1 unit per hex: failed experiment

[man-erg]

I actually like the idea of unit congestion, because its more realistic.

With the assumed size of hexes being many miles across, perhaps 100 miles, 1 unit per hex is totally UN-realistic!!!

The Mongol horde just isn't the same when it's 3 horse regiments spread across 300 miles. What about D-Day? They crammed 150,000 troops into what is, in Civ, about 4 hexes? Napoleon marched over 500,000 troops into Russia! The Persians had at least and in different tiles. I don't get why some are so opposed to the idea building a large SOD. A "SOD" is just another term for what in the real world is called an "Army". 100,000 at Thermopylae...etc etc. History is filled with mega-battles, not the little skirmishes we get in Civ5. In Civ5, you can no longer use such armies.

There were problems with the SOD, primarily the combat resolution 1 unit at a time. This was tedious - but exactly the same as in Civ5, only now we have far less units Virtually the entire economy of the UK was, for over 5 years, geared to churning out military units, so why the complaints about doing the same in previous Civs? It was the implementation of a large army consisting of different unit types in previous Civs, not the concept, that was at fault.

A straightforward fact: realistically, at the scale of Civ5, a hex should be able to hold HUGE numbers of military. How this is done is the question...and the Civ5 way is far *less* realistic than previous - it is a totally abstracted game mechanic.

 

[CarpeDiem]

it's probably been mentioned but it's annoying if a friendly civ (open borders) is on your land you cant put a worker on that tile!

 

[ohioastronomy]

it's probably been mentioned but it's annoying if a friendly civ (open borders) is on your land you cant put a worker on that tile!

I've had to build railroad bypasses around allied city-state army units that went to sleep on my roads.

 

[CreepyD]

It seems like what's needed is a return to the good old SOD, but implemented in a way that combines the stack together in some clever way so it fights as 1 unit.

 

[phil9999uk]

It seems like what's needed is a return to the good old SOD,

Incorrect.

 

[vandyr]

With the assumed size of hexes being many miles across, perhaps 100 miles, 1 unit per hex is totally UN-realistic!!!

I'm talking about tactical realism...obviously...nothing is to scale in any of the civ games. It takes hundreds of years to train a warrior, or five hundred years to travel from one coast to another, etc. If you're going to nitpick about actual realism, then you shouldn't be playing any version of the Civilization series.

1upt is a better representation of realistic tactical combat than SoD ever was.

 

[phil9999uk]

To the people saying its not realistic having one unit when real armies had thousands, well having a stack of 20 swordsmen is not realistic either then. There will be scale issues no matter what you do. If your looking for realistic warfare with thousands of troops go and play a total war game.

 

[phil9999uk]

I'm talking about tactical realism...obviously...nothing is to scale in any of the civ games. It takes hundreds of years to train a warrior, or five hundred years to travel from one coast to another, etc. If you're going to nitpick about actual realism, then you shouldn't be playing any version of the Civilization series.

1upt is a better representation of realistic tactical combat than SoD ever was.

So true, well said. I posted mine before I read yours.

 

[need my speed]

No, 'stack of dooms' are superior, in my opinion at least. You say 1 unit per tile is more tactical, well, why don't we have it then, that if a unit attacks a stack of doom and wins, the whole stack is killed? That would be the best, in my opinion.

 

[ohioastronomy]

I'm talking about tactical realism...obviously...nothing is to scale in any of the civ games. It takes hundreds of years to train a warrior, or five hundred years to travel from one coast to another, etc. If you're going to nitpick about actual realism, then you shouldn't be playing any version of the Civilization series.

1upt is a better representation of realistic tactical combat than SoD ever was.

I can see the point in theory. But I honestly can't see it in practice and at this scale. What I usually have is a puzzle to solve with a half-dozen units or less. And it's the sort of puzzle that would have large wooden blocks and 10 pieces if it was in your house.

The lack of stacking means that completely artificial game elements always end up determining what you do: the mechanics of moving gets in the way of strategy. My favorite current example: bring a worker on an invasion force. They're immortal and serve as wonderful bait!

