"One unit per one tile" strategy thoughts

[Hadrean]

I am not sure there will be one unit per tile or some other limit.
Nor do we quite know how it will be implemented.

It sounds to me like a bad and unnecessary change.

If you want fewer units in the game on average, then just make them more expensive to build and/or more expensive to maintain.

In fact, you could have a slider at custom game setup where the player could choose to have units cost more or less than average (compared to what they would otherwise cost each country).

If it aint broke don't fix it.

P.S. I have previously suggested a slider for custom games to allow the player to choose to have technologies cost more or less than average (compared to what they would otherwise cost each country).

What you are saying still wouldn't stop SoDs, which I think is the primary reason for eliminating stacking. So yes, it is broken, and collateral damage I think was an effort to get rid of giant stacks of death, but I think they may be getting it right in ciV.

 

[cardgame]

I think it would be better with a limited # of units per tile. Such as the increasing-with-your-tech-stage idea on page 1, or simply capped at 2, 3, or 5 units.

 

[Suspiria]

If Civ 5 is one unit per tile im not buying it. However i believe these rumours are unfounded.

 

[joasoze]

With bigger maps, one unit per tile could be ok.

I am a battle isle fan, and it was done beautifully there (although it was a pure strategy war game).

 

[pi-r8]

i'm a little worried that it might lead to a lot of stalemates. Especially in situations where there's a small choke point, and you have to move units through one tile at a time while they get bombarded from masses of archers or artillery on the other side. That sort of thing happened a lot in Civ 2. But, I'll have to wait and see how it actually plays out.

 

[Bibor]

People in here gave some very good arguments against "one unit per tile", especially (very properly) fearing that a big nation will roll over small nations.

But does that really need to be the case?
What if they simply introduce "military funding" policies?

Military power is nothing but another form of investment. If you have trade ships sailing across half of the world, you need 300 military ships to protect them. If you don't have a merchant fleet, you don't need the military ships. Or to be more precise, there's no way to finance them.
The United States pre WW2 didn't need a large military because there wasn't a reasonably dangerous enemy 3000 miles in any direction. But they quicly picked up the pace when $ hit the fan. Once WW2 was over, however, the new huge army was a huge investment. And the war lasted for only 4 years. You really think a single battleship can be paid off in 4 years?

Lets say a unit costs 1-3 gold for upkeep and 50-150 gold to build. Having a resource cuts the price of build by 50%. Even in a best case scenario, the unit costs me at least 25 gold + all the upkeep money.
If I build 10 of the weakest units and it takes for me 10 turns to capture two enemy cities, I spent 600 (500 for build +100 upkeep) to do so. If I ransacked 300 gold from the two cities, It wasn't really profitable, was it? Even if I score a complete victory, the actual size and cost of my army might be so great that, once the war ends, I'm still in a huge minus. So I either need to go into another war (like many, MANY times happened in history) to pay off the military expenses, or I need to scrap the military and say "whoops".

 

[whb]

I hope eventually by CIV 10 at least they allow units to attack together rather than separate. The combat dynamics just are silly and have been for awhile. Forming a combined force of x% ranged, x%melee, x%mounted, x%artillery, x%specops which attacks as one force versus the other team's combined force makes the most sense long term.

This is the way it really works.

Actually, that's not how it really works. For instance, in WW1, the artillery would stop pounding before the infantry went in (you don't want to blow up your own troops). Similarly, today, the air force (or UAVs) bomb the major targets before the army steps out.

 

[Ahriman]

I will add my thoughts from the poll thread:

One unit per tile sounds like micromanagement hell.

Imagine taking civ4 and making it so you couldn't select multiple units at the same time, and had to move every single unit individually.
Imagine making it so that every unit that won a combat was immediately eliminated on the next turn, because it was weak, and you couldn't have another unit shield it.
Imagine making it so that if you wanted to move a particular unit to the front, you had to carefully micromanage a clear pathway of units out of the way.

Think of the classic puzzles, like the tower of Babylon, and how many moves it can take in order to free up the space to move an object from A to B. You have to move the one currently in B to C, but to make space for that C has to go to D, and to make space for *that* D has to go to E.
etc.

