1 unit per hex: failed experiment

[Alter Hase]

Better how? I agree SODs were getting a little cumbersome but the A.I. was able to use them to good advantage. (In large part due to the amazing work done in THIS community.) While I agree 1upt has potential and with VAST improvement may be the way of the future but this, this is a joke.

Better how, r u serious i still remember the horrors of combat in Civ3 where the only chance of winning was to create a stack of units at least 2/3 the size of the AIs just to survive his first onslaught, if you had less units in one tile no matter what, you would die, because you had less fresh units to defend than him. Terrain and troop movement ment jack s%it (minus holding the hill and moving the SOD).

Combat was uninteresting and tedious work, with close to zero control and tactics.

At least with SODs the A.I. could cover for it's lack of finese with brutality. What does the current A.I. have now to cover for it's glaring defects. A $50 price tag, some slick promises and a maginot line of concretions called the "fanboy," that's what.
Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.

So you want SODs back because they didnt do the AI right, instead of screaming : "fix the AI !!"

Ridiculous, and you accuse ppl for being fanboys, what the hell are you then, SOD fanboy because the combat AI was(is still) stupid.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

You are spot on on this!

That's exactly why i favor the TotalWar battle-approach; to figth the battles itself, in a real-time 3D envirement, with the landscape suited to the ground the armies are standing on.

Why not HoMM-style, with battles played on a TB-sequence ?
Seems more appropriate to integrate with Civilization-series philosophy ...

 

[Teodosio]

Why not HoMM-style, with battles played on a TB-sequence ?
Seems more appropriate to integrate with Civilization-series philosophy ...

I would not like HoMM-style combat in Civ 5.
The reason is that that kind of combat would restrict too much the scope of a battle.
Now I am able to interact with a battle even for very far, i.e. I could send a strategic bomber to weaken a enemy unit blocking a key position from 20 hexes away. I can bombard the land with a battleship or I can launch a missile.
I could not to these things in-battle with a HoMM-style combat.

 

[Maxor127]

I said it before, and I'll say it again. 1UPT and combat in Civ5 is one of the BEST things about this game and one of the few things that should stay how it is. IF they wanted to expand on it to give certain bonuses in certain situations, then I'm for that. But there's no reason to have stacked units, except maybe civilians.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

I can bombard the land with a battleship or I can launch a missile.
I could not to these things in-battle with a HoMM-style combat.

Well - in such situations ( and in other "normal" ones - like simple battles between 2 melee units which will be solved automatically as in Civ4, Civ3 ) there will be the same behavior like now : the target unit will be "soften" at certain level or the bomb-run will fail if there is any AA-countermeasure available.

"Tactical-hexed battle" will took place only between 2 stacks/armies.

 

[Teodosio]

"Tactical-hexed battle" will took place only between 2 stacks/armies.

Actually I need my bombers exactly in order to influence the tactical battle...!

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

Actually I need my bombers exactly in order to influence the tactical battle...!

Well ... it's unlikely that this will be doable anytime soon in a computer-games ...

In my opinion/suggestion a bomber influence the tactical battle by reducing number/health of a unit ( or more ) just before the battle begin. But "precision-bombing" during the battle could be more difficult to implement.

Second tought - But probably not completely impossible ! It could be similar with "cast spelling" invocation in a HoMM battle !
Damn ... I probably should start my own small game-project to implement such wierd ideas ...

 

[Teodosio]

Well ... it's unlikely that this will be doable anytime soon in a computer-games ...

mmmm no what I meant actually is that I am already doing that in Civ5 with 1upt
While my land units try to break through the enemy line I have a couple of bombers supporting them from a nearby carrier and two strategic bombers helping from distant cities. The only problem is that the A.I. is beginning to spam anti-air batteries!
With 1upt my bombers partecipate directly to the tactical battle.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

mmmm no what I meant actually is that I am already doing that in Civ5 with 1upt

Yes ... but this discussion started on the ideea that 1 UPT at a civ-scale is not "the best choice" ( actually it's full with problems ) and a MTW approach will be better ...

If you are satisfied with actual implementation ... very good for you.

 

[Jediron]

1 UPT is stupid, just as the whole Civ battlesystem is flawed from the start when you think about it, tell me; were "barbarians" so stupid back then, that they only send just ONE kind of warriortype, wandering around ? Afcource not, Archers, Swordsmen and Horsemen; they most likely were made of COMbined armes. Just as any "unit/army" of Cleopatra were made of different types, not just warrior chariots.

