"One unit per one tile" strategy thoughts

[Disgustipated]

lets talk more strategy, not whether this should be in the game or not. Granted, we don't know any details yet.

As with any system, I'm sure it can be exploited to the human player's gain. If you are in a small country with limited land, you could probably "stash" units on transports at sea. Also mentioned is there will still be substantial micromanagement during combat. But I think it will be the "good" kind of micrimanagement. You will have to make serious decisions about which units you move up to replenish wounded or lost units.

I do think it could still turn into whoever has the most units will win. As I said there may be way to stash units close to the front lines on transports. But overall I think it will be an improvement. There will be more thought involved. If you don't have the units in position to fill in the gaps of wounded units, you could be in a world of hurt. But with sufficient numbers it should be no problem.

As for 1 or 2 square islands I read the complain that there is no place to land. This is completely unrealistic amphibious attack strategy. I admit, I use it myself . I never build marines because of this flaw in the AI. This will make marines actually useful perhaps. But you will still need massive shore bombardment to weaken the defenders in the city or on the tile.

 

[Ahriman]

Presumably 1 unit per tile means 1 unit on a transport too.

So on a small island, yes, its hard to attack except amphibiously, but its also hard to *defend*, you only have 1-2 units. So to defend your islands effectively, you will end up needing a navy.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

I was just thinking today that amphibious assaults will be more involved (that's a good thing). Right now you need just one single tile on the target "continent", to dump all of your units. Now, one tile will be enough to drop off only one vulnerable unit. Instead, you'll need to establish a good beachhead to drop off enough units to survive.

It will also make it more interesting to defend against a landing too. Right now (as mentioned above) it's practically impossible to defend any sizable "continent". With Civ 5, a few units on the coast will be able to hold good terrain, and deny the enemy enough space to drop off too large a force. Attackers will actually be forced to attack from their ships, in order to clear enough space.

 

[Sqwerlpunk]

Marines actually being useful? Awesome.

 

[chongli]

Presumably 1 unit per tile means 1 unit on a transport too.

I think that's a bit of a hasty assumption. Units on a transport are incapable of fighting until they disembark. Therefore, it's reasonable to allow multiple units to board. Since even basic infantry have a movement of at least 2, it should be possible to unload up to 6 units with only 3 shoreline hexes adjacent to the transport (the first 3 that disembark would have to move inland to make room for the next 3).

So on a small island, yes, its hard to attack except amphibiously, but its also hard to *defend*, you only have 1-2 units. So to defend your islands effectively, you will end up needing a navy.

We don't know what sorts of static defenses are available to cities and forts. I would assume walls would be available at the very least. Perhaps with enough fortification a single unit might hold off a much greater number of invaders. Without artillery support, it could be extremely difficult to take the city.

This is all speculation on my part of course, but I think it is some interesting food for thought.

 

[Ahriman]

I was just thinking today that amphibious assaults will be more involved (that's a good thing). Instead, you'll need to establish a good beachhead to drop off enough units to survive.

Agreed. This also suggests the value of a strategic reserve of mobile units; rather than just trying to line the walls of an island with units, you might just have some cavalry/tanks waiting inland to try to crush the first wave of landing troops.

I think that's a bit of a hasty assumption.

True, it could go either way.

Since even basic infantry have a movement of at least 2, it should be possible to unload up to 6 units with only 3 shoreline hexes adjacent to the transport (the first 3 that disembark would have to move inland to make room for the next 3).

My guess would be that, like in previous vesrions of civ, unloading from a transport takes up all your moves. Cavalry in Civ 4 can't unload and move inland on the same turn, I don't see it happening here either.

Without artillery support, it could be extremely difficult to take the city.

Sounds good to me, amphibious invasions should be hard. Historically, they never really happened until the 20th century (Gallipoli and Normandy are the only real major examples). Taking island fortresses is tough (think siege of Malta).

I think people worry too much about 2-tile island cities; those cities are almost invariably really terrible, lacking hammers, so you can just go around. And its not like they'll be able to hide a stack of naval ships in their city.

 

[beestar]

Transports containing multiple units would be a problem if they can launch multiple units against one defender. Most battles should be 1 unit vs. 1 unit, but if a transport contains 4 units, it could easily overwhelm a city garrison because the attackers would have 4 shots at the city. Two transports, each occupying one hex, could launch a total of 8 amphibious attackers.

Compare a land battle where a single hex can be attacked by at most 6 units around it.

For this reason I suppose transports can only carry one unit ...

 

[chongli]

My guess would be that, like in previous vesrions of civ, unloading from a transport takes up all your moves. Cavalry in Civ 4 can't unload and move inland on the same turn, I don't see it happening here either.

