Exception to 1UPT Rule

[Naokaukodem]

5 would be a max, not a must have

 

[Atwork]

Yeah, you are right in that the qualification offered in the OP are not entirely clear

The qualification was based on the very different roles that melee has vs. cavalry on the battlefield. The cavalry was used differently in relation to melee and ranged units, than melee to ranged units. A commander would not want his cavalry tied down having to guard ranged units from enemy strikes. Rather a commander would prefer his cavalry to be free to flank enemy positions and strike at enemy ranged positions. In ancient wars, ranged units might sometimes rush to a forward position in front of the melees, fire a few volleys and then rush to take cover behind the melee lines....then firing over the melee's heads to soften the enemy as it advanced. I wanted this relationship to be mirrored by the exception to the 1UPT rule for certain units but not others.

On the modern battlefield, Helicopter gunships and armored units have a similar role to the way cavalry was used in past wars. A commander wants his helicopter ground attack units and armored units free to roam the battlefield without being held down in a protect-the-artillery posture.


These are fairly arbitrary distinctions and far from 100% accurate. But, I felt like these distinctions would maintain more realism as far as tactical placement of troops on the battlefield is concerned.

5 would be a max, not a must have

As far as 5 UPT, that's not at all what I want. For the most part, I want to maintain the 1UPT rule.

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, I get why you had those qualifications. It just makes it a more messy and unclear system. Having multiple exceptions to a rule does that. It doesn't necessarily make the idea bad, but it's something to consider.

 

[Atwork]

Maybe only spearman, pikeman, musketeers, rifleman, infantry, and mech inf. should have the ability to escort. It's a more restrictive rule change that way.....I'd be cool with that.....one melee/gunpowder unit per era......

 

[Johan de Witt]

The problem is that with 1UPT which is VERY restrictive, you find yourself in the position NOT to be able to place a ranged units 2 tiles away of an enemy city. Add to that the fact that ranged units needs to be set up before shooting, and you get wars where artillery is nearly never used. (staying backward everytime while your mech infrantry go from cities to cities)

Through time, the role of different kinds of troops/equipment has changed.

Example: During the 1st world war, artillery was destructive and troups were slow. The machinegun made infantry even less mobile and stronger on the defense. The use of artillery even moved units into the trenches and made them even less mobile.

During the 2nd world war, armies had become more mobile and ways had to be developed to make artillery more mobile too. Think about the German advance into France where artillery seriously lagged behind.

During the Gulf Wars, artillery become even less important. It was used, but mainly mobile artillery and helicopters shooting from large distances.

Times change and so does the role of artillery. In your example, you mention artillery and mech infantry. Apart from the fact that you need mobile artillery to keep up with your mech infantry, you probably (just an assumption) didn't face an enemy that was a real challenge or you had already crushed his defenses and your mech infantry was just rolling in to capture cities.

 

[Camikaze]

Maybe only spearman, pikeman, musketeers, rifleman, infantry, and mech inf. should have the ability to escort. It's a more restrictive rule change that way.....I'd be cool with that.....one melee/gunpowder unit per era......

Yeah, my idea I linked to earlier had a similar qualification. I made it under the presumption that such things as maceman combined with trebuchet, and tank combined with artillery, would simply be too powerful in attack. It would be best to have to stick ranged units with the more standard units, it's just a matter of making it so it doesn't seem a clumsy restriction.

 

[Atwork]

I made it under the presumption that such things as maceman combined with trebuchet, and tank combined with artillery, would simply be too powerful in attack. It would be best to have to stick ranged units with the more standard units, it's just a matter of making it so it doesn't seem a clumsy restriction.

I can agree with that. Avoiding OP combos is definitely a good reason to draw the distinction between what units can stack versus what units can't.

Through time, the role of different kinds of troops/equipment has changed.

It's very true. CIV is, of course, a mere abstraction....so, thinking how best to implement these abstractions in order to have a better experience is what we do!

 

[code65536]

Such a cap seems rather arbitrary.

How about "tile food production" UPT. Deserts, tundra, forests, etc. should naturally support fewer troops anyway.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Through time, the role of different kinds of troops/equipment has changed.

Example: During the 1st world war, artillery was destructive and troups were slow. The machinegun made infantry even less mobile and stronger on the defense. The use of artillery even moved units into the trenches and made them even less mobile.

During the 2nd world war, armies had become more mobile and ways had to be developed to make artillery more mobile too. Think about the German advance into France where artillery seriously lagged behind.

During the Gulf Wars, artillery become even less important. It was used, but mainly mobile artillery and helicopters shooting from large distances.

Nicely put, and i will not contradict that. However, it would be good that these kinds of things would be represented in Civ, particularly the trenches part.

Times change and so does the role of artillery. In your example, you mention artillery and mech infantry. Apart from the fact that you need mobile artillery to keep up with your mech infantry, you probably (just an assumption) didn't face an enemy that was a real challenge or you had already crushed his defenses and your mech infantry was just rolling in to capture cities.

True, I was playing in this game at difficulty 2, now i'm on difficulty 3 (no AI bonus) and that's the same thing. From what i played, it seems that the AI sends all his units to the front as soon as they are produced. When all its units defeated, it's a nearly unstoppable rush to its cities. And artillery does not play any role.

