CIV VII: 1UPT, Stack of Doom or Carpet of Doom. What's your prefs?

[BuchiTaton]

Custom armies are still an option. Instead of separated very specific groups of units cramming the map and taking an eternity to resolve each "battle", better reduce the number of militar "entities" to move around in the form of armies composed by personalized groups of units.
Each army would gain their parameters by the combination of units, formation, promotions, commander, etc. Included a preset of battle orders/tactics like want your army to assault, make a fake retreat, gain time, ambush, chase the enemy, defend to the last troop, etc. So each army would be like a RPG character and their units would be like their equipment.
Visually the units that form each army would be visible in the same tile, that from previous games I guess could be something between 6 to 10 units that still would be recognizable sharing the same tile. The combat action would not need any separated window/interfase, the battle would be represented in the same way just with a mix of units doing certain animations based on the outcome from the combat stats for the battle.

This allows to have battles as more concise scaled, space and time saving events, plus armies would still be personalized and time to time "big" battles would occur with the confluence of multiple armies in the same area. Then early game and peripheral battles would be covered mostly by 1vs1 isolated events, then as we advance and in very important locations few more armies would participate in "big battles", and only by late game we would have something similar to the long and exhastuing "battle fronts" of the industrialized warfare.

Like said before as a fan not only of CIV, but also franchises like Age of Empires, Total War and Paradox games, CIV is to me the only one where combat turn into an annoying chore whatever it is in the form of a "carpet of doom" or a "stack of doom".

 

[Akka]

1UPT is complete garbage mechanically, and completely idiotic conceptually considering the scale of the game.
Stack of Doom is certainly not very good, but still infinitely superior. If I had to chose, 100 % for the SoD.

But if we had to find a better handling, having to manage logistics and attrition to temper the SoD would be a good idea.

Also, I despise hex. Bring back squares.

 

[Arcaian]

Also, I despise hex. Bring back squares.

I love moving 50% faster through the advanced tactical procedure of 'moving diagonally'

 

[SammyKhalifa]

See: Manor Lords (albeit on a much smaller scale).

Darkhorse prediction: there are no tiles. You draw out an area for your cities or districts or whatever on the map, and the 1upt stuff takes care of itself.

 

[Akka]

I love moving 50% faster through the advanced tactical procedure of 'moving diagonally'

You can't actually reach a square faster regardless, it's just about the size of the square being bigger in diagonals.
And anyway if it's such a big deal, make it so that two diagonal moves cost 3 mp and that's it.
I find hex much more ugly and artificial.

 

[Socrates99]

I wouldn't mind an instanced battle similar to Humankind. It'd be easier to move large groups. Ultimately for combat I would prefer 1upt though.

 

[Leyrann]

You can't actually reach a square faster regardless, it's just about the size of the square being bigger in diagonals.
And anyway if it's such a big deal, make it so that two diagonal moves cost 3 mp and that's it.
I find hex much more ugly and artificial.

A square grid has two different forms of movement - orthogonal and diagonal, with the latter being equivalent to two of the former. A hex grid has only orthogonal.

Also, hex grids are far better at round features (more common irl) and only marginally worse at square ones. They lead to a rather objectively more natural map.

 

[Akka]

Also, hex grids are far better at round features (more common irl) and only marginally worse at square ones. They lead to a rather objectively more natural map.

That's the theory. My experience is the opposite, hex maps always feels weird and artificial.

 

[Leyrann]

That's the theory. My experience is the opposite, hex maps always feels weird and artificial.

That's perfectly valid but I hope you understand why a preference backed up by arguments is valued more highly by designers than one that's backed up only by "this is my vibe".

 

[pokiehl]

I think hexes work way better than squares. And they’re clearly returning for 7 judging by the logo.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Some sort of Timeh Wimeh scale abstraction is unavoidable in a game like Civ, unless you want to die of old age finishing a turn.

My main objection to 1 UPT is that it’s mechanically clumsy.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

That's the theory. My experience is the opposite, hex maps always feels weird and artificial.