We definitely have to get away from the Stack of Doom mentality, but a strict 1 unit per tile limit will be hell unless the number of tiles is truly vast. Which doesn't sound like much fun either, especially with units that have 1 tile movement rates.

and add:

1. I like the idea of limited units from resources, but severely hope it isn't 1:1. 4-5 cavalry units per horse resource sounds fun, 1 sounds horrible.
2. I like the idea (slightly alluded early in the thread) of increasing stacking limits based on tech. Maybe one tech per era could improve supply lines and allow an extra unit to stack.
3. One unit per tile would place a *huge* need for AI improvement/development. SoD is easy for the AI to handle, it can be really stupid and still pose a threat. But intelligently using fronts of units, and support, unit placement etc. sounds very tricky, and if they mess up then the game will kinda suck.
4. Another issue with 1-unit-per-stack: how do you withdraw damaged units through your lines without huge micromanagement?
5. The simple best solution for stacks is not to hardcap the stacks, its to increase the value of their counters. Create a lot of ranged bombardment collateral damage units and an AI that knows how to use them, and you'll provide strong incentives to spread those stacks out.
Civ4 tried this with collateral damage catapaults and such, but still largely failed, because you had to suicide your siege to do any damage.
6. I really worry about unit preservation. How do you conserve/promote units if you can't protect an injured unit with a full-strength unit?
7. I like the idea of using Generals to have more powerful units to punch through enemy lines.
It sounds like they might be trynig to use the strategic layer to really replicate tactical combat mechanics. I can see a lot of potential here. Applying heavy force to open a rift in enemy lines, allowing you to turn the line and attack from multiple angles. Turning a flank allowing you to envelop the enemy and roll up the side.
Place the archers on high-ground, use the cavalry on open-ground, etc.
8. I am a little worried about ahistorical nature. Big fronts of units are really a 20th century phenom. Before then, most wars really were armies wandering around, manuevering for position, and then big battles of the entire armies. [Saw the mongols mentioned, but they're an exception, as a hugely mobile force with more horses than everyone else put together.]
I would love if Civ could somehow incorporate some of the value of strategic manuever.

 

[r_rolo1]

People in here gave some very good arguments against "one unit per tile", especially (very properly) fearing that a big nation will roll over small nations.

But does that really need to be the case?
What if they simply introduce "military funding" policies?

Military power is nothing but another form of investment. If you have trade ships sailing across half of the world, you need 300 military ships to protect them. If you don't have a merchant fleet, you don't need the military ships. Or to be more precise, there's no way to finance them.
The United States pre WW2 didn't need a large military because there wasn't a reasonably dangerous enemy 3000 miles in any direction. But they quicly picked up the pace when $ hit the fan. Once WW2 was over, however, the new huge army was a huge investment. And the war lasted for only 4 years. You really think a single battleship can be paid off in 4 years?

Lets say a unit costs 1-3 gold for upkeep and 50-150 gold to build. Having a resource cuts the price of build by 50%. Even in a best case scenario, the unit costs me at least 25 gold + all the upkeep money.
If I build 10 of the weakest units and it takes for me 10 turns to capture two enemy cities, I spent 600 (500 for build +100 upkeep) to do so. If I ransacked 300 gold from the two cities, It wasn't really profitable, was it? Even if I score a complete victory, the actual size and cost of my army might be so great that, once the war ends, I'm still in a huge minus. So I either need to go into another war (like many, MANY times happened in history) to pay off the military expenses, or I need to scrap the military and say "whoops".

That has nothing to do with having only one unit per tile or not ( regardless of being a good idea or not ) There has been a constant thought in the heads of many posters about having one unit per tile cutting out the number of units in game magically or forcing some kind of supply system to cap the effectiveness of the army. That does not follow necessarily of having one unit per tile... in fact having one unit per tile per se only changes having a gazilion units SoD for a gazilion unit line if the game has not reached the upper limit of units in map and if you don't put any kind of restrain to the army size.

My point is saying that the measure you proposed above would probably be a good idea, but it would work exactly as good ( or bad ) with or without capping the number of units per tile. So it makes it irrelevant for that discussion.

 

[Hail]

That has nothing to do with having only one unit per tile or not ( regardless of being a good idea or not ) There has been a constant thought in the heads of many posters about having one unit per tile cutting out the number of units in game magically or forcing some kind of supply system to cap the effectiveness of the army. That does not follow necessarily of having one unit per tile... in fact having one unit per tile per se only changes having a gazilion units SoD for a gazilion unit line if the game has not reached the upper limit of units in map and if you don't put any kind of restrain to the army size.

excellent points so far!

it may very well be that the civ's war paradigm will shift from "the one with the biggest SoD wins" to "the one with the longest front wins". i find neither to be fun.

imho independent of the way(s) unit quantities will be constrained in civ5, the game will become even more about land grab. land is power even more so in civ5. i think the supposed feature of "tile claim" is meant to address this problem. we will just have to wait and see...

