Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
@Harvin87: They have not said one way or another.
Unit Stacking
- Thread starter michaelkottler
- Start date
aziantuntija
Prince
Flanking has not been confirmed.
I would like the combat to have some features from Sid Meyer's Pirates, im not talking about the naval combat in Pirates, im talking about the land combat in Pirates.
I really think that in civV, the gunpowder units (musketmen, rifleman etc) are going to be ranged units like in Pirates, otherwise it wouldnt make sense at all, that archers can shoot further than modern rifles or tanks. But ofcourse theres going to be difference like archers can shoot over friendly troops, but riflemen cant shoot trough friendly troops.
I really think the combat is going to be VERY different from what we have seen before, and once people get to play the game, they are going to forget that (disappointment
) they cant put 30 units in a city anymore in order to defend it, now, instead of that, they are also going to defend the area near the cities wich is the way real military does it.
I would like the combat to have some features from Sid Meyer's Pirates, im not talking about the naval combat in Pirates, im talking about the land combat in Pirates.
I really think that in civV, the gunpowder units (musketmen, rifleman etc) are going to be ranged units like in Pirates, otherwise it wouldnt make sense at all, that archers can shoot further than modern rifles or tanks. But ofcourse theres going to be difference like archers can shoot over friendly troops, but riflemen cant shoot trough friendly troops.
I really think the combat is going to be VERY different from what we have seen before, and once people get to play the game, they are going to forget that (disappointment
) they cant put 30 units in a city anymore in order to defend it, now, instead of that, they are also going to defend the area near the cities wich is the way real military does it.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Archers also can't shoot through troops, nor can they shoot over troops. I know what you mean, you mean the arrows arch like a thrown grenade, but that arch can be ignored for it doesn't go right over troops. It would be way too inaccurate.
aziantuntija
Prince
ok, you really seem to need some help here
First of all, and as i allready said, archers ARE going to be able to shoot OVER friendly units. There is no question about it. But if gunpowder units are going to be ranged units (wich i think they are going to be), they CANNOT shoot OVER OR TROUGH friendly units.
But lets just say that you are right and the archers CANNOT shoot over friendly troops because, as you say, its too inaccurate. Now, we allready know that the archers can shoot 2 tile away and we know that all units can move 2 tiles instead of just 1 tile. We also have heard that archers are very vulnerable in close combat aka in melee attack and that they should be protected from direct attack by a melee units. Now, think what will happen when you get to the distant, where your archer unit can shoot at the enemy melee unit, that can move 2 tiles and there is no friendly units between them? When this happens, then the melee unit is going to teach those poor archers a lesson in close combat.
I really think that if archers CANNOT shoot over friendly units then there is no point of building them in the first place, because then they would be kamikaze shooters.
Dont tell me you really didnt think that before you posted
First of all, and as i allready said, archers ARE going to be able to shoot OVER friendly units. There is no question about it. But if gunpowder units are going to be ranged units (wich i think they are going to be), they CANNOT shoot OVER OR TROUGH friendly units.
But lets just say that you are right and the archers CANNOT shoot over friendly troops because, as you say, its too inaccurate. Now, we allready know that the archers can shoot 2 tile away and we know that all units can move 2 tiles instead of just 1 tile. We also have heard that archers are very vulnerable in close combat aka in melee attack and that they should be protected from direct attack by a melee units. Now, think what will happen when you get to the distant, where your archer unit can shoot at the enemy melee unit, that can move 2 tiles and there is no friendly units between them? When this happens, then the melee unit is going to teach those poor archers a lesson in close combat.
I really think that if archers CANNOT shoot over friendly units then there is no point of building them in the first place, because then they would be kamikaze shooters.
Dont tell me you really didnt think that before you posted
Ahriman
Tyrant
I thought it was confirmed.
I really really hope not. We have no evidence either way atm.
Its already confirmed that ranged bombardment in Civ5 *can* shoot over troops.
aziantuntija
Prince
Ahriman, have you played Sid Meyer's Pirates? I think civV combat is going to take some ideas from there, im not too sure but thats what i really think. IMO thats a good thing cause i pretty much enjoyed the land combat in Pirates.
I have a feeling that archers, catapults and cannons arent going to be the only ranged land units in the game. At least it would be very odd if an arrow could travel 2 hexes and still doo damage while bullet from modern rifle or a tank shell from modern armour couldnt. That would bee indescribably stupid and totally laughable if gunpowder units would work the same way as acient axemen while acient archers could give damage to enemy from a distance. After all, when the firearms became the main weponary in armies around the world, the battles werent necessarily fought any closer than the distance that arrow can travel.
