1 military unit per hex = greater tactical depth

[Drago Askani]

Don't forget with the combat revamp we also don't know if its still gonna be the old, 2 enter 1 leaves thing. Or if combat is gonna be more complex with units attacking and not fighting to the death but dealing damage to each other in a round of combat with the possibility of both sides emerging alive, but hurt. With the long range implied by the Archers I would surmise its the later since otherwise archers behind melee would be extremely powerful since they could kill units with no repercussions.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

Don't forget with the combat revamp we also don't know if its still gonna be the old, 2 enter 1 leaves thing. Or if combat is gonna be more complex with units attacking and not fighting to the death but dealing damage to each other in a round of combat with the possibility of both sides emerging alive, but hurt. With the long range implied by the Archers I would surmise its the later since otherwise archers behind melee would be extremely powerful since they could kill units with no repercussions.

I'm also expecting (or at least hoping) for multi-round combat.

Another reason - with only one unit per tile, you will be more vulnerable to counter-units. The game has to at least give you a chance to retreat if your horses get mauled by a pikeman.

Plus I just like that style of fighting more. No more spending several turns to build a unit and thinking "well, these guys will either win or be completely gone in one turn"

 

[civ editor11]

Like I said I don't believe there going to do 1 unit per tile but only a certain amount of space a tile. multi round combat is a good idea and could have lots of offbranch ideas like. We could then send in reinforcements the attackers would have to find a way to stop that or be overwhelmed. There would have to be a retreat function like in revolution. The idea of holding armies of only 1 unit type would always be easy to counter you need multi unit armies that can hold tiles and hold for a while till reinforcements can arrive. this will hopefully add a brand new dimension to battle that will make more realism and more uise to limited tiles.

 

[Neo-Dar]

I personally enjoy the idea of i unit per tile and if i try to defend it please do not get mad

has one guy was saying something about stack being more powerful and feels more to the civ epic style he wants, well one unit per tile allows you to keep that stack of doom in the sense (which i love ranged bombardment for this) that you can bombard a city's or unit's defense, with your catapults or trebs or whatever you have with this era, then attack with what ever grunt unit is current, also, you can put an extra step in the middle to deal damage to the defenders with your archers (which i think is a suitable substitute for suicide catapults) and then attack. The only real difference is the fact that you have to consider more where you have to attack and defend in your or your opponents front (so essentially strongest defender doesn't matter anymore if they hit you hard from the back or sides unless you create a box which i think is whats going to happen).

The SoD isn't really gone (just to repeat for emphasis because this is the main argument THE SOD IS NOT GONE) it is just merely substituted (with a similar cousin) with something more realistic (this seems to be a repeating word doesn't it) and in my opinion overall more fun and playable as far as the tactical factor is involved because the stack of doom just does not make sense as far as how many units are in one tile.

Also, just on the subject the guy above me was saying about the multi unit armies, you are half right in the sense that you will need more than type of unit in an "army" i use the term loosely because the fact that i am making an army in a box i metioned earlier:

Army:
------CCCC----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX----CCCC
------CCCC----XXXOOXOOXOOXOOXXXX----CCCC
------CCCC----XXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXXX----CCCC
------CCCC----XXXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXX----CCCC
------CCCC----XXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXXX----CCCC
------CCCC----XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX----CCCC


---------------RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
---------------RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

-= empty spot
X= some sort of unit that is considered the grunt unit for or specialized (i was thinking pikeman on the second layers or sides for defense against horseman or some sort of anti unit like axeman or grenaider for protection against the grunts they might send) unit either mingled in the main line or somewhere in the second or ranged bombardment unit.

O= Some sort of unit that has ranged bombardment for either city attack in the front or unit attack in the sides or back.

C= Cavalry unit that can flank enemy fronts for a three pronged attack in the front and then the cavalry to sandwhich him and eventually envelop him in a system like this.


----------------CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
-------------CC---------------------------------CC
-----------CC-------------------------------------CC
----CCCCC----EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE------CCCCC
CCCCC----EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-------CCCCC

------------XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-------------XXXOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXOOXOXXX

R= reinforcements that can support if attacked or cover a retreat if needed

E= enemy

So as you can see the new "stack" is essentially the same but strong out and does not take away from the overall effectiveness, it uses multiple units like in the original to stop specific counters and is super effective and in case of counter attacks.

A few notes:

1. i probably exaggerated the numbers a little bit in my dioramas as far as the numbers are concerned as far as the numbers are concerned

2. the only differenced between this and a traditional stacks of doom are
A) you have to decide the placement of your units more for attack and defense.
B) cavalry and archers are much more effective.

