The military system in civ6 is broken for single games

[manarod]

I read much complains about ai's inability to handle war, but i think that is the system that's broken. For a strategy game is too much tactic and the ai will be always be bad. That's the opposite of civ4 for 2 reasons:

- The units cost too much so they are few (good luck in creating a corp)
- Too many units with range weapons

I never seen a game where you can win a war with only archers and with no loss and keep in mind, in this game losing a unit is a great cost (if you lose a corp of tanks you loose the cost of a wonder!). So you win a war and retain all your units, while the ai is force to spend so many hammers to rebuild. Of course there's no challenge. And if the ai attacks the human player and loses the attack is defenseless to retaliation
To make the ai challenging the units should be cheaper (at least 1/3) and archer and siege units should receive a retaliation. Also pillaging farm is way too powerfull

 

[Depravo]

So you win a war and retain all your units, while the ai is force to spend so many hammers to rebuild. Of course there's no challenge.

That's a good point. I'm a middling player but the kill rate versus an AI opponent can't be less than 1:20. Just into the Renaissance in the current game and I have lost a total of two units.

 

[Disgustipated]

Can't dispute many of those points, I just hate the overuse of the word broken. If it was broken, I wouldn't be able to play it.

There's a reason units cost as much as they do. See Civ 5 carpets of doom. It also might have a bad performance hit if too many units are around. It was a design decision. It has had some negative side effects however. As the human player will always eliminate more units than the ai, it's tough for the ai to come back from brutal wars.

 

[Kruos]

I would say one issue related to the 'military system' is how war weariness is handled.

For now Domination victory is the easiest of all victory and the shortest to achieve (maybe not on huge+ map - tbc). Before R&F it was clear that among all the AI issues, its tactical skills were one of the main reasons why a Dom victory was so easy. Since the little tactical improvments after R&F, and the better AI on overall, I would say that another issue related to the 'military system' emerge : it is too easy to be in permanent war with everyone and crush all the Civ AIs.

Maybe the war weariness should be more punitive. In my T150 Domination victory I never had war weariness problem, despite declaring wars after wars. Maybe war weariness should trigger more unhappyness and even revolt if a peace time would not be respected (this time could even scale with conquests or empire size).

On the other hand, one would say that the emergencies mechanism seems to have been designed to tackle this kind of issue. But for now it seems too soft, espescially it's too easy to play the system and avoid its triggering most of the time.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

So you win a war and retain all your units, while the ai is force to spend so many hammers to rebuild.

Yes, that's a very good point. It's also inconsistent with their intent to create "rise and fall" dynamics for empires.

I proposed in another thread a different approach to military, one that won't be implemented for Civ 6, but which I would love to see in future games. Basically, I'd suggest three types of military:

• Conscripts: cheap and easy to build, such as Spearmen, they can be dismissed in times of peace to avoid maintenance costs if desired, then quickly rebuilt. The maximum you can build would be limited by your population (modified by policy cards).
• Trained Units: these are your professional soldiers, such as Archers. The maximum you can build would be limited by your military infrastructure, i.e. number of walls, encampments, encampment buildings and forts you've built (modified by policy cards). They, too, should be cheaper to build than military units are currently, as the infrastructure to support them has already been paid for.
• Elites: these are your Chief's Bodyguard or Knights. The maximum you can build would be limited by your social structure, i.e. government type and policy cards. Their production cost could be closer in line to current unit costs, to act as a "cooling off" period if you lose them in a war. But there would never be very many of them so the cost of rebuilding wouldn't be a major speed bump to recovery, and in the interim, the AI could rely on cheaper units to mount a defence if attacked immediately after losing a war.

 

[Buni0ns]

I like the idea of introducing medic units sooner (add healing to engineers? and make them available sooner?) and making them cost double maintenance. Then perhaps removing unit healing ability except for when healing units are present or the wounded unit is garrisoned, in a fort, or a encampment tile.

