"Group move" units maintaining formation

[Pep]

I think a nice addition to units move in 1upt could be a "group move". I've been thinking about two types of "group move":

• Group two units of distint type in the same tile (settler/great general and a military unit for example) and move to the destination tile at the speeed of the slowest unit in the group. I think this is easy to implement (already implemented in Civ 4!) and would save time from moving two units separately to the same destination tile.
• Group several units of the same type and move maintaining formation from origin tiles to destination ones. This type of "group move" would alleviate the tedium in moving a intercontinental navy invasion force, for example. I think this can be more difficult to implement. It is already done in RTS games like Starcraft. I suppose it can be traslated to TBS games. A graphical example of an easy intercontinental "group move" mantaining formation:
  
  O O O
  O O O-------------------0 0 0
  O O O-------------------0 0 0
  -------------------------0 0 0
  
  The square shape should be maintained from origin to destination if there are no obstacles inbetween.

What do you think?

 

[lschnarch]

A "grouped movement" like in your proposal would be the very least to make the so-called (fake) 1upt less tedious.
So I agree, although it seem to contradict the philosophy behind the design, which is to punish you for having multiple units.

 

[freeluos]

Nice addition???

For the human player it is a nice addition yes. But for the AI it is a must to have such feature implemented. It will make the AI harder, more realistic. But it will also mean the formations should be predefined (AI would propably make a mess of it or the human player has an strategic advantage -> so both the same rules or the human has to do some tedious tasks ). For example (H=horse, A=Archer, S=Spear, X=Axeman, C=Catapult):

HSX
AX
CX
HSX

or:
S
HAX
S

Downside is they need to line up. And they shouldn't do that one tile away of an enemy city. Nor should it take 100 turns before they are finally lined up.

 

[Razzlesnaff]

A "grouped movement" like in your proposal would be the very least to make the so-called (fake) 1upt less tedious.
So I agree, although it seem to contradict the philosophy behind the design, which is to punish you for having multiple units.

I don't really understand how the one unit per tile rule is fake. You can't stack military units. I suppose you can stack a military unit on top of a non-military unit, but I don't really think that makes 1upt a "fake" rule.

The design isn't to punish the player for having multiple units, it's to make the combat more strategic as opposed to "Well, his stack of death is bigger than mine. Better retreat and stack some more units." I really detest people who are pessimistic for the sake of pessimism. That isn't specifically directed at you, more so the philosophy people like you carry around with them wherever they go.

Anyway, I agree with you OP. That would make everything a lot easier. It's not such a pain to take units across the continent your on. Mostly because as you take your opponents land, you can use it as a base for military units and continue on. However, it is a pain to make units cross an entire ocean to the other continent.

 

[lschnarch]

I don't really understand how the one unit per tile rule is fake. You can't stack military units. I suppose you can stack a military unit on top of a non-military unit, but I don't really think that makes 1upt a "fake" rule.

It is a fake rule, since stacking is allowed:
1 military with 1 civilian
1 military (land) with 1 military (sea, air) in cities
Planes can be stacked anyway.

Fact is, the idea of *1*upt has proven to be improper for a civilization game even to the developers. Therefore, they had to create quite some exceptions, which have lead to strange results as a "General" now being a civilian unit.

The design isn't to punish the player for having multiple units, it's to make the combat more strategic as opposed to "Well, his stack of death is bigger than mine. Better retreat and stack some more units." I really detest people who are pessimistic for the sake of pessimism. That isn't specifically directed at you, more so the philosophy people like you carry around with them wherever they go.

Actually, there isn't much more tactics in the current combat system than there was in the stacking system.
"The melee types to the front!". Ranged units behind. Hit and run with mounted units. This is so easy that even a six year old can immediately understand it.

And about the pessimism: You just have to have a look at this game, you don't have to be pessimistic by nature.
As far as combat is concerned, the lead designer had an almost perfect blueprint (to which he even referred) at hand for a 1upt combat system: Panzer General
Yet, he only picked some parts of it, thus making the implementation within Civ5 a very weak one (not to mention that there are unavoidable conflicts for such a system in terms of scale).

Talking about the scale we enter the field of "punishment". Due to the scale, making use of "go to" orders becomes a pain, to say the least.
Units blocking each other, stopping movement (especially in cities, and there without notifying you), not showing their indicated paths when being selected and so on. Well, and don't forget about the slow response of the engine, which may take up to several seconds before the unit cycling becomes visible.
All together makes it a major pain to have to coordinate a group of units.

