- Jan 8, 2021
This is exactly why I’m not buyimg Civ7 until and unless it is easily modded, and mods exist for things like unit stacking.
where are these mods at? I'd like to try this 3UPT idea.Here is how 3 UPT works for the amusingly sarcastically named “Stacks of Doom” mod for Civ5, and basically the same for the ARS mod for Civ6
Combat is you pick the attacking unit and either assault (melee) or bombard (ranged) it. Strongest unit is automatically selected to defend
That’s basically it. This does an excellent job of simulating hex combat at operational and above levels of scale, which is why just about all of the old consim games that didn’t use combat odds tables did it that way.
Simple, clean and effective
the difficulties are not only about waging war, but also maintaining an effective military force that keeps the empire together.Also i probably should mention that i don't think that 1upt in its current implementation is perfect, but at least it forces you consider twice whether war will be worth all the effort and headache you'll have to commit.
I remember such rebellions being a feature in Civ 3 which featured multi-ethnic and -cultural population in conquered cities ... depending on city size the player had to station many military units (stack) in a single city until after some 100 years the population maybe accepted the new rule.rebellion/secession became much more common. players would spend a lot more time maintaining loyalty, losing it, and then putting down rebellions/reconquering their own spheres of influence as a major part of the combat, in addition to trying to fight other major factions.
That’s not really the case anymore, with districts. So now limited stacks of units are in a game with limited stacks of cities.Technically you need unlimited stacks in cities to control cities of unlimited size.
In a 1upt system military units would probably need kind of (cumulative) zone of control in city area to prevent rebellions and uprising.
the difficulties are not only about waging war, but also maintaining an effective military force that keeps the empire together.
Until nationalism, the army's main purpose is not to wage war, but to enforce rules. An ordinary, multi-ethnic empire have no loyal subjects aside from core area, and cannot survive without a very costly army and administration system. Most of most empires' finance was all about that, not science, food or cultural programs. It'd be nice if this can be represented in some way in civ.
We HAD all of that. CivV had the Annex/Puppet/Raze system, and CivIV had vassels
It worked really well and did a good job of modelling history, as well as acting as an effective anti-blob snowball mechanic
I'd personally love to see something combining Humankind's approach with your AoW - style approach, where we send small stacks across the map in one click instead of a hell of taking 30 units across the entire world one after another, and then for something interesting happening in the form of a field battle, and it would solve sooo many problems of civ5-6, I just have no idea how to do that without falling into the pitfalls of super messy HK combat design, while still making it interesting.
the examples from Roman empire and Alexander's successor kingdoms could be followed:Reasonable limitations for (early) expansion could be higher upkeep costs for both units and buildings so that an empire cannot expand beyond its economic limits. If a new city requires a guard unit and that unit costs more than the new city provides as income, the empire has to pay for the guard, etc. If you don't guard the new city, it may be conquered by barbarians, etc.
Conquered enemy cities could require more units as garrison and so would comprehensibly cost more money than other cities ...
It's actually the elephant, camel, or horse in the room, all with archers perched on top . . .We need to address the elephant in the room of how broken ranged units are
The situation of ranged units (at least pre-20th century) would be solved (in part at less) by this proposed system since their "ranged attack" is represented by their ability to attack from the back row (slices) of their tile. Of course the relation between the tile of the own army and the tile of the immediate enemy army, would be still relevant (like be in a fortified and/or high ground tile) to increase even more the range attack statistics. So let alone ranged unit as their own army would not be a good idea unless they have some extraordinary terrain advantege like be up over a cliff.It's actually the elephant, camel, or horse in the room, all with archers perched on top . . .
The broken ranged units are because:
1. Ranged units were given a significant Melee Factor for their defense, when in fact most ranged units historically had no melee weapons or armor and so in game terms should be Road Bumps for any melee unit that contacts them.
2. Having separate (1UPT) units vastly exaggerates the range of the units. For most of human history muscle-powered ranged weapons had an effective range of about 40 - 150 meters and a man with a shield could run that distance in 5 - 30 seconds. The archer put 2 - 4 arrows into the shield and then either ran for his life or died. There is a reason neither the Greeks nor the Romans had much use for 'ranged' archers or crossbowmen except on walls and towers defending cities - in the open field they either had to be protected or they evaporated Unless they were perched on top of a mobile tower - like an elephant, camel or horse.
The answer is either in 1UPT reduce the range of the ranged units AND reduce their melee factor to below that of Scouts OR Get Rid Of 1UPT, put all combat into a single tile and make ranged factors more in balance with the rest of the units as part of an army rather than a tactical unit on a strategic map with its tactical factors enhanced to strategic level.