A compromise with 1 unit per tile / Bring back civ 4 population based gold

[Endureth]

I propose a simple solution to add an exciting combat dynamic to the game. It is a compromise between the old stacking system and the new one unit per tile.

How to handle stacking:

• Each tile has a "max load" stat which represents how many units it can support without overcrowding. (You can even call this new tile stat 'portage')
• Empty plains, grasslands, tundra and deserts can hold 3 units
• Hilly or forested terrain can hold 2 units
• Hilly AND forested terrain can hold 1 unit
• Improvements do not affect this number
• Cities always have a "max load" of 3
• Workers, settlers and generals cost nothing (this way you can still stack workers to build improvements faster or for storage)

This will bring back the feel of having the stacks from previous civs while adding dimension to the battlefield as terrain would naturally (and realistically) hinder movement of large armies somewhat.

----------

Also, bring back the Civ 4 style of gold from town improvements. Like when you built a cottage you got one gold from the the improvement. When the tile is worked over time the amount of gold collected increases as the tile becomes a town, then a city, etc.

This was WAY better than the current method of just throwing down a trading post. It also would be more appealing visually.

----------

Also, do you realize you can have the technology to build chariot archers without knowing horseback riding or archery?

 

[Conspirator]

Both good suggestions.

 

[emblemfire]

I hope you know some modders, as those ideas make sense to me.

 

[drachasor]

I don't like the slow improvement of cottages in 4. It overpowered pillaging on such towns. I did, however, like the visual effect and how it made cities look bigger and more sprawling.

 

[Conspirator]

Not really, they didn't give that much money and simply taking over the city was best. Besides defending villages gave the game some strategy.

 

[drachasor]

Not really, they didn't give that much money and simply taking over the city was best. Besides defending villages gave the game some strategy.

It was overpowered in crippling the economy of an enemy civ if you couldn't take the city. And you already have an incentive to defend your improvements, so you don't need to add more, really.

 

[mamuz]

Ok, there's a stack of 3 units : longbowman, pikeman, horse.

I attack with an horse. I don't want that a REALLY BAD AI chooses to send my horse to death against the pikes. I want to be able to attack the longbowman.

I'm not against stacking. I'm against the fact that a computer controls MY armies when i attack. Your proposition offers no compromise.

 

[storman]

How to handle stacking:

• Each tile has a "max load" stat which represents how many units it can support without overcrowding. (You can even call this new tile stat 'portage')

To me, 1 unit per tile for combat purpose is not an issue. It is the movement of the units which is causing the problem. When each tile allow different number of units. this issue gets worse. For instance, you have 3 units on plain but cannot move them onto hill because that tile takes only 2 units. It is tedium for human, very very bad for AI as the AI cannot even handle 1UPT effectively as it is now.

 

[jpinard]

Ok, there's a stack of 3 units : longbowman, pikeman, horse.

I attack with an horse. I don't want that a REALLY BAD AI chooses to send my horse to death against the pikes. I want to be able to attack the longbowman.

I'm not against stacking. I'm against the fact that a computer controls MY armies when i attack. Your proposition offers no compromise.

That would be super easy to prioritize for the AI.

I like this idea a lot... though I don't know if 3 units on a hex is too much.

 

[Mac2411]

How to handle stacking:

• Each tile has a "max load" stat which represents how many units it can support without overcrowding. (You can even call this new tile stat 'portage')

To me, 1 unit per tile for combat purpose is not an issue. It is the movement of the units which is causing the problem. When each tile allow different number of units. this issue gets worse. For instance, you have 3 units on plain but cannot move them onto hill because that tile takes only 2 units. It is tedium for human, very very bad for AI as the AI cannot even handle 1UPT effectively as it is now.

I would agree with this.

 

[drachasor]

Eh, I'd rather they go with an alpha-centauri-like route and you customize units with your technology. What you pump out are ARMIES, with varying degrees of ranged ability, melee ability, movement, etc. The trickiest thing would be providing a simple and easy interface to split up one army or combine armies they are no longer "full." So that you could tell your calvary in an army to leave it if they had to rush back to defense or something. Though I guess one could go without splitting armies up at all and it would still work better, imho.

 

[Endureth]

I'm glad you guys like the idea.

The problem with which unit in the stack actually attacks/defends, etc:

I also had an idea dealing with ordered combat. What I mean by that is players conduct all their combat moves before resolution of combat. If you've ever played the board game Axis and Allies, you'll understand and love this idea. Basically a player's turn would work exactly the same way as it does now with the exception of combat.

During the player's turn they would issue all the combat orders to their units and the game would draw cool arrows on the ground drawing out cool looking attack paths (like the arrows for ranged units except on the ground like you see in old WW2 books http://www.lindavdahl.com/FrontPage_Links/Attack on Bataan 1942.Map.htm). Then once the player hit a shiny new "Execute Attacks" button, the computer would run ALL player's attacks at the same time. Interesting things could happen during this 'resolution phase' based on factors such as: unit speed (horses and tanks getting 'fast attack like bonuses'); scout-like units getting ambush modifiers if they are defending a forested hex, artillery going off at sensible times during the resolution, etc. At the end, all victorious units would proceed to the next hex. Moving into combat already takes up all of a unit's movement so nothing really changes in that department.

Aircraft observation missions and submarines could have special rules allowing them to attack independently either before or after combat resolution. Maybe some indian civ traits allow this ability as well. There are lots of cool things you could easily integrate into a system like this.

In cases where more than 3 units would end up occupying the same hex after an attack (as is the case with many, many units attacking a city for instance) the occupying player would be allowed to choose which 3 units moved forward along with all generals. The general's have to move if they attack.

Imagine how a system like this could be really cool in pvp as player's would have to plan their moves each turn and try to trick or out maneuver his opponent. This also kinda eliminates the advantages some player's get just because they can move the mouse faster in games and brings it down to I guess what you could call chess speed..

I dunno, just some ideas I had for what I would consider the perfect game.

The rabbit hole goes even deeper too.

.

 

[Becephalus]

Eh, I'd rather they go with an alpha-centauri-like route and you customize units with your technology. What you pump out are ARMIES, with varying degrees of ranged ability, melee ability, movement, etc. The trickiest thing would be providing a simple and easy interface to split up one army or combine armies they are no longer "full."

I am all on board with this and think it is the logical end point of 1 unit per tile. Though I am not sure I would allow splitting. You just dial up an army when you recruit it. And can then add more modules onto it later if need be. Your number of modules could be tied to some logistics tech or something.

So modules could never be alone.

 

[Jerrymander]

Also, do you realize you can have the technology to build chariot archers without knowing horseback riding or archery?

Well, is Horseback Riding necessary for chariots? You didn't need HBR in Civ4 for chariots, either.

 

[ohioastronomy]

You could give combined arms advantages similar to what is already in the game with adjacent pieces.

 

[Xanikk999]

Agree with the above poster, the whole reason they used chariots throughout early ancient history was because they did not yet breed a warhorse capable of carrying a rider into combat at that time.

Once they did chariots were obselete and just used for ceremonial purposes and racing.