Intercontinental warfare-foolishness

[Ahriman]

But also there is micro-management in moving all these single units while moving a defensive ring along with them.

With 1Upt, there had better be some kind of band-box selection/formation movement mechanic to ease such issues.

I would also say that the old transports were weak and needed protection. Nothing really changed here did it?

Yes. You used to be able to stack your navy on top of your transports. Not anymore; your army will be very vulnerable while sailing across the ocean, because they don't have to kill all your military vessels before having any chance at attacking your land units.

A system of transports (where a transport could carry multiple land units) would make it much easier to protect the land units.

A system of transports where each transport could only carry a single land unit would just be horrible, and require a ridiculous number of transport units.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

With 1Upt, there had better be some kind of band-box selection/formation movement mechanic to ease such issues.

That would go against everything they have indicated.... They want tactical combat to be important. Which means Terrain is important

Which means even though I have THis organization
here,
Horse..Pike.......................
Archer..Sword...................

If I move them forward I will Probably want

.........................Sword..Horse
.........................Archer..Pike

Intead because the Terrain is different (both the terrain the units are on and the Terrain

Especially if the way the box moves, the spot the pike Used to be in is an ocean now....

the only way they can successfully simplify micromanagement is by reducing the number of units. (either through hard caps or massive maintenance... ie maintenance that scales with the cost of the unit)

If 20 units is the most you have, then you can move them all individually without 'much' micromanagement.

And I'm hoping that is near the limit. (ie a large, very militaristic civ would have 20 units)

There should be no units in cities except recently taken ones (City Defenses should be better than a several units of the era so adding a single unit in there should be semi redundant)

 

[Ahriman]

That would go against everything they have indicated.... They want tactical combat to be important. Which means Terrain is important

Rubbish. Yes, terrain is important in a *fight*. But why does that prevent the existence of micro-management devices that you can use to ease moving large numbers of units that are not in a fight?

Even with stacks of doom it is tactically important to manually select the order in which you order your units to attack. But this doesn't preclude use having a micro-management-reducing command that allows us to simultaneously move every unit in the stack. Its just not wise to use that during combat.

If I want to send my flotilla of frigates, ships of the line and transports across the ocean in a particular formation, it makes plenty of sense for me to set them up in a formation I'd like them to move in, then band box select them all, hit a "use formation" button and then right click on a target tile. Then the whole armada will move across the ocean in formation. If they see an enemy unit, they'll stop and I can then manually change positioning to optimize to meet the threat.

Same could work on land.

Terrain importance doesn't negate the possibility of a labor-saving UI.

 

[WeaselSlapper]

That would go against everything they have indicated.... They want tactical combat to be important. Which means Terrain is important

Which means even though I have THis organization
here,
Horse..Pike.......................
Archer..Sword...................

If I move them forward I will Probably want

.........................Sword..Horse
.........................Archer..Pike

I wouldn't be surprised to see the bonus against X unit go away completely in Civ V, unless they are only defensive. With 1 unit per hex any horse on the front lines would be easy pickings for an enemy spear or pike and any mace would be easily smashed by enemy crossbows.

 

[WeaselSlapper]

Carriers will probably carry 1 air unit (the one air unit that can be in that Hex)

However that one air unit will be significant in terms of its power.

My guess is that planes will operate like planes in Civ IV and need to be based somewhere therefore exempt to the 1 unit per tile rule, otherwise there would be no need for carriers at all because plane would just be able to fly over the ocean

 

[Ahriman]

With 1 unit per hex any horse on the front lines would be easy pickings for an enemy spear or pike and any mace would be easily smashed by enemy crossbows.

I think that's part of the idea. Give back some role of initiative to the attacker, because the attacker gets to chose the targets. So you have to carefully position your units so that your horse units can attack their archers while avoiding their spearmen, and your swords can attack their spears while avoiding their archers (for example) - while the enemy tries to do the same to you. Much more chess-like unit positioning; an actual war of manuever.

[Note, the tactical attacker is of course not the same as the strategic attacker. The enemy may be invading you, and so you attack their invading army.]

