"One unit per one tile" strategy thoughts

[tom2050]

From one of the interviews, the dev stated that units are precious that you will be able to bring along with you throughout the whole game, upgrading them as you go. This is nothing new, but it was said in a way that sounded like losing units may not be something that occurs all the time, or not too often.

It might be ping-pong! I've never been good at ping-pong!

Tom

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well if the unit is precious, then you can force the player to spend significant effort to repair it.

This means that after a few 'pings' the player that keeps losing hp will have drained their unit maintenance/repair fund, and won't be able to 'ping' again without some time to build up their fund.

So at that point since they will need to wait multiple turns to 'ping' again, you start hitting the other units, and eventally all of their units are sitting back at home without the resources to fully heal.

Then you can force them to declare peace.

 

[tom2050]

So to break it down, you don't want to be this ping-pong player:


You want to be this one


Tom

 

[da_Vinci]

Regarding whether the underdog can win ...

Yes, due to
1. the effect of positioning and tactics (which should be major... none of this +25%, no you move onto a hill you have 2x strength defending)
and
2. the effect of luck

Well, I am not sure that there are any tactics managable in civ that replicate the tactics of Stonewall Jackson, for example (manuever tactics have always been limited in civ, I think). But you would need a format like Total War to get that detail, I supose. And the current "underdog wins by luck" may not really be the answer either.

Note: the game would be practically unplayable if any of those were anywhere near as unpredictable as they were in real life. Combat is Only allowed to be random because it is not that important what happens to individual units.

Hmm ... so why ARE we having this discussion then?

dV

 

[Aneurism]

There is a simple way to avoid stacks of doom and make it possible for units to occupy the same square. Just make it like it was in Civ1 and Civ2, you can put as many units as you want in one square, and the unit with the best defense defends but if it loses the battle the entire stack is lost. What was great about this was you had to weigh your risk and reward every time you put units on the same square.

 

[Heathcliff]

Yes. Civ 1 and 2 combat system was the best. To have units have only one combat value instead of one for offense and one for defense was a big fail.

 

[r_rolo1]

Yes. Civ 1 and 2 combat system was the best. To have units have only one combat value instead of one for offense and one for defense was a big fail.

Care to elaborate? In other words, why exactly having two values of strenght is better than one value, modified in case of attack or defense ( by costumizable modifiers, terrain or even by the nature of the unit in itself )? They seem pretty equivalent to me in terms of gameplay and the second is definitely better in terms of game engine mechanics....

 

[Culture Bomb]

I haven't read all 18 pages of this, so I apologise if I'm repeating something that's already been said.

I think that Firaxis may be able to pull off the task of making a 1-unit-per-tile system work, but I do have my worries.

They say it will make combat more 'tactical,' but I'm not sure that's a good thing in a strategy game with the broad scope of Civ. I'm also worried that it will end up making combat play more like a puzzle game than a battle, where the emphasis is on shuffling all your units around to get them in the best position relative to the enemy.

I guess all turn-based combat systems have some puzzle-like elements to them, but I think this is something that should be avoided as much as possible in a strategy game.

I haven't played Panzer General, but another game I have seen mentioned on here a few times is Battle for Wesnoth. I think that is an OK game (though I suck at multiplayer,) but I really really wouldn't want to see Civ heading any further in that direction than the RPG-style promotions we already have in Civ IV.

On a more on-topic note, I wonder whether one-unit-per tile will effectively nerf nukes; unless they give them a huge area of effect they will be limited in how many units they can kill.

 

[Heathcliff]

I just thought the combat system was more fun in civ 1 and 2 than civ 4. I think it was a combination of zones of controll, different attack and defense values and all on the zone dies.

An example. If you would have a catapult (6/1/1) on one square, the enemy couldnt approach it because it would get killed. But they could defeat it with a horseman (2/1/2). If they'd choose to defend the catapult with a phalanx/archer (1/2/1), you could attack it with a chariot (4/1/2) and if you would win you would defeat units worth 60 shields but only risk losing 40 shields.

So I guess it comes down that there was more interresting scenarios where it mattered more where you moved your units. The risk/reward ratio was higher. Than if it is for example swordsmen horsearchers and axemen fighting. You wouldnt really want to face a swordsman with an axeman. But still the swordsman wouldnt be that much of an underdog. And if you would keep the units together you could send defend with an axemen if a swordsman or axeman was attacking. and if a horsearcher was attacking you would defend with a swordsman.

I guess it is these kind of scenarios they want to go back too.

 

[starstx]

It seems like I am in the minority here but I really don't understand the argument for SOD's or religion and I am happy both are gone. I support the 1 unit strategy. I love the Civ games and have been playing for over a decade. The SOD takes no strategy at all to implement and as bad as the AI has been in the games it was the same predictable outcome everytime. This is what became BORING about Civ. I feel the 1 unit strategy may actually take some semblance of thought and strategy to be successful. I don't care all that much when I build a massive SOD with 100 units in it and win. Big Deal. But I would think it was awesome if I was outnumbered and through the use of terrain and strategy of military forces I repeled an enemy twice my size.

Now religion the only thing I really did not like was you automatically were enemies with anyone who did not share your religion and I think it really ruined the diplomacy portion of the game.

The argument about space a tile takes up. Who cares? This isn't a simulator ... its a game. There are a TON of things that are nor perfectly realistic in Civ. Lets stop complaining and start EMBRACING. Sometimes change is good and I think they may have someting here that will be a fun new way to play the game.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Regarding whether the underdog can win ...