If you have played Sid Meyer's Pirates, it really helps to understand the ranged gunpowder combat that im describing. Again, im not saying there is going to be ranged combat with gunpowder units, but i am saying that it is very much possible.
I havent seen confirmation for the flanking but if gunpowder units are going to be ranged (as they propably should IMO), it is 120% sure that there will be flanking.
I have a feeling that archers, catapults and cannons arent going to be the only ranged land units in the game. At least it would be very odd if an arrow could travel 2 hexes and still doo damage while bullet from modern rifle or a tank shell from modern armour couldnt. That would bee indescribably stupid and totally laughable if gunpowder units would work the same way as acient axemen while acient archers could give damage to enemy from a distance. After all, when the firearms became the main weponary in armies around the world, the battles werent necessarily fought any closer than the distance that arrow can travel.
If you have played Sid Meyer's Pirates, it really helps to understand the ranged gunpowder combat that im describing. Again, im not saying there is going to be ranged combat with gunpowder units, but i am saying that it is very much possible.
I havent seen confirmation for the flanking but if gunpowder units are going to be ranged (as they propably should IMO), it is 120% sure that there will be flanking.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
I think it is a good bet that all gunpoweder troops will be ranged/melee. (maybe close is a better word than melee, but anyways.)
I was thinking that wether a bombard button in civ 4 would be the way they've gone or maybe a toggle, so you can tell which troops you want to be moving in close and which to move close enough but stay at range. This would be a good inclusion because i jsut like to click on a troop im gonna attack, not position > click range attack > click troop.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant in real life, not in the game. I was saying that if archery units were ranged, gunpowder units for sure should be ranged (but, gameplay is more important than realism).
Aesir Rising
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2008
- Messages
- 64
Archery at close range may function like a direct-fire unit. In practice, given the abstract and large scale of what each individual archery unit represents, we have to assume an archery unit in Civ is shooting (as the word 'archery' implies) as a long range indirect fire formation of many archers.
I would expect to see any indirect fire units (e.g., catapult, trebuchet), including gunpowder units (e.g., howitzer, mortar) to function similarly. While gameplay is often more important than realism (not always - depends upon the objectives of the game and game designer intent, I suppose), I would consider it very odd if archery units functioned differently from the other indirect fire units.
aziantuntija
Prince
My point in this ranged combat discussion is that if there would be a "Stonemen" unit, wich would basicly just throw stones at the enemy with bare hands, and that Stonemen unit had range of 2 hexes, it would be stupid if that Stonemen unit could of do damage to my riflemen by throwing stones at my units behind their melee units, and once i make a hole in their defences (so that i could have direct fireline to this stoneguy), i couldnt even shoot the bas***d cause my riflemen would work like spearmen. So i would have to move my riflemen so that he is basicly only arms reach away from that Stonemen (melee distance), and then finally he could pull the trigger of his rifle and get rid of that nasty stonemen (or at least make him retreat).
It really wouldnt make me feel better if Firaxis would just tell me something like: "Those stones are hitting indirectly at you, so thats why this guy who is throwing these stones at you can do ranged combat, machinegun is firing directly, so it is impossible for him to return fire at the same distance, even if they are in a desert that is a flat as a pancake."
Hehee, good one Firaxis
....... This is a joke? .....Right? ........So you are serious about this?.......... 
It really wouldnt make me feel better if Firaxis would just tell me something like: "Those stones are hitting indirectly at you, so thats why this guy who is throwing these stones at you can do ranged combat, machinegun is firing directly, so it is impossible for him to return fire at the same distance, even if they are in a desert that is a flat as a pancake."
Hehee, good one Firaxis
....... This is a joke? .....Right? ........So you are serious about this?.......... I posted this in another fourm, but thought it was pretty good (even if I do say so myself) so I thought I would post it here too.
The basic problem with a combat system that works well both in ancient and modern war is stacking. That is a great simplification, but lets go with it for now. In Ancient Times to win the war was to destroy the other guy's Army. One way to draw it out to fight was to move on his capitol or other major city. This resulted in exactally the stacks that many folks don't like, and with fighting orienting on cities (what other use was there for castles if not to defend nearby cities?) In the modern age armies are much larger and we have adopted the idea of Total War, war against an entire country and its peoples, not just against the enemy's Army. So we see the massive lines of troops across Europe and elsewhere in WWI, WWII, and Korea.