 

[nzcamel]

Yes, that's a very good point. It's also inconsistent with their intent to create "rise and fall" dynamics for empires.

I proposed in another thread a different approach to military, one that won't be implemented for Civ 6, but which I would love to see in future games. Basically, I'd suggest three types of military:

• Conscripts: cheap and easy to build, such as Spearmen, they can be dismissed in times of peace to avoid maintenance costs if desired, then quickly rebuilt. The maximum you can build would be limited by your population (modified by policy cards).
• Trained Units: these are your professional soldiers, such as Archers. The maximum you can build would be limited by your military infrastructure, i.e. number of walls, encampments, encampment buildings and forts you've built (modified by policy cards). They, too, should be cheaper to build than military units are currently, as the infrastructure to support them has already been paid for.
• Elites: these are your Chief's Bodyguard or Knights. The maximum you can build would be limited by your social structure, i.e. government type and policy cards. Their production cost could be closer in line to current unit costs, to act as a "cooling off" period if you lose them in a war. But there would never be very many of them so the cost of rebuilding wouldn't be a major speed bump to recovery, and in the interim, the AI could rely on cheaper units to mount a defence if attacked immediately after losing a war.

I have never liked arbitrary unit caps (main reason I never got into Age of Empires); but what you lay out isn't arbitrary, and could actually be a great solutions that would allow 1UPT to remain with the AI not at such a great disadvantage. It's thematic too. A policy card allowing foreign mercenaries who were more like trained units than conscripts would be nice, as long as it worked.

 

[UWHabs]

I think the better balance would be:
-ranged units drop down to a range of 1, however they can stack with melee units (think of them like support units). However, maybe you have a level 2 or 3 promotion to get extra range.
-All units become cheaper to build.
-However, all units maintenance costs rise, and they rise extra when in neutral/enemy/occupied territory. So, say the default maintenance for all units was doubled, but then it gets doubled again when in enemy territory. I'd also change the military policy cards to be "-X maintenance in home territory", so that you can't use them for an offensive war.
-bring back a limited conscription/slavery (ie. lose a pop in a city, get X hammers towards a military unit, city gets -1 amenities for 20 turns)

Basically, the only units you should keep around between wars should be your true "veteran" military force, everyone else can come and go as you please. This also means that if someone comes with a "surprise" invasion, you can quickly get a force together. It also means that if you have a large army out pillaging the world, you actually need to do something to pay for it, you can't just sit back and keep building libraries and districts back home. and that maybe I don't worry so much about losing each unit, since they're fairly easy to replace.

 

[Hammurabbit]

Many good ideas here. I like the ideas of a more costly army when it's injured or when it's not in home territory. I also like the idea of units that need to return from the front to heal - then it might be an interesting call if you want to send your troops home to heal, or let them die on the battle field while you recruit new ones at home.

While the current system is quite fun and easy to deal with (I can have my army warring while I mostly build infrastructure at home), as OP points out, it's not easy for the AI to handle.

 

[hdbhdbvGFG541]

Welcome to the wonderful world of 1upt and ranged combat.
Fundamentally these two concepts never work together because you either have useless or god like archers.
Most 1upt tactics game have a miss chance or retaliation if they are ranged,civ has neither.

As for production,well that is again 1upt.If you bump production you get carpets of useless units unlike stacks where more production can lead to something.

So this issue is tied directly to 1upt,meaning it won't change ever.

 

[RealHuhn]

All valid points but I just wanted to say that I hated the endless unit spam in CIV5. On Deity every hex was occupied by a unit. No way I want to go back to that. Keep production costs high.

