"One unit per one tile" strategy thoughts

[Dom Pedro II]

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.

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).

I think his point had more to do with the many tasks the player has to carry out rather than whether a person can wear both the hats of world leader and military commander in the real world since they obviously can and have. The scope of the game is so huge that micromanaging troop movements to this degree might seem a bit overwhelming or distracting to those who aren't playing a war strategy.

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.

This is very true. For an optimal economy, more micromanagement is required. But you can still have a decent economy without much micromanagement letting warmongers focus on war-making. But this new combat system will force everyone to engage in my combat micromanagement and not just the warmongers, which pushes Civilization even farther from the "this is not just a war game" claim.

 

[Ellestar]

That was option #1, 6 is bigger so 6 should win

#4 better means not "win"(like #1) but "more powerful on average"

There should be
The principle is
Basic parts should be VERY simple a 4th Grader should be able to understand and predict basic parts

Interactions between those simply calculatable/predictable parts can add complexity

so
5 Str v. 10 Str... should be VERY simple

so that way the Strategy of DECIDING
I get a +100% Str by moving to this terrain, or building this building or getting this new more expensive/less flexible unit? is it worthwhile
becomes important

4000 power unit isn't a good design from a usability perspective (28 is actually better even if it isn't a better reflection of an actual power of a unit).
Anyway, with your system of fixed losses + 100% Str is always better, no? In Civ 4, things aren't that stupid. Archer on a forested hill is a serious problem to low-tech units, but something like an upgraded elephant or maceman can kill it without trouble - first strikes will be less of an issue.
That shows a basic limitation of all extremely simple systems - there are no interesting interactions within that system. You say that interactions between simple systems create complexity, and it's true. But there are no interacting systems in combat in Civ.

 

[chongli]

I think his point had more to do with the many tasks the player has to carry out rather than whether a person can wear both the hats of world leader and military commander in the real world since they obviously can and have. The scope of the game is so huge that micromanaging troop movements to this degree might seem a bit overwhelming or distracting to those who aren't playing a war strategy.

This is very true. For an optimal economy, more micromanagement is required. But you can still have a decent economy without much micromanagement letting warmongers focus on war-making. But this new combat system will force everyone to engage in my combat micromanagement and not just the warmongers, which pushes Civilization even farther from the "this is not just a war game" claim.

I don't know if we can say for sure whether this will be the case. We still have not heard too many details about the new diplomacy system. What we have heard is that it will be a major overhaul.

If the new system of diplomacy is the breakthrough that we hope it will be, perhaps the peacemongers among us will be able to take full advantage of it to avoid war and thus avoid micromanaging their armies (which I personally don't think will be such a big problem).

 

[Dr. Eszterhazy]

Is this how Civ5 warfare is going to look?

E1 F1

E2 F2

E3 F3

Enemy units 1, 2, and 3 and attack friendly unit 2 and drive it back from the hex:

E1 F1

--> E2 --> F2

E3 F3

Friendly units 1, 2 and 3 counterattack the E2 unit and push it back:

E1 F1

E2 F2

E3 F3

Players shuffle the damaged E2 and F2 out of the line and repeat the attack and counterattack until there is a lucky die roll or one side runs out of units.

 

[Grimlin]

Is this how Civ5 warfare is going to look?

E1 F1

E2 F2

E3 F3

Enemy units 1, 2, and 3 and attack friendly unit 2 and drive it back from the hex:

E1 F1

--> E2 --> F2

E3 F3

Friendly units 1, 2 and 3 counterattack the E2 unit and push it back:

E1 F1

E2 F2

E3 F3

Players shuffle the damaged E2 and F2 out of the line and repeat the attack and counterattack until there is a lucky die roll or one side runs out of units.