That might have less to do with the shape of the grid, and more to do with, if memory serves me correctly, the largest map size in Civ 4 simply had more tiles than the largest map sizes in the following titles. If true, it's admittedly confusing to me, as de-stacking units (and later on, cities) implies a more granular grid

 

[Leyrann]

That might have less to do with the shape of the grid, and more to do with, if memory serves me correctly, the largest map size in Civ 4 simply had more tiles than the largest map sizes in the following titles. If true, it's admittedly confusing to me, as de-stacking units (and later on, cities) implies a more granular grid

Afaik map sizes are roughly stagnant throughout the series, at about 10k tiles for the largest size.

However, the number of tiles within the range of a city went from 21 to 37 between Civ IV and Civ V, ranged attacks with 2 or even 3 tiles range were introduced, the standard number of movement points went from 1 to 2, and from Civ V to Civ VI cities were unstacked, leading to more tiles being occupied by a single city. These all contributed to a map with the same number of tiles feeling smaller than before.

 

[Gorbles]

And anyway if it's such a big deal, make it so that two diagonal moves cost 3 mp and that's it.
I find hex much more ugly and artificial.

Assigning movement points based on the direction of the move is more opaque and indeed "artificial", in my opinion.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

In my opinion, that's how it should be. A city should be made harder to capture by its natural borders, bottlenecks should make it hard to pass through without gettin decimated. How many battles, especially in ancient warfare, have been decided by the terrain?

Yes, but also siege warfare should apply. Besieging a city, for 50 turns (1000 years-100years-10???) It should reduce its population to 1 by starvation. Except for Cyclopean walls (Thyrrus-Tiro-Sidon-Sidone- all Sardonic sea cities with Cyclopean walls - probably inherited - or at least repaired by latter Bronze Age people) That could not be breached no matter what, not even 1800 artillery could in some cases... without ANY supply line, it should minimum halfven its strength for all units every besieged turn with ZERO supplies - whilst static bonuses should remain unaltered (unless sapper techs, catapults, could destroy them, or the regen rate is stopped bc of siege also...
|||-- multiplier defence units X number or civilians (civilian garrison) X Walls base defence bonus X Terrain defence bonus |||

Supplies could be calculated in one single stat, like hearths,
Or could be a sum of more factors ( Water, Food, Oil, Weapons, Manpower, etc)
Walls like the stellar forts also should need a military engineer to recap the regen rate - would be cool a strategic view of the city, where you could assign your units to various duties - like put a pop unit in a campus, would make it a scientist, walls as barracks, are essential for a city defence, and assigning basic pop should give some bonuses, assigning special people, like a Venetian engineer in the Middle Ages where specialised for the Star shaped forts , could give a massive boost to regen rate, or HP points, or Resistances to various kind of attacks ( fire, projectiles, sappers, climb) this would make walls very expansive to think about, to master.

Mountains in my view should not be an impassable tile also... mountain ridges, way harder to climb, but never impossible. Some units, should be able to climb over a mountain and use it as attack or defence point.
The whole 'Alpine' forces of Europe had been mountaintop units for the whole of the two great wars... Hannibal elephant crossed the Alps... I agree some strategically well placed cities should have massive defence boost bonuses
(Tibetan mountaintop Religious fortresses, or even Greeks, Armenian monasteries, India, Inca... Everywhere there are examples of incredibly tuff fortresses built on top of mountains... not big cities, but fortresses... yes...)
But Attackers needs more options... faster units, 3UPT, mountain or Alpine training that works on mountains and not just hills...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

That's perfectly valid but I hope you understand why a preference backed up by arguments is valued more highly by designers than one that's backed up only by "this is my vibe".

I would argue irl is a combination of squares and circles, cities were built in mainly two basic shapes; i.e. circular or squared. In Africa and SIBERIA then we have many examples of ancient settlements being a combination of the two combined. And both Rome and Incan empire had perfectly straight roads, crossing every terrain feature, regardless of curves or inclination. Just purely straight roads. Linear, functional.

If it was possible to build a straight wall, or a road, with the hexes, it might look similar to irl and still have the 'more advanced' tactical movements. But without straight walls or roads, it looks ugly.
A Great Wall wonder in civ 4 is the best visually pleasing Great Wall wonder in any civ game. Visually speaking, it has no equivalence in beauty.

Why was it ditched to a China only feat, on civ 6, I have no idea. It doesn't look anything like it should. Chinese cities builds walls on every tile and its a visually garbled mess.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

That, too, is jarring. Anyting short of a bombard cannon should not have multi-hex range.