 

[Buni0ns]

I think the better balance would be:
-ranged units drop down to a range of 1, however they can stack with melee units (think of them like support units). However, maybe you have a level 2 or 3 promotion to get extra range.
-All units become cheaper to build.
-However, all units maintenance costs rise, and they rise extra when in neutral/enemy/occupied territory. So, say the default maintenance for all units was doubled, but then it gets doubled again when in enemy territory. I'd also change the military policy cards to be "-X maintenance in home territory", so that you can't use them for an offensive war.
-bring back a limited conscription/slavery (ie. lose a pop in a city, get X hammers towards a military unit, city gets -1 amenities for 20 turns)

Basically, the only units you should keep around between wars should be your true "veteran" military force, everyone else can come and go as you please. This also means that if someone comes with a "surprise" invasion, you can quickly get a force together. It also means that if you have a large army out pillaging the world, you actually need to do something to pay for it, you can't just sit back and keep building libraries and districts back home. and that maybe I don't worry so much about losing each unit, since they're fairly easy to replace.

Just use the Combat and Stacking Overhaul Mod for much of that no?

 

[isau]

I've long thought it should be possible to station currently unused units inside a city and there be some kind of mild penalty for having them just running around the empire (cost, perhaps). Would cut back on a lot of clutter.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I have never liked arbitrary unit caps (main reason I never got into Age of Empires); but what you lay out isn't arbitrary, and could actually be a great solutions that would allow 1UPT to remain with the AI not at such a great disadvantage. It's thematic too. A policy card allowing foreign mercenaries who were more like trained units than conscripts would be nice, as long as it worked.

I agree on unit caps in general, but they seemed like the best way to introduce inexpensive military units without getting unit spam. Hence the idea of being able to expand the cap with infrastructure or policies.

And yes, Mercenaries would fit nicely into the system.

Basically, the only units you should keep around between wars should be your true "veteran" military force, everyone else can come and go as you please. This also means that if someone comes with a "surprise" invasion, you can quickly get a force together. It also means that if you have a large army out pillaging the world, you actually need to do something to pay for it, you can't just sit back and keep building libraries and districts back home. and that maybe I don't worry so much about losing each unit, since they're fairly easy to replace.

This is exactly what I would like to see (with some delay re replacing lost units so that wars can actually be won before the replacements come online). I'm agnostic on how it's achieved. My proposal is only one idea, and I'd be happy with another if it moved gameplay in this direction

All valid points but I just wanted to say that I hated the endless unit spam in CIV5. On Deity every hex was occupied by a unit. No way I want to go back to that. Keep production costs high.

I agree, the number of units should be kept down. I'd rather see a system that does this without high production costs, to address the concerns raised above, especially AI viability over the long run. I don't expect to see this in Civ 6, but all the systems are in place to do so.

 

[Gedemon]

Yes, that's a very good point. It's also inconsistent with their intent to create "rise and fall" dynamics for empires.

I proposed in another thread a different approach to military, one that won't be implemented for Civ 6, but which I would love to see in future games. Basically, I'd suggest three types of military:

• Conscripts: cheap and easy to build, such as Spearmen, they can be dismissed in times of peace to avoid maintenance costs if desired, then quickly rebuilt. The maximum you can build would be limited by your population (modified by policy cards).
• Trained Units: these are your professional soldiers, such as Archers. The maximum you can build would be limited by your military infrastructure, i.e. number of walls, encampments, encampment buildings and forts you've built (modified by policy cards). They, too, should be cheaper to build than military units are currently, as the infrastructure to support them has already been paid for.
• Elites: these are your Chief's Bodyguard or Knights. The maximum you can build would be limited by your social structure, i.e. government type and policy cards. Their production cost could be closer in line to current unit costs, to act as a "cooling off" period if you lose them in a war. But there would never be very many of them so the cost of rebuilding wouldn't be a major speed bump to recovery, and in the interim, the AI could rely on cheaper units to mount a defence if attacked immediately after losing a war.

in future games...

or mods, that's actually what we're planning for the military:

Standing army : limited number of units (limit changing with policies/eras/infrastructure, ...) with no turn limits
Conscripts : limited only by the population you recruit from, unlock recruiting in cities on specific events (barbarians approaching, DoW, Denounce), with a turn timer (after which the units are disbanded and the -surviving- recruits are send back to their cities)
Mercenaries : recruited with gold, for a defined number of turns. before/after contract maybe keep them on the map as passive (unless attacked) barbarian units

 

[King Rad]

I think the better balance would be:
...
-All units become cheaper to build.
-However, all units maintenance costs rise, and they rise extra when in neutral/enemy/occupied territory. So, say the default maintenance for all units was doubled, but then it gets doubled again when in enemy territory. I'd also change the military policy cards to be "-X maintenance in home territory", so that you can't use them for an offensive war.
...

I really like this idea. It definitely costs more to maintain units in a war than sitting at a home base. Additional munitions, cost of getting supplies to units, etc. This would be well represented by having the unit cost rise while in enemy territory.

I like the idea of introducing medic units sooner (add healing to engineers? and make them available sooner?) and making them cost double maintenance. Then perhaps removing unit healing ability except for when healing units are present or the wounded unit is garrisoned, in a fort, or a encampment tile.

This coupled with the additional cost for units at war would be a great combination. This should be an easy program, as it's essentially what's already in place for religious units, who can be healed by the guru or return to the holy site. This would allow for pillaging to add gold instead of healing, which would partially offset the cost of the overseas/enemy territory cost and generally keep things in balance without the insta-heal, which I enjoy, but which I think the combination of the above would be a better and hopefully more fun solution.

 

[dunkleosteus]

There are a number of rules/features in Civ combat that make it behave oddly: the humans that make up the military force are free; the time taken to create a unit is abstract, dependent on the production of cities (which can be generated in any number of ways such as chopping) or you can simply buy units instantly.

The armies created stand for centuries while being upgraded. (This leaves many questions, such as how are the soldiers not dying? To which you might answer, "Well, they are, but they're being replaced.", but then we must ask how the new recruits can be trained up with the promotions the unit has but they can't figure out how to teach it to any other units. What are they teaching in my military academies anyway?)

As long as a single man remains standing, I can regenerate the entire division/corps/army for free, with no cost of additional production or gold.

The whole system is supposed to allude to history. The units are named/designed after real, historical military classifications. I think it's always going to feel weird when you take a system like that and add all sorts of rules like that. For most of history, countries did not have a large standing army. Troops could be raised relatively quickly if you were prepared and when men died, they were dead for good. You couldn't just regenerate them.

If I were to design a system, I would take all of this into account (although not to the extreme; this is a game after all). Rather than building units forever, you would raise them when you needed them. Doing this would decrease all the yields in the city by a % based on the size of the city and the number of units you raise. You could march around, take care of any business you needed taking care of and then bring your troops back and retire them. The troops that had survived would return to their cities and the city's penalties would decrease. Any soldiers that had died while the troops were raised wouldn't be replenished for free by fortifying, you'd have to take them from a city (which would lower the % yields).

As you earned promotions (which would often be specific to the unit or unit class you got it with), you could "learn" them in your cities. Win a lot of battles with spearman? You'll get spear promotions which will make later spearmen you produce stronger (with encampments and encampment buildings required for higher level promotions). You'd have promotions for melee units and for gunpowder units, so if you'd drilled and learned and experienced a lot of heated melee combat with swords, spears, shields, etc. that wouldn't necessarily prepare you for musket warfare. Some promotions would be more general, but it would mean that each major military technological revolution sort of levels the playing field a bit. Promotions would no longer heal units, nor would pillaging (unless you added a different form of health like morale or something. Other military strategy games sometimes do this). Unit strength would scale directly with unit health (50% of your soldiers left = 50% of the combat strength). You could talk about how terrain affects combat perhaps. On an open field, you can use superior numbers to your advantage. In difficult or choked terrain, it's not as easy because you can't simply surround the enemy. Maybe unit health scales directly with combat strength in open terrain but only half as much in other terrain types (so if you're in hills with a unit with 50% health, it has 75% of the combat strength it normally would). This would make retreating damaged units into hills a strategy to try to reduce the damage you took.