3. i do prefer a larger map if they decide to do this.

4. i do not intend to offend anybody with this comment i respect your opinion and just happen to disagree with you.

5. this is much more tactical and i prefer this over any other civilization strategy so it is probably a little biased to make it sound better.

6. i love comments and constructive criticism because they evolve into better ideas.

7. i understand the armies are off center but you should get the basic idea

8. i wish i could write school papers like this

9. ONE MORE TIME THE SOD IS NOT GONE

Thank you,

Neo Dar

 

[nmcul]

I remember that there was a mod at some point (very extensive mod, really-too extensive for my machine to run at the time) in which smaller stacks would get benefits for having support and combined arms, but as the tile got more full, these benefits would turn into penalties due to overcrowding.

Something like that (bonus or no penalty to a limit, then growing punitive effects) might be better than a hard limit, or Civ II's unique solution. Anybody remember that?

 

[wabatt]

This 1 unit per tile rule wont affect domestic units will it? A settler without a body guard!!! unthinkable

 

[AlpsStranger]

I remember that there was a mod at some point (very extensive mod, really-too extensive for my machine to run at the time) in which smaller stacks would get benefits for having support and combined arms, but as the tile got more full, these benefits would turn into penalties due to overcrowding.

Not that I am picking on you personally, but that is a perfect specimen of what I call a "fan kludge." It's a half-hearted solution that would still allow SoD's. It is not meant to be the best or cleanest solution, but meant to scare fans of the previous games as little as possible.

Again, do not take this as a personal attack. I'm just attacking your idea

 

[Tholish]

One unit per hex does mean greater tactical depth, but tactical depth doesn't belong on a strategic screen.

Another option would be, naturally, to "zoom in" the map when a battle occurs, taking you to a new, more detailed map with all the units that are in "striking distance".

And, as Pikkis said, there would have to be a way to switch unit positions without having to use a third tile.

Oh, I hope they do it that way, but from the screenshots it does't look like it. They don't want a separate tactical screen because that would make Civ too tactical. So instead they make it tactical all over the strategic screen. Its like saying I don't want cheese because it will make me gain weight, so instead you put cheese in a salad and pretend you've accomplished something.

Yeah, maybe they'll have it where you can stack in transit, ie move through a friendly unit, as long as you don't end your move on it.


But if there's still time, the tactical screen could be a hex of hexes, maybe 8 hexes across. On the strategic screen maybe show all units like regiments in the screenshots, but one unit per unit in the stack so you can see them all. So if you have two spearmen units and one archer unit, you have a formation on the strategic screen of two spearmen and one archer. When you go tactical, each of these units becomes a regiment representing how many hit points the unit has left. If you enter the same tile as an enemy stack, all the units are thrown together and they share the hex graphically until the battle is resolved. So you get a red and blue mixed regiment, say if those are your team colors, facing each other so it looks like a battle, and semi obscured by a roiling smoke such as for city unrest to signify battle. Each turn you go to the battle screen (like going to a city screen) for that battle and there are your units and the enemy units and you can fight your tactical battle with archers shooting over spearmen and what all just like they planned, one unit per tile, ranged attacks and all. If you go off the edge with a unit on the battle screen, it corresponds to entering a different hex on the strategic screen. Alternatively, you could have eight tactical turns per strategic turn. After each strategic turn, you go to battle resolution phase and go around to each battle and make eight moves. If not resolved in those moves, the battle is still there at the next strategic turn. And with this you might want a stack limit, so that when a stack enters the tactical screen, which is one hex per unit, all your units can be placed on the edge you came in from. Only modern artillery should have a range into the adjacent hex. The tactical screen represents a battlefield somewhere in the hex, not necessarily the entire hex. Thus it can be randomly generated terrain each time, except cities. And prevent stack of doom by having any unit entering a strategic hex capture that hex, irelevant of culture.

 

[Panzeh]

Oh, I hope they do it that way, but from the screenshots it does't look like it. They don't want a separate tactical screen because that would make Civ too tactical. So instead they make it tactical all over the strategic screen. Its like saying I don't want cheese because it will make me gain weight, so instead you put cheese in a salad and pretend you've accomplished something.

Yeah, maybe they'll have it where you can stack in transit, ie move through a friendly unit, as long as you don't end your move on it.

The trouble with the extra tactical screen is that it eats up an inordinate amount of time considering the number of possible combats in a civ game. Whereas, putting the tactical component into the use of the units on the world map integrates it into the existing gameplay, increasing the amount of time taken per turn less.

