Downside of 1upt

[12agnar0k]

To turn back to the "transport" debate, i.e, do we know what they look like, are they confirmed e.t.c
They can be seen in a screen shot and I have a couple cutting's of transports here uploaded by another user.

These are not the same as any of the other vessels, or indeed that working boat, and one of them is a horse in the boat as you can see.
Not sure why their arent more icons hovering over the boats for the different boats, but anyways, there is the evidence of what they will look like.

 

[aziantuntija]

Yes, I get your point. I understand that this game is not modelled to live up to historical/realistic standards, and I don't expect it to, but I at least expect something less obscene as to archers firing over miles and miles of land, or armies spanning land the size of a city states' territory.

I really commend the fact that they are trying to emphasize tactics and strategy into the combat system instead of mass numbers, and that is a good idea, but they could have picked a more logical approach.

The game looks awesome though! And ing about minor flaws in a game series as great as Civ is stupid. Sorry for the rude comment, not everything is in accord with my opinion.

If you understand it then why are you complaining? What is the so called "more logical approach" of yours to this "problem"? Id really like to hear it.

 

[AriochIV]

It would be more realistic to have archers only able to fire into adjacent hexes, but in the new combat model this would make archers all but useless, since realistically archers can't stand up to a melee charge. So we have the small conceit of archers being able to shoot as far as trebuchets or cannon, so that we can stick a melee unit between them and the enemy. It's a small price to pay in terms of abstraction for a big improvement in gameplay.

 

[Calouste]

To turn back to the "transport" debate, i.e, do we know what they look like, are they confirmed e.t.c
They can be seen in a screen shot and I have a couple cutting's of transports here uploaded by another user.

These are not the same as any of the other vessels, or indeed that working boat, and one of them is a horse in the boat as you can see.
Not sure why their arent more icons hovering over the boats for the different boats, but anyways, there is the evidence of what they will look like.

It could be that the transports where you don't see an icon are the enemy. Very hard to see which civ they belong too anyway.

 

[Schuesseled]

seeing as the red and white horse icon represents the evil japanese empire that the just french are battling i think you are wrong there.

 

[SalmonSoil]

Yes, I get your point. I understand that this game is not modelled to live up to historical/realistic standards, and I don't expect it to, but I at least expect something less obscene as to archers firing over miles and miles of land, or armies spanning land the size of a city states' territory.

Imagine it like this, when your army battles you are not viewing the miles of terrain which they are fighting on, you are viewing a close up of the actual battle.
So, when your building your empire, that hex is miles of terrain.
When you are fighting on it, it is a few hundred meters.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

During the cold war the Pact and Nato armies spanned the entire E/W German border.

 

[revengeofmakno]

As I said in a previous thread, setting a limit is reasonable, but setting that limit to one is not reasonable. I see no flaw or fault in allowing n units per tile, if n is a reasonable compromise.

Well said and in few words.
Part of the skill in army building and campaigning is getting the right mix of units and having them work together. 1 UPT leaves out so many logical and proper unit mixes such as pikes and crossbows, infantry and anti-tank weapons, etc. With 1 UPT, the pikes are left wide open to be attacked by say, macemen. Yes, a counterattack with crossbows the next turn is possible but that is equally absurd as those macemen should not have to also be left so vulnerable. Not looking forward to that kind of illogical frustration!
Here is another absurdity, in order to properly escort a siege/artillery weapon against marauding cavalry or other units, it must be surrounded on all sides, thus requiring 6 units to do the job of 1 or 2. More than one siege weapon multiplies the problem further. That is absurd in terms of logic and highly problematic in game terms with units now being more difficult to produce. Effective campaigns will be much more difficult except on narrow, restricted fronts.

 

[aMoralAtheist]

Well said and in few words.
Part of the skill in army building and campaigning is getting the right mix of units and having them work together. 1 UPT leaves out so many logical and proper unit mixes such as pikes and crossbows, infantry and anti-tank weapons, etc. With 1 UPT, the pikes are left wide open to be attacked by say, macemen. Yes, a counterattack with crossbows the next turn is possible but that is equally absurd as those macemen should not have to also be left so vulnerable. Not looking forward to that kind of illogical frustration!
Here is another absurdity, in order to properly escort a siege/artillery weapon against marauding cavalry or other units, it must be surrounded on all sides, thus requiring 6 units to do the job of 1 or 2. More than one siege weapon multiplies the problem further. That is absurd in terms of logic and highly problematic in game terms with units now being more difficult to produce. Effective campaigns will be much more difficult except on narrow, restricted fronts.

Wrong in so many ways. Clearly you did not even bother reading the firts page of this thread, as most of your complaints have been answered already. ie limit units per tile to "n". As far as escorting your siege units, You are stuck in a civ4 mindset with unit quantites. Its not like the AI will have a ton of units waiting to attack your siege. The fact is, if you don't have an established front line, you have already lost. Furthermore, maybe you just found a reason to use scouts? For when moving across open nuetral terrain, you will need to know whats out there.