Its called trench warfare

 

[Yakk]

  /A4\__/A1\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/A1\__/  \__/  
  \__/A2\__/B1\__/  \__/A1\__/  \__/A4\__/B1\__/  \
  /A3\__/B2\__/->\__/A4\__/B1\__/A3\__/B4\__/  \__/  
  \__/B3\__/  \__/A3\__/A2\__/->\__/B3\__/B2\__/  \
  /  \__/B4\__/  \__/B3\__/B2\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  
  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/B4\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \
  /  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/

Once you advance, you end up having to fill in the gap. You can also (sometimes) push a hole through enemy lines, which means you can flow reinforcements into that gap.

On top of that, if you can manage to out-lengthen your enemy, you can 'flank' them. On the flanks, you can start "rolling up" the line.

The second line will contain both ranged troops and reserves.

 

[da_Vinci]

  /A4\__/A1\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/A1\__/  \__/  
  \__/A2\__/B1\__/  \__/A1\__/  \__/A4\__/B1\__/  \
  /A3\__/B2\__/->\__/A4\__/B1\__/A3\__/B4\__/  \__/  
  \__/B3\__/  \__/A3\__/A2\__/->\__/B3\__/B2\__/  \
  /  \__/B4\__/  \__/B3\__/B2\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  
  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/B4\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \
  /  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/

Once you advance, you end up having to fill in the gap. You can also (sometimes) push a hole through enemy lines, which means you can flow reinforcements into that gap.

On top of that, if you can manage to out-lengthen your enemy, you can 'flank' them. On the flanks, you can start "rolling up" the line.

The second line will contain both ranged troops and reserves.

Or enemy troops in the field might form a circle (or a circle around a city) in which case if it is totally surrounded, and cut off from supply, does it suffer attrition over time from supply lack? After flight, can you airdrop into such a force (if you are not intercepted ...)? If you half circle against the sea, then sea supply is possible (if not blocaded by sea)?

dV

 

[Yakk]

Note that a closed circle has less surface area than the attacking circle. In general, convex shapes have less surface area than concave ones.

Moving reserves up for the concave one is a bit easier (the convex one has to send reserves the long way around to the back), which means that in a battle of attrition, the concave circle could break out and chop up the attempting to encircle defenders.

But if the attackers have enough troops and power, they can encircle, chop away at the 'corners' of the circle (3 on one), cause the enemy circle to collapse at the corners.

Here is a CY city with a malformed circle of A defenders, surrounded by B attackers:

  /  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  
  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/B1\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \
  /  \__/  \__/  \__/B2\__/B2\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  
  \__/  \__/  \__/B1\__/A3\__/B2\__/  \__/  \__/  \
  /  \__/  \__/  \__/A3\__/A2\__/B2\__/  \__/  \__/  
  \__/  \__/  \__/B2\__/  \__/A2\__/B1\__/  \__/  \
  /  \__/  \__/  \__/A2\__/  \__/A3\__/  \__/  \__/
  \__/  \__/  \__/B2\__/CY\__/  \__/B2\__/  \__/  \
  /  \__/  \__/  \__/A2\__/  \__/A3\__/  \__/  \__/  
  \__/  \__/  \__/B2\__/  \__/A2\__/B1\__/  \__/  \
  /  \__/  \__/  \__/A3\__/A2\__/B2\__/  \__/  \__/  
  \__/  \__/  \__/B1\__/A3\__/B2\__/  \__/  \__/  \
  /  \__/  \__/  \__/B2\__/B2\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/
  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/B1\__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \
  /  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  
  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \
  /  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  
  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \__/  \

The numbers refer to the number of adjacent enemies. B has a lot of "only one opponent can attack me", while A has lots of "3 opponents can attack me". B can maintain pressure everywhere (to reduce the ability for A to break out by double-teaming), while destroying some of the corner troops and moving fresh troops into the gaps.

