"One unit per one tile" strategy thoughts

[Matt0088]

You are definitely not talking of the same game than Shaefer did to the Danish magazine that Sian was kind enough to translate ( I already linked it twice to this thread, so forgive for my laziness ). Shaefer explecitely talked about wide fronts of units side by side. You can twist history in the any way you like, but there was simply no huge fronts wars until maybe the American Civil war ( the napoleonic wars were definitely more SoD type than front type , for a example ). This has nothing to do with leaving troops behind for garrisons and such, because , if they had made a more refined mechanism in Civ IV, this could had been acheived even with the SoD system ( say, any combat troop would need x auxiliary regiments for the logistics, that would need to be in the cities or atleast in controled territory ).

To be honest, you are simply stating your distaste for the Civ IV SoD tendency. I can agree with that, but that is not the same that saying that a unit per tile is a better system or even anything remotely resembling historical examples until maybe 2 centuries ago.And, as far as we know, the game might allow a huge front of troops ( say , Barbarossa wide ) in classical ages or some other nonsense equivalent to the Civ IV SoD ....

I'm sorry, but I cannot find it explicitly stated that there will be exclusively fronts. Actually, I don't even see if the original post (translation of the review by Sian) says anything about them.

I do not have a distaste for SoDs. Heck, I've been playing with them for a very long time now. I'm just saying that PG style is attractive too!

On the official Civilization V site, in the features section under the heading,"Huge Battles", it mentions that," wars between empires feel massive with armies spreading across the landscape" This strongly suggests that the majority of combat will be in fronts, and the screenshots showing combat seem to only confirm this.



Also, how will one unit per tile change strategy much either? All this will degrade into is having a few giant battles, and then once one side's military is decisively broken, it will turn into the other side marching from city to city, assaulting it, while fending off a few minor attempts by the losing side to try and turn the tide, which, unless something drastic occur(Fx:Getting allies), won't have any effect.

Anyway you handle it, it will come down to is some giant, decisive battle or two, and then the mop up, and because cities are the only thing of major value, and seem to be still in Civ5, it will consist of such sieges seen in Civ4, except that because you can only have a small garrison in each city, whatever units the losing side produces will be thrown uselessly at the far more numerous side. Really, making it so units aren't necessarily killed in one attack would provide more of a change strategy wise.

 

[Akkon888]

The "one unit per tile" system seems to have some pros and cons.

Pros:
-No SoD's
-Less units in general, thus increasing strategy, reducing tediousness, and not stressing out my computer
-A bit more realistic
-Increases the difficulty to gain land/attack enemies (it also helps you defend)
-Adds a "homefield advantage"

Cons:
-Difficult operation near a chokepoint (but this may be intentional as to blockade the enemy)
-Possible micromanagement when wanting to move unit X on a tile unit Y occupies

I suppose that a "strategy" for a game not even in a closed beta (? is it ?) phase would be to position ranged units behind stronger melee units in order to deal damage. Heck, there might even be a need for flanks. But, I am willing to try something new and this new system will place more importance on the units that do exist.

Also, this system makes other forms of victory seem more potent than simple warmongering. Now, the people who want conquest will have an equal challenge to others who desire a diplomatic or other victory.

 

[Cashew]

I very much doubt it will make land harder to gain. People that are better at building larger armies are still going to be able to overwhelm less substantial armies. Just because there are fewer units in absolute numbers does not mean power gaps are going to disappear.

If it becomes impractical to have larger numbers of units people will just attack sooner.

 

[Commander Bello]

If it becomes impractical to have larger numbers of units people will just attack sooner.

This seems to be a valid point.

If the size of your military will be limited by whatever means (number of cities, number of ressources, whatever) it will be crucial to go for local superiority.
Which in turn means, the one who builds up his military forces first will have an advantage which may be very hard to neutralize.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

I really like that they're doing something to counter the stack of doom and create fronts - but question how realistic that would be with pre-industrial armies.

I'm also concerned about the micro-management this might create. Say you want to move a new unit to the front, you're going to have to open up a corridor for it to get there, shuffling units all over the place.

I know you can now keep units behind others, but I wonder what this will do to unit balance/counter units? Your cavalry will have to sit there unprotected against any pikeman who might attack them, etc.

I think going 1 unit/square is a little extreme - maybe 2 per square to ease some of the micro-management and provide some opportunity to make use of counter units (but not completely - your cavalry and pikeman combo will still be susceptible to an anti-melee axeman, for example).

Going back to my first point - perhaps varying the number of units per square by age. In the ancient era, as many as three, but by modern era only one. Though that creates weird incentives to build even larger militaries early on in the game.