So here is my idea (cooked up in 30 seconds) on how to have a system that works for both (ancient and modern war) Have a stacking limit for a hex, lets say it is 10. Here is the clincher, units of different ages have different stacking values! Ancient units are 1 each, so you can stack 10, Iron Age are say 2, so you can stack 5, gunpowder 3, up to modern units which would be 10 so you can only put 1 in each hex. (Exact numbers not fixed for sure!) So at one stroke you have a system that allows the historical stacking and concentration of troops normal for its age, and the Main Line of Resistance of modern war. You could also work with stacking size to create special units. For example the stacking size of German Panzers or British Redcoats could be aranged so they could put 1 more of those special units in a hex than other nations, Pratorians could have a lower stacking to fit 1.5x as many, etc.
Problem solved!
The basic problem with a combat system that works well both in ancient and modern war is stacking. That is a great simplification, but lets go with it for now. In Ancient Times to win the war was to destroy the other guy's Army. One way to draw it out to fight was to move on his capitol or other major city. This resulted in exactally the stacks that many folks don't like, and with fighting orienting on cities (what other use was there for castles if not to defend nearby cities?) In the modern age armies are much larger and we have adopted the idea of Total War, war against an entire country and its peoples, not just against the enemy's Army. So we see the massive lines of troops across Europe and elsewhere in WWI, WWII, and Korea.
So here is my idea (cooked up in 30 seconds) on how to have a system that works for both (ancient and modern war) Have a stacking limit for a hex, lets say it is 10. Here is the clincher, units of different ages have different stacking values! Ancient units are 1 each, so you can stack 10, Iron Age are say 2, so you can stack 5, gunpowder 3, up to modern units which would be 10 so you can only put 1 in each hex. (Exact numbers not fixed for sure!) So at one stroke you have a system that allows the historical stacking and concentration of troops normal for its age, and the Main Line of Resistance of modern war. You could also work with stacking size to create special units. For example the stacking size of German Panzers or British Redcoats could be aranged so they could put 1 more of those special units in a hex than other nations, Pratorians could have a lower stacking to fit 1.5x as many, etc.
Problem solved!
Suho1004
Warlord
Hmm. Interesting. Combined with limits on the number of units overall, that would certainly work to reduce stacks over time and have more spread-out combat. I'm not sure how it would work in practice (I think you'd have to be very careful not to create exploits), but it is an interesting idea.
aziantuntija
Prince
Stacking means realism & tactics?
Fact is that Firaxis wanted to make the battles more realistic AND more tactical for ALL the different eras, thats why we have 1upt to look for. Everybody has seen some historical films where some ancient armies have been battling it out. The question is, do you see all the units archers, cavalry, swordsmen, spearmen and catapults stacked up in making a one messy bunch? No we dont see that. We dont even see just cavalry, catapults and archers stacked up as messy bunch (limited stacking). What we DO see is archers being in place A, and spearmen in place B, catapults in place C, and so on. They might be standing close to one another, but they are NOT BUNCHED TOGETHER.
I have never seen a film where there would be a ancient well organized army appearing in the battlefield and it would just start mixing their units, like mixing archers, spearmen and catapults all together making a one disordered bunch of people. What kind of commands would you give to this bunch that would contain all these different weapon classes? What is their job in the battlefield? I really doubt that they done that in the ancient times.. ..And as far as i know, they didnt. Also, if chess was invented to teach soldiers the art of war, why is it 1upt if they used only stacks back then?
A question of scale
Basicly this is a question of how small or large the scale is. The bigger the scale is, the less tactics there is in the battle. If you look at the civIV battle system for example, you ofcourse know that in the actual battlefield (wich you cannot see cause the scale is too big for that) those units are NOT going to be mixed up to one another as i described above, they ARE going to be lined up as they would be in the real world (1upt), you just dont see that cause the scale is too big for that. And because the scale is big, you dont also have to think about the action and the tactics in the actual battlefield, you just pick a unit from your stack and attack the enemy stack, and thats it.
When the scale is getting smaller, you can see the actual battlefield where the battle is going on and only after that, you can have more control and tactics in the game. Its basicly like having two types of chess games, there is be the normal chess game (small scale) that everybody knows, where you must use tactics to win, and then there would be a BIG SCALE chess game where the chessboard would only contain two squares, and all the chess pieces would be stacked up to these two squares, blacks and whites in their own square. When the game begins, you just pick up a chess piece (unit) you wish to attack with, and watch what happens.
