CIVILIZATION

 

[Schuesseled]

Technically you can have 1 trillion trillion trillion or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tanks in one tile. Thier is no limit. Which isn't realistic, in X amount of Land only Y amount of troops can fit into it. This is never represented, but In CIV 5 it is, Troop numbers and where they can go have been limited to improve strategy. A good step forward.

Though In a game of CIV 4 you will never get that many units, it was just an example showing thier is no upper limit while the land that its supposed to fit into notedly not in scale with the map has a limit in reality. Oh and if you had 1,000 units in a tile in CIV 4 by making it a games focus you wouldn't hinder yourself, send those 1,000 units onwards they will take the whole world without even trying. Shows what you know ^>^.

We don't need stacks of units in a tile to make the game fun. This new way forward will certainly be interesting and will require many new strategies to win games.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Technically you can have 1 trillion trillion trillion or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 tanks in one tile. Thier is no limit. Which isn't realistic, in X amount of Land only Y amount of troops can fit into it. This is never represented, but In CIV 5 it is, Troop numbers and where they can go have been limited to improve strategy. A good step forward.

Though In a game of CIV 4 you will never get that many units, it was just an example showing thier is no upper limit while the land that its supposed to fit into notedly not in scale with the map has a limit in reality. Oh and if you had 1,000 units in a tile in CIV 4 by making it a games focus you wouldn't hinder yourself, send those 1,000 units onwards they will take the whole world without even trying. Shows what you know ^>^.

We don't need stacks of units in a tile to make the game fun. This new way forward will certainly be interesting and will require many new strategies to win games.

Agreed.

That sums up my opinions on the issue.

 

[tom2050]

At first I hated the idea, but too many unknowns to make a solid decision on if it will be done good or not.

It depends on how rare units will be, or if units will be everywhere in masses, or a mediocre number. I still believe it will have to be less than in Civ 4 and Civ 3 for sure.

If there are too numerous of units, it will become a gridlocked blobs of death endless attrition game. Too few and it becomes a bore to tears. I like having lots of units when you are on a huge map representing the entire 6 billion population Earth.

Hopefully on a Huge World Map you can still have a few thousand units total between all civ's (although I doubt it).

They have said that small civ's won't be able to be mowed over by large ones, which means there may be a sliding production factor involved. A civ with 2 cities will still have plenty of power compared to a 10 city civ apparently.

Will have to play to see if it is great or if it suffers.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I still think it is so ridiculously stupid I just want to rip my hair out because they ruined my favorite game. This also means that luck is the key factor of your success and not numbers. Getting more numbers depends upon your strategy. The fact that archers could fire their arrows over the English Channel disgusts me. You're analogy of "a trillion trillion trillion" tanks on one tile is stupid. You could *never* produce even close to 1,000 units per tile without making it a games focus and hindering yourself.

I think you're a troll... but just in case you aren't.

*Plays the world's smallest violin*

 

[muxec]

Honestly I think this was the stupidest implication they have ever done to a game. That is so unlogicial... I know Civ is not a military simulator but it just makes more sense to at least keep combat how it is and not to ruin it. Two things...

1.) Tell me your opinion on the matter.
2.) Is there any confirmation of a mod/alternative to this?

If even posts about this do not stack in the same thread why do you expect several units to stack in the same tile?

 

[nzcamel]

They have said that small civ's won't be able to be mowed over by large ones, which means there may be a sliding production factor involved. A civ with 2 cities will still have plenty of power compared to a 10 city civ apparently.

Then why should I put in the effort to expand my civilisation if it doesn't give me more strength...?

 

[Earthling]

Honestly I think this was the stupidest implication they have ever done to a game. That is so unlogicial... I know Civ is not a military simulator but it just makes more sense to at least keep combat how it is and not to ruin it.

Just to let you know, you are right in every way and many people do agree (especially the ones who learned to play any previous civ game at or above Noble difficulty), don't be put down or discouraged by the haters.

 

[CivIVMonger]

Thank you! And if they knew even a lick about historical realism or even just fun gameplay (I.E. having been seasoned at Civ) they would appreciate it like we do too.

