DrewBledsoe
Veteran QB
Does anyone else like this solution (not sure if its original or not)?
Keep a hex or square tile world map, that's not so important. Reinstitute stacks, but limit units per stack to say 10 max. THEN when any battle takes place, it takes place on a new (let's call it strategy map) consisting of Hexs, or even octagons based upon the terrain of the world map tile.
Each army would deploy, at one unit per hex/oct tile of this strategy map. Then they would move in turn to engage each other. This would allow flanking units, early archery units, artillery units, infantry, tanks, airstrikes, you name it, ALL to have sensible and valid uses. It would also make it in principle much easier to program a decent ai opponent.
It would stop the (and lets face it, however you dress it up it's ludicrous) fact of a battle where an Archer can fire 130 miles, a horse unit can dart in 240 miles as a flanking manouever etc.
It would also allow much easier army coordination for the ai, and would probably vastly speed the whole game up. (Outside of the battles that is).
For those who didn't like to fight battles as such, there could be some auto-calc button for the battle, which took factors into consideration, and produce a winner.
Let's face it, battles have always been fought between armies. This approach would reinforce that fact, while allowing tactics and strategy in combat, and keeping the 1upt in battle. Trying to use the world map, as the same map as the battle map, and limiting 1upt, is I'm afraid an idea doomed to failure at the concept level.
If you're going to make CIV basically a war game, then at least have a seperate battle map, and make it a decent war game.
Thoughts anyone?
Keep a hex or square tile world map, that's not so important. Reinstitute stacks, but limit units per stack to say 10 max. THEN when any battle takes place, it takes place on a new (let's call it strategy map) consisting of Hexs, or even octagons based upon the terrain of the world map tile.
Each army would deploy, at one unit per hex/oct tile of this strategy map. Then they would move in turn to engage each other. This would allow flanking units, early archery units, artillery units, infantry, tanks, airstrikes, you name it, ALL to have sensible and valid uses. It would also make it in principle much easier to program a decent ai opponent.
It would stop the (and lets face it, however you dress it up it's ludicrous) fact of a battle where an Archer can fire 130 miles, a horse unit can dart in 240 miles as a flanking manouever etc.
It would also allow much easier army coordination for the ai, and would probably vastly speed the whole game up. (Outside of the battles that is).
For those who didn't like to fight battles as such, there could be some auto-calc button for the battle, which took factors into consideration, and produce a winner.
Let's face it, battles have always been fought between armies. This approach would reinforce that fact, while allowing tactics and strategy in combat, and keeping the 1upt in battle. Trying to use the world map, as the same map as the battle map, and limiting 1upt, is I'm afraid an idea doomed to failure at the concept level.
If you're going to make CIV basically a war game, then at least have a seperate battle map, and make it a decent war game.
Thoughts anyone?