This is making me think about BERT. The hybrid unique units had "support actions" special abilities that they could take instead or in conjunction with their normal abilities. The Architects and Thrones had the ability to boost or decrease the combat strength of a targeted unit. Golems could form an impassable tile. Nanohives could create a damaging field in the area around them... makes me wonder if we'll see this type of feature of alternate actions.
As for Civ VI itself, its still 1UPT but now with a twist and (hopefully) more tactical options. I feel like "Support" is going to be more of a position and role than a unit type, with the exception of a few specialized units that are intended to be used as supports. I doubt that things like Archers will be labeled as Support units by default.
The first change implemented in Civilization 6 is the concept of support units, wherein something like a siege tower, battering ram, or anti-tank or anti-aircraft gun can stack with a typical military unit.
Second, the concept of grouping into formations. Calling it a long-requested feature, Shirk says you’ll be able to link two units (one military and one civilian) together and will be able to move them around together with a single movement command. “That’s really nice with civilian units, as you can escort settlers or builders or missionaries around the map.”
Finally, to minimize late-game unit bloat, Firaxis has created Corps and Armies: two or three of the same unit type (a Rifleman, for instance) combined into a single, more powerful version of that same unit. A Rifleman Corps unit would be roughly 40% more powerful than an individual, which means they’re less potent than the two component Riflemen would be by themselves, but together they’re more survivable and potent in a single attack. Having the option to create Corps (unlocked in the Napoleonic era), and then later add a third unit to create an Army (unlocked around 100 years later), is designed to open up new tactics and reduce overcrowding on the map.
I play civ to play an empire simulator, not a military commander simulator. So I hope the unit formations and stuff streamline everything, not make you make more meaningful decisions about which units to use and such. Civ5 has too much focus on combat and positioning and winning tactical battles while in civ4, the stronger empire with better tech usually won.
Second, the concept of grouping into formations. Calling it a long-requested feature, Shirk says youll be able to link two units (one military and one civilian) together and will be able to move them around together with a single movement command. Thats really nice with civilian units, as you can escort settlers or builders or missionaries around the map.
The first change implemented in Civilization 6 is the concept of support units, wherein something like a siege tower, battering ram, or anti-tank or anti-aircraft gun can stack with a typical military unit.
Second, the concept of grouping into formations. Calling it a long-requested feature, Shirk says youll be able to link two units (one military and one civilian) together and will be able to move them around together with a single movement command. Thats really nice with civilian units, as you can escort settlers or builders or missionaries around the map.
Finally, to minimize late-game unit bloat, Firaxis has created Corps and Armies: two or three of the same unit type (a Rifleman, for instance) combined into a single, more powerful version of that same unit. A Rifleman Corps unit would be roughly 40% more powerful than an individual, which means theyre less potent than the two component Riflemen would be by themselves, but together theyre more survivable and potent in a single attack. Having the option to create Corps (unlocked in the Napoleonic era), and then later add a third unit to create an Army (unlocked around 100 years later), is designed to open up new tactics and reduce overcrowding on the map.
That is how I figured they were doing it. A stacked unit is stronger in a single tile but is less total power than two or three of the unit and still costs the full maintenance.
Support units combining into the usual combat unit types are where I think we are going to have the big win. They tried to implement support units in Beyond Earth but they fell flat largely because 1upt just made them too clunky. This new system kind of reminds me of Alpha Centauri where we had those utility slots on the unit creator and could increase the unit cost to give them special abilities. Just instead we make the support unit and combine it in.
I hope those stacked units are used by city-states, I've often wished city-states could combine units to reduce clutter, though that often starts in the early eras.
If you have six units of riflemen, you can spread them out for a wider screen or make two large divisions with a punching power, or a combination of that, like a big riflemen Army with cavalry on flanks. Cool.
Has anyone figured out if I can build for example a separate anti-tank unit and move it on map, or is it always this sort of "attachment" that can be put into an infantry unit?
Seems like some articles give conflicting reports.
edit: Also there seems to be a reason why unit has only four swormen in it, combine more at it will have more ranks behind it, makes it easy to figure how large these ministacks are.
If you want to get really technical I'd suppose we now have land stacking, since CiV allowed you to stack a naval unit on top of a land unit if they were on water.
Right. AI was pretty good about stacking land units with naval units when available. I'm assuming they will be just as disciplined on the land, which would take away the oh-so satisfying feeling of a well executed flank.
Agree. Positioning missile and melee units is to big tactical aspect to loose. Support units are more like customizations - you could attach siege equipment to make unit effective against cities or add Anti-Tank to better defend against armors, etc.
