Not excited...... not one bit

[householder]

But the idea of having to load a tactical map for each stack battle is painful, and doesn't really sound fun.

Yes, I can see where that might become wearisome. What if there was an option for the game to automatically deploy your troops, using the same mechanics that it uses for the AI? If the player didn't want to take the time to initiate tactical combat, he could allow the game to handle it. The player would still be able to preview a tactical map to determine if he or she really wants to fight there, or if he wants to take his forces to a different hex.

 

[seasnake]

I think the best thing would be a system like Sid Meier's Pirates! where you go to a tactical map based on the terrain and can move your units on that grid. The having a combined arms assault force would give you more options on that grid, so you could do more.

That would be my ideal, but I doubt it will work like that.

 

[Fabio1701]

I think the best thing would be a system like Sid Meier's Pirates! where you go to a tactical map based on the terrain and can move your units on that grid. The having a combined arms assault force would give you more options on that grid, so you could do more.

That would be my ideal, but I doubt it will work like that.

This is kinda cool, and also reminds me of Heroes of Might and Magic series. on the down side, do I really want to go into the tactical battle screen for every scirmish? will that not slow things down? and will it be a turnbased tactical map like the afforementioned HMM or will it be a rts? I think it just adds a layer of work which may detract from the grand strategy. You could have an autoresolve function for those peope who dont want the detail, but I will always feel pushed to fight the battle myself because I feel I can do a better job.

I guess it comes down to: You are playing the Emperor/President/Grand Marshal/Sultan/etc, should you really be doing the job of a Captain or Major in your army?

 

[Nick Carpathia]

It's basically not going to happen this game. No way. They are not splitting up combat up into tactical and strategic screens. Civ has never had any kind of zooming in to a tactical level, and definitely not for what is effectively a Civ5 mod.

That's not to say a quick and elegant tactical screen isn't possible. SRPGs can do it, like the old Ogre Battle and Bahamut Lagoon, or the more recent Devil Survivor and Fire Emblem games. Unfortunately, those games were built around customised units with their own tailored equipment and stats, while Civ is a grand strategy game about pumping out more dudes than anyone else. It doesn't fit.

 

[Evie94]

I personally would like to thank OP for not caring about CBE so much that he made a thread to complain about how CBE wasn't like CivIV in the CBE forum dedicated to the discussion of CBE and later returning to that thread to discuss CBE. Very helpful to the community. Can we ban all discussion pertaining to
"CBE should be CivIV in space"
"I'll only buy CivIV remakes"
"Only my tastes in games are valid and that means we all demand CivIV remade every five years"

 

[CraziFuzzy]

I've mentioned it elsewhere (I think), but the only way to come to a middle ground between 1UPT, and stacks, is to get rid of tiles completely. Different units have a different zone of control. Cities have a zone of influence. The design becomes much harder, the concept is much harder to realize, and the game becomes less 'fun' and harder to handle for most - and it becomes 'not civ'. In the end, Civilization is not 'our game' to design. We, of course, can voice opinion, but in the end, a proper Civ player will adapt to the game the designers produce.

 

[Robo-Star]

I've mentioned it elsewhere (I think), but the only way to come to a middle ground between 1UPT, and stacks, is to get rid of tiles completely.

Why not stacks with increasing penalties per number of units?

 

[CraziFuzzy]

Why not stacks with increasing penalties per number of units?

mainly because it becomes more cumbersome to use. It's just one more part of the equation you have to consider when deciding how to manipulate your units to attack. If the strength of your unit is now also dependent on how many other units are sharing it's space, it's just another level of complexity that doesn't really gain you anything.
In reality, the only problem with 1UPT is a mobility one. The blockages created are the major problem. This is somewhat alleviated if you have highly mobile units which can pass through another units tile. To me, the fix to that problem is to simply make more tiles, and have nearly every unit able to move more than one space.

 

[Robo-Star]

mainly because it becomes more cumbersome to use.

More cumbersome than getting rid of tiles completely?

In reality, the only problem with 1UPT is a mobility one. The blockages created are the major problem. This is somewhat alleviated if you have highly mobile units which can pass through another units tile. To me, the fix to that problem is to simply make more tiles, and have nearly every unit able to move more than one space.

Maybe get rid of movement altogether...have units be able to be stationed on tiles by spending resources, with far-away tiles needing a lot more resources to station/support...

 

[Commander Bello]

But the idea of having to load a tactical map for each stack battle is painful, and doesn't really sound fun.

Actually, as far as I see it, such a tactical combat map could be automatically generated based on the hexes of the planetwide map when it comes to a fight between the "stacks".

So, moving your units from one end of the world to the other could be done using a stack system. You group them and you send them to the other end of the world. Just two or three clicks.
Then, when they engage the enemy, based on the attacker's and the defender's hexes (and the two hexes next to both) the tactical map is rendered (which then would consist of a certain number of hexes), where both have an area to initially deploy their troops. After that, the fight (including combat movements) takes place in this new map. After the fight you are back on the planetwide map again.
You could even have a zooming-in and a zooming-out effect to display that you have switched to a level of higher detail.

That way you would gain several advantages: you avoid the traffic jams when just moving your units, making the main part of the game quicker; you will have a strictly 1upt-based combat and this could even take place in a larger battle theatre with some room to outmanouvre your opponent.

 

[CraziFuzzy]

More cumbersome than getting rid of tiles completely?



Maybe get rid of movement altogether...have units be able to be stationed on tiles by spending resources, with far-away tiles needing a lot more resources to station/support...

