Military

[fdgsgds]

Let's discuss. As you may have heard, Civ5 will be using hexagonal squares with a max of but one unit on each. So... how will this work? I heard it would add more to tactical thinking (that's for sure!). Say you had a few units of spearmen and archers. Could some horse archers run up, kill the archers, and run away without the archers being aided by spearmen? I think in an older version of Civ, this very system with only one unit per tile was implemented.

Will defensive bonuses be issued? I think it is a little bit ridiculous that forests give 50% defensive bonus to nearly any unit. A hill's 25% defensive bonus can be argued and could just stay. Also, it would be great if more strategic improvements could be added, other than just forts. I know that it would add even more to the tactical thinking of the game.

I was also thinking about how silly the units "Axemen" and "Swordsmen" are. How can swordsmen be better at attacking cities? Actually, it is all explained here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=267256&highlight=learned+warfare
I think these guys would be best placed under a general "infantry" unit. It doesn't make sense that axemen destroy swordsmen so easily and that swordsmen have 10% extra strength while attacking someone inside of a city. Also should be removed is the Maceman unit. Aweful. How popular were macemen in Medieval warfare?

Do you think that a longbowman should be an English UU instead of everyone being able to get them? I think no, and I have no idea what other civs would have instead if it were an English UU. So, the redcoat best remains the English (actually, I say it should be British!) UU. Yet again, I hate to see civs like the Khmer or whatever with longbows, an invention they never had (correct me if I'm wrong). Edit: Who needs them if you have the technology of mounting a ballista on an elephant?!

Furthermore, what would happen with building units in cities? They can't be occupied there (or is it just one unit allowed there?), so they would have to jump to a nearby tile, I guess.

Feel free to comment on any of my thoughts and post yours! Post any information you retrieve if you like. Think freely!

 

[Earthling]

So... how will this work?

Answer:

It won't. The AI won't handle it well without immense "cheating" bonuses, the game will clog up/likely have micromanagement problems at any large scale, and generally there will be various things people aren't happy with, as is true with all civ combat systems so far. But I think this one might seem more jarring than the progression from III to IV, cause that time there were NEW features with promotions etc... versus an ostensibly simplified system this time.

Hopefully the game will be exciting/not entirely dominated by military aspects otherwise and still fun. And everyone should eventually learn to use/deal with the system and do better than the AI at least.

 

[the343danny]

It wont work just as much as any other feature wont work for the AI

 

[Shurdus]

Such a negativity... Did mommy not hug you guys enough when you were young?

Unsure how the mechanics will work exactly. I would assume that it will not be that hard for the AI to handle and that the Ai should be able to do fine. I do think however that it will not be that long before we may discover flaws in the code to exploit, but they may be marginal.

I do not rally feel like discussing the details since we may very well discuss how we think it will work, but we may as well wait and see.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

1upt is well, a 1up for civ combat. The AI shouldn't be to much of a problem, look up commander: Europe at war. AI is not terribly good, but it's good enough and it's an older game. 1upt will definatly not be simpler unless they take out other features (such as promotions) all we really no is that there will be 1upt and ranged bombardment allowing for much more tactics and strategy. You will actually have to work to defeat your enemys.

 

[The_J]

I think in an older version of Civ, this very system with only one unit per tile was implemented.

If Civ1 didn't have the system, then you're wrong.

Think freely!

What i especially think is that firaxis will think more about the system than we ever could.

 

[Crazy George]

Just a guess, but I'm thinking the 1UPT will help the AI shine as it min-maxes the various combat bonuses to be had. Likely, it will be much better than me at tactical warfare. And once all of the AI's bad tactics are revealed (yes, by forum posts), Firaxis will put out a patch to fix them.

As to creation of units in cities, I am led to believe there will be a permanent garrision in each city (whose strength is increased by the presense of City Walls, Castles, size, culture, etc.). Since this garrison will need to be defeated in combat even if no other defending unit is present, there will be less of a need to use military units as garrison troops (i.e. parking a military unit in a city that is not under immediate threat of attack will be a waste of that unit's potential).

To me, an Axeman or a Swordsman is just an abstraction, like units on a chess board. And since abstractions never make sense if looked at the wrong way, it's not a question of whether Axemen and Swordsmen make sense, but whether they add to a pleasurable gaming experience. In the case of Axemen and Swordsmen, what they bring to the table is a fast visual way to decipher the units relative combat effectiveness and specialization.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

One of the confirmed features is that there will be no garrisoned units in your cities.

1UPT actually helps the AI. In Civ 4 and previous, you just built a SOD and started marching around the world. Now, every civ is ensured to have a similar number of units augmented by your resources (or lack there of) and your alliances (or lack there of) and which kind of city state you or your enemies have in their hip pocket.

So, it's now more like Chess than ever! Additionally, economic utilization of your forces is more important than ever, and and your units and your oponent's units don't die unless they cannot retreat from a defeat.

I'm loving this so far.

 

[Ahriman]

1UPT actually helps the AI.

How so?

In Civ 4 and previous, you just built a SOD and started marching around the world.

Yes, and this was easy for the AI.

Now, every civ is ensured to have a similar number of units augmented by your resources (or lack there of) and your alliances (or lack there of) and which kind of city state you or your enemies have in their hip pocket.

How do you figure that every civ will have a similar number of units, regardless of empire size? Larger empires will have higher production, larger economies, larger armies and more resources, just like always.

and and your units and your oponent's units don't die unless they cannot retreat from a defeat.

This is speculation based on the specific mechanic from Panzer General. This is not an announced design decision for Civ5.

