Military camps/outposts

[Stormbolt]

Many people complain about 1UPT leading to difficult management of units. I was thinking that we could have military camps or outposts as a type of tile improvement. Multiple units would be able to stack on them, making organization easier. To avoid making them overpowered, only one unit in the stack would be able to defend the camp. If they're defeated, all the units on the stack are lost (thus forcing the player to be careful about using them). In addition, there could be limits on how many units they store, or how many total can be built.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[dexters]

Yes, see this thread and put you name to support it

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=389787

 

[Stormbolt]

I read that thread, and I do support it. However, this would work a bit differently, because it uses tile improvements rather than buildings in cities, giving you more options as to where you can store units.

 

[Camikaze]

As with the idea linked by dexters, this would be good in that it does not arbitrarily allow for stacks, but sets some clear criteria. I do however think that the 'if one loses, they all die' approach isn't the best way to go.

 

[pickle]

The lose 1 and they all die is how they managed stacks in civ 1, it worked quite well.
also if you think about it you have one unit guarding the camp while the others are on leave/asleep/drunk/ generally unable to defend themselves.
if you make all the units able to defend then you will be able to drop a couple of camps along the border and you will be impossible to invade. perhaps have say 4 units in a camp so 3 are useless until you move them away and you only pay maintenance on the defender?

 

[CivMyWay]

There should definitely be some kind of fort which is used to protect borders (aka the Romans). The fort could remove any other food bonuses etc that the tile would give. If introduced with the concept of seiging, you could also give penalties for a fort with too many units in it. (increased health/pollution/crime issues, inability to be flexible in warfare because there are too many people around). Also make them expensive to build and maintain, and if not taken down; they can be captured by the enemy.

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps allowing for only one unit to be at full strength at a time would make sense, but simply killing off units when they haven't even engaged in combat seems highly unrealistic. "They were asleep" doesn't seem like a particularly sufficient explanation.

 

[killmeplease]

they were drunk?

 

[CivMyWay]

What about if the defending unit is killed, then all other units in the stack take a penalty hit (e.g. 10% of health). They are not killed outright, but suffer from being ill-prepared.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, collateral damage with every attack rather than just with siege units or units promoted appropriately as it was in Civ4 would be a good way of limiting the power of stacks.

 

[CivMyWay]

Collateral damage would make sense (within a confined space) also. So, collateral damage could apply within forts, cities etc. (I still prefer the idea of weakening a stack through tile devastation, increased maintenance costs, health issues etc).

 

[Camikaze]

Why not have penalties that weaken a stack through tile devastation (I assume this would be in the form of some combat modifier), increased maintenance costs, health penalties and collateral damage?

 

[CivMyWay]

I see tile devastation as essentially pillaging++. If you have a stack that is either too big or sitting still for too long, then they have massive effects on the output and productivity of that tile. (i.e. an army sitting on a hillside would soon exhaust food supplies, which would likely take a turn or two to recover). I have no problem with multiple negatives

 

[killmeplease]

multiple effects complicate things too much, personally i do not like it.
just recall civics from rise of mankind mod, it was a mess.

 

[Camikaze]

Multiple effects don't really complicate things too much. Already you have multiple effects. Different units have different modifiers when attacking other units, there are terrain combat modifiers, and each unit has its own strength.

 

[killmeplease]

Different units have different modifiers when attacking other units, there are terrain combat modifiers, and each unit has its own strength.

so there are already 3 factors affecting thrength. if we added penalty for stacking it would add another one, and if we added devastation there will be another one for improvements. then we add another 3 mods and get a mess of rules, complicating situation analysis and decision making. rules should be as simple as possible, IMHO. the greatest games are not incredebly complicated.

another examples of multiple effects i can recall of are technologies and buildings. the very most of buildings have 1-2 effects tough. the more would worsen comprehension.

 

[Camikaze]

If it is all made intuitive, and all included in combat calculations, then it should really be no issue. It's not much to know that stacks are going to cost more, be weaker, and reduce the output of a tile. These factors would all be very easy to take into consideration. And when you come to combat, the exact extent of the penalty would become evident in the combat calculation. You think the penalty is too high in a given battle? Simple solution; take units out of your stack. That's not complicated at all.

 

[eric_]

Why not just make this a feature of forts...or, better yet, citadels?