1 military unit per hex = greater tactical depth

[Dragonlord]

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.

I agree on this. The combination of 1 unit/tile and non-limitless resources will likely make for far fewer units overall, which I, for one, will embrace wholeheartedly!

I'd much prefer to wage war with 20 units than 200. With options like naming units, giving them unique combos of promotions, maybe leaders with unique advantages? ... gives it a much more roleplaying feel. I've never liked the cannon fodder approach.

The reason I seldom ever finish a game is that I get so bored managing hundreds of units in the modern age. Who wants to push 50 tanks around the map, even in stacks, just to attack other stacks of 50 or more?

The early and middle game is where my interest lies with Civ4 and the earlier versions. Once it gets to the point where I have to manage 200-300 units and turns take a half hour to complete, each, my interest wanes - especially since, at this point, I usually already know I'll win, it will just take some hours of drudgery to complete. Yawn.

It's far too early to be sure, but I think Civ5 may solve this problem for me and keep my interest all the way through - which would be great!

 

[r_rolo1]

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.

One unit per tile is not necessarily richer ... it only is richer in chess because the board is highly constricted for the number of pieces in board and you can't flank ( a thing that forces you to try to get openings through the enemy lines ). If the board is much larger than the ammount of units you need for a line from one side to another ( the case of any civ game ), 1 unit per tile can easily colapse in the classic "bigger line wins because it can outnumber locally the enemy flanks" because it is much more risk free than trying to rupture the enemy line, unless you allow units to jump over the enemy ones ( and that i don't expect to see until paratroopers ) , high to infinite range of attack ( a thing that surely will not happen ) or the analog to the civ IV blitz promo ( that will most likely not be avaliable easily for most units ). If that happens it will be the SoD syndrom all over again, just with a new cause....

@cephalo

I can see this increasing the load of MM ( atleast per military unit on the move). For good or bad, a SoD can be moved as a group very easily in every civ version, no matter the size of it. Making a command to group a line and to move it as a whole is atleast a dificult task... so we can count of being forced to move every unit individually most ( if not all ) of the times... can you say clickfest?

 

[cephalo]

@cephalo

I can see this increasing the load of MM ( atleast per military unit on the move). For good or bad, a SoD can be moved as a group very easily in every civ version, no matter the size of it. Making a command to group a line and to move it as a whole is atleast a dificult task... so we can count of being forced to move every unit individually most ( if not all ) of the times... can you say clickfest?

Some of this will depend on the map size, as a bigger map needs more units to control it, but if the maps are similar in size to Civ4, I think it will be way less tedious. Moving a stack of units is not hard, but first you have to build them all and marshal them into the same square. There's automation in this regard too, but as your needs changed you still had to fiddle with your overall production line constantly. Then when you arrived at your target city, you spent a half hour just moving 50 units one at a time to attack the city. Blegh.

Part of the problem with Civ4 was that maintenance for the late game units was too small in relation to the size of the economies, leading to the need for vast numbers of units. That is something that will also have to be balanced in Civ5 most likely. If they allow units to still stack but with only one defender, like in Civ1 and Civ2, then you will still have large stacks, but you put them in a safe place instead of fighting with them and use the units there for reinforcements on the front.

 

[Drago Askani]

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

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

Then you are probably in the minority. If they choose to go with stacks of doom in the long run I will have to debate the purchase. I would rather play the new Elemental War of magic then deal with SoDs again. Tactically they are an idiotic mechanic of who can make the bigger pile of units and throw them at the other big pile of units.

 

[azzaman333]

Then you are probably in the minority. If they choose to go with stacks of doom in the long run I will have to debate the purchase. I would rather play the new Elemental War of magic then deal with SoDs again. Tactically they are an idiotic mechanic of who can make the bigger pile of units and throw them at the other big pile of units.

Except Civ is not a war game.

 

[AlpsStranger]

One unit per tile is not necessarily richer ... it only is richer in chess because the board is highly constricted for the number of pieces in board and you can't flank ( a thing that forces you to try to get openings through the enemy lines ). If the board is much larger than the ammount of units you need for a line from one side to another ( the case of any civ game ), 1 unit per tile can easily colapse in the classic "bigger line wins because it can outnumber locally the enemy flanks" because it is much more risk free than trying to rupture the enemy line, unless you allow units to jump over the enemy ones ( and that i don't expect to see until paratroopers ) , high to infinite range of attack ( a thing that surely will not happen ) or the analog to the civ IV blitz promo ( that will most likely not be avaliable easily for most units ). If that happens it will be the SoD syndrom all over again, just with a new cause....

If it's a new SoD it won't be that much worse. If there is a chance for it not to be a SoD approach it's worth attempting. I'm ready to cast the die on a new combat system and see if I like it.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

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

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

I'm pretty sure you'll still be able to pay Civ's 1 through 4 in September/October after Civ 5 comes out.

Except Civ is not a war game.

That's true, it's not.