And yes, almost three months after release I call this "punishment".
You may use a different term for it, but at least look at the game. It is not as if I would make statements which cannot be confirmed by just playing it.

 

[freeluos]

I agree the system is fake. But the designers chose for this system so better they make the best of it. And formations could be usefull (could!).

A smarter system will be:
-Allow stacking (grin)
but (the game designers don't know this word do they?)
Every hex has a size, say 10km2. Every regiment take up a certain space (warriors 0,1km2, archers 0,5km2, a general 0,000001km2 D), and whatever..). As long there is space in the hex no penalties are applied.

When there are more regiments in there then space severe penalties are applied (movement, loss of strength due supply problems, defense modifiers go down etc.). In a friendly country this would be no ploblem (much). But at the front this could be very painful.

Use of roads is different. More units in a hex means traffic jams and thus a movement penalty (the more units the higher the penalty).

Combat style something like CTP

 

[Camikaze]

Group movement as the OP suggests would seem to do a little to alleviate the tedium of individual unit movement, but it could come unstuck when moving across different terrain types. The OP says that the units could move 'at the speed of the slowest in the group', but that wouldn't be a viable option for situations in which unit movement is at all important.

 

[freeluos]

But then you wouldn't use a formation and just send the units independent of each other. So I dont see why that's a problem to implement formations.

 

[Camikaze]

But then you wouldn't use a formation and just send the units independent of each other. So I dont see why that's a problem to implement formations.

If a automation feature only allows for a substandard alternative, then it is rather redundant. The player shouldn't be forced to choose between higher quality tedium and lower quality automation.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas and Suggestions

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Even more micman processing, no thank you.

 

[Razzlesnaff]

It is a fake rule, since stacking is allowed:
1 military with 1 civilian
1 military (land) with 1 military (sea, air) in cities
Planes can be stacked anyway.

You're just slicing hairs now. None of that breaks the spirit of the one unit per tile. You see that in some situations there are two units per tile and you think the system is broken. Stacking a military unit on a civilian unit doesn't increase the combat strength on that one tile at all. This doesn't increase your chance of defending that tile at all. As far as I know only a land military unit can garrison a city so one naval unit in the same city as a land military unit doesn't increase the cities combat strength, it doesn't increase your chance to defend the city.

I will concede to the fact that planes do stack, but I still don't feel that breaks the spirit of the 1upt rule.Planes do stack, but they can't travel outside of non-cities tiles and do fairly minimal damage. If they weren't to stack in that fashion they would need a considerable buff, and again like the naval unit, the planes do not increase your cities combat strength. So it doesn't decrease the opponents chance of taking your city when their bombarding it.

Fact is, the idea of *1*upt has proven to be improper for a civilization game even to the developers. Therefore, they had to create quite some exceptions, which have lead to strange results as a "General" now being a civilian unit.

I don't think I've seen any information where the developers said that 1upt was a bad decision on their part, and the majority of players enjoy and support the 1upt. And typically, a General doesn't partake in actual combat. It's one guy. As where military unit is considered to be at least one thousand men in that one tile.

And if you considered one military unit to be literally represented by ten men, I would think ten men could easily kill one lone General. It's only natural that a General should be able to be stacked and protected by another unit. Otherwise would have to constantly have a circle of protection around him.

Actually, there isn't much more tactics in the current combat system than there was in the stacking system.
"The melee types to the front!". Ranged units behind. Hit and run with mounted units. This is so easy that even a six year old can immediately understand it.

I think there is a lot more to the strategic combat more than that. But even if it's as poor as you say, it's still infinitely better than stacks of death, where it's quite literally whomever built more units into the stack of death. I don't understand how there can be people who have so much spite for the direction this game has taken, yet continue to either play it or lurk around the forums months after the game has been released "enlightening" people to the flaws of the game. I guess, that if I didn't like the game as much as you seem to not, I would have just shrugged it off as a bad purchase and played something else.

 

[alpaca]

The problem with a move in formation is that a formation of any size larger than maybe 5 units won't be able to stay in formation on 80% of the map and would suffer huge movement penalties to boot.

What I could see is not a move in formation but a move in group: You can select multiple units and order them to go to a certain tile. The AI will move them one after the other in a way that takes the least amount of turns in territory that is considered safe (no FOW and you can see no units to threaten) and in a somewhat sensible formation in unsafe territory when possible, with use of scouts. On chokepoints, the units in the group should move through with melee units first and the rest of the group should wait. If an enemy is seen by any member of the group, the group should stop and ask for your command - in which case a ghost image of the movement path should show you where the group is headed, and you should have the option of giving them a resume movement order. None of this has to or should be animated.

