1 military unit per hex = greater tactical depth

[azzaman333]

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.

Waypoint so all units go to the nearest border town, stack the new units at the waypoint town, move them towards SoD which will be slower due to healing, bombardment and the uncovered roads from city conquering. Most of my time spent playing is spent on worker management because they all need individual orders, and stacking them wastes worker turns.

 

[helpless_writer]

... I personally think that its more like one army per tile... Kind of like in Civ3. I mean from the screenshots it kinda looks like a Total War scenario where you have a certain # of military men per space rather than a mix of different ones...

So there would be 10 archers in this space for pre-emptive attack then horsemen on another tile to be the first wave then swordsmen in another tile for a follow up...

I mean all in all I see it as making things less about #s and like they said making tactics more than just military might.

 

[Danielos]

I think this new rule is one of the best and most revolutionary changes to the Civ-engine. It has always pissed me off to have large stacks hiding in the cities, when in real war, there are frontlines. Finally, the units will roam the terrain and all kinds of terrain features will be much more important!

 

[Howard Mahler]

Excellent points.

I am not in favor of nor will there be bigger than big maps.

Heroes of Might and Magic has a strategic map and then when a battle occurs you zoom into a tactical map.

My suspension of disbelief fails at a game that tries to use the strategic map as a tactical map.
On most Civ IV maps a tile is 50 to 300 miles across.
(If the map covers the whole world, and the world is about 25,000 miles around, one can compute the width of each tile.)
This is not the scale of a tactical map.
It is not anywhere close to the scale of a tactical map.

Archers firing across one of the Great Lakes!
Some of us have a problem with that type of thing.
Some apparently do not.

We will have to see the details of the actual Civ V game.

IF there really is to be "one unit per hex" rule, it would need the maps to be... not humongous or gigantic, but something even bigger in order to let you play battles like the Battle of Crecy with the actual units and the actual environment. That would mean that a single hex should be no more than 500 metres in diameter, preferably less.

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".

 

[Jaca]

I think this new rule is one of the best and most revolutionary changes to the Civ-engine. It has always pissed me off to have large stacks hiding in the cities, when in real war, there are frontlines. Finally, the units will roam the terrain and all kinds of terrain features will be much more important!

Agreed on the pissed off part Hoping your last statements will be true as well.

 

[Pink]

I am against a cap of any sorts. I would rather see clever AI that knows to split units across a front in stacks, to present itself the best chance of victory against an opponent. Stacks of doom worked in Civilization 4. But that was only under the circumstance of crap AI programming. If the AI is knowledgeable in dividing its forces and making it harder for an enemy to eliminate them all, surely you don't need to worry about stacks of doom, and ultimately capping units per tile all together.

 

[Shylock]

Sid has indeed been making a move towards more "kiddy" style in his games (Railroads!, Pirates!, Civ Rev), but I'd trust he would not turn Civ into one. When you are creating a kingdom or a country - or an empire even - you cannot do it with 20 units and still _feel_ like you are running an empire. Civ3 was perfect in this regard and Civ4 was a bit too "small" (unless you modded it). I hope they are returning to a scope like Civ3 in Civ5, rather than go even smaller than Civ4.

Civilization games are SUPPOSED to take you 60+ hours to play through in single-player. In multiplayer it is naturally useful to have shorter games available.

I trust Sid to be able to keep his projects apart. He is not going to taint his keystone series with casualness, at least not without making an offshoot like he did with Civ Rev.

 

[Ellestar]

Waypoint so all units go to the nearest border town, stack the new units at the waypoint town, move them towards SoD which will be slower due to healing, bombardment and the uncovered roads from city conquering. Most of my time spent playing is spent on worker management because they all need individual orders, and stacking them wastes worker turns.

I don't use just one SoD vs AIs, so it will not work for me. Besides, it's inefficient.

 

[Ellestar]

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.

Anyway, you can make some average army instead of specialized units. Either average army is efficient and then you kill all tactics, or it's inefficient and you just tripled micromanagement for no reason (because you already have RPS system with units, there is no need for armies to fill the same role).