"One unit per one tile" strategy thoughts

[Disgustipated]

Doesn't that mean they have to hold all the capitols? That's how I see it. So if you somehow manage to lose your capitol, you still have the option of retaking it with your remaining troops. It doesn't mean you automatically lost the game.

And if you are going for conquest, I would think if you take someone's capitol, but they take it back, that wouldn't count towards your victory.

 

[da_Vinci]

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

Why couldn't cities be an exception to that rule? For most of history (less so after decent artillery and bombers) cities have been military strong points. There is a reason why the siege was used intead of frontal attack.

Maybe they will have some way to use fortifications to accomplish this, but unless that one defender can survive multiple combats taking no damage, seems to me cities will be too easy prey.

Thinking to CivRev, which Civ V seems to be heading for in some ways, in the few games of that I have played city defense works well with one defender army to hold, and one attacker army to make pre-emtive striles on units that approach.

Maybe a city should be allowed one unit of each type (one defender, one attacker, one artillery) ... three units max in a city. If units all move two hexes, the attacker has plenty of attackers to bring to bear.

dV

 

[chongli]

Why couldn't cities be an exception to that rule? For most of history (less so after decent artillery and bombers) cities have been military strong points. There is a reason why the siege was used intead of frontal attack.

Maybe they will have some way to use fortifications to accomplish this, but unless that one defender can survive multiple combats taking no damage, seems to me cities will be too easy prey.

In Civ V if you leave the landscape open and have only a garrison in the city hex, you will lose. The proper way to defend will be to position units all over the landscape; guarding hills, forests and key resources. Enemies that try to rush through your territory and attack your city will be subject to ranged attacks from all of your units in the area, weakening them significantly (if not outright destroying them).

The ideal way to defend in warfare is to force your enemy into killing zones.

Thinking to CivRev, which Civ V seems to be heading for in some ways, in the few games of that I have played city defense works well with one defender army to hold, and one attacker army to make pre-emtive striles on units that approach.

Maybe a city should be allowed one unit of each type (one defender, one attacker, one artillery) ... three units max in a city. If units all move two hexes, the attacker has plenty of attackers to bring to bear.

dV

The ability to stack units of different types destroys the tactical element of the game.

 

[say1988]

Maybe they will have some way to use fortifications to accomplish this,

They already said that cities will have inherent defenses, that get better as you build stuff (i.e. walls). How strong they are remains to be seen, though.

 

[da_Vinci]

The ability to stack units of different types destroys the tactical element of the game.

I am fine to not have the stacking in the field, but I don't see why the tactics at a city shound not be different. I just worry that cities will be too easy to take with small armies ... if the enemy will be swarming a city from all sides, why not let the city be strong enough to resist a frontal assault from a relatively small force, but be vulnerable to fall via siege after some number of turns?

dV

 

[Ahriman]

Why couldn't cities be an exception to that rule?

Because then they'd be too hard to capture.

Imagine taking Civ4, but making it so you could only attack a city with 6 units per turn.

 

[Thormodr]

I am fine to not have the stacking in the field, but I don't see why the tactics at a city shound not be different. I just worry that cities will be too easy to take with small armies ... if the enemy will be swarming a city from all sides, why not let the city be strong enough to resist a frontal assault from a relatively small force, but be vulnerable to fall via siege after some number of turns?

dV

Build walls in your cities and try to ensure they grow to a certain size first before expanding. The walls will help defend them with bombardment and the bigger the city is, the stronger it is. I am sure Castles are going to be invaluable in ciV as well.

Place your troops strategically and whittle them down with ranged attacks and finish off the weakened units with infantry or cavalry. It actually sounds like defending your cities will be a lot more challenging and fun.

 

[da_Vinci]

Because then they'd be too hard to capture.

Imagine taking Civ4, but making it so you could only attack a city with 6 units per turn.

Well, if units are able to move 2 per turn, then couldn't you attack with 18 ... 6 inner ring, and 12 outer ring? Seems like a lot for ONE defender to handle, regardless of fortification bonuses.

Now, if in fact no civ is going to have more than a dozen units anyway (hmm ... I guess no Hereditary rule MP for happy any more?), and local armies will thus be limited in size, then maybe one unit in a city with fortification bonues is a strong defense ...

It does depend on how all of the factors governing armies (mobility, numbers, caps, etc) interact.

I still think a take city by siege option might be interesting ... maybe the city falls when the granary runs dry?

dV

 

[say1988]

Well, if units are able to move 2 per turn, then couldn't you attack with 18 ... 6 inner ring, and 12 outer ring? Seems like a lot for ONE defender to handle, regardless of fortification bonuses.

If they can completely surround your city with two rings, you deserve to lose it, unless you have enough troops around the city to immediately break the siege. The idea is that you have a mobile defense in the field to stop the enemy from attacking your city.

Your job is to stop the enemy from getting to your city with significant numbers.

 

[morss_4]

Well, if units are able to move 2 per turn, then couldn't you attack with 18 ... 6 inner ring, and 12 outer ring? Seems like a lot for ONE defender to handle, regardless of fortification bonuses.

One defender isn't supposed to handle it. If your city is completely surrounded like that you just lose it. This seems sensible to me.

You're not supposed to hole up in your city and weather the storm. If you don't want your cities taken, don't let the enemy armies get to them.