At the same time, in order for B to replace a damaged troop, it has to go all the way around -- while A just has to move troops from its interior. This would let A break out easier than B could break in, using the same number of units. By this point, A could have every square inside filled with troops, and still have fewer troops than B has on the field. As the push-back from the city grows, you could imagine A having an equal number of troops as B does, but B's envelopment being a 1 hex thick layer, while A having solid troops all the way through.

A could break out, and start "rolling up" B's thin line, and be able to replace wounded troops with fresh ones. Meanwhile, B can only rest wounded troops by forcing A to retreat and shortening B's line...

With equal forces, you probably want to be convex. With much greater forces, you want a concave wrap around the enemy, so you can bring more of your forces to bear.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

4000 power unit isn't a good design from a usability perspective (28 is actually better even if it isn't a better reflection of an actual power of a unit).

How is that true?

I will admit that say 4324 is less 'usable' than 28, but 4000 is actually more so (simpler number)

28 would be more usable than 4000 IF that 28 accurately represented the odds.

If we were having Display problems, then that might be something... But I'd say that you probably Shouldn't be dealing with more than a 5 digit number (ie 80,000) if the lowest (ie most heavily damaged Scout) was 0.1

so
Civ IV system, only use pen and paper
what is the probable result from
28 v. 24
(yes the 28 will probably win, but how much health/str will it have left)

4000 v. 2000, Accurate Strength System

The result is either, the 2000 wins with minimum Str left
OR
4000 wins with 3000 str left.

didn't even need pen and paper all in my head.

To make it more predictable make it non random. With individual rounds Both sides lose damage equal to the total strength/5... but no more than current Str of the other side.

ie in combat
4000 v. 2000 both of them lose 6000/5=1200 [but no more than the Str of the other side.]
so
2800 (4000max) and 800 (2000 max)

next round they would lose 720
so
2080 and 80
Next round the smaller would die (if they hadn't retreated/stopped combat yet
and the bigger would be left with 2000

Anyway, with your system of fixed losses + 100% Str is always better, no? In Civ 4, things aren't that stupid. Archer on a forested hill is a serious problem to low-tech units, but something like an upgraded elephant or maceman can kill it without trouble -

No, in civ 4 (and civs 1-3 as well) they still have "trouble" in the sense that
1. They CAN die to that archer
2. They almost Always will take damage from that combat (except in the case of Civ 1 where there was no damage)

Mine would only eliminate #1 (A Mace/Elephant wold probably be like 10x as strong as an Archer, say 3x as strong as a fortified Forest Archer.. so it would still defnitely win)

Which seems like a better system as it
1. Truly eliminates Spear v. Tank
2. Allows weaker units to still have impact even if they Don't have massive impact

You say that interactions between simple systems create complexity, and it's true. But there are no interacting systems in combat in Civ.

There are interacting systems... ie

The "Str Bonus System".. partially exploited through tactical positioning
Terrain Bonuses
Position Bonuses (Flanking).. could be in
Unit v. Unit Bonuses
Promotion/Experience Bonuses

The Economic System.. with probable tie ins to the Social System, etc.
Building the units.. ties into unit v. unit + promotion experience
Maintaining units
Repairing the units

Movement System
Getting the units to the front


Als of those interact with combat, because this is Not Panzer General, so you don't need or WANT as much tactical complexity, there are other systems to provide that.

 

[Memphus]

If we truly have one unit per tile, and workers get counted as a unit, then either workers will have a defense value, you can't defend workers, or workers won't exist in the game. Workers having a defense value doesn't make sense to me, as someone bending over to dig a road comes as more vulnerable to attack than a guy looking out with an axe. Not having the ability to defend workers makes it risky to develop your territory. Not having workers didn't work so well in Civ Rev, at least in my opinion.

Workers are not counted.

: Have you played Panzer General? It's kind of a similar situation. You have ground units, and air units. You also have hexes and one-unit-per-tile. We've got three layers of units - civilian units can stack with military together. You can have a worker unit and a warrior unit on the same tile, but not two of either

Interesting for developing your city. you can't have 2 workers on the same tile, meaning you can't accelerate the speed at which an improvemet is created. I am interested to see how this strategy works, as new cities could prove difficult to "catch up", hopefully there is some modifier system....