P.S. it is logical to conclude that the units' cap will be directly proportional to civ's "development". it has always been this way, but with 1upt and resource caps on units, it will definitely become more pronounced in civ5.

 

[damnrunner]

I am a big fan of limiting stacks to a certain size.

For all its flaws I thought this was a great feature of Civ: Call to Power. Optimizing one's armies to meet specific or general threats adds a new level of strategy.

If I recall, you were limited to 9 units per tile (or maybe 12?). The units could attack as individuals or as a group. This allowed ranged units to actually make sense from a support perspective. It is pretty crazy for archers (or even artillery) to be able to shoot over adjacent tiles. Also ranged units on their own should be more vulnerable to a direct attack. There strength is best thought of as a ranged attack with a normal combat strength of close to zero.

 

[Ellestar]

6. I really worry about unit preservation. How do you conserve/promote units if you can't protect an injured unit with a full-strength unit?

Why not? Just rotate it to the back ranks and let your full-strength unit be on the front line.

 

[war ensemble]

Trying to penetrate through a natural land bottleneck would be virtually impossible if limited to one unit per tile. Amphibious assaults would be severely limited because of the limited areas where you can land troops. Movement of troops is also faulty--if a soldier in the front of your army wins a battle and there are no open tiles, you're essentially stuck.

I think what is more probable is an army system similar to that of Civ Rev...if you want more than one unit on a tile, it must combine into one army.

 

[say1988]

Trying to penetrate through a natural land bottleneck would be virtually impossible if limited to one unit per tile. Amphibious assaults would be severely limited because of the limited areas where you can land troops

That is where the ranged bombardment comes in. It will be essential.

Movement of troops is also faulty--if a soldier in the front of your army wins a battle and there are no open tiles, you're essentially stuck.

Movement (and attack) rules would likely be different, and you will almost certainly be able to move through friendly units units.

We aren't talking take CivIV and limit units.

 

[Bibor]

There has been a constant thought in the heads of many posters about having one unit per tile cutting out the number of units in game magically or forcing some kind of supply system to cap the effectiveness of the army.

In my example, a small empire could muster just as many units as a big one, possibly at a bit higher cost. There should not be an inherent unit cap per se, but the consequences of overbuilding units should be more obvious and more devastating to a nation's economy than it is now in BTS.

Imagine having to supply only a single piece of bread to an army of 3.000.000 soldiers. That's 3.000.000 bread. Per day. Even if it costs like 0.5€ per bread, its still 1.500.000€ per day, or 45 million per month.

And that's just bread. Or in other words, the current upkeep cost of units is trivial.

You're right when you say its not connected, but with limited amount of units per square, it shouldbe possible to wage wars with a fewer amount of units. I hope

 

[Ahriman]

Why not? Just rotate it to the back ranks and let your full-strength unit be on the front line.

I attack, I win, I have an injured unit. End turn.
Remind me how I'm supposed to stop the enemy from killing my now damaged unit, before it is my turn again and I have a chance to rotate it back through my ranks, by wasting the movement of every unit behind it as they shuffle around in order to make way for the injured guy?

and you will almost certainly be able to move through friendly units units.

So, we will have no more 1-move units?
That's going to make cavalry vs infantry much less interesting.

 

[luchofeio]

armies...we need armies!

civ combat needs a total change
so sad to see they gonna stick to the "unit" type instead of tryin to copy some of EU3 or tryin to come up with a new kind of combat system

 

[chongli]

I am all in favour of the 1-unit-per-tile limit if, for nothing else, one BIG REASON:

You will no longer be able to stack a rock, a paper and a scissors all on the same tile and then thumb your nose at the attacker because he was always forced to use a weakness against your strength.

Good riddance to that bit of terrible game design. The whole point of rock, paper and scissors in game design is to force you to make choices. Allowing you to stack all 3 together eliminated any kind of interesting choice, sucking the enjoyment right out of it.

 

[say1988]

So, we will have no more 1-move units?

If this system was introduced, probably not.

That's going to make cavalry vs infantry much less interesting.

Why? You still get to outmaneuver 2 move infantry with 4 move cavalry. Or whatever it becomes.

 

[chongli]

Why? You still get to outmaneuver 2 move infantry with 4 move cavalry. Or whatever it becomes.

Yes! Now the advantage of cavalry will be the tactic of going around the infantry and flanking the archers behind them. Wars will be decided by how well you can position your troops to protect against such flanking tactics and how well you make use of the terrain toward that goal.