I'd also get rid of the bombard attack on cities but make city defenses nearly impenetrable for melee units or ranged units. Archers, crossbowmen and catapults would do next to nothing against city walls. Canons would be able to blast through them (slowly), but if you wanted to take a city before gunpowder, you'd have to actually do a proper siege (cutting off the city's supply of food or water and waiting until they gave up). Meanwhile, the city or the civ's other cities could be building up an army to try to quash your force and you'd have to worry about the lost yields from having your armies sitting around doing nothing.

Basically, it would change how you think about warfare, change how you operate and likely make many battles and wars much shorter. You could raise an army very quickly but you would have trouble replenishing them if you started losing significantly. It would mean that even winning a war would slow down your snowball progress because every damage your units took would be a % yield penalty in your cities that you'd have to wait a long time to recover.

 

[manarod]

Cheaper units would change nothing. You'd have the same production input/production loss, just spread out across more units. On a strategic level war is about who can put the more resources into their military, the cost of units doesn't matter.

There *is* a problem that healing is free, while building a unit is expensive. It's a win-all-or-lose-all situation. In theory, if you have lots of units and players of comparable skill, you'll lose roughly equal number of units and it would average out. However, a slight skill advantage means that you lose a lot fewer units, which then snowballs into a bigger advantage. As the AI is (and will never be) great, this is a problem.

But you could fix that by having healing units cost triple maintenance, or have a production malus in your entire empire per healing unit, or something along those lines.

Civ6 should copy from heroes of might ang magic. A single unit should be like 100 soldiers. After a battle the player should retreat the unit to a city or continue to use the unit with less soldiers. To have again the units at 100 the player should pay, so the unit itself is not important. So no more free healing. In a battle with 2 warriors against 1 the winner will have 2 units with less soldiers and he had to spend something, not a free victory. The archers should return defenve units with first strike like in civ4, no more range attacks

 

[Buni0ns]

Civ6 should copy from heroes of might ang magic. A single unit should be like 100 soldiers. After a battle the player should retreat the unit to a city or continue to use the unit with less soldiers. To have again the units at 100 the player should pay, so the unit itself is not important. So no more free healing. In a battle with 2 warriors against 1 the winner will have 2 units with less soldiers and he had to spend something, not a free victory. The archers should return defenve units with first strike like in civ4, no more range attacks

The thing is that there is already a cost to units beyond just the production or gold cost of a unit, the opportunity cost that you paid. How would a payment to re-constitute the unit(s) once more play into that, because you are "double dipping" on opportunity cost again, if you're going to make it a production cost.

Also I think ranged attacks are fine, but without the ridiculous range vanilla allows for, again why I advocate the Combat and Stacking Overhaul, as an interim solution. That mod addresses the range unit use rather nicely, and it also helps address the carpet of doom problem.

 

[isau]

I don't want to sound like I'm complaining too much but IMO the overall "tactical combat" element of the game is pretty lackluster. It feels like a literal-minded implementation of Civ 4 stack of doom rules converted to a one unit per tile system without really expanding on what makes tactical games fun in the first place. We're missing a lot of the stuff tactical games tend to include to make combat more than two units running into each other, occasionally interspersed with units shooting each other from 1 or 2 tiles away.

Age of Wonders 3 is a standout to me in this area, with its long list of status effects, debuffs, auras, etc. Not that civ combat necessarily needs to take place on a tactical map like in that game, but if there were just more to it, like stuns, charms, immobilizes, chills, and so on I'd find it more interesting. Just the ability for units to have status effects at all would be a big improvement.

I guess my dream game is really Age of Wonders 3 tactics (not necessarily with dedicated tactical maps though) and Civ 6's rules for city planning.