Personally for me, stacks rule over 1upt. This is purely and simply based on the fact the AI cannot handle 1upt very well. And I don't this system really helps that. It might a bit, but not much.
As cities are now split into districts, I suppose it will probably take more than a turn to capture the larger ones. This might lead to some interesting developments. Think battle of Stalingrad.
As cities are now split into districts, I suppose it will probably take more than a turn to capture the larger ones. This might lead to some interesting developments. Think battle of Stalingrad.
Well, the fact that units are build outside the city with the military district, if I understood correctly, makes for interesting sieges.
To that end, there’s also a Military Encampment District that you can build to house military buildings, but it also can be fortified with walls and gain a ranged strike – doubling your city’s defensive power. Being outside the city walls gives it other tactical advantages as well, adds Shirk. “An enemy can’t just come in and siege your city, because you’ll be cranking out units at their back. It’s a nice side effect.”
So far, i'd say the changes to 1UPT appears to be a good move for CIVI.
From what i understand, you'll have different options :
- Building corps (2units) or armies (3units) of the same type of units.
- Banding civilians with military units (warrior with settler)
- Adding specific support upgrades to units\corps\armies
- Creating formations of units (red that somewhere quoted from an article)
Each of those things will imo kill a flaw of civ V.
First, with the support upgrades, that are NOT units and thus never appear on the map, it will limit the variety of units on the terrain and thus simplify the positionning of units especially in late eras where an anti aircraft or anti tank unit were very situationnal but still took one of those precious tiles due to the scaling.
So, i guess we'll build more of generic type units (frontline, range, cavalry, siege, armored) and then add specific upgrades which will end up offering the same options as before (anti aircraft, anti tank, city breaching tools, medic if promotions have been changed as well, etc..) while leaving more space on the terrain. Also, it makes more sense as i would expect a frontline unit to have say a rocket launcher to counter tanks, but not an entire unit of RPG dudes. Same goes with battering ram, or even siege tower.
Armies and corps are pretty much self explanatory. more power on one tile. Compared to civ V it's still up to 3 units on 1 tile. If i had been able to do this with my frontline on civ V, would hav saved me a lot of hassle.
EDIT : just red that corps and armies will be unlock at specific times. Corps around napoleonic era and armies in modern era. Which kinda makes sense.
=> The impact of those two changes will greatly depend on the production and strength scaling compared to CiV. if in the end you need just as much 3 unit armies than you needed single units in CiV, the feeling of lacking space to manoeuver will remain.
Banding civil + military is a welcome change. How many times in CiV did i have to push space to have a warrior remain active every turn so i dont forget about him when the worker is done and i need to move him and escort him with the warrior.
Formations, even though we dont know much really, would fasten long distance units transfer nicely.
I see a lot of people think support units are some sort of upgrade to base units, where was this mentioned? I don't see it this way. Lets say you have 3 warriors and 3 battering rams outside an enemy city. Instead of taking up 6 tiles it now takes only 3 tiles but they are still 6 individual units which can all attack on the same turn.
Corps/armies are just a mid-late game declutter and to make units take more bombardment from planes/ranged. The AI should have a better time of it in combat with these changes. I doubt a couple of archers will be able to save a city from an early AI warrior/battering ram rush unlike Civ5.
Also building on tiles will allow the AI to seriously harm your cities via pillaging. I see all these changes as a way to combat in Civ 5 how easy it was to neglect military for economy.
I see a lot of people think support units are some sort of upgrade to base units, where was this mentioned? I don't see it this way. Lets say you have 3 warriors and 3 battering rams outside an enemy city. Instead of taking up 6 tiles it now takes only 3 tiles but they are still 6 individual units which can all attack on the same turn.
Think for a second - what happens when the unit with support unit on the same tile is attacked. For siege equipment we could assume it's either main unit, or the strongest of 2. Anti-Tank should definitely take attacks of the tanks, but what about other units? And what about Anti-Aircraft? And speaking about Anti-Aircraft, should they have attack at all?
It's possible to implement support units as individual units, but much more consistent in terms of 1UPT is to have them affect regular units. In this case it will still be 1UPT, just with modifications.
Either the attacker would get to choose which unit to target or the most defensible unit would take the damage, with exceptions. ( example melee can target rams ) Rams would have a bonus to taking hits from archers basically requiring melee units to kill them. Anti tank guns would have a bonus to tanks obviously so on attack or defend get a bonus, with armor you probably aren't going to target the anti tank gun but with a ranged unit or bomber you would attempt to destroy it first.
Having units be augmented by support in my example would have 3 warriors only with a modifier of been better at attacking cities? You would need to waste the production of building 6 units only for them to get wrecked by a couple of archers+city bombardment. Another thing is it won't help the AI as much as 2UPT would.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
