Stacking Limits

[kristopherb]

My post is going to be short because its late and my bed is calling me bob.
I like Hrmans idea. But i think the developers are to be trusted, hell there getting paid for it. Heres a idea to throw in to the pan.
We all know wars like the alexander campains were "stack of doom" that changed to front line warfare like WWII i reckon a way of representing both will be needed. Also ,who reckons a unit of archers will be as large as a city.
I think and hope that each hex will break up into tiles there whould X tiles per hex while a city will be a Hex size. This to me makes sence why would they change the tiling system without completely changing it? also if my thoery right it means that archer ranged strike will be more realistic and mountians and lakes to more of a realistic proportion.
There is one peice of bad news, i may need to get me a new laptop for this game.

 

[Sqwerlpunk]

A lot of people seem to be really, really focused on how 1 unit per hex will destroy the "sense of scale", or how the game is played... which is silly. The developers are making a new game, this isn't Civ 4.1, and with the changes already released, I have no doubt they are going to change a lot more than just the couple things we have seen so far. I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot more changes that adress the cons of the new systems in the future (I even made a thread about it HERE, with my speculation as to what could/should be changed to make the new system all it can be, hope the devs took the same line of design), because even though (in my opinion) it's a far better system, it's not perfect, and doesn't mesh perfectly with previously franchise wide Civ gameplay components.

I'd wait before deriding the 1 unit per hex system completely, and let the devs release some more detailed information about the game, particularly about the combat/war/defense systems. If they take this system and drop it in a Civ IV style game with no additional changes... well, that wouldn't be a great thing, I'll agree (though I'll still be happy to see SoD go die).

 

[smithx2]

In reading some of the post about the 1 unit per hex limits it seems people are assuming only one unit will be able to attack at a time. I have seen Panzer General referenced in several of the comments from Firaxis on how the new combat system is modeled. If this is the case then I would assume multiple units will be able to attack a single hex at one time with a bonus for combined arms.

Combat results would weaken the defender/attacker, force a retreat of defender/attacker or eliminate defender/attacker. Then 1 unit would be allowed to advance after combat.

For those interested in 1 unit per hex based games www.hexwar.com

 

[_hero_]

I really wish some of you would stop pretending scale is the reason you don't like the idea of one unit per tile. Every civ game has had serious scale issues. All units on scale alone are hundreds of feet tall. If one tile represents 100 KM then every city is more massive than any city on earth, and City radiuses? Don't even get me started. Units live all of history without dying if they don't die in battle so I guess units are immortal too? Takes 4000 years to for a warrior to travel across the USA on an earth map on diety? How is that to scale? If the game was to scale then every unit would be able to move across the entire planet in a turn in the ancient era, and in the modern era all modern units would be able to as well.

Also why does it take a thousand years to build just about any wonder in the ancient era? They were all built in a generation in reality. Scale is a ridiculous excuse to hate one unit per tile. If you don't like the gameplay I can respect that but don't pretend it's because of scale you are lying to yourselves if scale is that big an issue you'd never have played any civ game and liked it.

 

[mechaerik]

I don't really see how having a big stack is so unrealistic. Only recently have there been smaller, more mobile groups of soldiers. Even Napoleon had his Grand Armee.

 

[Savoir10]

In reading some of the post about the 1 unit per hex limits it seems people are assuming only one unit will be able to attack at a time. I have seen Panzer General referenced in several of the comments from Firaxis on how the new combat system is modeled. If this is the case then I would assume multiple units will be able to attack a single hex at one time with a bonus for combined arms.

Combat results would weaken the defender/attacker, force a retreat of defender/attacker or eliminate defender/attacker. Then 1 unit would be allowed to advance after combat.

For those interested in 1 unit per hex based games www.hexwar.com

It's obvious to an old f@rt like me, that the people concerned about the one hex per tile rule, are not old enough to have played Panzer General or PG II. If they had, they would be as excited as I am about the change.

The stack of doom has always been the part of the game I hated most. The level of tactics required for the new system will be immense. Cant wait.

 

[Raider]

I cannot see any limitation to number of units per tile working unless the entire combat and unit system in Civ5 is completely overhauled from the previous games.

Also don't see what doesn't make realistic sense about having many units in one tile. Each tile represents a huge area after all. The entire US military could probably fit in a couple square miles if bunched together.

