Civ 5 - less units!?

[MeteorPunch]

As long as the limit on units is not there because the system cannot handle them when modded, I guess it's okay.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Single file lines of atrittion?!? Is that really the only tactic you can concoct. You do you LOA I'll do something half way competent.

I really like 1upt. Defending citys will not be harder, because you will have units around the city to help defend, if the enemy has surounded your city then you deserve to lose it. Also less units won't feel less epic, since my current army of 300 units is not yet at it's max size I'd say less units is good.

 

[Crazy George]

I for one love the change, because it introduces actual strategy and will put a lot more people into the multiplayer scene. Rather than stacking as many units as possible, the game will revolve further upon intelligent army formations and movement in the battlefield. Fights will actually take intelligence rather than the simple matter of stack attacking and hoping you get lucky.

OK. So here's the new Strategy.
For whatever reason, I want Ghandi to stay alive, but Monty wants me to join forces with him and rid the world of Ghandi's vile presence. What's an ally to do?

Ah, I know. I'll declare war on Ghandi and keep my bonuses with Monty, but send my most incompetent generals to lead the troops. I can almost hear Monty screaming with rage, "Get your troops out of the way. You're restricting my flow to the front. How can I advance my units effectively as long as your unit just sits there. Don't you know that's a choke point? Move it!"

"What's that, Monty? I'm sitting on a choke point? You don't say? Huh? How'd that happen? No. No. Don't help me out. I think I got it. If things keep on going this way, turn after next it'll be time to retreat."

 

[LeHam]

What I would really like to know is whether or not the loser of a fight will still be destroyed entirely or not.

Exactly. If you're going to have--let alone be forced to through high costs--less units, units should not be defeated after just one battle. In CivIV, mounted units and some others can retreat, but even then the odds are low. My uber-Axeman should not die after going one round with a Spearman--why can't he retreat, as well, and only suffer partial damage? Mounted units could still get an advantage. For example, units with less movement points than their opponent are "run down" when retreating, so they will always die if they lose a battle against faster units.

 

[Suho1004]

It has already been said that units will not die if they lose a battle, hasn't it?

 

[civ_king]

Which brings me back to my original point. How are you going to defend a city if you can only have one unit on the city tile !!! ???

Yea, I know - wait and see

IIRC you can't have units in the city, the defenses attack and defend for you

 

[Ahriman]

OK. So here's the new Strategy.

Yeah, I'm worried about this kind of thing.

It has already been said that units will not die if they lose a battle, hasn't it?

It has now. It hadn't on March 9, which I made the comment.

My guess is, we'll be moving to a system something like Battle for Wesnoth. Each unit has a strength value and a hit point value. Unless your strength massively exceeds your opponent, you won't be able to kill them in a single attack with a single unit, but they'll still die when they run out of hit points.

IIRC you can't have units in the city, the defenses attack and defend for you

Yes, though they've also said that you can also somehow "combine" a unit with a city too. Unclear what this means.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Your stratgey doesn't work. It has been stated that friendly units can move through each other, therefore, even if allied units can't stack Monty can still just move through you.

 

[aMoralAtheist]

it'll become Civilization: Total War.

I pray it does.

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

My guess is, we'll be moving to a system something like Battle for Wesnoth. Each unit has a strength value and a hit point value. Unless your strength massively exceeds your opponent, you won't be able to kill them in a single attack with a single unit, but they'll still die when they run out of hit points.

I really like Wesnoth, though I think it could really use an entrenchment system of some kind to bring the strategy to its full potential.

Fewer units are a good thing, PG limits unit counts in all its scenarios, when your defensive or offensive lines are more then 3 units deep its quite hard to manage. I think something like 1 unit for every 3-4 tiles on the map is the most that should be allowed.

 

[Suho1004]

It has now. It hadn't on March 9, which I made the comment.

My bad! I didn't realize the comment was made so long ago.

It's hard to keep up with things sometimes...

 

[Ahriman]

Your stratgey doesn't work. It has been stated that friendly units can move through each other, therefore, even if allied units can't stack Monty can still just move through you.

It *does* work if there are chokepoints, and I fill that chokepoint 2 deep with units.

You can move through me only if you can reach a free space to move into on the other side.

I really like Wesnoth, though I think it could really use an entrenchment system of some kind to bring the strategy to its full potential.

I think that the favorable terrain bonuses already do this.
Also, the game is designed to encourage mobility, not standing lines of trench warfare.

 

[Spit Fire]

I wonder if there will be modern archers... like snipers.

 

[Sonereal]

I wonder if there will be modern archers... like snipers.

There won't probably. The idea that a few snipers can bog down to what amounts to possibly several hundred or possibly several thousand men in a "Unit" doesn't make sense.

On subject, I don't care if they're less units as long as the number isn't limited by game mechanics.

 

[Spit Fire]

I don't think they would, by themselves, but they would act like archers and hide behind normal infantry as help.

I don't care about how many just the ratio of units

 

[Impaler[WrG]]

There won't probably. The idea that a few snipers can bog down to what amounts to possibly several hundred or possibly several thousand men in a "Unit" doesn't make sense.

On subject, I don't care if they're less units as long as the number isn't limited by game mechanics.

Agreed their not a good unit, but Sniper might make a good promotion for Infantry. Maybe enemy units can't move for a turn after engaging the promoted unit or enemies don't use full strength values against the promoted unit. It would be a bit like the suppression concept that PG had with level-bombers.

 

[redmosquito]

and when a unit dies you can find him in the tavern

 

[Depravo]

The more I hear about Civ 5 the better I like it.

 

[Ahriman]

I wonder if there will be modern archers... like snipers

See this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=359569
(after the first few pages anyway).

The thread morphs into a discussion about bombardment on infantry. There are many people who think it is "self-evident" that all gunpowder and modern units will be ranged bombardment units. I reeeally hope this isn't true.

Snipers, to me, feel a bit too tactical though to be modeled at the scale of Civ; any infantry company will have its own snipers, you won't have a separate Sniper Division roaming around the map.

 

[Chalks]

I think snipers could potentially be a nice modern equivalent to archers though - a support unit that would be weak if it found itself on the front line.

A choke covered by numerous snipers is pretty well defended and it would be unlikely that a unit could simply walk through without taking damage. It's certainly a concept that's found in relatively modern wars.

As Impaler mentions, perhaps it would be best as an upgrade for infantry (to allow them to attack at range) but I'd only like to see that implemented if it was a choice between multiple viable options so you don't just end up giving every infantry unit snipers.