If you can stack people, even just a limited amount of people, that means your just not close enough to see the actual battlefield, and if your not close enough, there is no way you can use more tactics than if you would be closer to actually see the individual troops that arent really "stacked up" in the first place, they are 1upt, just like in the real world.
"Hey! Emperors dont fight wars! Generals do!"
If youre now thinkin that "Hey! Emperors dont fight wars! Generals do!" Then i would say that i dont belive that they either did always ask Julius Caesar every now and then what to build next in every city that Rome ruled. We must remember that Firaxis wanted to increase realism and the meaning of tactics in battles, that happens by making the scale smaller, its not like it would be the only aspect of the game that have that small scale as you can see in the Julius Caesar example.
I really think that the maps are just going to be a bit bigger than before, and i really think that if the scale is small enough, there just cannot be ANY kind of unit stacking what so ever! Otherwise it would just throw realism and tactics out of the window.. ..Again. But this time the realism would fly even further as you can see in under my "Stacking means realism & tactics?" headline.
Those who think that 1upt means dumbing the game down, think about the chess example that i gave you
Fact is that Firaxis wanted to make the battles more realistic AND more tactical for ALL the different eras, thats why we have 1upt to look for. Everybody has seen some historical films where some ancient armies have been battling it out. The question is, do you see all the units archers, cavalry, swordsmen, spearmen and catapults stacked up in making a one messy bunch? No we dont see that. We dont even see just cavalry, catapults and archers stacked up as messy bunch (limited stacking). What we DO see is archers being in place A, and spearmen in place B, catapults in place C, and so on. They might be standing close to one another, but they are NOT BUNCHED TOGETHER.
I have never seen a film where there would be a ancient well organized army appearing in the battlefield and it would just start mixing their units, like mixing archers, spearmen and catapults all together making a one disordered bunch of people. What kind of commands would you give to this bunch that would contain all these different weapon classes? What is their job in the battlefield? I really doubt that they done that in the ancient times.. ..And as far as i know, they didnt. Also, if chess was invented to teach soldiers the art of war, why is it 1upt if they used only stacks back then?
A question of scale
Basicly this is a question of how small or large the scale is. The bigger the scale is, the less tactics there is in the battle. If you look at the civIV battle system for example, you ofcourse know that in the actual battlefield (wich you cannot see cause the scale is too big for that) those units are NOT going to be mixed up to one another as i described above, they ARE going to be lined up as they would be in the real world (1upt), you just dont see that cause the scale is too big for that. And because the scale is big, you dont also have to think about the action and the tactics in the actual battlefield, you just pick a unit from your stack and attack the enemy stack, and thats it.
When the scale is getting smaller, you can see the actual battlefield where the battle is going on and only after that, you can have more control and tactics in the game. Its basicly like having two types of chess games, there is be the normal chess game (small scale) that everybody knows, where you must use tactics to win, and then there would be a BIG SCALE chess game where the chessboard would only contain two squares, and all the chess pieces would be stacked up to these two squares, blacks and whites in their own square. When the game begins, you just pick up a chess piece (unit) you wish to attack with, and watch what happens.
If you can stack people, even just a limited amount of people, that means your just not close enough to see the actual battlefield, and if your not close enough, there is no way you can use more tactics than if you would be closer to actually see the individual troops that arent really "stacked up" in the first place, they are 1upt, just like in the real world.
"Hey! Emperors dont fight wars! Generals do!"
If youre now thinkin that "Hey! Emperors dont fight wars! Generals do!" Then i would say that i dont belive that they either did always ask Julius Caesar every now and then what to build next in every city that Rome ruled. We must remember that Firaxis wanted to increase realism and the meaning of tactics in battles, that happens by making the scale smaller, its not like it would be the only aspect of the game that have that small scale as you can see in the Julius Caesar example.
I really think that the maps are just going to be a bit bigger than before, and i really think that if the scale is small enough, there just cannot be ANY kind of unit stacking what so ever! Otherwise it would just throw realism and tactics out of the window.. ..Again. But this time the realism would fly even further as you can see in under my "Stacking means realism & tactics?" headline.
Those who think that 1upt means dumbing the game down, think about the chess example that i gave you
Stacking does mean realism and tactics!
1) As a player of board wargames from way before the days of computers I can say that there are very, very few wargames that have a 1 unit per hex limit. Almost all games allow more than 1 unit, it may only be 2 or 3, but 1 unit is rare, and yes, those games have tactics!