 

[UWHabs]

The point looks to be to spread your troops at choke points to defend. But really, I think trying to guess strategy will be tough until we actually see how it works. Certainly seems like combat will take multiple turns, and advancing will be pretty slow, until the defense is basically toast. Hopefully they balance the blitz strategy where you just try to punch a bunch of fast units through vs. slogging it out with siege.

 

[da_Vinci]

If they can completely surround your city with two rings, you deserve to lose it, unless you have enough troops around the city to immediately break the siege. The idea is that you have a mobile defense in the field to stop the enemy from attacking your city.

Your job is to stop the enemy from getting to your city with significant numbers.

One defender isn't supposed to handle it. If your city is completely surrounded like that you just lose it. This seems sensible to me.

You're not supposed to hole up in your city and weather the storm. If you don't want your cities taken, don't let the enemy armies get to them.

Well, what we lose in the one unit per city is the retreat to strong point style of defense ... no holing up in Helms Deep, to await the rescue force to break the siege.

Now, if an army twice your size moves in on your army dispersed in the field (as you say the proper defense is), you are now forced to fight in the fields, at the 2 to 1 disadvantage, since you cannot retreat more than one into the city. So 10 v 5 ends up 5 v 1 at the city gates? And if your city is surrounded, once it has one unit inside, it CANNOT make other units?

So the land will have to be dotted with fortifications, if not Maginot Lines? Will the whole game be "trench warfare"?

It will certainly be a different combat system ... I just wonder if it does not make early rushes overpowered? Again, this will depend on how all of the factors governing armies (mobility, numbers, caps, etc) interact.

dV

 

[say1988]

Well, what we lose in the one unit per city is the retreat to strong point style of defense ... no holing up in Helms Deep, to await the rescue force to break the siege.

Why do you lose it? Put troops outside the city with artillery backup. You can retreat to a strongpoint, but it will need more than one square, which both increases the ability of your troops to support themselves, and decreases the troops ability to attack you.

Now, if an army twice your size moves in on your army dispersed in the field (as you say the proper defense is), you are now forced to fight in the fields, at the 2 to 1 disadvantage, since you cannot retreat more than one into the city.

Well, then you had a bad strategic position. Strategic placement of troops and fortifications will be far more important. You won't necessarily have lines of fortified positions, but having a long border or unconsolidated empire will be a major strategic problem, which it is in reality.

 

[Malkaviel]

The bulk of a civ's military resource shouldn't be locked up in a small defensive perimeter like a city. So many humans, especially engaged in conflict with open wounds, shouldn't be in dense population for health reasons.

Also, what are you going to eat? Siege didn't only knock down walls, it enveloped and starved out a populace, reduced often to unconditional surrender. More people sitting around waiting to defend actually accelerate the process.

In modern context military and civilian targets should be far seperated by the defender to prevent catastrophic collateral loss and using "human shields" is bad form.

 

[da_Vinci]

Why do you lose it? Put troops outside the city with artillery backup. You can retreat to a strongpoint, but it will need more than one square, which both increases the ability of your troops to support themselves, and decreases the troops ability to attack you.

You lose the ability to have the defenders INSIDE the city defenses ...

I suspect that Agamemnon would have loved it if the Trojans had to defend from outside of their walls, for example.

It may all work out nicely, and I may even love it, but it just seems unnatural not to be able to garrison a city with more than one unit (not that it has to be 100, but JUST ONE?)

Now if a city can attack an adjacent enemy, independent of units, then maybe it is not so bad ... as if the city is intrinsically garrisoned without a unit within ...

dV

 

[say1988]

You lose the ability to have the defenders INSIDE the city defenses ...

Think of the "city" as the inner defenses, while your soldiers outside are manning the outer defences.

 

[Tlalynet]

Two words, Outter Wall.

That would be cool, for a moderate hammer cost the 6 hexes outside a city get a defense bonus. It could be bombarded by siege units and useless against units that breached and entered the outer walls. Special defenses for special cities.

That would be fun.

 

[Philipum]

These ideas about one unit per tile and units able to shoot over several tiles remind me of "Sid Meier's Pirates" combat system when taking a city. I find it very stimulating strategically and have the feeling something similar could be implemented in civ V. Some features in "Pirates" are:
- no more than one unit per tile
- at least two movement points per unit
- buccaneers can shoot from several tiles -> cause damage but do not kill
- need close combat to kill an unit
- forest provides shelter from bombardment (and close attack as well I think)
- cannot shoot over a forest (perhaps also hill)
- downhill attack gives bonus
- flank attack gives bonus (I think nobody took up this aspect before in this thread)

In brief, battles are made interesting because you really have to think how to move and dispose your units effectively as a function of type of unit, terrain, and enemy positions.

I welcome any kind of change: I always found that warring became boring after a while in Civilization games.

 

[tom2050]

Technically, having hordes of units inside a city would still mean that the vast majority of all of them would be able to do nothing. Most are hand-to-hand combat warriors in medieval battles, with the invading forces at that point to take complete control and simply starve the city into submission.

I also believe that a garrison'd unit in a city probably adds to the total city hitpoints and does not act as a 'unit to be defeated'.

In the movie Troy, their armies did fight outside the city... they were not all huddled on the inside of the walls. So you could do this by keeping units outside the city in the game. Since Archers are the best castle defenders for being inside a castle, I would think that these units will be given advantages for doing so, just as in Civ 4; and similar to def bombardment of Civ 3.

 

[Ahriman]

In the movie Troy, their armies did fight outside the city...

And also of course in the Homeric epic.