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Interesting for developing your city. you can't have 2 workers on the same tile, meaning you can't accelerate the speed at which an improvemet is created. I am interested to see how this strategy works, as new cities could prove difficult to "catch up", hopefully there is some modifier system....

Well if workers are Expensive then you don't have to worry about Stacking to catch up.

Also, what if workers are like Workboats in Civ IV, they are consumed to improve the tile?

 

[Memphus]

Well if workers are Expensive then you don't have to worry about Stacking to catch up.

Very true, but then i am not sure how late cities will ever grow quicky.... until I read your second part:

Also, what if workers are like Workboats in Civ IV, they are consumed to improve the tile?

Now that is an interesting concept, but the balance of the maintenance will be interesting (i.e. take a bunch of workers into war to rapidly improve a conquered city), as well as pillaging then since you can't send a stack of workers out to repair the tile, but instead one is sacrificed.

 

[chongli]

Well if workers are Expensive then you don't have to worry about Stacking to catch up.

Also, what if workers are like Workboats in Civ IV, they are consumed to improve the tile?

That doesn't really make sense. Do the workers pave a road with their own flesh and blood?

Workboats were consumed because they actually remained on the tile, fishing up the resources.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That doesn't really make sense. Do the workers pave a road with their own flesh and blood?

Workboats were consumed because they actually remained on the tile, fishing up the resources.

I'm suggesting Tile improvements work the same way (the workers stay there getting the resources)

Roads might be different, but they might not use workers at all (see Civ Rev).

 

[da_Vinci]

That doesn't really make sense. Do the workers pave a road with their own flesh and blood?

Workboats were consumed because they actually remained on the tile, fishing up the resources.

Hmm ... workboat becomes permanent fishing boat, yet you need to put a pop on it to work it. Maybe the workboat should work the fish without a pop?

Think of a farm, the worker builds it and lives, and we put a pop on it to work it. To be like a fishing boat, the worker would have to become a permanent tractor (or oxcart in the BC?) to make the farm viable. Or the worker could be consumed building the farm, but the farm is worked without assigning pop (worker becomes farmer on that tile, perhaps instantly like the workboat becomes fishing boat).

Would be a new approach to workers ... they become specialized laborers (miners, farmers, "cottage industrialists", water and windmillers, etc. to staff the buildings they build, be "consumed" (miner unit must be present on the mine for it to work, but can be moved to make a mine in a new location and work there if desired), and the improved tiles do not require city pop to work it.

So what would city pop do? Be specialists, or maybe city pop is consumed making military units? That would solve the problem of SOD being larger than city pops ...

Plus, this kind of worker to specialized laborer who is committed to improvement removes the whole issue of only working resources in a city fat cross ... now the terrain in your culture but between cities and not in the former workable radius concept can be worked for yields ...

Is this getting too much into micromanagement?

(maybe a bit off topic, but some realation to the 1 unit per tile idea)

dV

 

[Thormodr]

The worker being consumed is actually a pretty good idea.

They are supposed to be getting rid of road spaghetti. Perhaps they will work like Civ Rev as mentioned.

Sounds encouraging. I always found managing workers to be a little tedious and I was too scared to have them auto build.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Hmm ... workboat becomes permanent fishing boat, yet you need to put a pop on it to work it. Maybe the workboat should work the fish without a pop?

Think of a farm, the worker builds it and lives, and we put a pop on it to work it. To be like a fishing boat, the worker would have to become a permanent tractor (or oxcart in the BC?) to make the farm viable. Or the worker could be consumed building the farm, but the farm is worked without assigning pop (worker becomes farmer on that tile, perhaps instantly like the workboat becomes fishing boat).