 

[hrman]

I really wish some of you would stop pretending scale is the reason you don't like the idea of one unit per tile. Every civ game has had serious scale issues. All units on scale alone are hundreds of feet tall. If one tile represents 100 KM then every city is more massive than any city on earth, and City radiuses? Don't even get me started. Units live all of history without dying if they don't die in battle so I guess units are immortal too? Takes 4000 years to for a warrior to travel across the USA on an earth map on diety? How is that to scale? If the game was to scale then every unit would be able to move across the entire planet in a turn in the ancient era, and in the modern era all modern units would be able to as well.

Also why does it take a thousand years to build just about any wonder in the ancient era? They were all built in a generation in reality. Scale is a ridiculous excuse to hate one unit per tile. If you don't like the gameplay I can respect that but don't pretend it's because of scale you are lying to yourselves if scale is that big an issue you'd never have played any civ game and liked it.

I don't want to presume to speak for anybody else, but there's no "pretending" involved in my post. I don't think you are quite getting my meaning - I couldn't care less how big the picture of a unit or city on a tile is. I understand that it is the representation of a unit or city that occupies part of that tile. What I do object to in advance are issues such as having the distance an arrow can fly in a battle being the same distance it will probably take a turn (or a large portion of a turn) to travel, and treating one hex as if it can only hold one unit because the unit is so large you can't fit anything else.

Whatever sacrifices of reality CIV has made in the past for the sake of gameplay, it has always stood out as having the audacity to try to represent the entire course of history for an entire planet. That's BIG, no matter how you look at it, and it always feels that way when I am playing. I hate the idea that anything about a new version of the game could make it feel small.

As I said earlier, we all are here because we love CIV, and the designers have done so much right in the earlier versions they deserve some slack. If anyone can pull off one unit per stack without losing the sense of what makes the game great, they can. However, I've heard enough to be worried about it, and seen my previous favorite game series (Heroes of Might and Magic) totally fail partially because of this issue.

 

[Thormodr]

It's obvious to an old f@rt like me, that the people concerned about the one hex per tile rule, are not old enough to have played Panzer General or PG II. If they had, they would be as excited as I am about the change.

The stack of doom has always been the part of the game I hated most. The level of tactics required for the new system will be immense. Cant wait.

Well put. I loved Panzer General too. This is going to be a very positive change.

 

[Hadrean]

I don't really see how having a big stack is so unrealistic. Only recently have there been smaller, more mobile groups of soldiers. Even Napoleon had his Grand Armee.

But did his army all fit in a small box?

 

[pi-r8]

I'm worried that it'll put too much emphasis on warfare, and that it'll require a lot of tedious micromanagement in what is already a long, slow game. But we know so little about the game at this point, it's hard to say anything for certain.

The way I see it, each new installment of the series has made one major improvement. Civ 2 added unit hitpoints and firepower, which greatly reduced the variance in combat. (and the high council lol). Civ 3 added cultural borders, which gave you a way to control your territory other than pure military strength. Civ 4 used great people and city upkeep to make "infinite city sprawl" a much weaker strategy. I guess in Civ 5 they want to finally do away with the stack of doom. Personally I think a better and more realistic way of doing that would be to increase collateral damage, but we'll see.

 

[Sqwerlpunk]

I'm worried that it'll put too much emphasis on warfare, and that it'll require a lot of tedious micromanagement in what is already a long, slow game. But we know so little about the game at this point, it's hard to say anything for certain.

The way I see it, each new installment of the series has made one major improvement. Civ 2 added unit hitpoints and firepower, which greatly reduced the variance in combat. (and the high council lol). Civ 3 added cultural borders, which gave you a way to control your territory other than pure military strength. Civ 4 used great people and city upkeep to make "infinite city sprawl" a much weaker strategy. I guess in Civ 5 they want to finally do away with the stack of doom. Personally I think a better and more realistic way of doing that would be to increase collateral damage, but we'll see.

I'm going to take the opposite point here for a second, because a LOT of people's complaints are that the new system will be "too micromanagement intensive".

We're talking about Civilization, a game which is BUILT on micromanaging an empire. Most of your time in Civ3 or 4 was spent meticulously balancing and tweaking your cities and other such things to get the greatest overall output with them, making sure you have just enough but not too much gold/whatever else put into this, ect.

War? ALL your time is spent moving a bunch of units from one spot to another. Granted, it was tedious, boring (so some can call it micromanagement), and usually took a little while to accomplish as your armies got lolhueg in later era games, but it was a 0 brain activity beyond, "get a lot of unit x, y, and z together to win." It was even worse with the computers unit spam on higher difficulties.

