It simply means that you'd have to ungarrison the city and move that unit out before you can move a different unit into the city.
Arioch's Analyst Thread
- Thread starter AriochIV
- Start date
It simply means that you'd have to ungarrison the city and move that unit out before you can move a different unit into the city.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
That's assuming Naval units can Garrison cities. I see no reason why a naval unit would be able to garrison a city, and so it probably can't enter a city...ever. (I could see some Industrial Naval building that changes this.)
Their is nothing stopping a unit moving into a city (thats not to say naval units will ever be allowed into a city, they may be built immdiately on the ocean tile) unless a unit is already garrisoned in their. So if a naval unit can move into a city, all it needs to have is no garrison, and hey presto, BC panamal cannal is open.
I liked it when it was in civ3, but no it wouldnt work very well with 1upt.
stealth_nsk
Deity
There are people who think small stacks are better than 1UPT. But they are minority here. And having only minor number of stacks is worse than both approaches.
I prefer the current style:
- GG could stay on the say time with military unit, since it's non-military unit itself.
- It grants combat bonuses to the unit and adjacent units.
It's serves the same goal as armies.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I think people need to start thinking of their entire army as their army. Just because everything isn't on the same tile doesn't mean they aren't acting together (in fact, they have to be). Basically Civ5 fudges with the scale to give you tactical battles on a strategic map (like they've fudged the scale in every other aspect of the game, such as unit production/movement with relation to time).
Krikkitone, if I understand you correctly, you're belief is that canal cities wouldn't work because of the unit in the city? There are two problems with this. For starters, naval units can stack with land units (transports can be escorted in the water, for example) and you can move through units as long as you don't end your turn on the same tile (so you can still move through that garrisoned city).
Krikkitone, if I understand you correctly, you're belief is that canal cities wouldn't work because of the unit in the city? There are two problems with this. For starters, naval units can stack with land units (transports can be escorted in the water, for example) and you can move through units as long as you don't end your turn on the same tile (so you can still move through that garrisoned city).
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
Using cities as canals was somewhat stupid from realism aspect, I'd love to see it gone and replaced. A proper canal improvement could allow naval units to enter land tiles AND give a tax income, so the tile is not wasted.
Semmel
Large Sid Meiers Collider
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2010
- Messages
- 233
Pre-emptive judging is very powerful, I must admit. I dont know if 1upt is better than the old ways. And I am certainly not slamming you. It is for sure different. But your whole argument is a self inducing truth. Or a self fulfilling prophecy. If you say you will not like the game because of what ever reason. Than you dont like the game for exactly that reason. If you keep an open mind, you can still decide whether or not to like it. Anyway.. Its not really possible to argue about taste. If you dont like it, you dont like it. End of story, I dont tell you otherwise. I just tell you the consequences but I dont have to understand your point of view and I dont have to agree with you either.
Hey myself!
Technically Civ3 style Generals making 3 unit armys could work in 1UpT under a few conditions.
1. Their strength could not be 300% more than any normal unit, because they would be too powerful, perhaps instead it could get say 100-150% strength, (150% isn't too much) and then 200-300% health. So 150% Strength with 200% Health over a normal unit, or 100% Strength but with 300% Health, these two seem like reasonable General abilities.
2. The 3 man army can only be comprised of the same unit type, i.e no horses+spear+sword for a % bonus against everything.
3. Great General appearance would need to be decreased somewhat, as these armies will be quite strong, certainly stronger than the current citadel ability in my opinion, as it gives a bonus to both attacking and defending and not just defending, so to not unbalance the game it would need to be balanced
. How it would work under 1UpT rules is that the great general moves onto the hex where a unit lies, and then select create an army, then you can move units of the same type as the "generals army" into the hex and it will instantly merge into an army of 2, and then an army of 3 with the third man in, then the army will emerge general amoungst, and have its turn ready to use. Seems easy enough.
Hey presto, civ3 generals converted into civ5, a bit hard to do as a mod, but if Jon Shafer is looking for ideas to buff the game in an expansion pack, all the great people can gain additional abilities, and this can be the great generals.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Yes, they could, but why? Single-unit monsters could be reached with unit promotions as is were in Civ 4 where you could utilize GG this way. And in Civ 5 you could just have GG on the same tile with unit for similar effect.
Peng Qi
Emperor
That linear tree makes it FAR FAR more strategic. In Civ4, the fact that there are so many required techs REMOVES choice from the player. The linear tree means you can choose to powertech on a single line, focus on two lines, focus on three, or tech evenly. You can also pursue one line up to a specific desired tech, then abandon that line entirely and go after another one.
If you think about it for two seconds, the tech tree you've decried as "simplistic" provides far more strategic options than the tangled mess of a tech tree Civ4 gave you.
stealth_nsk
Deity
Frigate data from older screenshot, before naval units strength was revisited. We don't know current stats.
Mercade
the Counsellor
Arioch, you might mention atop the page that the international release date is 24 September 2010.
And naturally that the playable demo will be released on 21 September 2010 through Steam.
And naturally that the playable demo will be released on 21 September 2010 through Steam.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
No my belief is the only unit that can move into a city is the garrison unit (all other units are produced there)
Naval units can't be garrisons, hence they are only in a city when they are produced there (and must move out at end of turn)
Basically this simplifies the game as cities need no 'special rules' naval units only move onto naval tiles. (you will never have to worry about catrching someone's ships 'in port' or razing a city with your ship in it.)