In that sence, the whole building unit type of expanding your "empire" is flawed from the start. Whether you stack or not makes no difference, atleast; with stacking you can have some sort of "mixed armor"; only that involves massive maintenance and clicking. I rather spend my time on a true tactical, 3D battlefield like they have in TW, then managing hundreds of units, one by one, like we do with the civ series, until V came. Now there are much less units, but makes it warfare prettier ? Not for me, i tell you. Too much drawback to make it work, i believe.

ps: using Homm style warfare seems silly to me also; even then there are plenty of drawback you can think of. War is a realtime effort, to begin with. TW style warfare can solve all the issue's, and implement support "arty, nearby Support troops, Missiles and AIR support". And all in realtime on a real battlefield. (or auto result, for the lazy and impatient people...lol)

 

[MaximumPain]

I totally love the 1 unit per hex and zone of control. I think its one of the best things they did to this game. Sure its not realistic but it opens up a whole realm of tactical options and problems that massive stacks of death do not. I found massive stacks of death to be boring and unimaginative.

 

[Conspirator]

Again why does everyone ignore the obvious solution: stacks, but only one defender in the stack, if that defender is killed the whole stack dies. How can you support 1upt, or any of the mad ideas expressed in this topic, when this obvious and easy solution exists and has been implemented before?

 

[Iberian]

Again why does everyone ignore the obvious solution: stacks, but only one defender in the stack, if that defender is killed the whole stack dies. How can you support 1upt, or any of the mad ideas expressed in this topic, when this obvious and easy solution exists and has been implemented before?

I think this is the simplest solution. It allows 1upt battles without the hassle of moving. Except no stacking with seige. Then we would all get a super defender and put the on a tile with our 6 seige units and GG.

 

[MaximumPain]

Again why does everyone ignore the obvious solution: stacks, but only one defender in the stack, if that defender is killed the whole stack dies. How can you support 1upt, or any of the mad ideas expressed in this topic, when this obvious and easy solution exists and has been implemented before?

That is an excellent idea

Of course what you will get is people hiding archers and siege under tougher units which will make them a lot more powerful. Perhaps there should be a penalty to the defenders strength based on the how big the stack is or have a max of 2 units in a stack?

I know it doesn't fit with the scale represented but real armys throughout history made lines at some level. Also having to many troops in the same area could create problems with maneuver and logistics. On the civ scale the ancient armys would all be in the same hex and it wouldn't be until the Napoleonic wars and more so WWI when they would spread out to cover an entire front. It used to be that to big of an army in one area would starve to death and have problems with disease. You could have units that are stacked suffer some sort of attrition.

I do see the current system as an abstraction after all how many archers have you heard of that could shoot hundreds of miles? It does force you to create a line and protect weaker assets like archers and siege from enemy melee units. It also forces you to fight for the flanks of properly defended cities both on attack and defense.

 

[MkLh]

I think this is the simplest solution. It allows 1upt battles without the hassle of moving. Except no stacking with seige. Then we would all get a super defender and put the on a tile with our 6 seige units and GG.

And except mounted? Otherwise it would be quite safe to perform deadly stack attacks with mounted - just check that enemy himself has no mounted to reach the stack (city bombardment is not enough to kill an unit). This simple solution quickly becomes quite complicated, if it was simple and clear at the first place.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Again why does everyone ignore the obvious solution: stacks, but only one defender in the stack, if that defender is killed the whole stack dies. How can you support 1upt, or any of the mad ideas expressed in this topic, when this obvious and easy solution exists and has been implemented before?

Honestly, I really do agree the best solution is somewhere close to that. You probably know, but it's essentially how it worked in civ1.

With that method, there is still usually stacking as it's still a strong tactic in warfare, but you typically don't end up with the mega stacks like 30+ cavalry that you'd see in Deity BtS games. I still remember playing civ1 and how I would spread my attacking forces over several tiles. It was important to keep a good defender unit with each good attacker unit.

Zone of Control in civ1 used to annoy me quite a bit, and it still does to a limited extent in civ5, but interestingly one of the benefits of a hex-based board and min-2-movement units is that ZoC is less restrictive.

 

[MaximumPain]

I think this is the simplest solution. It allows 1upt battles without the hassle of moving. Except no stacking with seige. Then we would all get a super defender and put the on a tile with our 6 seige units and GG.