I swear some people just want to hate this game, and its not even out yet.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think you have to appreciate the combat system as a whole in order to find out if this is indeed a problem. Certainly, the ranged nature of some units is a factor (which is why Pikes and Crossbows can still go together).

 

[revengeofmakno]

Wrong in so many ways. Clearly you did not even bother reading the firts page of this thread, as most of your complaints have been answered already. ie limit units per tile to "n". As far as escorting your siege units, You are stuck in a civ4 mindset with unit quantites. Its not like the AI will have a ton of units waiting to attack your siege. The fact is, if you don't have an established front line, you have already lost. Furthermore, maybe you just found a reason to use scouts? For when moving across open nuetral terrain, you will need to know whats out there.

Excuse me but I read all of that and not one of my observations has been addressed and in fact, they cannot be as they are created by 1UPT itself.
Trading one set of problems in return for another set of absurdities is not logical when a reasonable compromise was available that would retain good features of both approaches while eliminating many problems. A stacking limit of 2 or 3 would allow for tactics while retaining logical unit mixes while still being very compatible with a lower number of units and more use of frontages. There is enough collective experience in computer gaming to see the logic in that without waiting for this particular game to be released.

 

[CivIVMonger]

If you understand it then why are you complaining? What is the so called "more logical approach" of yours to this "problem"? Id really like to hear it.

I think it would make more sense to add in an attrition feature.

For instance, a grass tile can support 4 units, plains 2, desert/tundra 1 etc. Including the need for supply lines and the possibility to mix units of one tile into militia regiments.

That is my idea, but since you didn't really take the nice "I'll leave it alone gesture" of my previous post, I doubt you'll agree with me here.

 

[duckofspades]

I think it would make more sense to add in an attrition feature.

For instance, a grass tile can support 4 units, plains 2, desert/tundra 1 etc. Including the need for supply lines and the possibility to mix units of one tile into militia regiments.

That is my idea, but since you didn't really take the nice "I'll leave it alone gesture" of my previous post, I doubt you'll agree with me here.

I think a unit cap based on terrian is a bit to complex for civ. Civ isn't supposed to be a war game. The combat system has a good balance the way it is.

 

[Calouste]

seeing as the red and white horse icon represents the evil japanese empire that the just french are battling i think you are wrong there.

Yep. you're right.

Still wonder what those other ships do there that don't have an icon next to them.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Your artillery should not have to worry about enemy attacks because of ZOC, I agree that stacks should scale by era, with 1upt at the start of the industrial/modern era.

 

[AriochIV]

Still wonder what those other ships do there that don't have an icon next to them.

The horse icon is for the lower group of ships. The icon for the upper group of ships is offscreen. The icons for sea-embarked units appear to sit higher in the hex than the military icons (almost in the next hex), perhaps so they can stack without conflicting with each other.

 

[12agnar0k]

Limited Stacks are worse than both 1UpT and unlimited Stacks, it is not a compromise between the 2 very different systems each with thier own benefits, it is simply bad. It defies logic to choose limited stacks when 1UpT or Unlimited Stacking do not share the same problems.
Your just swapping some disadvantages for no extra advantages and more disadvantages.

Its easy to explain why but I won't go into detail its been said before, probably in this thread, having a limit of say 4 units per tile, actually means that anything less than 4 units per tile is simply not a "full" unit, and the only strategy in limited stacking will be to maximise each stack to its limit or be destroyed in combat. So what your doing is taking away 1UpT's every unit is a full unit advantage and taking away the who can build the biggest SOD advantage, and just replace them with disadvantages,
Yay go! Limited SOD! such an awesome idea /sarcasm.

 

[tom2050]

Its easy to explain why but I won't go into detail its been said before, probably in this thread, having a limit of say 4 units per tile, actually means that anything less than 4 units per tile is simply not a "full" unit, and the only strategy in limited stacking will be to maximise each stack to its limit or be destroyed in combat. So what your doing is taking away 1UpT's every unit is a full unit advantage and taking away the who can build the biggest SOD advantage, and just replace them with disadvantages,
Yay go! Limited SOD! such an awesome idea /sarcasm.

It all depends on how it would be implemented. If implemented in a horrible manner, then you are correct.

But you wouldn't want to allow any unit to stack in a limited stack, you would have it so only units of different 'types' can stack together. So you could stack cavalry, archers and spearman together; which e.g. would be a full army.

But this would always be best if the game dev's ignored everything else and made the game like Civ 3. If they included what they already have talked about for 5, such as cavalry get flank bonus, archers can shoot 2 hexes; you won't necessarily want your archers up front where a successful attack would leave them vulnerable in the front line; and your cavalry would be better used flanking then being up front.

All of the tactics are still there; in my mind it would open up more possibilities. It definitely wouldn't lose any.

 

[AriochIV]

They're not going to do it, so I don't see the point of arguing about it.

 

[12agnar0k]

Limited stacking equals anything less than the maximum is not a full unit, so if you want to win battles you will have to stack to the maximum to make a "full unit" this is not good strategy, it will take so much away from the game.

And Arioch is right, they arent going to do it, if someone wants to try and mod limited stacking in, go for it, I for one won't even bother looking at it.