The difference? Managing your cities was thinking intensive, had several successful routes you could take, and was rewarding. War was brainless, one track, and beyond the obvious, "you won! take this city," there was no reward for doing it well, or better than another player, because they all had to do the same thing (really, wars were more decided by the management of your cities aspect, 'cause that player would have a bigger meatgrinder to throw the other way).

You occasionally ran into something like a player stacking his units on a hill for a greater defense value but... beyond that, there was no tactical or strategic approach to war. Units were either in a city, or on their way to one, better than the person attacking/being attacked, or worse.


So, my point after that long ass post is this, if Civ 5 brings War into line with Empire Management, it will be a HUGE step forward. Don't like war? Civ has almost always allowed you to play peacefully (except at high difficulty, but that's an entirely different basket of complaints with me...) so play it that way, and maximize your city management.

Also, it's highly likely they'll reduce unit numbers in total somehow, having 100+ units with 105 hexes in your empire is silly. Just silly.

 

[NP300]

I'm worried that it'll put too much emphasis on warfare, and that it'll require a lot of tedious micromanagement in what is already a long, slow game. But we know so little about the game at this point, it's hard to say anything for certain.

It looks like they are moving to a system like that of Panzer General. If so, it will reduce micromanagement, not increase it. By eliminating the stacks of doom, you eliminate the greatest source of micromanagement in warfare. The system used in Panzer General had little micromanagement and emphasized strategy, much as the game of chess does. Think about it: In many ways there is much more combat strategy and much less micromanagement in Chess than there is in Civ IV. And Chess uses a one-unit-per-tile model.

 

[mjs0]

One thing I am very much looking forward to with the 1UPT approach is being able to take in the entire situation at a glance without having to drill down into several large stacks to figure out: what they contain, which defenders will come into play with each of my attackers, which defenders have taken collateral after I suicide my siege, etc, etc. The micromanagement of controlling my own stacks was also a real pain. I for one will not miss the SOD.
And don't get me started on the DSODs (Defensive Stack of Doom) that would sit in cities with some highly eclectic mix of units. I loved walking up to a city with 12 riflemen, 14 cavalry, 5 catapults, 15 grenadiers, 8 macemen, 4 pikemen, 6 swordsmen, an axeman and a warrior, plus a couple of ships and workers as a bonus and then watching the AI suicide 2 of the catapults on my stack and then attack with just 2 of the cavalry before moving 90% of the rest out of and back into the city...WTH? What a joy that was!

ASIDE: Isn't it strange, I keep playing Civ, I seem to enjoy it and always suffer with one more turn syndrome...but when I actually think about the mechanics of the game all I can come up with are a list of annoyances. Bizarre.

Anyway...

Personally I would like to see something similar to the armies that were possible in Civ3 where several units were combined into a new more powerful unit. Better still, a unit workshop that allows the creation of tailored combined arms units. With the visual unit representation in Civ5 this could now be represented graphically and we would see spears, chariots, and axe men in the aggregate unit. Of course this may not fit with other mechanics in Civ5 (movement, combat, unit support with resources,...) about which we as yet know so little. So, I am content to wait (and speculate) until we learn more.

 

[_hero_]

I don't want to presume to speak for anybody else, but there's no "pretending" involved in my post. I don't think you are quite getting my meaning - I couldn't care less how big the picture of a unit or city on a tile is. I understand that it is the representation of a unit or city that occupies part of that tile. What I do object to in advance are issues such as having the distance an arrow can fly in a battle being the same distance it will probably take a turn (or a large portion of a turn) to travel, and treating one hex as if it can only hold one unit because the unit is so large you can't fit anything else.

Whatever sacrifices of reality CIV has made in the past for the sake of gameplay, it has always stood out as having the audacity to try to represent the entire course of history for an entire planet. That's BIG, no matter how you look at it, and it always feels that way when I am playing. I hate the idea that anything about a new version of the game could make it feel small.

As I said earlier, we all are here because we love CIV, and the designers have done so much right in the earlier versions they deserve some slack. If anyone can pull off one unit per stack without losing the sense of what makes the game great, they can. However, I've heard enough to be worried about it, and seen my previous favorite game series (Heroes of Might and Magic) totally fail partially because of this issue.

What you are really saying is you hate the gameplay aspect of archer bombardment and single unit per tile. I really honestly can't believe it just simply bugs you because it's unrealistic. Honestly I don't see how someone who used to love Heroes of Might and Magic could be obsessed with realism as that is a fantasy game. It may very well be that the single tile and ranged archers are Civ's undoing but until we actually see how the combat system will work more fully it is just mindless ranting to complain about.

