"One unit per one tile" strategy thoughts

[KrikkitTwo]

Back on topic, a look at this screenshot gets me to thinking ...

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2814&original=1&c=36

One unit per tile sure limits the defense of that city. Maybe we want cities to be able to build up their units per tile capacity? Barracks allows housing of an extra foot unit? Stable allows construction of horse, and housing of horse in addition to the foot? Add archery range as pre-requisite for bow units ... but allows an additonal bow unit in city? Extra units from walls and castles? Or have several levels of barracks, each adding unit capacity? Or units capacity in proportion to city pop?

In the field, some system of forts, of various sizes with various garrisons?

Or does this make warfare too predominant in the game, all of these nuances?

dV

Well Cities + Forts are basically Immobile units that can stack with 1 other unit.

The Big Question is if a Fort can be on a developed/worked tile.

 

[chongli]

I'm suggesting Tile improvements work the same way (the workers stay there getting the resources)

Roads might be different, but they might not use workers at all (see Civ Rev).

Ah, but then what are the citizens in the city itself doing when you assign them to that tile?

I've never played Civ Rev so I don't know anything about it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Ah, but then what are the citizens in the city itself doing when you assign them to that tile?
.

You Don't assign citizens of the city to tiles

Citizens of the city work in The city as Specialists, the Tiles work themselves (Just like you don't assign people to work in the Barracks or the City Walls or the Monastery)

That would be the advantage of the system, the city "Has" a certain set of tiles.
You never 'switch away' from them. You can add new ones but you never 'stop working' a tile that you have (just like you never 'stop working' a building)

 

[da_Vinci]

Well Cities + Forts are basically Immobile units that can stack with 1 other unit.

The Big Question is if a Fort can be on a developed/worked tile.

I was thinking more of a city having the capacity to be a reservoir of units ... Maybe eventually six units housed in a city (or some reasonable number) ... or if not in the city, then in the nearby military base. So that a city's defender number is not necessarily limited by the free tiles around it? So you have a set of units that can be deployed in response to an assault ... or a place to have reinforcements stored up for later deployment. We need some kind of Depot concept, I think.

Ah, but then what are the citizens in the city itself doing when you assign them to that tile?

I've never played Civ Rev so I don't know anything about it.

I think the Civ Rev point was regarding roads, where you buy a road between two particular cities with gold. You don't get roads out into every part of the wilderness. In Civ Rev, the roads are a bit like railroads, a 1 MP unit moves full distance between two cities connected by a road in 1 turn, regardless of actual distance. 2 MP units can move on to the second city on the road in the same turn.

dV

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I was thinking more of a city having the capacity to be a reservoir of units ... Maybe eventually six units housed in a city (or some reasonable number) ... or if not in the city, then in the nearby military base. So that a city's defender number is not necessarily limited by the free tiles around it? So you have a set of units that can be deployed in response to an assault ... or a place to have reinforcements stored up for later deployment. We need some kind of Depot concept, I think.

The whole point of Civ Vs combat design is that you don't Have large numbers of units.

Not only 1 unit per tile hard limit but also something like 10-12 units for the entire empire.

I'd be surprised if a well developed late game city can support more than 2 units. (if it is entirely focused on maintaining those units)

Note: I am not talking about 'Housing' 2 units (THe city will only 'house' one unit) Iam talking about supporting 2 units... so that the number of units you have will probably be less than your number of cities [although the palace probably helps you support some starting units]

 

[da_Vinci]

The whole point of Civ Vs combat design is that you don't Have large numbers of units.

Not only 1 unit per tile hard limit but also something like 10-12 units for the entire empire.

I'd be surprised if a well developed late game city can support more than 2 units. (if it is entirely focused on maintaining those units)

I guess that depends on what "not large number" means ... but with screenshots showing what appears to be half a dozen units converging on a city, be nice to think the city might house more than one ... maybe at least 3, with fortification defenses. If city only has one defender, then aren't we just keeping the stack of doom problem on a smaller scale (team of six vs defender of one)? I suppose one defends by having an army in the field at all times ... very spread out ... but that seems rather unnatural.

