"One unit per one tile" strategy thoughts

[hellas]

I don't think we should assume that were seeing a restriction here. I think what we are seeing is a demo of what one unit of each type looks like. We don't know yet if stacking has been removed or not.

Agree completely.

Anything that reduces the number of units (military and otherwise) to move is great in my book - moving hordes of units ain't fun. And Civ should be fun!

Edit: just saw the last post. I stand corrected.

 

[Samus_au]

Ah I do love this period of wild speculation when a game is first announced . Anyway, my 2c

I think the one unit per hex idea is a good one, even more so if combat is no longer a fight to the death every turn, but it needs a bit of tweaking to work game play wise. For example, movement through a one hex chokepoint, covering a wounded unit, escorting a worker or using a medic. Perhaps a better way to word it would be one active unit per hex, with a cap on the number of passive units per hex (3, 4, whatever). This would allow units to pass through each other without having to bump the minimum movement up to two hexes per turn and would let you render assistant to other units.

This could also open up the ability to capture prisoners, as once the active unit is defeated all other in the tile hex might be forced to surrender (or be killed, fight to the death at worse odds then normal etc).

Is it Fall yet?

 

[weekend_warrior]

I was thinking the same thing as the above poster. One unit-per-tile would work great for combat, but not so much for movement. Hopefully there will be a distinction between the two.

 

[kochman]

One unit per hex means at the end of movement. You could have a unit guarding, for example, the Suez Canal chokepoint. You could move friendlies through it in both directions, so long as they do not end in a hex that is already occupied.

This is truly a much better way to do combat. Anyone who hasn't played Panzer General, I recommend you give it a shot. Its a very good, and addictive way to play.

To say, if I wanted to fight like in PG I would play PG is pretty short-sighted. So, because something works in a game, we should never bring that part of the game to civ? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Taking cool functions from other games is a good idea.

I am now very optomistic about this! Full room diplomacy with native language being spoken seems like worthless fluff to me... but perhaps it will be cool.

 

[say1988]

Samus:
The best solution to the roadblock problem, while sticking to one unit per hex, IMO is increase the base movement of all units (i.e. basic infantry have 2 and mounted have 4) and allow them to walk through each other.

One thing I would like to see is that fortresses and cities have a larger unit capacity (perhaps dependent on era and or structures, like air unit capacity in BTS, say having a granary allows a city to support two units rather than one, and getting to the classical era adds another due to superior knowledge about storing food and supplying troops). It would make city placement and use of fortresses all the more important Though it would make choke points that much more powerful, and they would have to prevent lining up of forts.

 

[Tlalynet]

'small' units would be cool, like commanders, medics, workers, captives, or other supply things. That would work well with one major military unit.

 

[say1988]

kochman, the problem is we will either have much, much, smaller armies or a lot more micro-management. Stack moving is a great advantage of Civ IV over II.
That is the problem I see. And I never expect a good combat simulation from Civ. Civ, for me, is about getting the advantage in money/production/technology to win and making strategic choices (diplomacy and where to attack), not so much the tactical decisions.

 

[Yakk]

As a bonus, if infantry have a base move of 2, it means that forests slow down infantry. Which is a nice feature!

Then you can have chariots with a move of 3, horses with a move of 4, tanks with a move of 5, and modern armor with a move of 6. Modern infantry can have a move of 3 (representing the fact they don't have to carry their gear on their backs anymore), and mechanised infantry a move of 4/5.

 

[morss_4]

Samus:
The best solution to the roadblock problem, while sticking to one unit per hex, IMO is increase the base movement of all units (i.e. basic infantry have 2 and mounted have 4) and allow them to walk through each other.

This is basically what Panzer General did. As I recall infantry had movement rates of 3 or 4 and the mechanized units were something like double that. Then you could also put your infantry on trucks in which case they had a move of 8 or 9 or something (on roads) but they were a sitting duck.

Remember, with 1 unit per hex and long fronts during combat your movement is going to be much more constricted by the presence of enemy units than it is in Civ now. A cav unit in Civ IV with a move of 6 would be able to move about enemy territory at an obscene rate, sneaking behind even vigilant and prepared enemies to pillage some resource tile half way across the empire, but in Civ V there's going to be units in the way. As a result I think greatly improving the maximum number of movement points available to units is probably a reasonable thing to do.

 

[kochman]

As an infantryman, I can honestly say, for light infantry and paras, we still carry everything on our backs... just about as often as the Roman Legionaires did to be honest... and generally much more weight.

 

[Samus_au]

Kochman: Assuming that it would really make choke points valuable (300 style slaughter? ). And I agree, PG is awesome even now days.

Say1988: I imagine you are correct, though I wonder how this will affect map sizes, esp in the early game when you are more vulnerable to a rush.

Regarding moving armies I think the best way to do that would be to assign units to a group, have that group be aware of its formation (so it knows where everyone goes in relation to each other) then issue the group a movement order. The group could then move, break its formation down to get through smaller choke points and re assemble on the other side. This of course is asking a lot of the path finding and AI, but its one way to get around the easier movement of a stack.

 

[Cyan Leader]

Well if it is indeed one unit per tile, I hope the combat is something similar to the Advance Wars system. As in, attacking another unit does not guarantee that one will be defeated. I mean, take Civ4 for example. Unless you are dealing with withdraw odds, the basic turnout of a battle is either the attacker die, or the defender dies. This needs to be changed for 1 unit per tile in my opinion, since we are dealing with less units.

