1 unit per hex: failed experiment

[Vordeo]

Disagree with OP.

Because a system needs work does not make it unworkable.

Good riddance to stacks.

This.

1000 times this.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Excellent OP, and I agree completely.
[...]

An even better solution is to eliminate individual (sword, spear, horse) units entirely as map entities and use them as points that can be assigned to leaders which together would form an army, which would appear on the map. Movement allowances would have to be increased significantly (say 100 mp) so that historical movement rates could be achieved. Wars would typically be concluded in one strategic turn, at least until the modern eras. Movement would be simultaneous for all players, and done in one hex pulses, with armies moving through clear terrain and / or with faster subunits moving more often as they arrive at their next objective sooner and are available for further instructions.

[...]

Brilliant. It's not a perfect analogy, but this immediately made me think of the Design Workshop - one of my favourite aspects of SMAC (Alpha Centauri) and never seen in Civ games. Yes, it's not a perfect analogy, because the units you brewed up in SMAC were map entities, and it didn't use a points system, units were more or less expensive to build depending on how high-spec/how many special abilities you loaded them with. Nonetheless, I like the idea of a roll-your-own army solution.

And, of course, you couldn't later dismantle the SMAC units into components, but some way of dismantling an army would be need here. This suggests the idea of accumulating 'Army Points' (or whatever), another form of currency - that could be traded, obtained from city states etc etc. Armies could be dismantled to give you their points back.

I suspect the idea has deep flaws I haven't spotted, but it sounds like something that could be fun.

 

[Zenstrive]

I enjoy 1 UPT. It gives the game more strategic feel. If you feel you will be choked in that point, move around and flank. Units also have attack and defence when battling (attack or being attacked), unless they are ranged. Planes will be shot at by numerous units when they fly by.

Agree that civ units should be able to be stacked as much as possible (WORKERS making ROADS!)

 

[gonzo562]

I like the 1 unit per hex

 

[migkillertwo]

I've told you a million times not to exagerate.

What strategy can you use, that you can't also employ with 10 units on a tile?

Your argument for 1UPT is that it stops stacks of 10 units killing your smaller stack. Well, 10 units in the field placed all over the show will still kill your smaller army, the only difference is it'll take you 10 minutues to move them all providing they can actually move past the NPC unit that gets in the way.

how about actual friggin battle lines? There's none of that stacking combat

 

[Zaelen]

The OP can easily be rewritten as, "The AI is terrible and production bonuses are not as valuable as scientific ones". While there are some key points, especially scale, the difficulties in making 1upt work are no less significant than SoD. I generally think that the biggest issues is the scaling of the hexes. A City should occupy a ring several hexes in size while hex size itself is reduced by at least 1/2 of what it is now. This would declog the game space without ruining the change of strategy brought by 1upt. A city shouldn't be surrounded by 6 units.. it should take more like 36.

 

[Brawndo]

An even better solution is to eliminate individual (sword, spear, horse) units entirely as map entities and use them as points that can be assigned to leaders which together would form an army, which would appear on the map. Movement allowances would have to be increased significantly (say 100 mp) so that historical movement rates could be achieved. Wars would typically be concluded in one strategic turn, at least until the modern eras. Movement would be simultaneous for all players, and done in one hex pulses, with armies moving through clear terrain and / or with faster subunits moving more often as they arrive at their next objective sooner and are available for further instructions.

(E.G. every unit on the map for every side could be given an order to move on pulse 100, on pulse 99 any opposing armies that were in the same hex would resolve combat, any units that had not moved on turn 100 could be given orders, as well as any units that had completed their orders.)

In my scheme there would be few armies on the map during peacetime. City garrisons and a few small units watching the borders would be all that would be active normally. Units active on the map would pay 1gp per turn per point of strength in maintenance. Units that moved would pay 2gp per turn per point. Most empires in peacetime would keep a majority of their strength in depot / port at a cost of .5 gp per turn per point. During the movement phase you could create and army / fleet by placing a leader unit in a friendly tile and assigning forces to it at a cost of -10 movement points to the army / fleet (and the higher maintenance until such time as you disbanded that unit).

