kornelm1978
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2016
- Messages
- 119
I always hear this "there's a middle ground you know" argument, but I'm yet to see a persuasive argument for how such a middle game would create any better a system. The advantage as things stand is that units are differentiated, and in war you can target particular parts of an army, creating holes and weaknesses, giving an extra layer to the combat. Multiple units per tile preclude that possibility and just make it babies first stack of doom, while not actually solving any problems. It's like not being able to decide between calling your first born Adrian or Rudolf and just deciding to take the average and call them Rurian, it solves neither problem, and serves as nothing more than a suggestion to sooth both parties.
The simple point is that stacks of doom were a poor mechanic, and 1UPT works considerably better. The only real weaknesses that exist with it are to do with AI issues and occasional discussions about what should go on separate layers. Suggesting stacks of doom return, or even the judgement of Solomon suggestion of "Multiple Units per Tile", are as nonsensical as suggesting we drop the 3D graphics of Civ IV, V and VI (it's not like there wasn't opposition at the time).
But sometimes middlegrund is the best option. We know that Adrian is not a good name and neither Rudolf. So maybe Peter will work. I believe we both agree tat stack of doom was not greatest, but can you expain me how you can we make above strategies of lets say naval landings with 1upt? They should be viable, but they are not, even in multiplayer. Not because of bad AI (which is bad anywhay), but not effective becasue of that design. 5 units landing on one tile would be a force pretty hard to kill, able to advnce or at least distract other units. Landing of 5 units with 1 upt may mean spread across lets say 8-10 tiles of shore (clifs, mountains, city, 2 other units). Kiled easily. Always.