I think 1upt is probably a good design decision if they can get it working well, but it creates an increased burden on the AI, because the AI has to (for example) anticipate and forecast to use it well. For example, it has to be able to not leave its cavary right next to your spearmen, where your spearman can attack it next turn. This requires a much more sophisticated understanding of enemy force composition and future enemy actions than in any previous Civ AI.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

It's listed in the confirmed features that you will only be allowed to have one swordsman if you have iron. Now, what's not known is if that means I can have one Swordsman per iron resource and whether or not I can build lesser units in higher quantities.

It is listed in the confirmed features that units don't die every time they are defeated and that there are special advantages for flanking and envelopment.

There is a vague reference in one of the reviews speaking about units not being destroyed out right when they lose a battle.

It is accurate to say that I am inferring that units would not be destroyed if they had a retreat route.

1UPT helps the AI because the AI has fewer units to manage and there will be fewer units to defend against. The AI will no longer (examplet CIV BTS) simply stack huge armies in their cities that consume their economic resources.

 

[Ahriman]

It's listed in the confirmed features that you will only be allowed to have one swordsman if you have iron.

If so then its a typo. Its confirmed that having one iron resource will allow you to build only X units that require iron. No confirmation or implication that X=1. Much more likely that X~=5 or so.

And larger empires can have more iron resources, and so still field more units.

It is listed in the confirmed features that units don't die every time they are defeated and that there are special advantages for flanking and envelopment.

So? Again, this favors the bigger army. And flankig and envelopment bonuses mean the AI needs to understand them, so the demands on the AI are larger.

There is a vague reference in one of the reviews speaking about units not being destroyed out right when they lose a battle.

Yes, this is true. But its easily imaginable that this just means that units have more hitpoints than are done in damage in a normal combat round.
Think of a game like Battle for Wesnoth here. Units still die, just rarely from a single attack (unless the attacker was massively more powerful).

It is accurate to say that I am inferring that units would not be destroyed if they had a retreat route.

We don't even have any confirmation that units that "lose" a battle must retreat, or even that "losing" a battle is a meaningful concept (again think battle for Wesnoth; who is the loser? the unit that takes more damage?).

1UPT helps the AI because the AI has fewer units to manage and there will be fewer units to defend against. The AI will no longer (examplet CIV BTS) simply stack huge armies in their cities that consume their economic resources.

Stacking effectively means that the AI has only ONE unit to manage. Stick them all in a stack, move it around.
1upt tile means that the AI has to effectively manage every single unit.

Much more complex.

 

[Crazy George]

One of the confirmed features is that there will be no garrisoned units in your cities.

http://gamernode.com/previews/8948-c...iew/index.html

 

[frekk]

If Civ1 didn't have the system, then you're wrong.

Civ1 and, iirc, civ2 had something that was neither true stacking (so no SOD) nor 1upt. What you had was an "only the best defender" system. If you had a stack with five or six chariots, a couple of archers, and a catapult or two, and someone attacked, one of the archers (or whoever has the best defence) would come up. If he got killed, the whole stack was destroyed.

In practice, this meant almost no stacking at all near the front. Units had a separate attack and defence rating, though, so you might pair a good defender with a good attacker but that was about it.

Edit, yes, civ2 had this system as well:

The primary defender is the unit with the greatest modified defense value at the moment of the attack. If the primary defender is destroyed, all other defenders (stacked) in the same square are also destroyed unless:

i) They occupy a city square, or

ii) The square has the fortress or airbase improvement built on it.

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2/strategy/combatguide

 

[ChuckDizzle]

I have to say that I am excited about the 1 unit per tile, since it will require developing battle lines, aligning the right units against the AI at the right spaces. As far as the OP's gripe about arbitrary bonuses, it could be that CiV could use generic archer, artillery, infantry, and cavalry units, but with specialties, such as sappers which give city attack bonuses, maces, which are anti-armor weapons, or spears, which are anti-cavalry.

 

[Willem]

If Civ1 didn't have the system, then you're wrong.

No it didn't. Civ has always used a stack system for it's units.

PS: frekk explained the system nicely.

 

[Kurgan]

Say you had a few units of spearmen and archers. Could some horse archers run up, kill the archers, and run away without the archers being aided by spearmen? I think in an older version of Civ, this very system with only one unit per tile was implemented.

I have no idea about how the military system will work, just what I am reading in this Forum, anyway the example that you mention is one of the things that I really like of this system. If you want to attack or defend, and you have spearmen and archers, you have to think what you know about your enemy, if you know that they have horse archers you should plan the way you set up your units in such a way that if they want to hit you and run the terrain works for you or shielding your weak units forcing your enemy to have to move their cavalry such a long way to avoid the spears that you will be able to quickly advance your army. It will not be easy, but as an abstraction it will be more realistic. For example when the Romans attacked the Partians if they did not planned things carefully and take the best routes (so the terrain favoured their infantry) very often they found themselves in deep trouble, in the large desert/plains of the middle east with an enemy that had an army based in light hit/shoot and run cavalry and heavy cavalry to finish the job, just to mention the example of Crassus at Carrae, he was not a bad general, but he underestimated his enemy and was not very careful in his campaign planning.
With the CIV IV system the real world strategic options are fewer, you just have to have a good mixture of units and the biggest stack and even fortified and well defended choke points fall.
I really do think that they have chosen the right path for a best military system in CIV V.

 

[globalempire]

could not have said it better myself kurgan

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

Hmmm...I would love to employ a real hedgehog maneuver!

 

[pi-r8]

You know, looking back, i Kinda like the Civ 2 system. You CAN stack, it's just risky. A real-life army is also at risk if it's concentrated all in one small space.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

I like Starship Troopers' take on stacking. You could do it, but certain weapons could attack every unit in a stack with a chance at wounding them or destroying them outright.