1 military unit per hex = greater tactical depth

[smithx2]

I think in all the discuss most are failing to take into account the change to hexes.

What this means is that even in a line several units will be exposed to attack from up to six units. As each exposed unit would have 3 facing hexes they can be attacked from plus 3 hexes from ranged units beyond the front line.

If the move to 1 unit per hex is true, I like it.

 

[r_rolo1]

I don't see how that has anything to do with being square tiles or hexes. That has to do with having units that can shoot from a distance. A line in a square grid would offer a similar show with one unit per tile and units that can do ranged attacks.

And welcome to the posting side of CFC after almost 5 years

 

[smithx2]

Thanks, obviously a long time lurker.

True one unit per tile but hexes offer 3 facing tiles in a line versus a single facing with squares. I do not think 1 unit per square would work all that well.

hexes offer 6 possible units to attack versus 2 for squares in a line.

In some of the early post I got the sense that people though 1 unit per tile would make combat more static when in fact it offers many more possiblities.

Stratigically one can now look for lines of defense and placing cities in defensible sites.

Tactically options like blitzkrieg and hammer/anvil plans can be devised.

 

[civ editor11]

tis adds many more tactics. Its unlikely though we are still speculating what will be in it somebody show me the proof that this is going to happen. So stop getting angry about this its just an idea right now. I believe Sid and his team will be looking at this for ideas thats why they released what they have. Use this thread for stategies and other ideas not whether or not to have it.

 

[Danielos]

I REALLY hope that the new battle engine doesn´t limit itself to just the 1-unit per hex-thing, but also introduce tactical concepts like:

* Envelopment
* Flanking
* Support attack
* Support defence

Also, with the greater emphasis on tactical combat, I think the tech tree should include military doctrines (compare Hearts of Iron-series) that affect your combat abilities.

 

[azzaman333]

I look forward to having to move 50 units individually every turn.

Oh wait, no I don't, because that would bore the hell out of me.

 

[CornPlanter]

I look forward to having to move 50 units individually every turn.

Oh wait, no I don't, because that would bore the hell out of me.

I dont think its gonna be that bad. If one unit represents, say, a legion, 50 legions would be a huge army. Not every nation could raise and maintain that.

Best wait with judgments till after more info is released, ofcourse.

 

[azzaman333]

Considering the only thing that makes unit movement in civ3 and 4 not take up a ridiculous amount of time is stack movement, I have grave fears for unit movement in civ5 assuming it is 1 unit per tile.

 

[nmcul]

Maybe it'll be like in chess: one unit per turn. How's that for a simple system?

While it's been reiterated that Civilization is not a war game, what kind of game is Civ, exactly? It's not simply resource trade, as the game makes for some fairly complex economic wrangling (like Railroad Tycoon), but it's not simply that; it involves territory acquisition and resource extraction -in no small part to fuel those trade machinations- like Catan, for example, but it's not just that, either; there's territory improvement and city building (think SimCity), diplomacy, exploration, and cultural development. All of these are modeled in fairly complex abstracts and mesh into what Civ is, which ultimately is the development of human cultures and civilizations.

And at the end of the day, a good deal of human development and civilization has involved warfare. Wars over resources, territory, and population and trade centers are just as important in the game as they are in real life, and the game must take that into account. The SOD is ugly, but in some degrees, just slapping it with the catchphrase "Civ is not a war game" is disingenuous, as it skirts around what exactly the game is, which would be more aptly described as "so much more than a war game." It may be far simpler to just run with one unit per tile, but in a game that builds such a complex model of all aspects of human development, why should war be marginalized to an abstract?

 

[Bahmo]

If you want my opinion about a compromise, axe the one unit per-tile thing, but weaken stacks of doom in the way they did in BTS's Defense mod--that is, the more units in a tile, the weaker they are. Bumping up collateral damage might be nice, too. Stacking them could still be advantageous enough in strategic locations like cities and mountains, but in the open countryside tactically dividing them might be better.

 

[Tholish]

I understand the desire to eliminate the SOD and have fronts, but by going to such an extreme of limiting stacks to ONE combat unit a lot of depth is lost that doesn't have to be. With just TWO units per tile, you can have combination choices become an issue and units move through other units. It has all the benefits of one unit per tile with none of the costs, other than requiring more thought on the part of player and AI.

Idea: maybe there will be new ways to group units for movement. For example, select an entire line of units and tell them to move forward. Or backard Or toward a certain hex.

 

[mrt144]

If I wanted tactical depth I'd go play Total War. Look, the thing that I don't like about this is that reducing the game to a 6k turn war monstrosity, while pleasing to some absolutely doesn't mean it is more fun. Grognard crap isn't fun except for grognards, and only a small small percentage are that way.

How is this game going to be better at Total War except in scope?

 

[Culture Bomb]

A possibility I have thought about that would have only 1 unit per tile but still preserve the feel of having large battles would be if you could somehow buy or build promotions (or something similar) on existing units.

So when building your army, instead of 20 catapults you would just build 1 catapult unit and then spend a lot of extra hammers (or whatever) making it more powerful.

