SupremacyKing2
Deity
I thought I would start this poll to see what others think about a tactical battle map in civ6. Basically the idea would be that when units fight, the game would give you the option to auto-resolve or to fight the battle out on a separate turn based tactical map. It could work for either 1upt or mupt. If civ6 uses 1upt, the game could automatically include adjacent units in the battle, and if mupt is used, the game would just include the units in the stack. There could also be a minimum limit of units before a tactical map becomes an option so that the player does not have to do a tactical battle every time just two units fight.
PROS:
- It could make battles more epic, especially if each unit on the tactical map were represented by a large group of soldiers. You could make it so that 1 unit on the strategic map is represented by 4 units on the tactical map, in order to make tactical battles bigger. Like in Total War, battles could look huge and give the sense of big battles.
- It would give the player more control over the outcome of battles. Instead of just relying on the roll of the die when two units fight, the player could employ actual tactics to win the battle.
- It could be a win-win compromise between the 1upt camp and the mupt camp. Tactical battles could allow mupt on the strategic map but allow 1upt on the tactical map. It would eliminate the AI issues with 1upt on the main map since you could move units as stacks. And it would move the tactics to a true tactical map that could be big enough to make 1upt tactics meaningful. This way, you are no longer trying to mix tactics on a strategic map.
CONS:
- It would still require a good tactical AI. Although, hopefully, having tactics on a tactical map, would make it easier to have a strong AI. This would be crucial because a bad tactical AI would render the whole tactical map feature utterly useless and would force players to always auto-resolve if they want a "fair" fight.
- The tactical battle map would have to be interesting and intense. It would be important that battles not be tedious. I am optimistic that with Firaxis' experience with XCOM that they could make tactical battles interesting.
- Tactical battles could be a distraction from the main map. I think Sid has warned many times against the idea of a mini-game that distracts from the main focus of the game. Firaxians have also talked about wanting civ to stay focused on the strategic map. So there is a high probability that Firaxis would not implement this idea.
- An argument could be made as well that civ is about being a strategic leader building a great empire. So the game should focus on grand empire-building, not playing general.
What say you? Vote in the poll whether you like or dislike the of a tactical battle map?
PROS:
- It could make battles more epic, especially if each unit on the tactical map were represented by a large group of soldiers. You could make it so that 1 unit on the strategic map is represented by 4 units on the tactical map, in order to make tactical battles bigger. Like in Total War, battles could look huge and give the sense of big battles.
- It would give the player more control over the outcome of battles. Instead of just relying on the roll of the die when two units fight, the player could employ actual tactics to win the battle.
- It could be a win-win compromise between the 1upt camp and the mupt camp. Tactical battles could allow mupt on the strategic map but allow 1upt on the tactical map. It would eliminate the AI issues with 1upt on the main map since you could move units as stacks. And it would move the tactics to a true tactical map that could be big enough to make 1upt tactics meaningful. This way, you are no longer trying to mix tactics on a strategic map.
CONS:
- It would still require a good tactical AI. Although, hopefully, having tactics on a tactical map, would make it easier to have a strong AI. This would be crucial because a bad tactical AI would render the whole tactical map feature utterly useless and would force players to always auto-resolve if they want a "fair" fight.
- The tactical battle map would have to be interesting and intense. It would be important that battles not be tedious. I am optimistic that with Firaxis' experience with XCOM that they could make tactical battles interesting.
- Tactical battles could be a distraction from the main map. I think Sid has warned many times against the idea of a mini-game that distracts from the main focus of the game. Firaxians have also talked about wanting civ to stay focused on the strategic map. So there is a high probability that Firaxis would not implement this idea.
- An argument could be made as well that civ is about being a strategic leader building a great empire. So the game should focus on grand empire-building, not playing general.
What say you? Vote in the poll whether you like or dislike the of a tactical battle map?