Correct. This is how it will be done in future games. You will add to the various stats and abilities of your army as various units merge into it.
Which Do You Play Mostly:Civ:1, Civ:2, Civ:3, Civ:4 or Civ:5
- Thread starter Ahovking
- Start date
Correct. This is how it will be done in future games. You will add to the various stats and abilities of your army as various units merge into it.
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
One unit per tile is best left for games that act like Chess, for example Advance Wars.
A civilization game where all units have to be built and can one can just crank them out from 4000bc to 2050ad, it just doesn't work with limitations like that. Unless the maps were incredibly huge, like a city's inner cross being something like 9v9 tiles, it just won't work, and even so there could be some nasty limitations like there are currently with traffic jams and the fact that one single bad movement can make an entire army have to wait one turn to resume traffic, which always happens with one unit per tile.
Stacks also have its faults, like for example in Civ3 an veteran infantry or two conscript infantries having the same HP (4) but if they were defending a city against a superior attacker the 2 conscript ones had the advantage because it would require at least two attackers without blitz whereas the veteran one even though having the same HP would only be able to defend against one attacker.
It's not as bad as in Civ5 where you can't have an Infantry unit sharing a tile with an Artillery or a Gunship with a Modern Armor, but still, it's not perfect.
If they all fight together (like in Hearts of Iron, IIRC) and still face disadvantages like they suffer when they're bombarded because that plot is more crowded (like collateral damage from Civ4, I don't know how HoI dealt with this), I think that this system would be the best.
Even though, for the looks of it, we can forget about Firaxis if we want someone to deliver us a game that works like this.
A civilization game where all units have to be built and can one can just crank them out from 4000bc to 2050ad, it just doesn't work with limitations like that. Unless the maps were incredibly huge, like a city's inner cross being something like 9v9 tiles, it just won't work, and even so there could be some nasty limitations like there are currently with traffic jams and the fact that one single bad movement can make an entire army have to wait one turn to resume traffic, which always happens with one unit per tile.
Stacks also have its faults, like for example in Civ3 an veteran infantry or two conscript infantries having the same HP (4) but if they were defending a city against a superior attacker the 2 conscript ones had the advantage because it would require at least two attackers without blitz whereas the veteran one even though having the same HP would only be able to defend against one attacker.
It's not as bad as in Civ5 where you can't have an Infantry unit sharing a tile with an Artillery or a Gunship with a Modern Armor, but still, it's not perfect.
If they all fight together (like in Hearts of Iron, IIRC) and still face disadvantages like they suffer when they're bombarded because that plot is more crowded (like collateral damage from Civ4, I don't know how HoI dealt with this), I think that this system would be the best.
Even though, for the looks of it, we can forget about Firaxis if we want someone to deliver us a game that works like this.
jtb1127
Deity
I don't know. I've seen a lot of carpets in my day.
Truthy
Chatbot
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 2,203
Maybe not that crowded (every tile has a unit on it) but it still gets pretty bad. If I am ever actually able to build a large empire it is very frustrating to maneuver around my large army. It often results in three or four layers of troops in one carpet, slowly creeping forward into enemy territory. Naval invasions are even worse. These many layers of the carpet have to go across an entire ocean. All I am doing for 30 minutes is moving units ahead, one after another, tile after tile. Upon reaching land it will be a mega traffic jam.
Akka
Moody old mage.
The whole "only one unit per tile" is also completely ridiculous considering the scale - not to talk about longbowmen shooting above and beyond whole moutains range...
jtb1127
Deity
They should make only one type of unit per tile or two or three per tile. I think that would ease up the carpets.
Akka
Moody old mage.
They should remove the whole idea of making Civ some kind of rubbish wannabe wargame, and refocus on the central idea : "civilizations", that is long-term strategy and nation-wide directions, not tactics and micromanaging a platoon of archers.
I don't think this will be a fix. Armies were CivIII's equivalent of 1UPT in CivV. The AI usage of armies was terrible and armies were tremendously powerful. In CivIII you are often "leader fishing" with Elite units in the hope of getting another army. Your tactics actually change to try to get that leader. Your Elite units seldom make risky attacks.
I agree that with the scale of Civ 1UPT doesn't work. Civ never was just about war tactics. And moving one unit at a time and trying to figure out which unit to move first to move the fastest sounds like a chore. And I never cared for the idea of longbows firing over hills or halfway across France.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
So true is that. I always considered it an empire building game, and combat was always a last resort.
Desertsnow
πr²
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2004
- Messages
- 1,794
I suggested somewhere back there that limiting the number of units per tile is a good idea, but limiting that number to one is stupidly extreme. No one took me seriously.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Funny how y'all think Civ5 is simply a warmongering game...every victory I've had, and even the victories the AI has had in my games has been either cultural or diplomatic.
Commence flame.
Commence flame.
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
Yes, it's okay a game of civilization that relies so much on military completely neglect the playability of this aspect of the game.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
Wait...what?
Clearly this aspect of the game hasn't been neglected all that much, if I can win lots of Civ5 games without needing to conquer everyone, don't you think?
uat2d
ಠ_ಠ
Because the AI can't use it properly, because it's broken, that's why.
I can win wars without even building units, considering how dumb the AI is and how limited one unit per tile is.
I'll speak for myself, it isn't Civilization if one can easily win it without the proper military. History tells us the only civilizations that managed to survive and prosper were those with the pointier sticks or those who were allied with those with the pointier sticks.
Also, considering how violent human history is, it's on its own ridiculous the fact that it's not only possible but also so easy to win even if one completely neglects its military.
Besides, where is the excitement of settling one city, building culture or bribing city-states and win? Have you never played Civ3 or Civ4? You should see it there, getting dogpiled on and suddenly having to fight off an huge and dangerous enemy army, those were the moments.
Not these the-AI-can't-even-conquer-my-undefended-city that happens so often of Civ5.
My personal opinion: peaceful victories are for pansies.
I can win wars without even building units, considering how dumb the AI is and how limited one unit per tile is.
I'll speak for myself, it isn't Civilization if one can easily win it without the proper military. History tells us the only civilizations that managed to survive and prosper were those with the pointier sticks or those who were allied with those with the pointier sticks.
Also, considering how violent human history is, it's on its own ridiculous the fact that it's not only possible but also so easy to win even if one completely neglects its military.
Besides, where is the excitement of settling one city, building culture or bribing city-states and win? Have you never played Civ3 or Civ4? You should see it there, getting dogpiled on and suddenly having to fight off an huge and dangerous enemy army, those were the moments.
Not these the-AI-can't-even-conquer-my-undefended-city that happens so often of Civ5.
My personal opinion: peaceful victories are for pansies.
kiwitt
Road to War Modder
Yeah, but not warmongering is a cripplingly sub-optimal method of play.
CaptainF
The Professional Poster
It appears we have had a misunderstanding.
The victories that I've had in Civ5 weren't because I neglected my military, on the contrary I was actually a frequent aggressor as well as fighting off some AI invasions that were somewhat sophisticated. I like to play as the Aztecs, specifically because of their unit killing for culture bonus which makes a cultural victory comparatively easy if you are a warmonger.
As for the 1UPT, I kind of like it. To me my favorite movement change is the embarking feature. I always hated having to build so many damn transports in other Civ versions. I also never much cared for stacks of doom, although the current system isn't perfect. They could also improve the AI, but I don't think Civ5 is a bad game at all. Just needs improvement with patches and what-not, like every other game nowadays.
Similar threads