 

[gunnergoz]

Andrew Jay: I think that they will allow for movement through other units, just not ending the turn sharing the same hex as another combat unit; this should negate the need for micro-managing units in movement and devising "corridors."
Some other thoughts related to the topic of 1 unit per hex:
One interesting possibility that this paradigm brings with it is that units may draw some sort of benefit from the friendly units next to them, thus giving them some sort of bonus in combat. This would encourage a "combined arms" style of army building and fighting.
A cap on total units is fine by me, as long as it includes a means to prolong the life of units by wearing them down and refitting them later, preserving their experience and special skills.
Ranged combat by early units like archers is not necessarily a problem so long as they are not overpowering at range...they have to be nerfed back a bit to just having other effects, not necessarily combat losses, but more like interdiction (interference with movement) or suppression of attacks.
I'm very curious too to see how the developers encourage attacks to unfold - will it be wise to start out with the archers and suppress the enemy's front line, or will you send out skirmishers to rattle them first?
I would hope they put a lot of thought into this new battle paradigm, for it holds much promise to revolutionize the genre. One of my friends was commenting to me the other day about how he had grown tired of Civilization because it had become stale and no longer interesting to him, even with mods, it is the same stuff over and over again with SOD's and such.
I have not spoken with him yet about the new Civ V on the horizon, but I am hopeful that it will pique his interest in the game again and I will be able to enjoy talking with him about the game into the future.

 

[cdcuase]

Will be interesting to see how the AI programmers will tackle this aspect and make the AI use this system reliably. The current Civ4 AI does a shoddy job creating the right unit composition in it's stacks for a proper attack. Even with the Better AI mod.

Now instead of a single stack the AI will have to look at an overall picture and not only create the right units but deploy them adequately. Seems like a hefty AI programming job.

 

[Ellestar]

I might be wrong, so don't shoot me, but looking at the screenshots and the still scarce information, my best guess is that the CIV5 is moving in direction of Panzer General and Battle Isle series, under the presumption that they indeed introduce the one unit per one tile doctrine. If you want to look up some aspects of these fantastic games, here are some titles to look up:

Now, before your crucify me for looking 20 years into the past, I'd like to explain why I did so. The Civ V screenies give me the exactly same feeling as was present in the stated games:
- limited amount of units
- units are more "generic", technologies increase or add stats not unique bonuses (i.e. no more +50% vs.)
- each unit takes more than one attack to destroy it (3-4 attacks are a good guess)
- it becomes quite possible to form a "battle line" or "fortifications along borders"
- ranged units can and must be able to attack from distant squares
- unit movement or attacks are limited by fuel and/or ammo, thus, yes, one artillery might shoot units from 4 hexes away, but can shoot only 5 out of 7 turns (2 turns for full restock)
- units gain experience and can be upgraded, "healed", but at cost of some sort
- all units, their type and their placement are needed to either successfully defend or attack: two entrenched infantry in the forests guarding your left flank need to stay alive and hold their position, while your other units advance.

Yeah, i got the same feeling too but it also looks like Settlers of Catan. I'm a big fan of Battle Isle and Fantasy General and i hope Civ V combat will be just as fun as in these games.

What about more of a continent-sized island? That would be practically impossible to take by military force, if 1 unit per tile is enforced.

But I'm not really concerned. While there are some nice ideas here, I highly doubt that we will be limited to just one unit per tile. A few, perhaps, but not one. Otherwise, we'd effectively be going backwards from all the changes in Civ4 to allow units of different civs on the same tile. What if you sit 1 unit on a chokepoint and a friendly civ has no ability to get past? That doesn't seem sensible.

Why not? Look at Battle Isle series: you have range 1 units with a high defence (Technotrack, Samurai II tanks, heavy infantry in trenches), range-2 units are skirmishers (Buggy) or medium-def units (Sting), range-3-4 units are glass cannon units like rocket launchers and artillery. So, you can kill enemy units really fast if you attack one enemy unit with several ranged units.

Will be interesting to see how the AI programmers will tackle this aspect and make the AI use this system reliably. The current Civ4 AI does a shoddy job creating the right unit composition in it's stacks for a proper attack. Even with the Better AI mod.

Now instead of a single stack the AI will have to look at an overall picture and not only create the right units but deploy them adequately. Seems like a hefty AI programming job.

If it's possible to make a good AI for exactly that situation in a freeware open source game like The Battle for Wesnoth then it shouldn't be a problem for a professional game development company. I mean, if other people can do it for free as a hobby, why paid professionals should not be able to do the same? Besides, The Battle for Wesnoth is open source so they can look at it for inspirations.

 

[Ellestar]

Civilization is a tactical board game ported to a computer. Its not a real life simulation. America didn't exist for 6000 years, for units it did not take 10.000 years to cross 20 tiles and courthoses don't enable spy specialists. Just to name a few things
Porting CIV combat to Panzer General style of play is a very, very logical thing to do. Not because it's something "more realistic", but because its better.