 

[CaKsTeR]

Personally I love the idea of one unit per tile. It increases the strategy involved in fighting battles, instead of just having a huge stack of tanks attack a city. I've got confidence in Firaxis; I think they'll be able to pull it off.

Honestly, if you don't like the new battle system, don't buy Civ V. IV is still a perfectly good game, and no one's forcing you to buy the new Civilization. Just please don't call us haters for having a differing opinion.

 

[nzcamel]

Personally I love the idea of one unit per tile. It increases the strategy involved in fighting battles, instead of just having a huge stack of tanks attack a city. I've got confidence in Firaxis; I think they'll be able to pull it off.

Honestly, if you don't like the new battle system, don't buy Civ V. IV is still a perfectly good game, and no one's forcing you to buy the new Civilization. Just please don't call us haters for having a differing opinion.

Alright. See you when CiVI comes out

 

[CaKsTeR]

Alright. See you when CiVI comes out

If there's a punchline in here, I can't find it

Care to elaborate?

 

[nzcamel]

If there's a punchline in here, I can't find it

Care to elaborate?

You're right that there's nothing very clever in there - you did get the civ 6 bit thou rite?

If I'm to again delve a little deeper into the 1UPT thing...then I guesss I'd put it this way:

The scale issues that people bring up, aren't just scale issues in terms of the size of battlefields vs the world that is civ. Sure, that's where it all starts. This feeling that those who have gone for 1UPT seem to feel and do portray (whether they mean to or not) that CIV is inferior to real time stratergy games/similar.

But it gets bigger along those same lines. I love the holisticness of all the Civs compared to many other games in which war is either the default, or close to ineivitable. In Civ I can choose to war, or I can choose to peace (most of the time lol).
Its a beautiful game full of options.

Yet I can't help but feel that CiV is railroading us more towards inevitable war. Even with the way they want to make the AI smarter, in it's realisation that's its losing to us, becomes aggressive towards us unexpectedly.
See when I'm losing to an AI I don't automatically attack it, I try and overhaul it how I know best which is still usually not in warfare.

Taking religion almost out of the game is a step away from reality. I understnd it was probably controversal to put it in, but it's gone ok. It was an improvement from the racial profiling that Civ III used to lay the ground work for who liked you, and who didn't. In CiV it appears that the city states will be used instead of both religion and race. And while I beleive this is as acurate as religion, I don't see why you can't have both.

No matter, I'm rambling a bit here, hence why i decided to just chuck out the one liner before. I'll still give CiV a go...
And I am looking forward to both city states and the improved diplomacy..
Although no open borders...?

 

[ZerrorR]

You could *never* produce even close to 1,000 units per tile without making it a games focus and hindering yourself.

1 warrior in represents 1000 soldiers in demographics screen. Modern armor equals 40000 soldiers Do you know what maintenance costs for 1000 soldiers are at dawn of civilization? (friendly territory, of course). And what are for 40000 in modern times. Most armies in smaller countries are under this limit (Serbia: 7 million people, 30000 soldiers).

I think it is a good idea to limit the number of units on a tile. But I would add a possibility to merge units (with a possibility to unmerge them later) with penalties and advantages.

Idea
1 warrior (1 + 2 +25% city defense)
+ 1 archer (1 + 3 + 1 first strike +50% city defense +25% hills defense)
--------------------------------------------------------
1 warrcher (1 + 2.5 +75% city defense +25% hills defense)

 

[nzcamel]

1 warrior in represents 1000 soldiers in demographics screen. Modern armor equals 40000 soldiers Do you know what maintenance costs for 1000 soldiers are at dawn of civilization? (friendly territory, of course). And what are for 40000 in modern times. Most armies in smaller countries are under this limit (Serbia: 7 million people, 30000 soldiers).

Then maybe the demographics screen needs amending lol. I think you're taking it a tad seriously.

Most of us would think of our warrior that we start with as representing 100 men or something like that. In the modern age -if you become a huge cilvilisation- there's no reason to say that you wouldn't have a million strong army, but that's still spread out over many units. That million strong army could operate in a single tile too, just like we have many cities in the world that have more than 5,000,000 people in them.