Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by The Snug, Sep 26, 2010.
How about taking your army across the water? There's a tiresome task...
its more general, its to make the generally terribly dull warring in civ actually tactically challenging. so importing a mini wargame into civ is the way to do it.
No, the intent of the 1upt was to make Civ combat more tactical and alike Panzer General. Having more than 1 unit per tile would ruin that completely. Quite frankly I think we have too much resources though. With production so low, an iron mine or two is more than enough. Late game there are no "oil wars" that they mentioned because I'm practically swimming in a pool of oil by that time.
The major issues with 1UPT:
- Difficulty in arranging your units when they can only move 2 tiles at a time. Which means you end up playing one of those old picture puzzle games with the missing piece where you slid the pieces around into the hole to unscramble the picture. Allowing us a base movement rate of 3 would help a lot.
- Archers only have a range of 2. Which means they pretty much have to crawl up the backsides of the melee to have a chance of hitting something. Couple that with the 2 tile movement speed and you have a bottleneck. Range of 2 is okay, but more advanced versions of an archer with a range of 3 would give you more options.
- Siege engines with a range of only 2. Now you have a unit with less health then the ranged archers, which has to spend a movement point to setup, and most of the time can't hit anything. Siege should probably have a range of 3 and cannons and higher a range of 4. Let them setup back from the front lines (especially modern artillery).
- When going from a system where you can stack dozens of units on a single tile to one where you are forcing 1UPT, the tiles need to represent less physical distance and you need more of them on the game board to keep the same feel. Cities being able to work 36 tiles instead of only 20 is part of this, but the limits on range of only 2 units works against being able to spread out over a larger area and still have combat.
But you can do this! Select a unit you want to replace, send it to the spot of the fresh unit. Nothing will happen. Now take the fresh unit and send it to the spot of the wonded unit. Voilá!
Actually I agree with the OP. My favorite design so far has been the armies. I'm not so in to the strategic combat though, so I understand if some people like the strategic combat style better.
I didn't like the endless stack of random units either.
I like the idea of a limited number making up an army that is one tile. Like you could have 4 or 5 and they add offense and defense. Archers add offense and no defense, swordsmen add both, pikemen some defense and a little offense, etc.
Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy if they took units out of the game completely. Have a budget sheet for military research and military upkeep and drafting, and split to navy, army, etc. Then when you declare war, click strategic locations to fight on the map and let the military advisor handle it! I'd be just fine with that.
Dude, a mech infantry shouldn't have to worry about a crossbowmen (or 1000) shooing from a distance, especially since irl a modern military unit would outrange a crossbow.
1 is just as far from infinity as 2 or 3 or a billion is.
Jeez enough of the whining... its like we're coming up with ridiculous hypotheticals that really occur as exceptions in the game. If you have mech infantry and are fighitng crossbowmen, how often are your mech infantry really winning? Probably if your a half decent player hehe 90% of the time!
I find it insane to think that the civ with the crossbowmen (while your trecking across there lands in mech infantry) are all kitted and geared up like medieval warriors. I roleplay a little in my head perhaps, when i say that in the modern era, if there lumped with such obsolete units, its probably among there crossbowmen they've snaffled a few RPG's and other guerrilla gear!
Irl more like >99% of the time.
This has been discussed to death
"limited stacks" are stupid because if you don't have the maximum number of units on the tile than you're mini-stack is simply fighting at lower than maximum capacity. At that point, why not just simply make it so you can only have 1 unit per tile?
i said nothing about irl. i do not care about irl, irl should have no bearing on discussion of game mechanics. the way the game works, a large group of ranged units grouped around a city can, through focused fire sometimes take out a more modern unit. i don't have a problem with that, because its a serious tactical blunder to send a single mechanized infantry unsupported against a city that is even a little defended.
this whole thread is degenerating into yet another realism vs. gameplay debate. and its a stupid, pointless debate. if you want true realism out of the game, start a mod, but don;t be surprised when the majority of people don't enjoy it.
V's combat is set up, and balanced very well (it would be if the AI knew how to handle it anyways) the mechanics are balanced. I think its a lot of fun. moving away from 1upt and into a system when each tile holds one of each class of unit just homogenizes the whole mess. its neither interesting nor dynamic, its just bashing stacks together. we did that for 4 games. change is good.
Since when is it a tactical blunder to send a mech infantry unsupported against medieval era units?
You admitted that irl this would not be a tactical blunder. Are you suggesting that Civ 5's military tactics should be different than actual military tactics? That isn't fair or fun when Mech infantry using vehicles with kdern vomposite reinforced hulls get penetrated by a bunch of crossbowmen.
I don't see how that makes it bad. Yeah you have to produce to make your army, that's not a bad thing. You make it multiple so you can customize your army, move units out, have some damaged, move in elite ones etc etc. i don't know, to me, choices like that are what make a game fun. Do I make an army of 5 infantry because I already have a unit of tanks mowing down their machine gunners or should I give it some support units too just in case it gets ambushed?
Dude, I'm 3 era's ahead in the game. I don't want to fight, I just want to win and get it over with so that I can move onto the next level. I don't want my mech inf's to get crushed by iron era units, I just want to roll and win and move on to something more challenging.
1000 crossbowman would just drop their xbows, approach from cover then charge the APC and tip it over. Machine guns are amazing vs unarmored opponents but they're not THAT amazing.
Now of course if you were able to set things up such that they'd have to charge across a flat plain with zero obstruction then yea it'd kill them no problem.
my biggest problem with 1upt is that it's extremely dull to push armies through narrow passages
Civ 5's combat system is intended to be tactical. Gunpowder was among the most important tactical revolutions in the history of warfare, yet suddenly the combat system gets strategically based, hence why tanks have 1 hex range.
Therefore, you can have tactically based units and strategically based units fighting on the same map with the same in map scale yet differen intended scales.
This is getting ridiculous.
There is a swap option. Just have a unit move onto the tile of another unit, and both units have to be able to complete the move. I don't know if they have to be adjacent, but I think they do.
I think workers should act like great people and be able to stack under normal units so you can build improvements and roads with no issues. Other than that I love teh no stacking now it makes it much more tactical
Separate names with a comma.