Armies would be important not only for their composition, but for their leaders and the doctrinal bonuses learned through technology that could provide situational or non-situational bonuses to strength. I realize that this is a system for Civ6 and has no chance of being adopted at this late date, but it would be superior and honestly it (or any of 100 better systems) should have been done many years ago. It's ridiculous to keep trying to implement 1960s wargaming paradigms in a game that is so extremely poorly suited for them.

I like a lot of what you wrote, but I disagree with the 100mp deal for armies. In ancient times, armies were severely limited by logistics so they couldn't move as far or as fast as an equal size force today. I think the movement for armies should start low but increase over the eras as certain techs are researched (ex. Horseback Riding in the ancient era, Mechanized Transportation or Combustion in the industrial era)

 

[Bridger]

I would be in favor of a limited stacking whereby overstacking is penalized by every unit losing 1 health per overstacked unit. This would simulate the difficulty in supplying and feeding such a large force in such a small area (foraging). New technologies would improve your supply lines so you could stack more units.

 

[CornPlanter]

Yet another thread where the OP presents his personal biased opinion as the objective truth of life. Boring.

Moderator Action: Please make constructive posts (in this case, criticisms) or don't post at all. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[HighHandz]

I agree with Corn Planter!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Brilliant. It's not a perfect analogy, but this immediately made me think of the Design Workshop - one of my favourite aspects of SMAC (Alpha Centauri) and never seen in Civ games. Yes, it's not a perfect analogy, because the units you brewed up in SMAC were map entities, and it didn't use a points system, units were more or less expensive to build depending on how high-spec/how many special abilities you loaded them with. Nonetheless, I like the idea of a roll-your-own army solution.

And, of course, you couldn't later dismantle the SMAC units into components, but some way of dismantling an army would be need here. This suggests the idea of accumulating 'Army Points' (or whatever), another form of currency - that could be traded, obtained from city states etc etc. Armies could be dismantled to give you their points back.

I suspect the idea has deep flaws I haven't spotted, but it sounds like something that could be fun.

This would probably be the best idea..keep 1upt AND Stacks...

ie there is only 1 unit per tile... that unit IS "the stack".

When one Stack attacks another, one Entire Stack attacks the other Entire Stack.

The nature of the 'stack components' would have to be revised, but they had to be revised when removing stacks, why not when removing units.

 

[SewerStarFish]

I've only played a few games but so far I like the 1uph system. I certainly see some of the complaints as valid but I am enjoying the idea of a tight cadre of front line troops followed by range troops.

I definitely find it impossible to judge the new system as a failure: like every other iteration of Civ, you have to figure out how best to utilize the new stuff. Even if you've played 24/7 since release you can not have mastered this yet.

I am worried about some peoples' AI concerns as I don't play multiplayer and a poor AI will be a bummer.

 

[Stefanskantine]

Diasagree completely with OP. 1 unit per hex has really reinvigorated my interest in combat in civ. Is it realistic that longbowman can shoot over a distance that is three times the size of London? No. But is it fun strategizing and moving units around in the game? Absolutely.

Yes, the AI is a bit handicapped right now. But I believe it will recieve some improvements in patches and expansions. Honestly, I am more interested in the potential for some exciting multiplayer action once everything is patched up.

Stacks are just so... boring. Even limited stacks would be boring. With limited stacking you could stack a pike, crossbow, and longsword in every hex. Where's the strategy in that? Strategy comes from making decisions that have trade offs. Like, putting a crossbow in this hex will give me range and more firepower, at the expense of weakness to melee attack. Any stack based game just comes down to production, as in who can make the biggest/most stacks. No thanks.

 

[ohioastronomy]

I would be in favor of a limited stacking whereby overstacking is penalized by every unit losing 1 health per overstacked unit. This would simulate the difficulty in supplying and feeding such a large force in such a small area (foraging). New technologies would improve your supply lines so you could stack more units.

Europa Universalis 3 has an example of that: you can pile up whatever you want, but units suffer severe attrition if they exceed the supply limit for a province.

I can't think of a single wargame which combines low movement points and no piece stacking. To put it another way, would the no-stacking advocates here really be complaining if you could put 2 units together and ancient era ranged units had to be adjacent to (range) attack? Because those of us who like being able to use roads, and move workers around, and so on would be a whole lot happier. And the AI would play a *lot* better without gridlock. It would feel a lot different from Civ 4 and it could work. (I'd prefer an army solution as noted above, which also has the virtue of being a better simulation - but that would probably be a different game.)