I don't mind keeping the unit numbers low, but I still think concentation of force needs to be an option, as that is the cardinal rule of offensive strategy and tactics, isn't it?

dV

 

[tom2050]

I think that is why they have mentioned that players will need to bring the fight out of the city. Their whole goal was to make it so that cities are not where the battles take place, but your land. So the game is going to be more offense oriented. If they declare war and enter your land, you need to attack and drive them out, because if they reach your city, chances are it can hold out for a bit, but not too long.

 

[da_Vinci]

I think that is why they have mentioned that players will need to bring the fight out of the city. Their whole goal was to make it so that cities are not where the battles take place, but your land. So the game is going to be more offense oriented. If they declare war and enter your land, you need to attack and drive them out, because if they reach your city, chances are it can hold out for a bit, but not too long.

I can see a scenario where a city is crowded against the sea, with enemy culture pressing, and it can't have more than 3 or 4 units in the area because that is all the tiles it commands. I think this will create some unreasonably undefendable cities.

dV

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Such a city would need units waiting in Transports to Reinforce.

Or Naval units to provide support

 

[tom2050]

That is a good point You have a single city with 4 tiles pressed by some massive behemoth civilization.

The 19 transports outside the city (holding non-amphib units) can't do anything once the enemy occupies those 4 tiles. And your single unit in the city can't be stacked with more units.

So you would have to constantly use 2 transports to 'switch healthy with city-damaged unit', then hope that unit heals while in the transport.

 

[da_Vinci]

I am not suggesting that a city contain hundreds of units, but since a city can have six enemy units adjacent to it, why not let the city house six units of its own?

dV

 

[chongli]

That is a good point You have a single city with 4 tiles pressed by some massive behemoth civilization.

The 19 transports outside the city (holding non-amphib units) can't do anything once the enemy occupies those 4 tiles. And your single unit in the city can't be stacked with more units.

So you would have to constantly use 2 transports to 'switch healthy with city-damaged unit', then hope that unit heals while in the transport.

I would hope that all units are capable of attempting an amphibious assault, though some would be better at it than others. The idea that you could completely block the enemy from unloading their transports is not a good one.

I am not suggesting that a city contain hundreds of units, but since a city can have six enemy units adjacent to it, why not let the city house six units of its own?

dV

Because that violates the principle of one-unit-per-tile.

 

[tom2050]

Oh gosh... Well, NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT NAVY UNITS STACKING...

They have AXED Transports from the game...

Instead; they have gone with Transformers... more than meets the eye... your units magically transform into full (but weak) boats and go where they wish across the world.

 

[cicero spqr]

I don't like the idea of 1 unit per tile. a limit like 5 but not 1. i thought the combat system in civ 4 was great. but 1 unit per tile does open up some possibilities. it would be easy to fight a defensive war. just keep units on your border with reinforcements behind them and it could take a long time to win a evenly matched war.

 

[chongli]

I don't like the idea of 1 unit per tile. a limit like 5 but not 1. i thought the combat system in civ 4 was great. but 1 unit per tile does open up some possibilities.

Even a limit of two units per tile would be fundamentally different than one. With two units per tile you can stack two different units so that each unit protects against the other's weakness. With one unit per tile this is not an option. Protecting a unit becomes a tactical challenge. Flanking becomes a possibility.

it would be easy to fight a defensive war. just keep units on your border with reinforcements behind them and it could take a long time to win a evenly matched war.

That entirely depends on how long your borders are. Perhaps you end up making the mistake of the French and building the Maginot line. We all know what happens after that!

 

[Grunthex]

I can see a scenario where a city is crowded against the sea, with enemy culture pressing, and it can't have more than 3 or 4 units in the area because that is all the tiles it commands. I think this will create some unreasonably undefendable cities.

dV

I see that as a very reasonable undefendable city. The war is over at that point, but it didn't start there. How did you end up with a city in this position?

If you built a city on the shore with minimal defensive terrain with the opponents culture already there, you were offering him tribute from the beginning.