 

[KrikkitTwo]

My guess is that planes will operate like planes in Civ IV and need to be based somewhere therefore exempt to the 1 unit per tile rule, otherwise there would be no need for carriers at all because plane would just be able to fly over the ocean

The planes would have a range... so the Carrier is there to allow the planes to be based closer to the enemy.
So the plane is in the Carrier not to get "transported" but because the Carrier is the only way to get close enough to where it wants to attack/defend.

It has been indicated that Air is one of the "layers", and so air units are likely to act very much like really long range archers. Ie they are based in 1 place, and only 1 air unit may be in a given tile (ie only 1 air unit on one carrier unit, 1 air unit in a city/airbase)

CivIV already started in this direction, limiting Cities to holding 4 air units (8 with airport)

So if you have 5 air units (which would be an overwhelming airforce I Imagine) then you need 5 cities, or 5 Carriers, or 5 airbases or something mix of those.

Rubbish. Yes, terrain is important in a *fight*. But why does that prevent the existence of micro-management devices that you can use to ease moving large numbers of units that are not in a fight?

The fact that there will not be large numbers of units.

I think the comparison to chess is excellent, in chess each side has 16 units... that is about what I would expect a mid-late game situation to be.

16 units... no 'reinforcements' arriving.. most of those units you have had for hundreds of years and instead of building new units, your cities are busy providing maintenance/repair/upgrades for the ones you have.

(So instead of 'mass produce Riflemen' your cities are on 'mass produce military maintenance' which lets you upgrade your existing macemen to Riflemen And lets you repair those Riflemen if they get damaged... and also lets you support this MASSIVE army of 7 Riflemen, 4 Cavalry and 5 cannons)... not to mention the 8 Frigates (produced and maintained by the most powerful empire on the map... you have 20+ cities whose entire economy is devoted to supporting your military... and they are needed...since you are in war and these units are getting damaged.)

 

[WeaselSlapper]

I think that's part of the idea. Give back some role of initiative to the attacker, because the attacker gets to chose the targets. So you have to carefully position your units so that your horse units can attack their archers while avoiding their spearmen, and your swords can attack their spears while avoiding their archers (for example) - while the enemy tries to do the same to you. Much more chess-like unit positioning; an actual war of manuever.

[Note, the tactical attacker is of course not the same as the strategic attacker. The enemy may be invading you, and so you attack their invading army.]

If this were the case the "front lines" that they are trying to create would be very costly to maintain. I don't see how they can have attack bonuses while getting the type of battle they are going for. But I never played Panzer General so we'll just have to see how it plays out.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If this were the case the "front lines" that they are trying to create would be very costly to maintain. I don't see how they can have attack bonuses while getting the type of battle they are going for. But I never played Panzer General so we'll just have to see how it plays out.

They will probably be more limited bonuses... and probably depend on Attacking or defending

"Frontline" units will probably not have something that has a bonus from attacking them head on.

They will probably suffer a lot from Ranged bombardment and Flanking units

Anti-Flankers will probably not do to well against Frontline units

I see
.........Sword
Spear..Archer..Spear

as the set up (with Horses more distant to try and flank the other group that looks like this)

 

[Ahriman]

I think the comparison to chess is excellent, in chess each side has 16 units... that is about what I would expect a mid-late game situation to be.

That is pure speculation on your part.

I think we are highly likely to have many more than 16 total units by the mid-late game.

If we don't, then I'm not fussed about the micromanagement, but I'm worried about the gameplay.

If we have more units, then we need some micromanagement-reducing options.

So instead of 'mass produce Riflemen' your cities are on 'mass produce military maintenance'

Again, pure speculation on your part with zero evidence. Where have they even implied that "military maintenance" is something that cities will need to be "building"?

If this were the case the "front lines" that they are trying to create would be very costly to maintain.

Costly how? I don't quite understand sorry.
I think this is precisely what they are going for. That's exactly how many turn-based/hex strategy wargames function.

They will probably be more limited bonuses... and probably depend on Attacking or defending

Possibly, sure.

"Frontline" units will probably not have something that has a bonus from attacking them head on.