 

[lschnarch]

You're just slicing hairs now. None of that breaks the spirit of the one unit per tile. You see that in some situations there are two units per tile and you think the system is broken. Stacking a military unit on a civilian unit doesn't increase the combat strength on that one tile at all. This doesn't increase your chance of defending that tile at all. As far as I know only a land military unit can garrison a city so one naval unit in the same city as a land military unit doesn't increase the cities combat strength, it doesn't increase your chance to defend the city.

But the navel unit will actively defend the city. The planes will start and land in the city.
How this shouldn't contribute to city defense is beyond me.

I will concede to the fact that planes do stack, but I still don't feel that breaks the spirit of the 1upt rule.Planes do stack, but they can't travel outside of non-cities tiles and do fairly minimal damage. If they weren't to stack in that fashion they would need a considerable buff, and again like the naval unit, the planes do not increase your cities combat strength. So it doesn't decrease the opponents chance of taking your city when their bombarding it.

Well, airplanes may make the faulty design move obvious as anything else.

While an artillery platoon uses up one hex, a flight squadron happily shares its space with others?
Where is the logic behind this?

I don't think I've seen any information where the developers said that 1upt was a bad decision on their part, and the majority of players enjoy and support the 1upt. And typically, a General doesn't partake in actual combat. It's one guy. As where military unit is considered to be at least one thousand men in that one tile.

Good that you mention the general.
Because he's just one guy, he cannot make use of the same hex as a worker does?

Once again, where is the logic behind this?

And if you considered one military unit to be literally represented by ten men, I would think ten men could easily kill one lone General. It's only natural that a General should be able to be stacked and protected by another unit. Otherwise would have to constantly have a circle of protection around him.

As we have to do with naval units...

Your own examples turn against you. There is no consistent way of handling different units in this game.
One cannot make the general a military unit, as then he consumes space you need for the combat troops.
So one made him a civilian unit, but now he is in conflict with the workers, although, as you said, he is just one guy.
Keeping him as a military unit and increasing his radius of influence would make him to powerful in the eyes of the developers.

Sending troops by ship requires a massive fleet to protect them (well, not really, but this is just due to the fact that the AI is completely unable to perform maritime warfare - and this in an area without different terrain).

The whole system is broken due to the fact that the AI cannot handle it.

I think there is a lot more to the strategic combat more than that. But even if it's as poor as you say, it's still infinitely better than stacks of death, where it's quite literally whomever built more units into the stack of death. I don't understand how there can be people who have so much spite for the direction this game has taken, yet continue to either play it or lurk around the forums months after the game has been released "enlightening" people to the flaws of the game. I guess, that if I didn't like the game as much as you seem to not, I would have just shrugged it off as a bad purchase and played something else.

First of all, the many faults and flaws of this rotten game cannot be mentioned often enough.

Do you think the massive changes of the next patch would happen if people would not have complained over and over again?
If we "complainers" would have not continued to complain and gone away, as you suggest, nothing would have changed.
The developers would have said: "Look, only praising and agreement. We've done our job, the game is good!"

No, they didn't do their job, and no, the game is not good.
But yes, they have charged us for a fully developed game.

The worst thing we could do would be to stay silent and let them go away with this desaster.
Combat is just one very obvious thing, but there are countless other problems.

Actually, the whole game is a problem, as nothing in this game works as has been advertised before release.

And you ask me why I don't stop complaining?

 

[Atwork]

there isn't much more tactics in the current combat system than there was in the stacking system....so easy that even a six year old can immediately understand it.

I've literally taught classrooms of 6 year-olds to play chess and kids at that age pick up the basic rules extremely quickly. However, they'll spend a lifetime mastering and perfecting their strategies. So, while I'm not saying that the complexity of C5 battlefield placement & movement is to the level of a chess match yet, I will say that C5 began the evolution process in that direction.

As the kinks get worked out and unit abilities are adjusted/added/changed, C5 will continue to evolve -- hopefully combat in C5 will eventually induce the mental strain of a good chess match!

 

[Camikaze]

I find it hard to believe that Civ5 warfare is at the same tactical level as Civ4 warfare, given the notable absence of such in the latter. I mean, something tactical did crop up occasionally, but having 1upt necessitates more tactics simply because you have to micromanage more units.