 

[ohioastronomy]

Diasagree completely with OP. 1 unit per hex has really reinvigorated my interest in combat in civ. Is it realistic that longbowman can shoot over a distance that is three times the size of London? No. But is it fun strategizing and moving units around in the game? Absolutely.

Yes, the AI is a bit handicapped right now. But I believe it will recieve some improvements in patches and expansions. Honestly, I am more interested in the potential for some exciting multiplayer action once everything is patched up.

Stacks are just so... boring. Even limited stacks would be boring. With limited stacking you could stack a pike, crossbow, and longsword in every hex. Where's the strategy in that? Strategy comes from making decisions that have trade offs. Like, putting a crossbow in this hex will give me range and more firepower, at the expense of weakness to melee attack. Any stack based game just comes down to production, as in who can make the biggest/most stacks. No thanks.

I get that you like the new system - but is it really, really, really your position that a game with a limit of 2 is the same as infinity? Take your example: I see a lot more tactical choice if I can combine units - do I go for a stronger front line, or mix and match a ranged unit with a melee one? You could add combined arms bonuses for various combinations, add the convenience of moving stacks together, and so on. It's all in the details. And the AI might actually have a chance.

 

[R3dKnight]

How about implementing 'attacks of opportunity' to avoid situations where attackers have all the advantage when moving because he will never get fired at, unless he chose to be?

Similar to aircraft interceptions mechanics, a city should function like a citadel, with a slight difference - it is capable of dealing damage to hostile units attempting to move away from its adjacent tiles. This is to counter horsemen or other high movement units which are capable of moving after attacks, rendering retaliations nigh impossible or highly unlikely even with its counter unit - the spearmen. It also makes retreating a costly affair as well. I believe ordering a retreat is a costly affair when the defenders' guns are aimed at your soldier's backs and this mechanic should reflect it.

For units, perhaps a machine gunner for ranged attack would suffice. During enemy's turn, he'll also function like a citadel, able to inflict damage coming into its line of fire.

 

[anacardo]

JollyRogerer for lead designer of CivVI. His concept is basically auto-the greatest game of all time.

 

[spiffamoo]

Disagree with OP here. In civ 4 war basically boiled down to production. Produce more and you will triumph eventually. Those times of trying to wear down a stacks of 50+ units was simply an exercise in exploiting collateral damage. The tactical aspect of it was really quite lacking.

now in civ V war is simply more engaging and thoughtful. I think its true though, that sometimes the AI seems severely lacking. However, there have been times when I have been surprised by Catherine or Napoleon blitzing my cities and crushing my counterattacks. It appears that the 'personality' of different AIs also impacts their ability to wage war, sometimes quite detrimentally.

 

[the343danny]

Limited stacking does not help the problem at all. Its not even a solution. Now all the tactics there is would be archers/spear stack. Counter units then become only a counter for defense. Just like Civ 4.
The game doesnt run slow at all. It runs much faster than Civ 4 for me. Roads are pretty critical unless you are stomping over an enemy, which can be difficult if your enemy is flooding in muskets and elephants while you have a few xbows and some pikes and camel archers. Well Im sorry you are unable to only use a few units at once. Try to use more elaborate maneuvers instead of marching strait at the enemy; Im sure you will be able to use more with that.

I do agree that the AI is bad, but was Civ combat AI any worse? Surprisingly even though it used a simple stack system and even with a better AI mod, the AI could easily be trumped in war with less units. I also agree that insta-heal promotion is just bad.

 

[aimlessgun]

boredatwork really hits the nail on the head.

The problem is scale. Scale scale scale. The maps are too small for 1upt, which in itself is a vast improvement over stacks.

If maps were large enough, and you could maintain larger armies, you could have some really neat tactical combat (given improved AI). But as it stands, battles are just a huge mess because the maps are running on a Civ4 scale and the combat system is fit for an entirely new scale.

When I heard about 1upt I assumed that they would be changing the whole scale of the game, so that you won't have cities only a few tiles apart, so that a single tile couldn't represent hundreds of square miles of territory. But unfortunately they didn't.

The insane cost of unit upkeep feels like a bandaid fix to the fact that the scale of the maps was far too small for large armies. Instead of rescaling the game, they tried to throttle empire and unit creation.