1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The ''carpet of doom'' and similar issues.

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Baron2, Jan 5, 2011.

  1. Baron2

    Baron2 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    115
    A lot of complaint I hear are about the 1 unit per tile limit, and the fact that it often lead to bottleneck and traffic jams.

    Issue is, traffic jams are pretty much a basis of any large scale warfare. In real life, commanders often cursed about the supply train of X division was jammed in the rear, preventing Y division to go foward. They had to go around.

    Traffic jams are impossible to avoid by design, but they are quite easy to mitigate, for instance by planning in advance your road system (note : which was pretty much what European powers did in the 19th century) : a railroad connecting all border citites with an handful of ''tendril'' roads leading to the front (and that will be removed eventually) allow for pretty fast redployement of units on other fronts.

    Of course, on offense the one unit per turn often leads to huge bottlenecks-that can be mitigated pretty easily if you build roads as you advance, even if you need to remove them after.
     
  2. shmily_dana

    shmily_dana Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    242
    It annoys me that I give a unit an order to a location that will take several turns. It stops on the next turn because something is in that spot. The other unit is just passing thru and it will be gone by the time the original unit arrives.
     
  3. Jon the Bastard

    Jon the Bastard Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    283
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    I actually agree with your assessment. I haven't really understood why people have been complaining about the 1UPT in relation to bottlenecks and such. I like 1UPT... it forces me to plan for a battle and an invasion tactically - no longer can I simply create gigantic stacks of doom with every sort and kind of unit available and just willy-nilly march up to a city and take it... I have to actually think about what units should go in on the first wave, where siege units should be positioned, what units can offer support to the units on the front line for when the AI sends its defensive force on the attack. Army logistics are a huge part of the game now that 1UPT is the new system... I suspect it will simply take people a while to get used to having to actually manage an army from a logistic standpoint since it isn't something that you really had to do in Civilization IV.
     
  4. Thimble

    Thimble Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    21
    While playing Panzer General, how you placed and moved your units was extremely crucial towards achieving your goals. It made the game much more realistic than if you were able to stack units on top of each other.

    That being said, PG was a tactical simulation on a small scale map. Civ V hexes should represent thousands of square miles. You should be able to put a nation's entire tank forces on one hex if you so choose.

    Also, I'm not sure why you can't have a great general on the same tile as a worker.
     
  5. Jon the Bastard

    Jon the Bastard Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    283
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    Amen!
     
  6. Luckystrike77

    Luckystrike77 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    549
    Location:
    Kingdom of Norway
    ? You want realism over good gameplay? And by the way, is it more realistic with stacking of all the units just because the map scale is a bit larger? Both the systems 1upt and stacks of doom are both realistic and unrealistic in different ways. I prefer 1 upt, because it gives the best feeling and picture of human warfare and it's challenges through all ages of human history, and because it makes warfare alot more fun, challenging and dependent on terrain.

    The strategic parts of warfare is not nerfed at all just because they are improving the tactical importance a bit in the game. 1 upt improves both the strategical and tactical challenges.
     
  7. Baron2

    Baron2 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    115
    Uh, I don't think the impossibility of having a worker and a general on the same tile is a very critical problem.
     
  8. AL_DA_GREAT

    AL_DA_GREAT amour absinthe révolution

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    5,070
    Location:
    Stockholm Sweden
    If people think that carpet of doom is bad the stack of doom was much worse. With sufficient logistics they where bsaicaily impossible to win against. The stack of doom created trench warfare like games while 1upt creates a much more mobile game, even though the mobility is tough to manage.
     
  9. Luckystrike77

    Luckystrike77 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    549
    Location:
    Kingdom of Norway
    Amen to that!
     
  10. Thimble

    Thimble Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    21
    I was responding to the OP's assertion that 1UPT was more realistic.

    RE: Gameplay

    Hey, I'm a big fan of Panzer General, so I'm all for 1UPT in the right game. Does it really make Civ V's game play better, though? Aside from realism issues which I'm quite in agreement with you to ignore, how much benefit do tactical elements add to an empire building game? How much fun would Risk be if you had to play a chess game for every battle?
     
  11. Arsenic Steel

    Arsenic Steel Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    Messages:
    155

    For me the hexes are far to large not to allow multiple units on them. You can stack missiles, nukes, and airplanes in cities but forget about trying to 2 military units there despite a city housing millions of your population already.

    1UPT in ciV is no more fun or tactical for me than cIV because in IV I was already using multiple stacks for wars in order attack two cities at a time, intercept intrusions, and defend my cities. CiV just means less overall unit but more congestion during wars for me. I was doing all that against the AI that was to use stacks in a threatening fashion. So let's not forget that Fixaris can inclue more tactical decisions that could add to the player's experience but if the AI is not able to utilize the tactics well wars become boring.
     
  12. Luckystrike77

    Luckystrike77 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    549
    Location:
    Kingdom of Norway
    Yes, i really think it makes Civ-gameplay better. Since the days of Panzer General I have dreamt of seeing such a combat model used in a Civ game, and yes it is fantastic. At least in multiplayer with thinking opponents (I only play mp by the way).

