Civ V Ideas & Suggestions Summary

[Dudu42]

I dont get it.

Could someone explain me why hard caps are bad ideas?
Because it is... "arbitrary"?
And one per tile is better because it is... "less arbitrary"?

I dont see why we couldnt make something like small armies of 3 units. Maybe some units could be excludent, like sam and artillery, ranged and meelee. That sounds a good idea to me.

And the infinite workers sounds even better IMO. My point is to clear the tiles a bit. It's just nonsense when the movements of your unit are messed by your very units.
The workers stack is surely more urgent, I think.

 

[rysmiel]

I dont get it.

Could someone explain me why hard caps are bad ideas?
Because it is... "arbitrary"?
And one per tile is better because it is... "less arbitrary"?

One per tile isn't better. Any limit to number of units on a tile is bad.

 

[Camikaze]

I dont get it.

Could someone explain me why hard caps are bad ideas?

They limit the options available to the player, for starters. I don't think the player should be limited in what they can do, just penalised for doing the wrong thing. The other main reason hard caps are a bad idea is that they simply switch the number of units in a stack needed to as the optimal strategy. If you limit stacks at 5, then the dominant strategy is going to be to have stacks of 5 going around everywhere. It doesn't actually solve the problem, just limits it, at the same time as limiting the player. Exponential, or even linear penalties, on the other hand, allow the player the rule array of options, making you actually weigh up what will be advantageous in a given situation, varying the strategy, so you don't just have stacks of a certain number going around.

Another reason is that specifying a particular number simply makes no sense. Why 5? Why 6? Why any particular number?

And one per tile is better because it is... "less arbitrary"?

It is the least arbitrary number that can be chosen, because it is the minimum endpoint of the hard cap spectrum.

I dont see why we couldnt make something like small armies of 3 units. Maybe some units could be excludent, like sam and artillery, ranged and meelee. That sounds a good idea to me.

Why 3?

Also, this just means groups of 3 will be going around everywhere, rather than singular units, or groups of 10 or 20.

And the infinite workers sounds even better IMO. My point is to clear the tiles a bit. It's just nonsense when the movements of your unit are messed by your very units.
The workers stack is surely more urgent, I think.

Perhaps this is so. But not if involving a hard cap.

 

[Dudu42]

About the hard caps. Its all about tile usage.
Im not complaining about the strategy. I really enjoyed the end of "Stack of Doom", one per tile is just better. But I think some battles become too crowded in choke points, needlessly. And they could low the unit cost a bit (just a bit, I like them a bit uncommom).

I chose 3, it's a sugestion. It's arbitrary, but the game is full of them, so that's not a good point to me. 3 is small, but more than enough to clean the tiles.

---------------------

Ok, enough of hard caps

I have another sugestion:
The return of book wonders!

I was thinking about the old Sun Tzu Art of War and Theory Evolution (could be represented as Origin of Species.)
There's a lot of books. Philosofiae Naturalis & Principia Matematica (Newton), Lusiadas (Camoes), The Prince (from Machiavelli).
No need to be only books. Just all kings of cultural Masterpieces with huge influence around the globe. Instead of using hammers for production, they could use culture... they also could be built by a great person (like Principia from a great scientist).

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

For me, the answer to this whole tile stack thing is the following points:

1) Each type of tile can have a different stack limit depending on what type of tile it is. eg: a plains tile might allow more room than a forest tile.

2) Each unit is given a size attribute. Therefore you can fit different amounts of different types of units on tiles. eg: A tank might have size=4 (say) and if the tile stack limit is 5 (say), then only 1 tank could fit on there but a unit of size 1 could join it.

3) Tile stack limits can change over time depending on techs, policies, buildings etc.

Implementation of the above ideas could create some flexability for modders.
egs:

a leader characteristic that adds 1 to tile stacks for a specific tile type such as a jungle

a civilization with a unique unit that has a smaller size than other civs with parallel unit

stack limit could be smaller when in enemy territory

a worker improvement such as a road could increase the stack limit of a tile, a mine could decrease it.

 

[Dudu42]

Interesting ideas, Rusty Gamer.

Also, putting all into a stack isnt necessarily the best strat.
We have the flanking ability, so putting 2 units on both sides of enemy might be better than stack them. Also, we could use some collateral damage againd...

 

[Camikaze]

Even if the hard caps are different for different terrain types and change over time, it's still arbitrary, and still an unnecessary limitation on the player.

 

[Dudu42]

The science bonus is arbitrary, the food in a tile is arbitrary. The strengh of units is also arbitrary.
I dont see how this could be a issue exclusively for stacks, Camikaze.

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

You could say everything in the game is "arbitrary". Each stack level limit would allow for different game strategy. A one stack limt requires a certain strategy, a two-stack another and so on. Limitations are defined so that the game is acutally strategic, not just a free-for-all. Otherwise, why not just allow unlimited units that cost next to nothing with rediculously high amounts for attack, defense, movement and range ability and go for it? If you want to do that, you might as well play an RTS. But there's already a MOD for unlimited stack ability in any case so why the gripe?

 

[Camikaze]

The science bonus is arbitrary, the food in a tile is arbitrary. The strengh of units is also arbitrary.
I dont see how this could be a issue exclusively for stacks, Camikaze.

Those are not arbitrary limitations.

You could say everything in the game is "arbitrary". Each stack level limit would allow for different game strategy. A one stack limt requires a certain strategy, a two-stack another and so on. Limitations are defined so that the game is acutally strategic, not just a free-for-all. Otherwise, why not just allow unlimited units that cost next to nothing with rediculously high amounts for attack, defense, movement and range ability and go for it? If you want to do that, you might as well play an RTS. But there's already a MOD for unlimited stack ability in any case so why the gripe?