This could be combined with a system in which defending units that are defeated also have a chance to retreat, so losing one battle doesn't completely obliterate your hammer investment, but maybe you would need to spend more to build it back up to full strength rather than it just 'healing' by itself.

I also think there should be limits on troop numbers based not just on cost but also on population; those soldiers have to come from somewhere, and if you keep recruiting more it would eventually deplete the population of your cities and leave no-one to work the land, factories etc. This was an important consideration throughout most of history, and meant that only the richest or most warlike empires could afford large standing armies.

 

[the343danny]

Erm... to the guys complaining about having to micro...


There is going to be way less units in Civ V

 

[azzaman333]

Erm... to the guys complaining about having to micro...


There is going to be way less units in Civ V

As an example, say a 20 unit SoD in Civ 4 is equivalent to 5 units in Civ 5. In Civ 4, I can move all 20 at the exact same time. In Civ 5, I'd have to move each of the 5 individually. That's equates to spending roughly 5 times as long on unit movement.

It's just another crappy way to try and make the graphics run on computers that aren't top of the line, like Civ4's attempt of reducing map sizes (which didn't work because there were horrible memory leaks, especially in the early releases)

 

[Ellestar]

Thanks, obviously a long time lurker.

True one unit per tile but hexes offer 3 facing tiles in a line versus a single facing with squares. I do not think 1 unit per square would work all that well.

hexes offer 6 possible units to attack versus 2 for squares in a line.

That doesn't make sense. With hexes, you have one less neighbour on average compared to squares. With hexes, you can be attacked by 2-3 adjacent units. With squares, you can be attacked by 3-4 adjacent units. My post about hexes on official forums

 

[weltraeumer]

I agree that front lines are way cooler than just one sod, which defeated means no more resistance. front lines give the weaker nation a better chance to fight off a stronger enemy and of course is way more realistic.

But I´m not sure about the strict one unit per tile rule. Civ has worked more or less with stone-scissor-paper principe, spear vs mounted vs axe vs spear, I could imagine a three unit per tile rule. These units will form some sort of army. When defending (or attacking) they will act like one unit, their strength is added but their unique abilities will only apply to one third of it´s original. Say we have 2 axemen and 1 spearmen, so we got 14 strength with +33% vs meele and +33% vs mounted.

+ more tactic
+ There would still be front lines.
+ An army never consisted of any pure type of soldiers. You cannot pick out the spears and destroying them with your axes, while 2 cavalry units do nothing but standing at the neighbouring tile watching.
- somehow mathematically difficult

 

[Ellestar]

As an example, say a 20 unit SoD in Civ 4 is equivalent to 5 units in Civ 5. In Civ 4, I can move all 20 at the exact same time. In Civ 5, I'd have to move each of the 5 individually. That's equates to spending roughly 5 times as long on unit movement.

It's just another crappy way to try and make the graphics run on computers that aren't top of the line, like Civ4's attempt of reducing map sizes (which didn't work because there were horrible memory leaks, especially in the early releases)

Not exactly. Generally i spend several seconds moving my stack or two, and then i waste a lot of time moving reinforcements to these stacks. If there will be a smaller number of units, it may be possible to spend less time managing an entire attack, even without stacks.

 

[Ellestar]

I agree that front lines are way cooler than just one sod, which defeated means no more resistance. front lines give the weaker nation a better chance to fight off a stronger enemy and of course is way more realistic.

But I´m not sure about the strict one unit per tile rule. Civ has worked more or less with stone-scissor-paper principe, spear vs mounted vs axe vs spear, I could imagine a three unit per tile rule. These units will form some sort of army. When defending (or attacking) they will act like one unit, their strength is added but their unique abilities will only apply to one third of it´s original. Say we have 2 axemen and 1 spearmen, so we got 14 strength with +33% vs meele and +33% vs mounted.

+ more tactic
+ There would still be front lines.
+ An army never consisted of any pure type of soldiers. You cannot pick out the spears and destroying them with your axes, while 2 cavalry units do nothing but standing at the neighbouring tile watching.
- somehow mathematically difficult

How exactly there is more tactics when you just said yourself you can make a generic army that will fight another generic army? That's LESS tactics. Besides, by allowing 3 units per title you triple a number of units and so you almost triple micromanagement (almost all production and logistics micromanagement is tripled). By almost tripling micromanagement per base fighting entity (unit or army), you make a player waste almost thrice the time per the same amount of tactics.

 

[weltraeumer]

How exactly there is more tactics when you just said yourself you can make a generic army that will fight another generic army? That's LESS tactics. Besides, by allowing 3 units per title you triple a number of units and so you almost triple micromanagement (almost all production and logistics micromanagement is tripled). By almost tripling micromanagement per base fighting entity (unit or army), you make a player waste almost thrice the time per the same amount of tactics.

It´s just a thought and you can put together whatever units u want, how is that generic? one stone, one scissor and one paper in an army is not the best option. as for micromanagment... workers and setting buildings and specialists in cities kill the most time... maybe this should be simplified. no workers for example.