Well, I am not sure that there are any tactics managable in civ that replicate the tactics of Stonewall Jackson, for example (manuever tactics have always been limited in civ, I think). But you would need a format like Total War to get that detail, I supose. And the current "underdog wins by luck" may not really be the answer either.

Hmm ... so why ARE we having this discussion then?

dV

Partially because they are changing that. Individual units will be important, so the randomness of combat should be reduced. And its predictability should be increased.

(Which does decrease the Spear v. Tank)

 

[Phatkarp]

I'm excited about the change. Civ IV, great as it was, too often devolved into a simple matter of assembling the SoD and using it. That was the extent of military strategy and tactics. By eliminating the SoD you will be forced into playing more tactically. It will be an adjustment, no doubt, but I think after a few games we will never be able to go back to the SoD style.

 

[da_Vinci]

They say it will make combat more 'tactical,' but I'm not sure that's a good thing in a strategy game with the broad scope of Civ. I'm also worried that it will end up making combat play more like a puzzle game than a battle, where the emphasis is on shuffling all your units around to get them in the best position relative to the enemy.

Hmm ... getting your units in the best position relative to the enemy is NOT what the great generals of all time have done?

dV

 

[puddin]

Well I will have to see how this works out when I get the game in my anxiously awaiting hands. I hope its a good thing, but if it turns out to be a gamebreaker then back to Civ IV.

 

[Culture Bomb]

Hmm ... getting your units in the best position relative to the enemy is NOT what the great generals of all time have done?

dV

Ok, point taken.

Nevertheless, with some games that aim to simulate tactical combat, I can't help the feeling that I'm playing with something like a rubiks cube rather than a battle, trying to get 3 reds lined up next to the blues or whatever. (Only there's an RNG, so when you do line up your 3 reds, there's a 20% chance you might lose anyway.)

I'm not saying Civ V will be like this, and overall the removal of the stack of doom is probably a good thing, just worrying that it might tend more in this direction.

Also, in Civ, you don't play a general, but the overall leader of an empire. So maybe it shouldn't be your role to give detailed commands at the tactical level to every individual unit in a battle.

 

[da_Vinci]

Well I will have to see how this works out when I get the game in my anxiously awaiting hands. I hope its a good thing, but if it turns out to be a gamebreaker then back to Civ IV.

Nice that we have a fallback position ...

Also, in Civ, you don't play a general, but the overall leader of an empire. So maybe it shouldn't be your role to give detailed commands at the tactical level to every individual unit in a battle.

I see Civ as playing the leader but also in a way also playing the council or the cabinet, and other high advisors. So I think of myself as playing a genearal at times.

If we are not controlling the tactics, then it is either automated, or just not part of the system. I for one like a little tactical control, I see that as an advantage for the human.

dV

 

[Dom Pedro II]

If we are not controlling teh tactics, then it is either automated, or just not part of the system. I for one like a little tactical control, I see that as an advantage for the human.

The problem is that this isn't really tactics. You're not trying to get the best position relative to your enemy. You're trying to stay out of the way of your own units, and that's not the same thing. Nevermind the fact that tactics generally refers to battlefield decisions and planning whereas strategy would deal more with the large-scale movements of troops such as this. A tactical system has always been left out of Civ unfortunately and Civ5 appears to be no different.

To implement the strategic planning of occupying the right ground against your enemy, there are many possible solutions of which a 1-unit-per-tile limit is simply the most inelegant. Zones of control (ala Civ2), flanking bonuses (i.e. attacking from a direction other than the one the unit is facing), and stacking penalties would all be ways to make unit movement and placement very important and make war decision-making harder without all the silliness that results from a one-unit/tile mechanic.

Supply lines might also be another way, but honestly, I can't think of any way to implement this without it requiring excessive micromanagement.

 

[MatrixTheKitty]

Also, in Civ, you don't play a general, but the overall leader of an empire. So maybe it shouldn't be your role to give detailed commands at the tactical level to every individual unit in a battle.

Some more militaristic and imperialistic leaders did in fact lead their troops as a general, and some generals become governmental leaders (ie juntas). So why shouldn't a warmonger Civ player be able to do so? And if you're not a warmonger, well, you'll just be organising your defenses.

 

[chongli]

Also, in Civ, you don't play a general, but the overall leader of an empire. So maybe it shouldn't be your role to give detailed commands at the tactical level to every individual unit in a battle.

Napoleon was a General and an Emperor (as well as King of Italy). Barring Napoleon (and other warrior-king types), I still don't buy this argument in general (pardon the pun).

Civ has never been about strictly playing the role of an overall leader. It has always included a significant amount of micromanagement, particularly in the area of city-building and terrain improvement.

They say it will make combat more 'tactical,' but I'm not sure that's a good thing in a strategy game with the broad scope of Civ. I'm also worried that it will end up making combat play more like a puzzle game than a battle, where the emphasis is on shuffling all your units around to get them in the best position relative to the enemy.

I guess all turn-based combat systems have some puzzle-like elements to them, but I think this is something that should be avoided as much as possible in a strategy game.

Funny that you say that. I've always found the micromanagement of what tiles are to be worked to be an annoying optimization-based puzzle game, one where you have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

On a more on-topic note, I wonder whether one-unit-per tile will effectively nerf nukes; unless they give them a huge area of effect they will be limited in how many units they can kill.

This is a good point. Perhaps they will balance it out by finally including MIRV weapons (and getting rid of the SciFi nonsense known as SDI).

 

[tom2050]

The only options for nukes is to have it completely wipe your city off the map. Not much else it can do, unless it allows the city not to grow, not to produce, pretty much do nothing for a very very long time.