They will probably suffer a lot from Ranged bombardment and Flanking units

Anti-Flankers will probably not do to well against Frontline units

I think it is highly unlikely that they will have unit "facings", which would be needed for "head on" and "flanknig" to have any meaning. More likely IMO is that you will be trying to preserve your units, so a unit on a flank is more vulnerable because it can have more enemy units attack it in a single turn, and so is at a greater risk of being wiped out entirely.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That is pure speculation on your part.

I think we are highly likely to have many more than 16 total units by the mid-late game.

then 1UPT is a terrible, terrible idea
.. remember we won't have units defending cities any more... cities defend themselves, same with Forts

If we don't, then I'm not fussed about the micromanagement, but I'm worried about the gameplay.

If we have more units, then we need some micromanagement-reducing options.

If we have more units, then they need to remove 1UPT (or allow ways around it like Civ3/CivRev Armies)

Your entire 'unit military' should be at the location you are at war. Your number of "Army Groups" ie small clusters of different types of units that function in combat should be countable on one hand... and shouldn't have more than maybe 8 units each for a Large army.

Again, pure speculation on your part with zero evidence. Where have they even implied that "military maintenance" is something that cities will need to be "building"?

They have implied there will be unit maintenance/costs ... I assume that your cities contribute to that. (ie building Currency, working towns, working farms if food is maintenance, etc.)

Basically the Cities that in previous versions of Civ were producing units, in Civ V those cities should be Supporting units. (so if money is what is used to support units Banks are more military focused than Factories, etc. because support is more important than production)

I think it is highly unlikely that they will have unit "facings", which would be needed for "head on" and "flanknig" to have any meaning. More likely IMO is that you will be trying to preserve your units, so a unit on a flank is more vulnerable because it can have more enemy units attack it in a single turn, and so is at a greater risk of being wiped out entirely.

Well probably not unit "Facings" but if a unit has enemies on multiple sides I could imagine those enemies getting a bonus.

And some units (Cavalry) might get/give a bigger 'surrounding' bonus.
Frontline units might be more susceptible to 'surrounding' bonuses.

 

[Ahriman]

Your entire 'unit military' should be at the location you are at war

So... if you are prosecuting a war, you should have to leave the entire rest of your empire defenseless, so that anyone else who chooses can invade me and pillage and burn my empire at will, and capture multiple cities?

Cities are being designed to defend themselves, but I don't think they're being designed to be able to hold out alone against multiple units, or to prevent field pillaging.

You really think if I have say 8 cities, that it will be unplayable with 1Upt for me to have say 25 units? Say, a 4 ship navy, a 6 unit empire defensive reserve, and a 15 unit invasion army with 3 siege units, 2 archers, 3 cavalry, 3 spearmen and 4 swordsmen?

That still feels low to me, but is over 50% more than your 16 unit example.

They have implied there will be unit maintenance/costs

Sure, but that's a gold cost, not something that your cities will have to be "building" instead of units. I don't think there is any evidence that cities will spend most of their time building structurse.

Well probably not unit "Facings" but if a unit has enemies on multiple sides I could imagine those enemies getting a bonus.
And some units (Cavalry) might get/give a bigger 'surrounding' bonus.
Frontline units might be more susceptible to 'surrounding' bonuses.

<shrug>
Maybe. Too soon to tell.

 

[Modiga-Disabled]

I wonder if units will be able to make multiple attacks per turn. If there were two civs with evenly matched navies and one was going for an amphibious assault against the other, presumably with one attack per turn, the defender wouldn't be able to effectively hit the landing force because it's busy matching the military vessels. It could attack and sink/cripple all of the invader's military ships, but not have a chance to stop attack the transports.

 

[Ahriman]

I wonder if units will be able to make multiple attacks per turn. If there were two civs with evenly matched navies and one was going for an amphibious assault against the other, presumably with one attack per turn, the defender wouldn't be able to effectively hit the landing force because it's busy matching the military vessels. It could attack and sink/cripple all of the invader's military ships, but not have a chance to stop attack the transports

Why would you attack their military ships? More likely, you'll go past/around their military ships (or punch a hole in their ships), and then start attacknig their transports.