 

[man-erg]

To the people saying its not realistic having one unit when real armies had thousands, well having a stack of 20 swordsmen is not realistic either then.

Why not? It's more realistic to have all the units fighting over one tile, than to have separate armies of just one type. And since when is archers shooting over mountains realistic? Assuming a unit is a "regiment" or thereabouts, to have many in one hex/square is fine. I agree that 20 in one tile is too many and there should be a limit, but Civ5 has gone to the other extreme.

If your looking for realistic warfare with thousands of troops go and play a total war game.

And if I'm looking for tactical hex wargames, I'll go play panzer general, TOAW, Steel Panthers etc NOT a Civ game!

What I'm looking for in Civ is a somewhat believable abstraction that can get the feel of what happens when a nations builds a huge army, yet doesn't have huge micromanagement. SOD was a much more realistic representation of big national armies, however the problem was the tedious micromanagement and the way the combat results were calculated.

What I usually have is a puzzle to solve with a half-dozen units or less. And it's the sort of puzzle that would have large wooden blocks and 10 pieces if it was in your house.

Yes! I think it may take a little time for some people to realise how trivial and weak the new system is.

 

[Mathochism]

Eh, at least I got what I wanted.

Turn-based tactical hex wargaming + large-scale empire building. I've been waiting for this genre fusion for God knows how long.

 

[Jediron]

Jusy some solutions for a SOD type gamestyle:

20 arties on a stack ? Fire ALL option on that city/other enemy stack; instead of twenty, indepented orders with 20 indepented "animations". One for one is indeed a pain in the ass.

Another one: Why could the AI figure a city/assault out by itself, instead of letting do the work all by yourself; for most it is quite obvious the same route over and over again; arty first, then mobile armor/horses, then sword and other small moving attsack forces.

Why not combining forces in packs ? Flexible packs, where you can add (like the arrmy-unit) but also extract unit from ? Once again; much more manageble. Just three examples how to make managing much more do-able with alot of units under your control. Without losing any charm of the old warstyle, infact; even better i think.

The current 1 upt style is way too "gamey" for me and anyone who's calling it "more tactical" doesn't have a clue what he or she is talking about. Because it ain't. If it was, tell me:
why is the AI even now so dumb to NOT take advantage of it ?

 

[hewhoknowsall]

I'm talking about tactical realism...obviously...nothing is to scale in any of the civ games. It takes hundreds of years to train a warrior, or five hundred years to travel from one coast to another, etc. If you're going to nitpick about actual realism, then you shouldn't be playing any version of the Civilization series.

1upt is a better representation of realistic tactical combat than SoD ever was.

Even from a tactical realism standpoint, archers should not be outranging tanks.

 

[mrt144]

Why not? It's more realistic to have all the units fighting over one tile, than to have separate armies of just one type. And since when is archers shooting over mountains realistic? Assuming a unit is a "regiment" or thereabouts, to have many in one hex/square is fine. I agree that 20 in one tile is too many and there should be a limit, but Civ5 has gone to the other extreme.


And if I'm looking for tactical hex wargames, I'll go play panzer general, TOAW, Steel Panthers etc NOT a Civ game!

What I'm looking for in Civ is a somewhat believable abstraction that can get the feel of what happens when a nations builds a huge army, yet doesn't have huge micromanagement. SOD was a much more realistic representation of big national armies, however the problem was the tedious micromanagement and the way the combat results were calculated.


Yes! I think it may take a little time for some people to realise how trivial and weak the new system is.

This is what I think makes me not mind the SoDs as much considering micromanagement has been shifted with 1upt to playing a puzzle of moving your units. Combat and warfare in Civ is definitely an abstraction and a means to an end. I've never felt that having the most interesting or most realistic or most tactile warfare system in Civ was ever very important.

But once the gravity on having a great warfare system is implimented it better not screw the pooch in implementation, which it has.

 

[Jediron]

True. What i miss, and i think alot of us here; is the grand scale of things. Epic battles, just like the famous battles in the past. Which, to some extend, we endure with the older CIV's; huge masses of tanks, arty, inf, etc.. with glorious Generals & Armies. Battering it out on the front.