That rule made sense when you could stack your units. It makes a lot less sense when you are unable to do so. It will be far more difficult anyway, due to requiring a lot more space to unload.

Sounds good to me, amphibious invasions should be hard. Historically, they never really happened until the 20th century (Gallipoli and Normandy are the only real major examples). Taking island fortresses is tough (think siege of Malta).

I think people worry too much about 2-tile island cities; those cities are almost invariably really terrible, lacking hammers, so you can just go around. And its not like they'll be able to hide a stack of naval ships in their city.

I'd like to see the player be able to heavily fortify an island, similar to the way the Japanese did in places like Iwo Jima. They had tunnels and machine gun nests all over the place.

Despite being extremely outnumbered (110,000 to 18,000), they were able to inflict 26,000 casualties against the American side before being totally wiped out (many committed suicide instead of surrendering, unfortunately).

 

[Takhisis]

Transports... why not make an attacker's stats decrease when attacking land from the sea?

And why shouldn't troops on board transports be assailable from the coast? It'd turn coast defense on its head if it was possible

 

[chongli]

Transports... why not make an attacker's stats decrease when attacking land from the sea?

This already happens for any troops not skilled in amphibious assaults.

And why shouldn't troops on board transports be assailable from the coast? It'd turn coast defense on its head if it was possible

Troops under attack can simply take cover belowdecks. Best way to kill them is to sink the ship.

 

[Ahriman]

It makes a lot less sense when you are unable to do so

How so? As Beestar's point implies, why should a single transport be able to unleash 6 units at a time?

I'd like to see the player be able to heavily fortify an island, similar to the way the Japanese did in places like Iwo Jima. They had tunnels and machine gun nests all over the place.

I would see this implied by normal unit fortification bonuses, plus amphibious landing penalties. No need for more than that.

 

[chongli]

How so? As Beestar's point implies, why should a single transport be able to unleash 6 units at a time?

Because you could unload 6 units onto a single stack in one turn in previous Civ games. It'll be really lame if you now have to wait a whole bunch of turns to keep moving the units out of the way while you unload them.

As far as amphibious assaults go, no, you should not be able to attack right out of the ship with all 6 units. You should have to unload them onto the land and then attack the city afterwards (with your second movement point).

I would see this implied by normal unit fortification bonuses, plus amphibious landing penalties. No need for more than that.

Civ's normal unit fortification bonuses were balanced under the assumption that you'd have a stack of units, all with the same small bonus. It'll be much harder for a single unit to survive against multiple attackers with such a small bonus.

 

[cardgame]

so build a fortress too

 

[Takhisis]

Maybe you could have fortresses give the same bonus as cities? A huge one, so the defensive advantage would balance somehow the 6 potential attackers?

 

[chongli]

so build a fortress too

I am thinking more along the lines of a realistic, more complex simulation. Instead of just giving the same % bonus for any unit fortified there, it should be different for each defender/attacker combination.

For example, a unit of swordsmen defends a city with city walls against an attacking longbowmen unit. The results of this battle should be way different than the reverse scenario where longbowmen are defending against the swordsmen. Longbowmen, with their range, should be able to take far better advantage of the walls than swordsmen.

I guess Civ 4 had some elements of this, but it still didn't feel quite right. The defending archers took damage from the swordsmen (and could eventually be worn down), something highly unlikely to happen in real life. Without any archer or artillery support of their own, swordsmen should have absolutely no chance of doing any damage against longbowmen standing on top of city walls.

 

[cardgame]

In a similar vein, horse archers cannot be killed by any infantry except archer/longbowmen and gunpowder units. It's just impossible that horse archers would sit still and let spearmen strab them.

Speaking of horse archers, they should be very interesting with the extra moves & ranged bombardment!

 

[Takhisis]

Hurm... don't you have the reret chance like in civ3?

 

[cardgame]

very very small one unless you promote flanking; even with both flank promos (5xp) it's about 30% chance... none on defense

 

[Takhisis]

None on defense? The Escape from Zombie Island scenario (for civ3) hinges precisely on that... Zomibes are always there but there's a large chance of the human units (survivors, authorities, etc.) retreating both when attacking and when defending. That plus ranged bombardment makes it very interesting to play ineed. Why can't such feature from civ3 be incorporated into civ5? It'll be a beta anyway.

 

[kiwitt]

I have to admit this one unit per hex is going to be the best thing for us "wargamers". It is how I used to play wargames and the fact that the lead designer played SSI games like I did id sll the better. I'll be looking forward to making a WWII mod for it.

Each hex could have a either a division, a corps or an army for my type of game. Like in war you can attack the line at the weakest point, e.g. where a division is with an army.