And then make their military ships attack yours.

I'm guessing that trying to launch an invasion with land units before neutralizing the enemey navy will be very costly.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So... if you are prosecuting a war, you should have to leave the entire rest of your empire defenseless, so that anyone else who chooses can invade me and pillage and burn my empire at will, and capture multiple cities?

Cities are being designed to defend themselves, but I don't think they're being designed to be able to hold out alone against multiple units, or to prevent field pillaging.

You really think if I have say 8 cities, that it will be unplayable with 1Upt for me to have say 25 units? Say, a 4 ship navy, a 6 unit empire defensive reserve, and a 15 unit invasion army with 3 siege units, 2 archers, 3 cavalry, 3 spearmen and 4 swordsmen?

That still feels low to me, but is over 50% more than your 16 unit example.

I sure hope you couldn't support that with 8 cities. Maybe if that was all you were doing with those 8 cities (supporting units), or if you cut all those numbers in 1/2

so say 12 units (3 reserve, 2-3 ships, Siege, Archer, 2 Cavalry, Spear, 2 Swords)

Sure, but that's a gold cost, not something that your cities will have to be "building" instead of units. I don't think there is any evidence that cities will spend most of their time building structurse.

They didn't say it was a gold cost...they just said it was a cost (it was a gold cost only in Civ 4... and that was good because it was delocalized... but in civ 1-3 it was production from the 'home city'... good to get rid of the home city idea, but gold for the military diluted a military playstyle... except for the fact that maintenance was pretty insignificant compared to build cost.)

If you are playing in a military style, a significant portion of your economy should be going towards your units

In previous civs that meant you had them Building units.

If they want a smaller number of units, that don't die often, then you won't be building units, instead you will be maintaining/reparing/upgrading them.

In Civ 4 terms, with gold as the support
I would imagine that units might cost almost as much maintenance as they do production... ie a 15 hammer warrior cost say 3 gpt to maintain. (and something like 45 gold to completerly repair from 1 hp)

This means that you would have maybe one city that Produces the occasional unit*... but multiple cities that don't produce anything instead they work cottages to maintain the units you have.

As well as cities contrbuting to the civilian portion of your economy (tech, government expenses, culture, buildings, etc.)

* indeed 'producing' units might be out altogether, you might just Buy units with the same resources you use to maintain them. (that would work for how to deal with a city building units when a unit is there... you can only buy a unit when one is not there...but you can't move it till next turn... so you can only build 1 unit/city/turn.. but that would probably be more than you could afford unless you'd spent a lot of time without units.) Make it so that units have Building Prerequisites (ie you can only buy a Tank if there is an expensive Factory there) and you have about the same system.


I could see it becoming so that

Production->Development resource.. can get turned into gold
Gold->Military Resource... can get turned into production, in a limited sense

Science (separate from gold)->..tech resource
Culture...another separate resource... possibly competing with Science (provided by 'elites')..-> Great People, Borders, New Social Policies, stopping 'resistance' from appearing through Happiness.

 

[Ahriman]

I sure hope you couldn't support that with 8 cities. Maybe if that was all you were doing with those 8 cities (supporting units), or if you cut all those numbers in 1/2

so say 12 units (3 reserve, 2-3 ships, Siege, Archer, 2 Cavalry, Spear, 2 Swords)

You think 3 units per city is high? Well, I sure hope you're wrong. 1.5 units per city sounds just horribly narrow.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You think 3 units per city is high? Well, I sure hope you're wrong. 1.5 units per city sounds just horribly narrow.

Why?
You have 12 units that each need to be moved seperately.

And that's with only 8 cities (which is a small number I believe)

What about when you have 20 cities... I sure don't want 60 separate units on 60 separate tiles to have to move around if I want to be a warmonger. 30 is more than enough micromangement (~5 groups of 6 units)

They could reduce this problem by allowing 'Armies' like in Civ 3/Rev.. This would be a very limited unit stacking idea.



Basically, the system should not have more than 20-30 units for an empire.
Because each of those units are going to be special/unlikely to die/occupying their own tile.