1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

CIV VI : To Stack or Not to Stack . Contemplating the Alternitives to 1 UPT

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Rusty Edge, Jul 6, 2014.

  1. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    This is as good a place as any to discuss Civilization siege/artillery. It is the counter to the use of stacks.

    What I liked about it in CivIII was the randomness of it. Using it carried a risk. You were as likely to destroy the farm they occupied as the enemy. More of a problem when it's your own territory.

    When you were attacking a city you wanted to hit the walls, barracks, and defenders. You might hit the people, airport, aqueduct and bank first. Could you destroy the wonder, too? I forget. The point is that using artillery gave you an advantage, but it also could destroy the very thing you hoped to capture in the process. Every salvo was a gamble. It was exciting.

    IV took the "suicide siege " approach, where they became disposable, like the ammunition they fired.

    I think the problem in both games was that they were over-represented. Too cheap and too cost effective. The balance needed to be changed.

    A proposal was made here that in V, the siege units actually attach to other units, Civ IV great general style. They would confer abilities such as defense reduction, and what amounted to a first strike with a different graphic. The benefits were that it would limit the proportion of siege, and make the function more realistic and less of a gamey mechanic. Unattached, they would be as vulnerable as a GG.

    Another idea is that you couldn't have more siege units than cities. That is sort of "gamey", but not as gamey as the IV idea that siege units are nimble enough to dodge collateral damage from other siege. Even less gamey is to build an arsenal to support each siege unit. That way you wouldn't have your siege ceiling rapidly raised during a successful war campaign.


    Today I'm wondering about combining these concepts. Bring back the random target approach from III. Adopt the attachment proposal. Adopt the arsenal proposal.

    To put it in musket era terms- attaching an artillery battery to a line infantry unit would allow it to attack the enemy unit defenses ( by driving them back from their prepared positions ) before advancing, 12 pounder Napoleon -style. If the line infantry is defeated, the artillery detaches and remains where it was. When defending, the battery gets a first strike and the artillery is lost when the infantry is lost. When subject to artillery attack, it shoots back.

    If a battery is attached to a cavalry unit, it directly attacks the enemy, 6 pounder horse artillery "galloper gun" style. It also provides cover fire ( does additional damage) when defending or forced to retreat. It lives and dies with the cavalry, but does not engage in counter-battery fire ( shoot back).

    If a battery is attached to a General unit, it becomes a breaching battery, mortars naval size cannons -style , which is capable of reducing city defenses, counter-battery fire, and a defensive first strike. Since it's attached to a General with no defenses, it can be captured when the General is defeated..

    The rest depends on whether it's a 1 UPT tactical battle or a stackable battle.
     
  2. jackboy900

    jackboy900 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2013
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    Dubai
    ever play total war a a similar system like that would work if adapted to civ

    basically you could build limited armies (maybe based off civ size and/or barracks ect.) and upon coming into contact with another army

    a)You calculate based off army size

    or

    b)You enter a tactical map approx. 20x smaller than a normal hex in which there is 1UPT

    this pleases AI, micromanagers and all others
     
  3. mitsho

    mitsho Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    6,952
    Location:
    Europe, more or less
    the problem is, single battles take too much time when playing the entirety of history (just imagine having to do 4 battles a war...) and you basically create two games in one. The latter is one of the major problems of the total war series which then puts its focus on the single battle simulations which are cool and fun to be honest, but they pull the attention away from the "empire builder" that civ is supposed to be first and foremost.

    Civ's system should be simple, intuitive or logical and offer variety, especially over the eras. So warfare should change, but still use a consistent basic system for the player to use. To top it all, there should be enough variation for the player to not find the optimal way (too soon).

    One of my ideas here would be to have "commanders" that can be "specialised" to various roles. They'd have x slots where each one can be filled with a unit(s) of a certain type. The specialisation would influence the types (how many "cavalry" f.e.) and maybe stuff like healing rates, movement, etc. Cities would have garrison slots but would promote via buildings. The choices here would be whether f.e. to put "city guards" (for extra stability) or "archers" (for more strength against sieges) into the slots. Combat would be non-definitive (both sides may survive) and auto-play mostly with only a few options for the player to interact ("stance before the battle", "sound retreat", etc. ...).

    This may already be too complicated, but it eliminates single units and thus allows the map to breathe. There would be other units on the map like spies, missionaries, trade units, scouts and settlers.
     
  4. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    Rome Total War was one of the best computer games I've ever played. I enjoyed the part about the leaders. Unlike the Civ series, where I regularly find myself staying up well past my bed time , as recently as last night, trying to play one more turn, just to find out what happens next, RTW got a bit repetitive.

    To be fair, the tactical combat in Sid's Pirates! could get repetitive also. The problem there was probably repeated battles for the same city in order to capture it.

    Rather than stacks, maybe we need to bring back Civ III armies. I prefer cities raising their own regiments, much the same as our familiar units. Swordsmen, catapults, and so forth. The regiments would be named "The 1st Athenian Spearmen", "The 1st Memphis Chariots", The XXI Antium Legion, etc.

    Then they could be consolidated into a permanent entity. That would give us the freedom to create marching, mounted, mechanized, or integrated armies. Or armies of only spears and archers to defeat the enemy chariot armies, should the need arise. A mounted army would be great for attacking and pillaging, but not so good for defending. An army with trebs would be good at taking down walled cities, but it wouldn't move fast.

    The size limit would increase with era and technology to become divisions and corps, etc. You could add scouts for visibillity, medical for healing, and "teamster" regiments for supply. Maybe even a priest or Great Prophet for morale, or a Great Merchant to finance the maintenance and upgrades.

    Not so different than the way cities grow over time with improvements to achieve larger sizes. You raise regiments to build an army.

    With the emergence of armies, individual regiments, incrementally lose their abilities to enter into enemy territory, attack in friendly territory, or defend outside of a city. They retreat instead, before they fall prey to a combined army. It could work the same way for divisions in the later game.

    The benefit of this approach is that as the game progresses, your units consolidate and remain easier to handle.

    If CIV was "Civ Rock, Paper, Scissors, and CiV was "Civ Panzer General", I guess this half-baked proposal is "Civ Risk".
     
  5. Molybdeus

    Molybdeus Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    528
    The problem is not 1UPT but rather combining 1UPT with a map-based production system. Ultimately the designers of the next game have to choose between 1UPT and using tiles for production values in cities.
     

Share This Page