Speaking of which, the amount of units also worries me. Sure, 1 unit per tile works in a lot of other games because they are all about combat, but in civ you need to keep upgrading your armies, you have workers walking around, settlers, and so forth. How are you going to move big armies with this system? I mean, look at it from this point of view. In AW you actually have a cost for each unit, meaning you can spam infantry, but the wise choice would be to have a good amount of inf and a few tanks. This reduces the size of the army while making sense, you can't spam tanks because they cost to much, and the size of the army makes sense for a 1 unit per tile system. But in civ when the strongest unit is, say, the Maceman, that is the main one you are going to build and it won't cost more than the others (perhaps 1 turn more) so you'll end up spamming it along with ranged units, which will leave the map clogged.

I don't know how they are going to balance this, perhaps increasing the number of turns for each unit considerably? That would totally change the gameplay, each unit will be much more valuable and probably new mechanics for healing them will be introduced. But if this indeed happens I really hope that they will work the odds out. I have a urge to burn this computer every time I lose a 80% plus winning rate battle.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

If there is a one unit per tile limitation, then it would require that a single unit can lose a battle and not die unless VERY heavily out-gunned. That or at least a removal of the automatic movement into a tile after defeating an enemy. Otherwise a battle line is too hard to maintain with the requirement to move new units in to position to fortify a breach.


Mostly, it would MASSIVELY increase micromanagement, unless you can select units from multiple tiles at the same time and give them persistent orders (try to get to tile X, if occupied, wait till it isn't).


Can you imagine having to shuffle units through a chokepoint in the middle of your land if there is a 1 unit limit? Worker is trying to build a pasture, but Horseman needs through, so move the worker to the side, move the horse in, move the horse past, move the worker back, re-order building. Now warrior needs through, move the worker aside, move the warrior in, move the warrior past, move the worker in....


HOWEVER! If "one unit" meant "All units on the stack act communally for attack/defense" then you get more of a "Combined Arms" warfare approach. You still bring in multiple units, and can bring them out one at a time. But there is no selection of the "best defender" involved, and when you attack someone else with overwhelming force (20 tanks) you aren't held at bay because they have swarms alone (2,000 scouts)

Apparently, there is no cap on civilian units. So you won't need to move the worker every time.

 

[say1988]

This is basically what Panzer General did. As I recall infantry had movement rates of 3 or 4 and the mechanized units were something like double that. Then you could also put your infantry on trucks in which case they had a move of 8 or 9 or something (on roads) but they were a sitting duck.

Never played Panzer General, and I am not saying the base should be 2, but at least that would be necessary or it would be way to much of a PITA.

 

[MosheLevi]

If you look again at the screen shots you will see that the number of units in each tile varies.
We have 6, 8, 12, and 16 soldiers in different tiles.

To me that would suggest that we may be able to combine individual units into a bigger army (without stacking).

If that is true then it means that we can combine a few units together (of the same type) in one tile with a limit on how many units we can include in each tile.

Think of it as a mini SoD (with a limit on number of units) where each SoD fights as one unit (with more strength).

I think that this method will greatly increase the strategy and tactics for Civ V.

 

[Cyan Leader]

Or the units are damaged and it is represented graphically.

But perhaps you are right, IIRC they did something similar before. Which civ was that required a general to build small stacks?

 

[r_rolo1]

To say, if I wanted to fight like in PG I would play PG is pretty short-sighted. So, because something works in a game, we should never bring that part of the game to civ? That doesn't make a lot of sense. Taking cool functions from other games is a good idea.

Since it was me that said that...

Jon Shaefer explicitely said that the objective of the one military unit per tile implementation was to make big fronts of units, WW I or II style. That is pretty good to mimick the first half of the XX century wars ( and even maybe the American civil war ) but it is completely detached from the rest of the warfare history. This system is good for games like PG, that do not span over 6000 years, but for this case ... not so much.

Other diference is the tile size. In civ IV tiles represent a huge area, in PG in general hexes are much smaller. It is realistical make a war front in the classical as long as we are talking of stuff like the Thermophylae and if Civ V brings huge maps I take this one out... but mimicking operational level tactics in a 300x300 km square ( 3x3 in Civ IV ) in the classical age is pure nonsense. Again it fits something like operation Barbarossa, but not most of the warfare history.

My point was not clear in the thread I posted that, but IMHO the point is that the one unit per tile rule ( regardless of being in the end of the turn or not ) does not bode well with the size of the other civ titles warfare unless the military unit concept gets a revamp or if the delivered maps are big enough to allow realistical classic/medieval clashes. Simply putting the PG imported idea ( not saying that is good or bad ) in a map where tiles represent country-sized chunks of land is not the smartest idea of them all ....

 

[kochman]

Jon Shaefer explicitely said that the objective of the one military unit per tile implementation was to make big fronts of units, WW I or II style. That is pretty good to mimick the first half of the XX century wars ( and even maybe the American civil war ) but it is completely detached from the rest of the warfare history. This system is good for games like PG, that do not span over 6000 years, but for this case ... not so much.

I doubt that in the ancient times you will be building enough units to have to worry about huge WW2 type fronts. Rather, ancient front lines will not be lines at all... think history here. There were still formations.
In history, formations of units have pretty much always been used, and organization has generally trumped non-organization on the battlefield. The size of these formations got bigger until we saw WW1 & WW2 type battles... I imagine production capacities will do the same.

Play Panzer General...
Then imagine that the creators of Civ5 will probably be smart enough to tweak that system as needed to provide enjoyment. Pretty smart folks.

 

[r_rolo1]

Ok, now you can reread my post....

A resume:

I don't have any issue with fronts. I don't have any issue with one unit per tile rules. I have a issue with that and tiles of 100x100 km in classical/medieval ages.

I knew I should had written something shorter

 

[kochman]

I am not aware of a scale being already announced. Is that information available in an article?

I would agree that it would require much larger maps with hexes representing much smaller areas each... but again, I think they will come up with something reasonable... and I am sure it will be better than the SoD we currently have.