Which means it behooves the designers to create a simplistic/abstract/intuitive military and combat system. Stack of Doom is pretty simplistic, but so is One Unit Per Hex. All of this talk about some arbitrary greater-than-one limit per hex (like 6) or combining units to create 'one' unit, or giving units weight or encumbrance ratings to limit how many fit in a tile, etc. etc. etc. are not intuitive and may work in a war game, but don't in Civ.

So I'm very much looking forward to their new combat system and the One Unit Per Hex limit and trust them to do it right, even if it is 'different'.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It's probably easier to implement flanking and a good use of paratroopers and subs with one unit per hex system. And finally forts, castles and trenches could be something interesting.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

It's probably easier to implement flanking and a good use of paratroopers and subs with one unit per hex system.

Definitely with paratroops, hadn't thought of that before. The enemy can't just drop a stack on them - they'll have to commit individual units to battle and when you're behind enemy lines, they'll like have fewer units available to counter them. With some units being given a ranged attack, no doubt they'll be weaker - prime targets for units dropped behind enemy lines.

If facing and flanking were incorporated, you could have paratroopers getting a bonus for attacking from the rear (or your other units receiving a bonus when the enemy turns around to fight your paratroopers).

Plus, with hexes, just dropping one (and even better: two or more) paratroopers into enemy territory will disrupt the movement of their units and force them to take a longer path.

The more I hear about One Unit Per Hex (and the more I hear folks moan and complain about it ) the more excited I get for the possibilities!

 

[Klyde182]

How would you defend your City with only one troop unit?
Here is another thought, you have 50 units & you only have 40 Hexes of territory?
besides i do not look forward to having >30 units every turn in a war! The tedious of it would make the game boring!

 

[Andrew_Jay]

How would you defend your City with only one troop unit?

Defeat your enemy before she reaches your city in the first place.

Here is another thought, you have 50 units & you only have 40 Hexes of territory?

My guess would be that the game is balanced in such a way that you won't need more units than you have territory, or that actually building that many units would be ludicrous/unproductive.

It would be like asking what you do if you have 500 units in Civ 4 but your cities only generate 400 commerce per turn (Answer: you wouldn't be able to afford the unit upkeep in the first place so no one would bother to build so many units).

 

[nmcul]

Now, is all this analysis being based on nine screenshots designed to show off the game's new features, or was there some sort of statement as well?

I still have to suggest that stacks of doom should be progressively penalized rather than totally excluded. The easiest way would probably be to remove the caps on the number of units that artillery can damage when attacking (stuff more guys into a hex and it's easier to turn them into cannon fodder), and bring back some form of zones of control - the main reason forts were so useless in Civ IV was because any unit could walk right by 'em without penalty, whether in the middle of a desert or controlling a river valley on top of a forested hill.

Of course, if they did do tactical combat the game might start to resemble Total War a bit too much. There's a reason that series of games focuses on one historical period at a time, and even then the campaigns can take ages to finish. I'm really hoping that Civ V doesn't force us to choose between brutal and short or intensive and endless.

 

[Klyde182]

Defeat your enemy before she reaches your city in the first place.


My guess would be that the game is balanced in such a way that you won't need more units than you have territory, or that actually building that many units would be ludicrous/unproductive.

It would be like asking what you do if you have 500 units in Civ 4 but your cities only generate 400 commerce per turn (Answer: you wouldn't be able to afford the unit upkeep in the first place so no one would bother to build so many units).

then you don't have air power & naval power or icbms!
Then what about idea of combined arms?

 

[Klyde182]

I have always look at the Civ units as representing about a division strength in the real world, so looking back on history classically the battle of Stalingrad for example, off hand was about 20-30 divisions involved in the battle. or the battle of Troy is another city fight on a grand scale. having one unit per hex is just not practical in my opinion.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

then you don't have air power & naval power or icbms!

You have a point there, but I'm sure they'll work out something for basing aircraft and missiles.

Don't know why One Unit Per Hex would prevent you from having a navy though.

Then what about idea of combined arms?

The initial screen shots show a variety of units, and ranged units like archers and catapults firing from behind others. Sure sounds like combined arms to me. Plus, for example, I can imagine that cavalry units would become even more useful as they would be able to pass through a hole in the enemy's line and maneuver behind their lines.

 

[Klyde182]

You have a point there, but I'm sure they'll work out something for basing aircraft and missiles.

Don't know why One Unit Per Hex would prevent you from having a navy though.

My thoughts were you can't base a navy somewhere other than out in the ocean leaving them vulnerable. That's why we have pearl harbor for. Then there is healing the units. They heal faster in Cities like Norfolk, VA.

The initial screen shots show a variety of units, and ranged units like archers and catapults firing from behind others. Sure sounds like combined arms to me. Plus, for example, I can imagine that cavalry units would become even more useful as they would be able to pass through a hole in the enemy's line and maneuver behind their lines.

I agree with your statement to a point, but then it begins look like
Total War or other RTS games.
All ranged units (archers, catapults etc) will be allowed to attack units one hexagon away!
This arrangement does not allow you to defend your melee units in front of them one hex.