If the opponents culture grew to envelop you that tightly, you lost the war turns ago, you should have done something about it while there was room.

And frankly, even in that undefendable position, you can probably give as well you get. There was a picture earlier in the thread, showing a coastal city with only 4 land-culture squares left. Well a few front-line units on the border hexes, ranged or artillery in the back, and that could still end up costing the attacker more than he's willing to pay.

 

[tom2050]

If you beeline to another civ's capitol and take it (city can only have 1 defender); the whole civ is out of the game. If you lose your capitol ever, but have 40 other cities, it doesn't matter, you lose, game over, start anew.

As if everyone else just goes up in smoke at that point and quits fighting.

Even a limit of two units per tile would be fundamentally different than one. With two units per tile you can stack two different units so that each unit protects against the other's weakness. With one unit per tile this is not an option. Protecting a unit becomes a tactical challenge. Flanking becomes a possibility.

They can code a game how they wish. The only thing being protected is artillery here. Just make it so a few units can stack together except for artillery. OMG! That's the same thing... You still need to do flanks, still have ranged. But why do this? To double the number of units for one. Having 5 units for half the game doesn't sound fun.

With numbers of units like that, they have effectively got rid of micromanagement all-together... because there will be nothing to do at all. If you don't even need to build a transport, your unit (an artillery piece) suddenly transforms into a pathetic weak boat, it makes it easier for 120 year-old grandma to play. That is their goal... get the masses into gameplay; fill their pockets with more cold hard cash. They could care less about this crowd, because they know we will all buy the game.

 

[tom2050]

I see that as a very reasonable undefendable city. The war is over at that point, but it didn't start there. How did you end up with a city in this position?

Archipeago map; and expanding from an island to the largest landmass there is. Usually bringing units along for defense will make that city strong. This is not possible.

There are many examples, but now... you just will have to not expand your civ to other landmasses, and instead just stick with your own. No exploring the new world, if someone is already there.

 

[say1988]

If you lose your capitol ever, but have 40 other cities, it doesn't matter, you lose, game over, start anew.

Where was that said. I recall that for conquest you only need to capture all capitols, that does not necessarily mean that are eliminated upon losing you capital.

Archipeago map; and expanding from an island to the largest landmass there is. Usually bringing units along for defense will make that city strong. This is not possible.

Why not?
I land a half dozen troops with ships for support, you have a decent position. It does make naval invasions harder, but it does not make them impossible. It may even make them considerably easier in some cases. You no longer need the enormous numbers to stand up to the initial counterattack, since only a limited number can attack you, instead of their entire SOD. You know, when you take one city and get attacked by a hundred units the next turn.

And so long as you can control all the tiles immediately around the city (and if you captured it you can always just enter the enemy territory), you have some depth to your defenses, with reinforcements sitting off the coast.

 

[tom2050]

Where was that said. I recall that for conquest you only need to capture all capitols, that does not necessarily mean that are eliminated upon losing you capital.


Why not?
I land a half dozen troops with ships for support, you have a decent position. It does make naval invasions harder, but it does not make them impossible. It may even make them considerably easier in some cases. You no longer need the enormous numbers to stand up to the initial counterattack, since only a limited number can attack you, instead of their entire SOD. You know, when you take one city and get attacked by a hundred units the next turn.

And so long as you can control all the tiles immediately around the city (and if you captured it you can always just enter the enemy territory), you have some depth to your defenses, with reinforcements sitting off the coast.

Here is article.

At the top of the ladder is the grand strategic AI, which decides how to win the game. If the grand strategic AI decides to go for a conquest victory, the strategic AI will build the infrastructure needed to wage war and the operational and tactical AIs will choose and fight the battles. That way the tactical AI won't be fighting battles merely for the sake of fighting battles, but because those battles are relevant in the grand strategic AI's big picture. In the case of the conquest victory, the AI will be aiming to capture the other civ's capitals, which is all that's needed for a military victory this time.

Perhaps it does mean they have to capture every capitol in the world, but it was said conquest will be more difficult compared to diplomacy. This is unknown though. I see this as a good thing, capture every capitol instead of needing to capture every last city.