I'm not really afraid about the AI handling it. PG's AI was crap, but Battle Isle AI was quite good.

Actually, i it's hard to remember any other game where AI sets goals for itself and tries to achieve them. Say, Civ 4 AI should have been much better with research if it tried to make research goals. Well, at least it picks enemy cities for offence in advance.

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....

I think it's safe to assume that non-combat units will not count towards the limit. Also, they may allow several units to be in the title, but only one will fight (like in Civ I).

 

[grandad1982]

One unit per tile would have an effect on roads as well. Building a road to speed troop movements will be less effective as there is bound to be bottlenecks etc. Are we going to see traffic jams in CIV for the first time?

 

[xienwolf]

For the first time? I remember being annoyed in Civ2/3 with AI who walk into my land, I cannot share a tile with them, even though peaceful, and thus my units will have to walk OFF of my road to go around them. This meant instead of my railroads getting me instantly from one city to another, I had to take 3 turns due to walking off the road, over a tile, and back onto the road.

 

[say1988]

I remember being annoyed in Civ2/3 with AI who walk into my land, I cannot share a tile with them, even though peaceful, and thus my units will have to walk OFF of my road to go around them.

Not just that, but in 2, you could not move between two squares adjacent to another civs unit.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I really like that they're doing something to counter the stack of doom and create fronts - but question how realistic that would be with pre-industrial armies.

I'm also concerned about the micro-management this might create. Say you want to move a new unit to the front, you're going to have to open up a corridor for it to get there, shuffling units all over the place.

Perhaps a reshuffle, like the one done with castles in chess, would be the right solution for this?

As for having just one unit per tile instead of two, I daresay they have thought through this very carefully. I'm in favour of anything that means an end to the stack of doom.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Not just that, but in 2, you could not move between two squares adjacent to another civs unit.

Even in peacetime. Yes, that was very annoying.

 

[grandad1982]

Ha played 2 and 3 but forgot that. Rose tinted view of the past!

 

[Andrew_Jay]

I hated the Zone of Control in Civ II as well, but today I kind of think that it could have been a useful stack of doom counter: basically you could trap a stack of units with a couple of your own spread out. To get moving again the enemy would have to also spread out and defeat your defenders.

 

[Double A]

A cap would be useful, so you can't get any more SODs. Maybe they could make it moddable as well, so that it can be set in the editor/script. But one unit per tile is ridiculous. The game's reminding me of Rise of Nations.

How does this even RELATE to RoN? RoN is a RTS, and... wow I'm so confused I can't even think.

It reminds me of Heroscape more than anything else (for one obvious reason)

 

[AlpsStranger]

How does this even RELATE to RoN? RoN is a RTS, and... wow I'm so confused I can't even think.

It reminds me of Heroscape more than anything else (for one obvious reason)

Because he's trying to think of a generic insult. Haven't you figured it out yet? Only a precious few are actually discussing design. The rest are resorting to insults and bandwagon tactics to browbeat everyone into agreeing with their doom and gloom.

Most gamers, even good ones, can't even *discuss* design without resorting to simply mocking people with different preferences. You see far more appeals to "epic," or "realistic" than to anything genuinely design related. The rest of the time you see strawman attacks, personal attacks, or a generic appeal to what I call "the 1999 PC gaming mentality." These are often made uncritically, as if their value was somehow obvious and understood by all. Fortunately, most of the people that actually get funding to make games understand things such as playability, depth, and balance. The gaming industry always manages to move forward, even if it is doing so on the QQing corpses of its previous fans.

I've gamed since the Colecovision and Commodore 64 all the way to the Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii. No platform is as special as people think, and great design shows up in the strangest places.

Still sad that I missed out on the whole Amiga gaming thing

 

[Takhisis]

No, I wasn'¡t 'trying to think of a generic insult'. I'm not trying to browbeat anyone, either. Aren't you yourself doing an attack on a different poster? Aren't you claiming to be an über-gamr, of the 'I've played everything' type? Take a chill pill.

How does this even RELATE to RoN? RoN is a RTS, and... wow I'm so confused I can't even think.

It reminds me of Heroscape more than anything else (for one obvious reason)

Back to sensible discussion. (Even if it's Double A ). I haven't played Heroscape, so I don't know what you're talking about.
RON: in the way that units can't stack, and the battle style will be much like RoN, AOE and other RTS games.

 

[Saarud]

Perhaps "one unit" could refer to one army with plenty of subunits part of the larger unit? When you begin the game you can only have one subunit in each unit but as you gain technologies you can have more subunits in the unit and it is up to the player to design their own unit with different subunits. Atleast that would be a cool concept....