As has been stated before while this removes some realism it also adds some at the same time. Archers from a combat standpoint would volley and cover behind melee lines rather then engage directly in combat as they did in the previous civs. Most battles wouldn't historically take place in cities and this single unit per tile ensures that won't happen anymore. Hills would increase the range archers could shoot and there just is no way to realistically represent that in Civ. You cannot have full realism in civ unless you turn combat into RTS like it is in Lord of the Realm. While that may be fun, it would make games take way too long for any normal person to play them.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say about it making it feel small rather than big. It seems to me they are trying to increase the importance of land and each individual unit thus making them seem bigger and not smaller.

 

[Ahriman]

while this removes some realism it also adds some at the same time. Archers from a combat standpoint would volley and cover behind melee lines

Realism? Archers normally start in front to fire, and then withdraw behind lines through the ranks.

Most battles wouldn't historically take place in cities and this single unit per tile ensures that won't happen anymore

History has many more sieges than it does field battles.

Hills would increase the range archers could shoot and there just is no way to realistically represent that in Civ.

Archer hill defense bonus did that fine.

It seems to me they are trying to increase the importance of land and each individual unit thus making them seem bigger and not smaller.

Let me explain what I think people mean by "smaller".

In Civ1-4, the flatlands of Germany or France or eastern China or argentina feel like big open expanses, which an army will slowly cross.
In Civ5, it could make these big areas feel like a single battlefield; melee in front, archers, behind, etc.
So you move from the feeling of moving an army around on a strategic theatre scale map, to moving around individual tiles in a way that feels more like a localized tactical map. Melee to the front, cavalry to the flank, archers behind.

In Civ1-4, it can feel like you're fighting over Europe, whereas in Civ5 it looks like it might feel like you're fighting over a single battlefield.

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for gameplay, but it certainly will make the map feel "smaller".

 

[hrman]

What you are really saying is you hate the gameplay aspect of archer bombardment and single unit per tile. I really honestly can't believe it just simply bugs you because it's unrealistic. Honestly I don't see how someone who used to love Heroes of Might and Magic could be obsessed with realism as that is a fantasy game. It may very well be that the single tile and ranged archers are Civ's undoing but until we actually see how the combat system will work more fully it is just mindless ranting to complain about.

As has been stated before while this removes some realism it also adds some at the same time. Archers from a combat standpoint would volley and cover behind melee lines rather then engage directly in combat as they did in the previous civs. Most battles wouldn't historically take place in cities and this single unit per tile ensures that won't happen anymore. Hills would increase the range archers could shoot and there just is no way to realistically represent that in Civ. You cannot have full realism in civ unless you turn combat into RTS like it is in Lord of the Realm. While that may be fun, it would make games take way too long for any normal person to play them.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say about it making it feel small rather than big. It seems to me they are trying to increase the importance of land and each individual unit thus making them seem bigger and not smaller.

I understand your points, but still feel the same way. One thing we don't seem to be understanding the same way is "realism" - a fantasy series such as HOMM can feel realistic, even while using fantasy units, if it stays true to ITS VERSION of reality. This is kind of a zen concept I guess - I'm much more inclined to believe the reality of a game with dragons and other mystical creatures than I am to believe a game where large cities are "eight arrrow shots" apart. Sounds stupid when I write it, but it's just the way things are for me.

To try to answer your question at the end - I don't want the individual units and items to feel bigger, I want the game to feel like I am exploring the entire world. I'm the kind of CIV player who absolutely hates it when another player starts anywhere near me, because I like the feeling of having some room in the early game. I just don't see how one unit per tile won't continue and magnifythat cramped feeling through the entire game.

In this case, nothing would make me happier than to be wrong, and discover that the Firaxis team has found a way around this issue.

One last point, tying in some other posts - I am old enough to have played Panzer General, and absolutely loved the game. In concept, I have nothing against one unit per stack, and understand the potential increased depth of gameplay and strategy it can provide. It worked great when the scale of a scenario was one battle (possibly linked together to form a campaign). I just don't think it will work for CIV, where the scope of a game is often hundreds of battles over the entire world.

 

[hrman]

Realism? Archers normally start in front to fire, and then withdraw behind lines through the ranks.



History has many more sieges than it does field battles.


Archer hill defense bonus did that fine.



Let me explain what I think people mean by "smaller".