No, of course not. I never said Civ should get rid of the tiles - I'm also of the opinion that whether they use 1UPT, or stacks, it doesn't really matter, I'll play it either way. The thing is, 1UPT is easy to manage. So are stacks. Stacking penalties, however, add more complexity than either extreme.

Regarding tileless play, there's no reason it HAS to be more complex - If the UI is done properly, showing proper move range overlays, it wouldn't necessarily be any different than now - but like I said earlier, it doesn't belong in an actual Civilization title - it's just not the right flavor.

 

[Robo-Star]

No, of course not.

Ah, well I was only offering it as an alternative to getting rid of tiles completely.

 

[Louis XXIV]

But the idea of having to load a tactical map for each stack battle is painful, and doesn't really sound fun.

Yeah. Hell, I autoresolve battles more often than not in Total War and that game is designed around them.

 

[Dale]

I personally would like to thank OP for not caring about CBE so much that he made a thread to complain about how CBE wasn't like CivIV in the CBE forum dedicated to the discussion of CBE and later returning to that thread to discuss CBE. Very helpful to the community. Can we ban all discussion pertaining to
"CBE should be CivIV in space"
"I'll only buy CivIV remakes"
"Only my tastes in games are valid and that means we all demand CivIV remade every five years"

Please quote where in the OP I mention Civ4?

All I said was I didn't like 1upt as implemented in Civ5. 1upt works in certain games, but not in Civ in my opinion.

I returned later in the thread to clarify that I didn't really like stacks of doom, but that many in-between systems would work better than either, once again in my opinion.

"Only my tastes in games are valid and that means we all demand CivIV remade every five years"

I would also caution against using such a ridiculous comment as refutation to criticism of CivBE. You have no idea who you are actually talking to.

 

[Evie94]

Please quote where in the OP I mention Civ4?

All I said was I didn't like 1upt as implemented in Civ5. 1upt works in certain games, but not in Civ in my opinion.

I returned later in the thread to clarify that I didn't really like stacks of doom, but that many in-between systems would work better than either, once again in my opinion.



I would also caution against using such a ridiculous comment as refutation to criticism of CivBE. You have no idea who you are actually talking to.

who do you think you are? Sid fudgingg Meier himself? You design games, big deal, who cares. Diverging opinions doesn't make you the lord of the bloody castle.

"You have no idea who you are actually talking to", you'd swear you were the CEO of Valve

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: For this thread to remain open, cease discussing each other and discuss the topic in terms of CivBE. Talking about each other is trolling and is not civil discussion.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[SammyKhalifa]

My preference for stack vs. 1upt isn't really that strong.

But PLEASE no mini-map for battles.

 

[bill4747]

I'd disagree with you there. I like 1upt better than Civ 4's alternative. However, I wouldn't be against stacking a maximum of 2 units on a single tile as long as the units aren't too large or powerful (for example, if it was Civ 5, you wouldn't be able to stack 2 Giant Death Robots on the same tile). I think this would be a good compromise, but Firaxis will probably keep 1upt regardless (aside from the orbital layer).

Yes.

The 'problem' if there actually is one, is 'all or nothing'

Why does it have to be one per tile, or a bazillion per tile?

I am a huge panzer general and civ fan, and I love civ 5.
However, some limited stacking would be better, in my opinion.
2 per tile, for example, I would like to see in action to asses it.

[Emphasis mine]

Oh please, I've been playing Civ4 for six years and I've never seen a stack of 100 units made by the AI. If you want to make a point, make your point, but using exaggeration and disinformation makes nothing but a dishonest argument.

I'm not going to get into a debate over the stacks vs. 1UPT argument because it's pointless, but at least present your objection to the Civ4 combat system with a little more accuracy.

I liked civ 4, but if I was going to gripe it would be the diagonal movement. For some reason that bothered me. Probably just needed some sort of zone of control.

Civ v, my main gripe may sound silly, but I don't think archers should have range; instead, they could win initiative vs swordsman, for example.

Moderator Action: Merged your posts. Please use the edit button instead of making serial posts. Thanks.

 

[Seek]

Would it be possible to allow unit stacking on the strategic map, but when combat is to be initiated, the game would switch to tactical map. The tactical map would be a larger, more detailed version of the terrain from the strategic map.

Of course, that would require taking the time to deploy your troops for tactical combat. But isn't that the general idea of 1upt?

I think the best thing would be a system like Sid Meier's Pirates! where you go to a tactical map based on the terrain and can move your units on that grid. The having a combined arms assault force would give you more options on that grid, so you could do more.

That would be my ideal, but I doubt it will work like that.

The combat system for Endless Legend is going to work similar to both of these suggestions. You have a limited stack (which can grow via techs) possibly with an assigned leader and when you initiate combat you deploy your troops on the existent terrain (which includes terrain elevation with advantages!) and give them tactical orders, after which the combat plays simultaneously in AI control. IIRC, there are three rounds of combat. Oh and yes, you can autoresolve if desired.

So:

• battles move a good clip
• there are tactical decisions
• where you battle on the world map is important
• there isn't too much of an advantage for humans vs AI (one of Civ 5's biggest downfalls)

I'm looking forward to trying it out - hopefully it will be fun.

 

[EricTheGreat12]

In a way, I disagree/agree with the original post. Why?

Well, I disagree with the original post because I find that after playing Civ 5 and Civ Revolution, I find that the 1UP is better than a multitude in 1. I agree with the original post though in a sense that I don't like the game because I love the CIV franchise overall, but I don't like Sci-FI games