A proper Canal could then either be
1. a Tile Improvement
or
2. a City building that allows naval units to enter the City.
.That was how they decided to implement the generals ability in Civ4, this guy was asking if Civ3's general bonus could be implemented to work with Civ5, as for Civ4's general bonus, yes that would work on Civ5 without modification.
He did not ask for me to justify whether or not it should, just if it could.
As for why would we want it back?, I think it was a cool ability, they tried to re-implement it on Civ-Rev but when "an army" can be made with every unit you build they may as well have not bothered, the fact that it is a general ability makes it rare and a valuable tactical ability.
Why have it in? I think having a larger group of units in this "army" than in a normal group and having 3x the normal health of the unit (i.e 30) would be a nice tactical addition, the unit wouldn't be overpowered in strength just take longer than normal units to kill, it would survive over 3 attacks from archers for example where as a normal unit would die from so much bombardment. It would also have its limits, 30 hit points would take a long time to heal, although say a bushido general army or a jannisaries general army would definitely be a thing to fear lol.
SJSerio
Centurion
To both of the above statements, the answer would likely be to make only units of the same type stackable. This still gives you the tactical part that you are so craving, but greatly reduces the micromanagement aspect of all the individual units. (That is just my quick answer!)
Realism/Scale,
Thornburne, what you are doing is assuming a tile represents thousands of miles squared, why do you assume so, Civ is a fictional game, whos to say its landmass of the entire civ planet will be anything like ours, perhaps Civ is based on pocket universes with planets of much smaller dimensions, perhaps the only thing "too scale" in Civ are the humans that have setteled there, which if you look at them, appear to tower over the landscapes like giant monsters.
As I have said, nothing about Civ Shouts out "To Scale", the Units are (according to you) a thousand miles squared in size, (yeah because thats believeable), The cities are equally stupendous, the rivers in the game can be walked over like a puddle, Infinite units in a X amount of land is unrealistic, whos to say the tile doesn't represent 10mm of land, you only assume it represents thousands of miles sqaured because you want to try and fit the landscapes into your idea of reality, Civ has barely any basis in reality, I mean we arent seeing landscapes that defy laws of physics or anything with some really cool looking mess on the map like a bunch of wiggly squiggly lines, but thats about as far as it goes in reality. It tries to simulate a game where humanity can develop over some 6,000 years in a 4 hour game span, quite an accomplishment that this is achieved, however "Realism" and "Scale" goes right out the window, and argueing your points based on what would be believeable or not is entirely pointless. Half of Civ is unrealistic but you may not yet throw your PC out of the window because of it, Civ still brings fun and enjoyment to the table, just because games aren't "realistic" doesn't make them unplayable, I play plenty of sci-fi games which really try to be as unbelieveable as possible, sometimes the fictional stuff is fun too.
Gee... CIV is fictional? Then why are Rome and Egypt and George Washington and Queen Elizabeth in the game? If not putting any reality in the game makes it better, then why not have names like Dallon and Tyrria for Civs and such? CIV is a game that is based on history and reality. I like sci-fi and fantasy games, too. But this is not a sci-fi game. The fantasy comes into the "what if" scenarios that occur as you play. That goes out the window when the concept is completely altered and reality is stretched too thin. Yes, one has to suspend certain notions when playing the game. But too much suspension, and the magic of the game is lost!
To that note, you say that the sizes of the tiles are purely my own imagination... Take a look at the standard Earth maps that ship with the game for reference. When compared to a map of earth, each tile covers a huge amount of space. To say that a single tile is only large enough to hold one unit is crazy. It is too much!!! OUPT works when you play a game on a more focused scale. The scope of Civilization is far beyond that. I could go on... but I have to go out and don't have much time. I will end this part by saying that if you envision CIV as how you described... that is fine! Don't rob me of how I imagine and interperut the game!
So, the only way that I can discuss this further is if I go to this other thread (which I shall do when I have the time) and read every thought and argument... then change my opinion... only then I may come back and discuss it further? I'm sorry, but that seems a little arrogant. I would hope that after reading it, should I conclude that I am still right, I may return and state so as well.
PS: I did a search and went through a few pages but could not locate the thread you were talking about. Could you please post a link to the thread?
You make a good argument, Semmel! Still, too many are arguing that OUPT is the HOLY GRAIL of the Civilization franchise and chastizing anyone who disagrees or offers other perspectives. I did not mean to say that you, specifically, were slamming me, but, like politics, a different view then the vocal majority or minority turns one into a pinata. Unfortunately, I am Sicilian and Irish and refuse to go down without a fight
Anyway, yes, I may just well be setting myself up for a self fulfilled prophecy. But all I want is for a game that will satisfy me (and as many other people as possible). Sadly, it looks like I will have to wait for somebody who is like-minded to me and skilled at programming to save the day with a mod that provides that. Unfortunately, I have found with CIV IV that too many mods had elements I liked, but I still have not found that perfect combination.
In the end, my biggest problem with OUPT is that while I remain skeptical, others have grasped it with varying degrees. Some truly like the idea. Some only like it because Firaxis says that it is great and Firaxis can do no wrong. I just feel that Firaxis has totally disregarded my feelings as a fan of the series for what they think (whether they turn out to be right or not) as the best path for the game. I love Firaxis and Sid, and everybody, but I know that they are human. They could very well be wrong.
Similar threads
