I would have preferred a different solution to the "stack o' doom" curse. Let's go back to Civ3's "army" unit, which was basically a shell that contained other units.
Put a 1-unit limit per square, until you research the "army" concept, at which point you can load -x- units into the army, which is then considered a single unit. Perhaps the "concept" could come in stages, as in "division-corps-army", that increases the potency of that "one unit" by expanding what goes into the army. This would preferably require some formula that takes into account the different units in the army, to allow a "mix of arms", and an increase in fighting strength (one unit fights, but it's strength might be equal to, for instance, the strongest unit in the army, plus 1 per unit... or some such).
This would also have the added benefit of providing a benefit to combined-arms armies (an antitank unit with the infantry unit, in the same army, providing the benefits of both to the army).
Given the scale of the world maps, which, for instance, on huge, is literally many, many miles per hex, it is absurd to "go tactical" and have archers shooting 2-3 squares. Alternately, the "army" above might contain an archer unit, which would get a "free shot" before the army engages the target unit. One makes sense on a strategic map -- one doesn't.
I guess, for me, Civ is a grand-strategic game, and implementing "tactical" feel to a grand-strategic game is nonsense. This assumes people even understand the distinction between the words strategic, tactical, etc. I've noticed the words being thrown around on far too many forums by people who clearly have no concept of what the words actually mean.
Ah, well. Hopefully, folks will continue developing for Civ3 and Civ4. I'd love to see someone merge certain ideas from Civ2 with Civ3 with a dash of some ideas from SMAC -- but that's another topic.
Put a 1-unit limit per square, until you research the "army" concept, at which point you can load -x- units into the army, which is then considered a single unit. Perhaps the "concept" could come in stages, as in "division-corps-army", that increases the potency of that "one unit" by expanding what goes into the army. This would preferably require some formula that takes into account the different units in the army, to allow a "mix of arms", and an increase in fighting strength (one unit fights, but it's strength might be equal to, for instance, the strongest unit in the army, plus 1 per unit... or some such).
This would also have the added benefit of providing a benefit to combined-arms armies (an antitank unit with the infantry unit, in the same army, providing the benefits of both to the army).
Given the scale of the world maps, which, for instance, on huge, is literally many, many miles per hex, it is absurd to "go tactical" and have archers shooting 2-3 squares. Alternately, the "army" above might contain an archer unit, which would get a "free shot" before the army engages the target unit. One makes sense on a strategic map -- one doesn't.
I guess, for me, Civ is a grand-strategic game, and implementing "tactical" feel to a grand-strategic game is nonsense. This assumes people even understand the distinction between the words strategic, tactical, etc. I've noticed the words being thrown around on far too many forums by people who clearly have no concept of what the words actually mean.
Ah, well. Hopefully, folks will continue developing for Civ3 and Civ4. I'd love to see someone merge certain ideas from Civ2 with Civ3 with a dash of some ideas from SMAC -- but that's another topic.