 

[Churchill's Hat]

I almost never finish games. By the modern era, war is just about how soon I can eliminate opponent's cities. Besides which, SoD's are ridiculous. There's no thought in them. 1 military unit per hex means you can greatly increase strategic thinking. For one thing, a small detachment of cavalry could wreak havoc on your opponent's armies if you go through a neighbor. Also, naval superiority could mean you could destroy an opponent's range units, not solely affecting coastal cities. Imagine: you and your opponent are pretty evenly matched. You then sneak a galley down his coast and attack his ranged units. You now have gained the upperhand, not through building 20K artillery but through a tactical maneuver that means your archers can decimate his forces compared to what his ranged units are doing. If they keep the SoD, I'll have to seriously consider not buying Civ 5.

 

[Thormodr]

I like the idea of less units overall. It will be better for system performance and it will make for a more enjoyable game in my opinion.

It will make where you build your barracks and how you use your great generals all the more important.

They tamed the ICS monster and now they seem to be doing the same with unit spam. Bravo Firaxis.

 

[Klyde182]

The initial screen shots show a variety of units, and ranged units like archers and catapults firing from behind others. Sure sounds like combined arms to me. Plus, for example, I can imagine that cavalry units would become even more useful as they would be able to pass through a hole in the enemy's line and maneuver behind their lines.

Andrew_Jay i looked back over the screen shots and i see that archers are shooting over a water hex into another unit so the statement: All ranged units (archers, catapults etc) will be allowed to attack units one hexagon away! seem to be confusing, the statement is from Firaxis. It maybe barrages can go over anther unit if so then combine arms a possible then I can possibly live one per hex unit, but city defense is a question to be resolved.

 

[r_rolo1]

They tamed the ICS monster and now they seem to be doing the same with unit spam. Bravo Firaxis.

Really? ICS is well and alive in Civ IV ( i could point you to a number of sucessful SGs using it up to immortal and no one ever tried using espionage or major corporation spam in them AFAIK, that would be interesting as well ... now that I mention it, it could be a good idea for a variant ) ... it is simply not clearly the best option as it was in Civ III in most cases.

And 1 unit per tile does not reduce per se the number of units, at best it puts a cap to the global ammount of units per map ( and you would still have to count with atleast naval transports ... ). The number of units can only be tamed by other aproach, that is making them expensive and/or hard to get comapred with the empire resources and there is no sign of that so far in Civ V ( except capping unit per resource talk, that also has it's own issues, that I'll skip here for brevity and because i adressed them already in other thread )

@ cephalo

I guess I should had developed the point more clearly, in spite of neither me or you being wrong. 1 unit per tile leads inevitably to lines/fronts ( that is the confessed intent of the putting this rule in game, from what was said so far ) to try to avoid local outnumbering of isolated units. That fact makes that flanks are the weak spot of any line, a thing that forces the placement of your best units there . That alone makes that a line strength depend of the spatial arragement of the units ( adding ranged units that are poor in direct combat will only make things more pronounced, as well as keeping a reserve/2nd line ), a phenomenon that is strange to stack ( stack != SoD ) aproaches.

The issue is that, as Civ games space was never isotropical in terms of unit movement ( even because we have sea tiles and normally units aren't anfibian by nature ), the spatial arragement that is best for the line might be not possible to maintain or be subpar in the next movement of the line, thus making a automated line movement faulty at best or atleast as trustable as the automated workers in Civ III or IV . This will mean that you will need to manouver all of your units one by one to achieve a minimun of tactical coherence ( even games with a lot more tactical manouver backround have issues with keeping a good line minimally ordered in non isotropical terrain, like the TW ones ... the last instalement has even the irritating tendency of thinking sometimes that is a good idea to switch a unit from left flank to right one just because ...). Sure, the proposed system might cut some of the final attack drag down of Civ IV ( that , to be honest is a little bit more complex than simply throw siege and mop up later aproach that most people use ), but it will surely bring a lot more to the march order. And you are assuming that the unit count will be surely brought down ( a crucial step to assume that the logistical management of the army making will go down ), a thing that is not necessarily true, and that is completely unrelated to the 1 unit per tile rule, especailly if the map is big enough .

On your point about Civ IV: I tend to agree with you, but the one unit per tile rule doesn't have much to do with it. I still have to make a count but i doubt that I've seen much of games in Civ Iv that had more units in field by all the civs than tiles in the map ( feel free to prove me wrong... I'm not very sure of this point myself ), so making one unit per tile might not bring much or nothing to make the games less unit intensive than the ones in Civ IV ( ok, the direct effectiveness of having more units might go to the drain , but that is a completely unrelated point )

@Alpstranger

Surely, a gulf of fresh air is always revigorating. But that does not make the old system better, equivalent in merit or worse than the new one. The SoD issue could have been tacked by other aproaches besides forbiding the stacks of units and it is not liquid to me that some of the aproaches that had been made in the last years to reform the stacking to cut the SoD down ( remember, the SoD was the issue , not the stacking in itself ) would not work much better in this game than most of the possibilities that the 1 unit per tile rule allows ... and as all things in this world, capping units in this way brings it's own sets of issues.