Now, i play on King, and notice i conquer the whole continent, with four other CIV's, with the glorious power of a handfull of archers and spears. I just cannot see where the fun lies in this ?
It feels more like i just walking a bit around, with a few units, killed alot of barbs and one by one, destroyed the other CIV's on the continent with two fingers in my nose.

Afcource, when i arrive at the other continet; i shall be into a surprise; maybe. But for me, half the game is boring; very boring.

Best way to implement more fun for the wargaming type of player and at the same time feels realistic, is the way TW have done it. Strategic affairs are handled on a large scale map, battles are fought out in a zoomed in areas; in 3D, realtime!

The only thing better then that is everything on the same map, but then, you have to use really BIG maps, with a Massive amount of tiles to even come close.

Doing it the way they have done now, well, i would say; read the comments

 

[JBConquests]

That's in no way necessarily the case. It might make the game run faster, but it won't necessarily mean the AI is better and such a design could often makes things worse as it kinda did here. You are likely conflating several other factors, but a more accurate list of what would make the AI better would really start with things like:

-less dependence on luck or random chance
-less distinction between different units and environmental/other effects on units - in our case, this would mean fewer and less important promotions, terrain bonuses, etc...
-fewer possible actions for units to take (we're mostly good here, yes there are ranged and melee attacks but not like wargames where each unit has several types of attack/defense)

So yes, a "simpler" system allows more easily for the AI to compete. This is not the same as "fewer units" - just aiming for "fewer units" could in fact end up with the exact opposite, with the human being even more effective with the tactical choices available and no AI advantage in scale or numbers.

In some scenarios that is probably true. In other scenarios, with 1upt, where you have every square of an entire island filled with units (say 40 units), could make for some pretty dumb ai as the AI struggles with trying to figure out how to reshuffle them in a way that makes tactical sense...

 

[brianshapiro]

Because making it "general dependant" means you're not able to really guarantee getting them. Battling 1v1 would still be very common. Even if you were able to get 2 generals, that's still only two stacks of 3, You could, very reasonably, have a nation that did not focus on great generals (or simply currently lacks them) and field 8-9 individual units to try and pluck away at the stack.

Containing an army also becomes more possible, rather than outright obliteration, as a stack cannot outflank anything. Ranged units should also damage every unit in the stack simultaneously, rather than one at a time like melee.

The stack would be powerful, but there are drawbacks.

Saying a stack of three is the smallest you'd ever use is nonsense, anyway. Say you have a wide border and want to garrison units along it to prevent pillaging, and only have four units. You build forts at checkpoints and put one unit in a fort. Or, lets say if you group a spearman with a horseman it slows the horsemen down to 1 tile per turn, are you going to want to do that? No -- you'll want to group the archer with the spearman, and then use two horsemen to sneak around the flanks in ambush, and if there are any extra moves, escape in good time to keep them protected against counterattacks.

If there are any unit balance problems, its a problem with the unit capabilities, and not the stacking system.

There's really a lack of imagination in that claim. And imo you could avoid both the messiness of stacks and the need for generals, by having a 'grouping' system rather than a regular stacking system. You move one unit into the other and it asks 'do you want to group these units?' If you say yes, you move them as one unit, and when you're ready to disband, you click an icon 'disperse group'.

 

[Grimberht]

Let me make a balanced contribution here, It might have been stated before but I dont want to read 14 pages worth of complaining that I most likely have seen on other threads

The idea behind getting the Stack of Doom madness is a great one. It was one of the most stupid and unrealistic feature in previous Civs game.

But the 1upt creates a whole new range of dumbness that really need to be fix. For exemple the map exploit now where you can just block the AI until you ready to settler or to let him die off on a tundra penisula by blocking his movement with unit... even Worker (which fastly become a useless commodoty anyway).

The middle ground seem a lot more logical which is to establish a LIMIT on UPT. which would most definitly stop/slow the map abuse and help the poor AI in managing combat. It would definitly put pressure on player to build more unit and be more challenging overall.

My point is that 1upt implementation to solve the stack of doom problem is like someone who commit suicide to solve his own sadness... it a bit too extreme.

 

[the Wahoo boy]

Moderator Action: *snip*