On a side note, i would say that nevermind the difficulty, arty should be usefull anyway. As you said, arty in History hasn't been usefull everytime, but that's far to be represented in Civ, when arty is useless EVERYTIME in a typical run by. There may be exceptions and particularly in highest difficulty modes when AI have plenty units coming at your door and the need the weaken them with arty, but the typical offensive conquest does not require artillery, at the difficulty i play at at least but again, difficulty should not dictate that half the units are useless. (and what if i only want to play on low difficulty?)

So i would say this is not a problem of difficulty, or at least it shouldn't be.

I would say that i would love to see trench wars and other type of wars making units more or less usefull from time to time, but Civ is far to be here especially considering the AI that would be half of the system representing this.

 

[Camikaze]

How about "tile food production" UPT. Deserts, tundra, forests, etc. should naturally support fewer troops anyway.

Well if the cap on a number of units is actually tied to something in the game, rather than just plucked out of the air, it definitely becomes far less arbitrary. Doesn't really make it the best system to go for, though, even if it does make it a better system to go for.

 

[Johan de Witt]

On a side note, i would say that nevermind the difficulty, arty should be usefull anyway. As you said, arty in History hasn't been usefull everytime, but that's far to be represented in Civ, when arty is useless EVERYTIME in a typical run by. There may be exceptions and particularly in highest difficulty modes when AI have plenty units coming at your door and the need the weaken them with arty, but the typical offensive conquest does not require artillery, at the difficulty i play at at least but again, difficulty should not dictate that half the units are useless. (and what if i only want to play on low difficulty?)

Artillery is a support weapon. It's not very surprising that you don't need support weapons on lower difficulties. I guess you don't use planes either? (I'm not trying to be elitist, just trying to make my point)

But this is all a bit off topic, getting artillery to stack on top of infantry isn't going to solve this either.

My point still is; you are finding a way to solve a problem that does not exist.

Remember that when you start playing on higher difficulties, every bit of troop movement starts to matter. You will still mostly defeat the enemy outside of his cities, but that's part of the game design. Not being able to shoot at a city is not really a problem at all. If you are presented with an impossibility, try to be creative and think about a new tactic.

And by all means, if you think this will improve your gameplay, ask someone to mod this (or mod it yourself) but you will soon find out it only dumbs the game down.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Artillery is a support weapon. It's not very surprising that you don't need support weapons on lower difficulties. I guess you don't use planes either? (I'm not trying to be elitist, just trying to make my point)

That's a support weapon that has showed various degrees of usefulness in History. That should be represented in the game, whether it's low or high DL.

For example, it's very hard to take a walled city without siege weapons in mediaval era. It would be cool that it is represented in the game, wich nowadays is not.

Same goes with planes. If planes aren't a necessity in the game, then it's too bad.

 

[Atwork]

you are finding a way to solve a problem that does not exist.

It's all a bit subjective, isn't it?

it's very hard to take a walled city without siege weapons in mediaval era. It would be cool that it is represented in the game, wich nowadays is not.

There's some mods out there that have changed this. CCMAT Mod makes it so that taking a city with the most advanced defenses is virtually impossible without siege units, which I think is good. The problem is that it makes it even more critical that siege units be available for use during a the siege.

try to be creative and think about a new tactic.

No amount of creativity is gonna get the AI to move its stupid scout off the tile I need to occupy in order to bring my ranged unit into battle position.

 

[Johan de Witt]

No amount of creativity is gonna get the AI to move its stupid scout off the tile I need to occupy in order to bring my ranged unit into battle position.

Like I posted before, this is not an imposibility created by the 1upt being too restrictive, it's a whole other problem altogether.

Now that's something I agree with, but perhaps there is a better way to solve this.

In my opinion, it is completely unrealistic (even more so than a lot of other things in this game) that you would allow military units from another nation within your borders. The only realistic way I could see a nation allowing this is when you are allied with that nation and currently at war.

So if they would make open borders only work during war-time, you wouldn't run into neutral troops anymore. Furthermore, I think the AI shouldn't be programmed to run scouts (or any unit for that matter) through neutral lands indefinitely. I don't know if any human player does that, but I find it kind of useless to keep running back and forth through neutral lands when I am not at war. I would much rather keep my troops close by in case of a surprise attack.

 

[Atwork]

In my opinion, it is completely unrealistic (even more so than a lot of other things in this game) that you would allow military units from another nation within your borders. The only realistic way I could see a nation allowing this is when you are allied with that nation and currently at war.

I'm not talking about units within my borders. I'm talking about units in neutral lands thwarting my troop placements and preventing ranged units from entering the battle zone.

On the other hand, you are correct. There should be a separate agreement involving military units, called the "guarantee of safe passage" for a duration of turns (the length of a war, 10 turns, something....) Otherwise, only civilian units should be able to enter another civ's borders -- scouts could enter another civ's borders (like the old special trait for caravels) -- and the game needs to bring back the spy unit -- even if it is severely nerfed.

I think the AI shouldn't be programmed to run scouts (or any unit for that matter) through neutral lands indefinitely. I don't know if any human player does that, but I find it kind of useless to keep running back and forth through neutral lands when I am not at war. I would much rather keep my troops close by in case of a surprise attack.

I place scouts where it makes the most sense. When barbarians are a threat and my troop numbers are stretched, then I tend to keep scouts closer to home. But later, I use scouts much like I used to use spies. I sent them out to bounce around other nations' borders to get an idea of what they're doing, where there troop movements are heading, and to spot any settlers moving toward an area of my interest.....I don't think that scouts should be designed to by less useful to the AI. I think that overly restrictive combat mechanics should be loosened up a bit.