What about ancient super bows archers warriors? I would still like to see ancient Greeks, or Japanese, Chinese, India, with some kind of super strong Archer unit.
It would be cool if a hero like warrior could be a ultimate perk exp upgrade, instead of creating a General, that could be used to form an Army, the General, could be instead this special upgrade perk, that would make it
a super Archer warrior, which in literature, are the most common ( Hercules, Yu, India Ram?)

Use one of these super Archers in a combined unit Army and there you have it... the perfect conquering machine ready to steamroll the entire world... but still just ONE unit of that kind, at least per era, with the oldest hero traits being in compaction with more modern hero traits way more powerful... ( a latter German Panzer ro U-Boot hero trait, Or Russian T-34, or Sukhoi plane could get more than one of these Hero traits upgrades, reflecting the mass construction and Nationalism era of quantity over quality, maybe even giving the Hero upgrade options to all. units if built in a city with a particular national wonder - the Rhein metal fabric i.e.)

Gauls could have super fast axemans, or swordsman's, Egypt Maryannu Chariot Archers could gain +2 range, Hittites chariots +2 defence in all terrains, or in general each civ could get a special upgrade based on one of its
core heroes mythical traits, without devolving in explicitly Mythological units in game, that then would get little resonance in vanilla play style (especially multiplayer, heroes can break the game)

 

[Patine]

What about ancient super bows archers warriors? I would still like to see ancient Greeks, or Japanese, Chinese, India, with some kind of super strong Archer unit.
It would be cool if a hero like warrior could be a ultimate perk exp upgrade, instead of creating a General, that could be used to form an Army, the General, could be instead this special upgrade perk, that would make it
a super Archer warrior, which in literature, are the most common ( Hercules, Yu, India Ram?)

Use one of these super Archers in a combined unit Army and there you have it... the perfect conquering machine ready to steamroll the entire world... but still just ONE unit of that kind, at least per era, with the oldest hero traits being in compaction with more modern hero traits way more powerful... ( a latter German Panzer ro U-Boot hero trait, Or Russian T-34, or Sukhoi plane could get more than one of these Hero traits upgrades, reflecting the mass construction and Nationalism era of quantity over quality, maybe even giving the Hero upgrade options to all. units if built in a city with a particular national wonder - the Rhein metal fabric i.e.)

Gauls could have super fast axemans, or swordsman's, Egypt Maryannu Chariot Archers could gain +2 range, Hittites chariots +2 defence in all terrains, or in general each civ could get a special upgrade based on one of its
core heroes mythical traits, without devolving in explicitly Mythological units in game, that then would get little resonance in vanilla play style (especially multiplayer, heroes can break the game)

Here, we're talking about the hypothetical Mythology-based Civ spin-off game in similar vain to Age of Mythology to the Age of Empires series that Evie, Henri, and I had been bantering about. Not a regular iteration.

Yes, but also siege warfare should apply. Besieging a city, for 50 turns (1000 years-100years-10???) It should reduce its population to 1 by starvation. Except for Cyclopean walls (Thyrrus-Tiro-Sidon-Sidone- all Sardonic sea cities with Cyclopean walls - probably inherited - or at least repaired by latter Bronze Age people) That could not be breached no matter what, not even 1800 artillery could in some cases... without ANY supply line, it should minimum halfven its strength for all units every besieged turn with ZERO supplies - whilst static bonuses should remain unaltered (unless sapper techs, catapults, could destroy them, or the regen rate is stopped bc of siege also...
|||-- multiplier defence units X number or civilians (civilian garrison) X Walls base defence bonus X Terrain defence bonus |||

Which brings to mind, that this has vibes of the Illiad in description.

 

[agonistes]

1upt is awful. Having to go to war just to clear out global logjams?

Nobody foresaw a problem with this?

It impacts the game negatively in several substantial ways.

Stop confusing strategy games with tactical battlefield games. Make up your mind.

 

[Leyrann]

1upt is awful. Having to go to war just to clear out global logjams?

Nobody foresaw a problem with this?

It impacts the game negatively in several substantial ways.

Stop confusing strategy games with tactical battlefield games. Make up your mind.

I have literally not even once in more than a thousand hours of Civ 6 gameplay, at least half of which was on the highest difficulty level, seen a single carpet of doom more than three tiles across in every direction.