    I'm not a warmonger at all. 1 upt actually helps empirebuilders. I build small empires with huge cities, building almost every building in each of them. 1 upt makes smart city placements important and makes a smart player and good defender able to defend himself with a smaller force, while he is making his empire shine more and more for every day. Is it better to have a stack of 15 chariots coming towards you in turn 50, destroying everything in it's path, giving you no possibilities to have any hopes at all in defending yourself?

    More tactical depth isnt ruining the other parts of the game in any ways, it only improves a part of the game that has always been a bit lacking. The bombardment in Civ3 was a great step forward, 1 upt a gigant leap! And by the way, I have never been a great admirer of Risk. Too simplistic a game for my taste. Axis and Allies is alot better..... ;)
     
  13. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    It's wrong for the game scale; huge armies were deployed in much higher density than is possible in a typical Civ map. I'm afraid that you're confusing strategic and tactical scale movement, which is the same thing that the designers did.
     
  14. Thimble

    Thimble Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2010
    Messages:
    21
    Ah, I see where you're coming from now. You can't have a Battle of Thermopylae with Civ IV. Too much emphasis on numbers turns Chess into Risk.
     
  15. Luckystrike77

    Luckystrike77 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    549
    Location:
    Kingdom of Norway
    Yep, that's very true my friend.
     
  16. Luckystrike77

    Luckystrike77 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    549
    Location:
    Kingdom of Norway
    Well, so that are the things you think are the most important things to concider when it comes to making Civ-combat fun, challenging, balanced and realistic? I'm glad you are not the designer of the game. I am sure it would be much more fun, realistic and challenging if 1 turn was one year too, from the start to the end.
     
  17. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    I'm interested in how you view the current version as any of the above. I like to be able to deploy an army to fight another army, not be unable to fit more than 4 units in England, or to be unable tp have a pair of workers pass one another on the Italian peninsula.

    In terms of fun, needing to click on every single piece every single turn because the game can't move a swarm of pieces from A to B is not-fun; having workers block one another is not-fun; having to build roads around the armies of sleeping allies in neutral territory ditto. In terms of realism, defending armies work together; defending units don't support one another in Civ 5 (e.g. the I go - you go movement model is a bad one.)
     
  18. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    I'd add that the Civ 4 combat model reproduces Thermopylae better than Civ 5. You have your huge army (a.k.a. stack) which attacks a single defender one at a time until they are eventually defeated (in a span of days, I'd add.) How does Civ 5 simulate that better?
     
  19. lilnev

    lilnev King

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    949
    V is better than IV in this regard. But I think it could be better yet if 1 upt was relaxed a bit to allow some flexibility. I liked the system in The Operational Art of War. You could put multiple units on a tile, but it cost more movement points, and they were less effective and suffered higher casualties in combat. The penalties were high enough that you would usually want to spread out over a broad front, but you could stack 2 or 3 units together at key spots if it was important enough. (Actually, the level of detail went further: each unit had a "weight", and the crowding effects depended on total weight. So stacking two infantry divisions was significant crowding, but you could add a lightweight battalion of SAMs for not much penalty)
     
  20. Luckystrike77

    Luckystrike77 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    549
    Location:
    Kingdom of Norway
    Well, first: a small England on a small earth map isn't the usual game is it? Was that a great example to use by the way? In all civ games you would have to expand to more then that one city. I refuse to think you could support a 30 unit stack with just one city on a small island in Civ 4 either, could you, or in any other versions of Civ?

    In Civ5 you can defend better, because you cant just send a superstack to conquer an island, defended by a superstack of ships using the same tile as all the other units. In Civ 5 convoy hunting has a purpose. Single fast frigates or stealthy submarines can patrol, or cruise arround looking for poorly defended transporters/units at sea, and they can hit and run. Cities defend themselves and city fortifications actually means something (at least after the patch).

    Second: You don't have a swarm of units, you have far less units then in Civ 3 and 4. You army feels huger, because you have to spread it out. You have to think tactically, and it isnt any longer about who has built the most units. I also see more theatres of war in Civ 5, not everything just focused on taking one city, but a broader front.

    Third, on that of units supporting eachother; they still do, but only if you place your units in a good manner, with for instance units in behind that can counter the attcking unit after it's attack is done. It's all about using a bit more brain. And for realism: The whole army of a nation can not support every unit all the time in a single tile of land. People are argumenting stacks better illustrate ancient warfare. Plain wrong. On the battlefield of ancient combats unit placements where essentiel for units being able to support eachother, or for being able to exploit another units breakthrough of a defending line.

    NB! One other thing I love, and missed from Civ3, is that fortresses have a greater meaning (and even huger in Civ5 of course because of no stacks). For instance you can build fortresses with artillery protecting a bay with a city from enemy warships coming in (real coastal fortresses). How in heck could that be portaited in Civ 1,2 or 4?
     

Share This Page