When there is no other way to solve a problem, then arbitrary limitations are acceptable. But in the case of stacks, there are other ways to solve the problem, namely by the introduction of a series of penalties that impact largely on stacks. A single exponential penalty based solely on the number of units in a stack would be one way to do it. A number of penalties that in conjunction created this effect would be another, and perhaps better way. These would firstly not actually prevent you from having stacks, and would allow for a greater variety of strategic options and considerations, dependent upon the individual situation.

 

[dexters]

Good discussion. Camikaze, wouldn't the the penalty of stacking more than one unit also be an arbitrary value?

I like Rusty's suggestion of a puzzle like approach to it. Where tiles have 'capacity'

The current capacity is '1' warfighting unit and '1' worker/non fighting unit.

THose numbers are already arbitrary.

 

[Camikaze]

Good discussion. Camikaze, wouldn't the the penalty of stacking more than one unit also be an arbitrary value?

Yes, but again, it wouldn't be an arbitrary limitation.

I'm just going to take a pretty straight forward example of what the penalty could be to illustrate my point.

x is the number of units in a stack.
y is the percentage penalty applied to the stack (0 ≤ y ≤1).

So, when x=1, you would want y=0, and as x → ∞, you would want y → 1. That much is fairly simple. A logarithmic function is the best way to realistically place firm penalties on stacks of size. To create such a function, that would simply have to choose one single point to fix. That single point is an arbitrary choice (although not a limitation in any way), but all other points are simply consequences of that. This is an arbitrary choice that is acceptable, as is the amount of happiness received from a colosseum, or the amount of research needed for a tech, and would be determined to fit in with game balance.

So, just to round off the example, if we wanted to place a penalty on a unit in a stack of 10, of 50%, then for x=10, y=0.5. So the equation here would be log₁₀₀x=y (assuming my maths knowledge hasn't completed deserted me). This can then be translated to determine a penalty for a unit within a stack of any number. Seems a good way to solve the issue, to me, and requires only an arbitrary equation number (dependent on balance issues) rather than an arbitrary limitation on the player.

I like Rusty's suggestion of a puzzle like approach to it. Where tiles have 'capacity'

The current capacity is '1' warfighting unit and '1' worker/non fighting unit.

THose numbers are already arbitrary.

1 is, however, the least arbitrary number possible to be chosen for a hard cap, given it is a point of extremity.

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

A single exponential penalty based solely on the number of units in a stack would be one way to do it

For what is suggested here, this might be a little simplistic. You would also have to take into account the type of units such as ranged and/or armoured. You could end up with an incredibly complex formula which may never be perfect, tweaked and adjusted every time another unforseen combination instance arose exposing the equation as out of balance.

If we allow for stacking, do we also allow for units from different civs to be in the same tile?

I'm personally for the idea of increased stacking ability primarily based on some sort of logistics tech. I've already suggested having a size for units but have come up with an alternative idea. Instead of having a size attribute, the stack limit could be reached simply by adding up the units' attack and/or defense abilities. You could even have two stack limits - an attack stack limit and a defense stack limit, both of which could also be affected depending on the type of terrain. What type of logistics you choose to research could become a strategic decision, even an either or situation - do you want to emphasise attack or defense - and this choice could affect your entire game plan.

 

[Camikaze]

I too think a singular penalty is a little simplistic, but that a few penalties should be implemented to have the same effect. None of these would have to be too complex, and in combination, would be very effective. One of the major points of this would be that you would be able to take advantage of the penalties and minimise them for certain strategic situations. For example, if there was a cost penalty also dependent on distance, you could afford a varying number of units in a stack depending on how far from your borders you are. But the overall effect of the penalties would still be one of generally discouraging stacking.

Remember, the aim shouldn't be to not allow stacking; a hard cap does that perfectly well, as does one unit per tile. The aim should be to disincentivise stacking.

And if you allow stacking, then yes, you do allow units from different civs on the one tile. That's a detail, not a key issue, though.

 

[Dudu42]

Some minor changes, I think, about transporting troops trough the water tiles.

I like the automatic transportation. Way better than building a transport, for sure.
But still, it's weird to see troops instantly getting into a boat in the middle of nowhere.

Shoudn't be better if they had to pass trough a friendly city?
(scouts should keep the automatic board, to keep exploring isolated isles).

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

A "bug?" appears to be when sending a unit more than one tile away. It doesn't always do it in the most efficient manner - for instance, it might go straight into a forest and have to wait one more turn when it could've got to the target tile in one turn had it gone via a clear piece of land - nor does it seem to know to avoid city-state borders. I've peeved them off accidentally at least a couple of time this way.

 

[guspasho]

A "bug?" appears to be when sending a unit more than one tile away. It doesn't always do it in the most efficient manner - for instance, it might go straight into a forest and have to wait one more turn when it could've got to the target tile in one turn had it gone via a clear piece of land - nor does it seem to know to avoid city-state borders. I've peeved them off accidentally at least a couple of time this way.

That has ALWAYS been a problem! I wish they would figure out how to fix it already!

 

[Camikaze]

@Dudu42- Perhaps just having to pass through friendly territory should be necessary (i.e. not neutral territory), rather than friendly cities.

@The Rusty Gamer- Might be a good idea to post that in the bug reports forum. Sounds dodgy.

Guys, it's probably a good idea to move discussion from this thread to this thread. It's the replacement for this thread (which was designed as a Pre Civ5 discussion thread).

 

[PestWulf]

*self delete*

 

[Scilly_guy]

I'm not going to contribute anything useful, I'm just going to put it out there that I like 1upt, yes sometimes it annoys me maybe there could be some tweaks, especially with naval units and embarked units, workers and other non combat units, but apart from that I like it.