Sorry I missed where you brought up the same problem that I did. Good thinking

 

[Conspirator]

Well I don't agree that if you stacked a warrior with an archer that it would be any more powerful than if it was a warrior by itself. That is because to the defender there wouldn't be two units to defeat, just the warrior. So a simple bombardment followed by an attack would destroy both units, leaving the attacker weakened. Another example: a large stack of 5 artillery, with a very good defender, wouldn't be over powered because all units would be vulnerable to a small attack (bombardment and two attacks let's say), as opposed to if all the units were spread out making it necessary to have at least 6 units to defeat the 5 artillery and one defender if they were spread out.

MkLh, well having mounted units when the enemy has none, you can do exactly what you describe right now without stacking. If the enemy has no units that are in attacking range of your mounted units it wouldn't make a difference if they were stacked or spread out around the city. In fact it would be easier to defeat them all with a single surprise attack if they were stacked.

Another thing that would help to deter the use of stacks in actual battle would be that if bombarded the whole stack would be damaged, similar to Civ 4. In my opinion the only difference the one-defender stack would bring to the game would be easier movement around the map, it wouldn't effect battles at all because stacking would be very dangerous when other units are in range.

One defender stack would solve all the problems whilst still retaining all the benefits of 1upt. Including negate the necessity of the insta-heal promotion.

 

[Mikkow]

Several ideas in this thread are often wildly unrealistic changes. They cannot be implemented because the change is too great, requiring too much redevelopment. The time for that is passed. But some rule changes that are not too extreme are a possibility.

Suggested solution to AI and human player logistics issues in moving and fighting with troops.

Summary: Permit stacking in such a way as to make them next to useless in combat, but permits moving troops in a simpler way. Should significantly resolve the frustrating aspect of redeploying units for human and AI. Closely follows the existing design philosophy. Idea inspired by "combat width" and "strategic redeployment" in Hearts of Iron series.

Description: When two or more units on land occupy the same hex, the following occurs:

- They cannot attack.
- Siege units cannot deploy.
- No medic bonus.
- No defensive bonuses from terrain or tile improvements.
- If attacked, their combat strength is the average of all the units in the stack, with all appropriate modifiers these units would have received if it was only them in the hex. In addition a 20% penalty per additional unit occupying the hex.
- The damage the 'stack' receives from combat is imposed on all units in the stack.

Example 1: A stack of two catapults and a strong melee unit are stacked together. If attacked by an equally strong melee unit, the defending stack has a weak melee combat strength because of the two catapults. The outcome could be the destruction of all three units.

Example 2: After attacking, a friendly melee unit is left with very low hitpoints and no movement points left on a forested hill. It is within range of the enemy. If the player attempts to save this unit by moving a fresh strong melee unit into the same hex, they lose the advantageous defensive terrain bonuses and run the likely risk of both being destroyed when attacked. There is no way to try to use more strong troops stacked to one's advantage here.


Suggestion for improving trade network and neutral units

Neutral units no longer block trade routes. Must be at war to block.

 

[Kerosene31]

I completely disagree with the OP. As far as I'm concerned, late game tedium is fixed, which I think it's a huge acheivement for TBS. The complaints of 'realism' all apply equally to the stack system. There might be some room for improvement in the AI and so forth, but by no means is this system a 'failed experiment'.

In particular, I have to take issue with point number 5. 'Surface area' is a hugely important military concept. Those traffic jams have doomed many large armies in history. At Cannae, the superior Roman force was surrounded such that the guys in the middle could not join the fight!

The whole plan for operation Overlord was a question of how to get your superior force into France in such away that they can exploit their superiority? Landing everyone on the Beach would be doomed to failure precisely for such traffic jams as a large army is prone to have.

The AI is having trouble dealing with these issues now, but I bet by the end of the Civ5 era you'll be facing the 'Deep Blue' of civ combat, and wish for the days when you could win! (Ok, thats an exaggeration. I gotta call myself out there.)

Never again will I assemble 50 units over 20 turns and drag them around the map in a stack. That is not a failed experiment, it's a no brainer.

Don't you remember the Battle of Thermopylae where a small force was instantly obliterated by a huge unit stack?

Your point is dead on. Moving armies is tedious, just like in real life.

I think what Civ V needs is a small formation grouping. Make a group of 2-3 units where the melee units stay in front and the ranged units are in back. It could only be 1 unit wide, but you could make a train instead of a stack and movement would be less annoying.