I guess a lot of wargamers love their MONDO 60 HOUR GRINDFEST MARATHON games, but some of us like elegance.

 

[Bahmo]

I've gotta say I don't like this idea, mainly due to the size thing mentioned. You said realism comes secondary to fun, and I agree, but fun stops when it spits in the face of all strategy I've learned, and in Civ4 much of that was common sense that happened to be based in realism. It is simply ridiculous to only be allowed one unit in an area that's the size of a city. By no logical fallacy of any size is that not ridiculous. I do agree that with realism aside, this could be good for strategy, but only in games that are set in smaller settings. Civ is supposed to simulate world history and whole wars, not random battles that can be blocked out like chess games. Honestly, if this choice holds I may not buy Civ5, but I hope I have enough fellow reactionaries who keep making mods.

 

[AlpsStranger]

I've gotta say I don't like this idea, mainly due to the size thing mentioned. You said realism comes secondary to fun, and I agree, but fun stops when it spits in the face of all strategy I've learned, and in Civ4 much of that was common sense that happened to be based in realism. It is simply ridiculous to only be allowed one unit in an area that's the size of a city. By no logical fallacy of any size is that not ridiculous. I do agree that with realism aside, this could be good for strategy, but only in games that are set in smaller settings. Civ is supposed to simulate world history and whole wars, not random battles that can be blocked out like chess games. Honestly, if this choice holds I may not buy Civ5, but I hope I have enough fellow reactionaries who keep making mods.

I sort of have the opposite reaction. I want each Civilization game to be different simply *because* the older ones already exist. I freely admit that I am the wrong shoulder to cry on about realism, but I really wish you'd at least see what the developers have in mind before you become entrenched against it. You never know, Civ5 could be the greatest Civ yet even if you don't like the sound of some feature on paper.

 

[Fredric Drum]

I still like the CTP way to do it, 9 units on a tile, archers go in the back row with melee in front. Of course refined and improved.


Or something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMqSmiC_xHg

 

[Jean-Luc Picard]

But if there's still time, the tactical screen could be a hex of hexes, maybe 8 hexes across...

Just like in Age of Wonders where you zoomed in to a tactical combat.

"Tactical depth" sucks for a mainly grand strategy game.

I remember people disliked AoW because they said it was too long because of those tactical combats but hey... you are always allowed to have it automatically resolved. And if you're not happy from the result (ie. you lost to many units) you could play it by yourself (it's a solution from HoMM V).

 

[Willem]

It was only Civ4 that cut down the game's span and made it play faster and with smaller civilizations and fewer units.

Civ 4's Marathon mode at 1500 turns is the longest Civ game ever. Even the standard game length really isn't any different than in Civ 4. So I don't understand where you're getting this idea from. The only reason why the initial maps were smaller was because of the switch to 3D. Alot of people just didn't have the computer capability to run anything larger.

 

[Infantry#14]

so only 1 unit can defend city now. Doesnt this make rush strategy easier? Also if I have a unit stationing in the city, does that mean new units cannot be trained in the city (or do I have to move it away first)? Also, how does the defender build or move in reinforcement in the city?

 

[AtomicPhoton]

I like the idea of only having one unit in each hexagon, as it adds more strategy, but I agree that it does take away some realism. I'd prefer it if the world was made a lot bigger to accommodate for this, or maybe mini-hexagons were put in.

 

[Tarkhan]

It doesn't 'have' to be one unit. The obvious intent is to remove stacks of doom, of course, but who's to say we cant have like four or six units on one hex?

Also, we don't know that this includes cities.

 

[AlpsStranger]

It doesn't 'have' to be one unit. The obvious intent is to remove stacks of doom, of course, but who's to say we cant have like four or six units on one hex?

Also, we don't know that this includes cities.

The weakness with "6 units per hex" and similar approaches is that it removes real choice. One unit per hex will be very rich and almost chess like. 6 units per hex means we'd have era-specific "ideal stacks of 6" posted all over the forum within two or three hours.

 

[cephalo]

1 per tile will greatly reduce micromanagement in my opinion. If I ever again have to put together a stack of 10 tanks, 10 artillery, 5 AA infantry, 5 mech infantry etc. etc.... I'm going to throw up.

 

[azzaman333]

The weakness with "6 units per hex" and similar approaches is that it removes real choice. One unit per hex will be very rich and almost chess like. 6 units per hex means we'd have era-specific "ideal stacks of 6" posted all over the forum within two or three hours.

If I want to play chess, I'll play chess.

But when I want to play Civ, I want Stacks of Doom.