In Civ1-4, the flatlands of Germany or France or eastern China or argentina feel like big open expanses, which an army will slowly cross.
In Civ5, it could make these big areas feel like a single battlefield; melee in front, archers, behind, etc.
So you move from the feeling of moving an army around on a strategic theatre scale map, to moving around individual tiles in a way that feels more like a localized tactical map. Melee to the front, cavalry to the flank, archers behind.

In Civ1-4, it can feel like you're fighting over Europe, whereas in Civ5 it looks like it might feel like you're fighting over a single battlefield.

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for gameplay, but it certainly will make the map feel "smaller".

Well put - I saw your post after mine. I agree 100% with your explanation of why it will feel smaller.

 

[_hero_]

I understand your points, but still feel the same way. One thing we don't seem to be understanding the same way is "realism" - a fantasy series such as HOMM can feel realistic, even while using fantasy units, if it stays true to ITS VERSION of reality. This is kind of a zen concept I guess - I'm much more inclined to believe the reality of a game with dragons and other mystical creatures than I am to believe a game where large cities are "eight arrrow shots" apart. Sounds stupid when I write it, but it's just the way things are for me.

To try to answer your question at the end - I don't want the individual units and items to feel bigger, I want the game to feel like I am exploring the entire world. I'm the kind of CIV player who absolutely hates it when another player starts anywhere near me, because I like the feeling of having some room in the early game. I just don't see how one unit per tile won't continue and magnifythat cramped feeling through the entire game.

In this case, nothing would make me happier than to be wrong, and discover that the Firaxis team has found a way around this issue.

One last point, tying in some other posts - I am old enough to have played Panzer General, and absolutely loved the game. In concept, I have nothing against one unit per stack, and understand the potential increased depth of gameplay and strategy it can provide. It worked great when the scale of a scenario was one battle (possibly linked together to form a campaign). I just don't think it will work for CIV, where the scope of a game is often hundreds of battles over the entire world.

I can respect that. However consider that units being out of cities and controlling land means you don't have the enemy constantly controlling your territory. How cramped you are then depends on how you use your military, not your starting location. So it could be as much a plus as a minus for your own issue. I know where you are coming from, whenever I explore a civ game I think of a certain amount of it as "my territory" from the beginning and take it a little personal when the AI invades this area. In Civ4 it was probably easier to violate territory than any other civ as you could just walk through the other players troops so long as you were at peace. Zones of control prevent this kind of cramping if you use them to your advantage.

 

[_hero_]

Realism? Archers normally start in front to fire, and then withdraw behind lines through the ranks.

Debatable. It depends on the era and "type" of archer you are talking about. I know for a fact British longbowmen fired behind ranks.

History has many more sieges than it does field battles.

This simply isn't true. The sieges get more attention but by quantity alone open battlefield has been much more prevalent. Again it depends on the era, but especially since the advent of muskets almost all battles were fought outside of cities. Just think of WWI or the US Civil War. Also you need to be careful here. Sieges on actual cities were rare and usually extremely costly. Towns and villages were at times battlefields especially in ancient history but a well built city was very hard to take and much harder than any Civ game has ever reflected.

Archer hill defense bonus did that fine.

From a gameplay standpoint perhaps, though extra first strikes would have been more "realistic" in Civ4.

Let me explain what I think people mean by "smaller".

In Civ1-4, the flatlands of Germany or France or eastern China or argentina feel like big open expanses, which an army will slowly cross.
In Civ5, it could make these big areas feel like a single battlefield; melee in front, archers, behind, etc.
So you move from the feeling of moving an army around on a strategic theatre scale map, to moving around individual tiles in a way that feels more like a localized tactical map. Melee to the front, cavalry to the flank, archers behind.

In Civ1-4, it can feel like you're fighting over Europe, whereas in Civ5 it looks like it might feel like you're fighting over a single battlefield.

I'm not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for gameplay, but it certainly will make the map feel "smaller".

Makes sense. It definitely changes the perspective you have on your warring in the game. I don't really think it's either good or bad, just different. Some people hate change some people love it. I tend to wait and see before I decide. I'm fairly trusting of Civ's designers though as they haven't failed me before. I have played every Civ game a ton. Played SMAC, and the original colonization. I remember when Civ3 came out there was a huge crowd of people up in arms about culture being added. In Civ4 it was the anti-religion crowd. In civ5 it looks like the anti-single unit and bombardment crowds. Every time these groups disappear within a month after the games release. Either they hate they game so much they stop visiting these sites or they like it so much they are too busy playing to post, I'm not sure. Point is don't get all bent out of shape over these little details we have until you either play the game or hear reviews of people who have played it.