From the E3 article about the hands off demo: http://gamerlimit.com/2010/06/e310-civilization-v-hands-off-demo-hexagon-fury/
This makes me think that putting a line or two of weak, cheap units in relation to current-era units (think warriors vs axes) in front of a line or two of current ranged units (cats) could be an ideal strategy. The enemy can only position so many units where they could attack your forces, and they can only attack once per turn (presumably). They attack your warriors with their axes (or the Civ5 equivalent), which hopefully soaks up two hits. This affords them one hit vs. a cat in the back row. You lose a good number of warriors and maybe a cat, but then your cats can devastate their axes. You lose X cheap warriors, but get to destroy more or less that many of their axes, so you come out ahead in terms of hammers. Fill in the spots with more meatshields and repeat.
The concept is that you can attack with more units than they can if you have more siege within attack range- since melee units have to fill up a square to attack, and then no other units can attack from that square, creating a shortage of a tactical resource (squares from which they can attack from) while avoiding such a limitation for yourself (ranged units don't use up squares). This lets you attack with more units per turn, which should translate directly to more damage dealt hammer-wise. Furthermore, you limit the cost of such a manouver by using as cheap of units as possible, increasing the hammer loss differential.
I'm hoping this won't be the case- if both sides set up such a formation, it could easily stalemate, especially with the fairly low unit movements. I'd expect roads to be hugely important for the defender to force the attacker to send more meatshields or punish their backlines.
PS- I used to play Advance Wars competitively, where infantry backed by artillery/tanks (harder hitting units) was ideal. Civ5 looks more and more to me like it will mimic the AW combat style.
This makes me think that putting a line or two of weak, cheap units in relation to current-era units (think warriors vs axes) in front of a line or two of current ranged units (cats) could be an ideal strategy. The enemy can only position so many units where they could attack your forces, and they can only attack once per turn (presumably). They attack your warriors with their axes (or the Civ5 equivalent), which hopefully soaks up two hits. This affords them one hit vs. a cat in the back row. You lose a good number of warriors and maybe a cat, but then your cats can devastate their axes. You lose X cheap warriors, but get to destroy more or less that many of their axes, so you come out ahead in terms of hammers. Fill in the spots with more meatshields and repeat.
The concept is that you can attack with more units than they can if you have more siege within attack range- since melee units have to fill up a square to attack, and then no other units can attack from that square, creating a shortage of a tactical resource (squares from which they can attack from) while avoiding such a limitation for yourself (ranged units don't use up squares). This lets you attack with more units per turn, which should translate directly to more damage dealt hammer-wise. Furthermore, you limit the cost of such a manouver by using as cheap of units as possible, increasing the hammer loss differential.
I'm hoping this won't be the case- if both sides set up such a formation, it could easily stalemate, especially with the fairly low unit movements. I'd expect roads to be hugely important for the defender to force the attacker to send more meatshields or punish their backlines.
PS- I used to play Advance Wars competitively, where infantry backed by artillery/tanks (harder hitting units) was ideal. Civ5 looks more and more to me like it will mimic the AW combat style.