Would be a new approach to workers ... they become specialized laborers (miners, farmers, "cottage industrialists", water and windmillers, etc. to staff the buildings they build, be "consumed" (miner unit must be present on the mine for it to work, but can be moved to make a mine in a new location and work there if desired), and the improved tiles do not require city pop to work it.

So what would city pop do? Be specialists, or maybe city pop is consumed making military units? That would solve the problem of SOD being larger than city pops ...

Plus, this kind of worker to specialized laborer who is committed to improvement removes the whole issue of only working resources in a city fat cross ... now the terrain in your culture but between cities and not in the former workable radius concept can be worked for yields ...

Is this getting too much into micromanagement?

(maybe a bit off topic, but some realation to the 1 unit per tile idea)

dV

Actually, this works really well. IF the workers are truly consumed, ie they can't move to a new spot.

It Decreases Micromanagement (no more tile juggling... only specialist juggling which isn't as complex)

As a side effect you can decrease the effect of food (if the tile contains the pop that is working it, then you don't need two food.) ie most tiles would produce 0 food unless they had a farm on them.

Most Cities would have lower populations especially in early game

You still need a way to determine what city gets the benefit of a tile, and there I think the "BFH" works... the city that "Bought" the tile gets the benefit.


So.
City "Buys" a tile in its BFH with culture.. it starts getting the benefit of that tile. It will get the benefit of that tile for the rest of the game (unless an enemy unit is there).
Worker "Builds" on that tile and is consumed... City gets an increased benefit (worker may cost food)


You could split up production too

City Workers give you production IF you have enough Raw materials (generic)
Tiles give you Raw Materials, but not Production. (ie a Forest gives you 2 Raw materials, a Mined hill gives you 3)

With sufficient Tech, the Raw Materials and Food collected in a city could be sent elsewhere.

 

[da_Vinci]

The worker being consumed is actually a pretty good idea.

Actually, worker being transformed rather than consumed ... becomes a miner, farmer, fisherman, etc. ... spends time building the mine, farm, fishing boat, then works that device on that resource. But, the specialized laborer is mobile ... when that enemy or barb boat approaches, the fishing boat can run into the city. Or if you have lots of fish and want clams, you can sail that fishing boat to become a clamming boat.

Likewise, miner can pull up stakes, abandon the mine and go elsewhere to start a new mine (useful if ore veins are finite and go dry?) ... if resource exhausts, or if enemy is coming.

dV

 

[da_Vinci]

Back on topic, a look at this screenshot gets me to thinking ...

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2814&original=1&c=36

One unit per tile sure limits the defense of that city. Maybe we want cities to be able to build up their units per tile capacity? Barracks allows housing of an extra foot unit? Stable allows construction of horse, and housing of horse in addition to the foot? Add archery range as pre-requisite for bow units ... but allows an additonal bow unit in city? Extra units from walls and castles? Or have several levels of barracks, each adding unit capacity? Or units capacity in proportion to city pop?

In the field, some system of forts, of various sizes with various garrisons?

Or does this make warfare too predominant in the game, all of these nuances?

dV

 

[Thormodr]

Back on topic, a look at this screenshot gets me to thinking ...

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2814&original=1&c=36

One unit per tile sure limits the defense of that city. Maybe we want cities to be able to build up their units per tile capacity? Barracks allows housing of an extra foot unit? Stable allows construction of horse, and housing of horse in addition to the foot? Add archery range as pre-requisite for bow units ... but allows an additonal bow unit in city? Extra units from walls and castles? Or have several levels of barracks, each adding unit capacity? Or units capacity in proportion to city pop?

In the field, some system of forts, of various sizes with various garrisons?

Or does this make warfare too predominant in the game, all of these nuances?

dV

The worker transforming is a good idea too.

I think there will be a much greater emphasis on forts in ciV. They were not used too much by most players I think in previous games. They should prove to be much more useful with the new combat system.