2) There are arguments that you get tired of, and there are those that I get tired of. The one I get tired of is the idea that if you put 2 units in one area that *poof* now its just a great big slugfest! You might as well say that you have to be able to direct the actions of every individual soldier or its just "throwing units at each other". It is just as tactical to stack an infantry, ranged, and mobile unit together in one hex as it is to have them in different hexes. In the vast majority of WWII games, for example, you are specifically encouraged to stack armour with infantry and will get a bonus for doing so, not to put them in separate hexes!
3) Your notion that ancient battles were spread all over the map is just false. The whole battle of Pharsalus, including the cavalry action was fought in an area less than 3 miles wide. 100,000 men in one great melee! The Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), 35,000 men on each side along a 2.5 mile front. Again at Agincourt, 5000 English and 30,000 to 100,000 French in an area about 1000 feet wide! That is the reality of ancient battle, not the chess match that you want to make of it. Even Austerlitz was fought along a front of only 9 miles, Borodino in an area of 4x4 miles, and Waterloo in a 5x5 mile area.
4) So you are right, it is a matter of scale. But to be what you want the scale needs to be a hex is 1 mile or less across! If the map of Earth in the game is 24,000 hexes around at the equator I will gladly buy you dinner at a fine restaurant. Even if the scale is 10 miles to a hex (and IMHO 100 is more likely, maybe 50 at the outside), at 10 miles per hex I would challenge you to find a battle prior to the Napoleonic Wars that would have a front more than 2 hexes. There may well be, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
5) Now you are certainly free to like 1 unit per hex all you want. But there is nothing inherently realistic about it, at all! It is an artificial construct done for reasons of gameplay that, in all honesty (not being funny here), simply escape me. Somehow I am to imagine that the 8 hexes between Paris and Marsellies are now only a mile across so that the combat system makes sense? (just an example, I have no way of knowing how many hexes will actually separate Paris from Marsellies) While you, and many others, did not like the Stack of Doom system of prior Civs at least it didn't ask for a willing suspension of disbelief on the level that this new 1 unit per hex system will.
6) In the end I don't see how you can support the assertion that stacking "throws realism and tactics out the window" with any actual evidence. That is an opinion that anyone is certainly able to have, but the reality of actual battles at any scale above 5 miles per hex is that before 1800 AD most if not all battles would take place in a single hex.
1) As a player of board wargames from way before the days of computers I can say that there are very, very few wargames that have a 1 unit per hex limit. Almost all games allow more than 1 unit, it may only be 2 or 3, but 1 unit is rare, and yes, those games have tactics!
2) There are arguments that you get tired of, and there are those that I get tired of. The one I get tired of is the idea that if you put 2 units in one area that *poof* now its just a great big slugfest! You might as well say that you have to be able to direct the actions of every individual soldier or its just "throwing units at each other". It is just as tactical to stack an infantry, ranged, and mobile unit together in one hex as it is to have them in different hexes. In the vast majority of WWII games, for example, you are specifically encouraged to stack armour with infantry and will get a bonus for doing so, not to put them in separate hexes!
3) Your notion that ancient battles were spread all over the map is just false. The whole battle of Pharsalus, including the cavalry action was fought in an area less than 3 miles wide. 100,000 men in one great melee! The Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), 35,000 men on each side along a 2.5 mile front. Again at Agincourt, 5000 English and 30,000 to 100,000 French in an area about 1000 feet wide! That is the reality of ancient battle, not the chess match that you want to make of it. Even Austerlitz was fought along a front of only 9 miles, Borodino in an area of 4x4 miles, and Waterloo in a 5x5 mile area.
4) So you are right, it is a matter of scale. But to be what you want the scale needs to be a hex is 1 mile or less across! If the map of Earth in the game is 24,000 hexes around at the equator I will gladly buy you dinner at a fine restaurant. Even if the scale is 10 miles to a hex (and IMHO 100 is more likely, maybe 50 at the outside), at 10 miles per hex I would challenge you to find a battle prior to the Napoleonic Wars that would have a front more than 2 hexes. There may well be, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
5) Now you are certainly free to like 1 unit per hex all you want. But there is nothing inherently realistic about it, at all! It is an artificial construct done for reasons of gameplay that, in all honesty (not being funny here), simply escape me. Somehow I am to imagine that the 8 hexes between Paris and Marsellies are now only a mile across so that the combat system makes sense? (just an example, I have no way of knowing how many hexes will actually separate Paris from Marsellies) While you, and many others, did not like the Stack of Doom system of prior Civs at least it didn't ask for a willing suspension of disbelief on the level that this new 1 unit per hex system will.
6) In the end I don't see how you can support the assertion that stacking "throws realism and tactics out the window" with any actual evidence. That is an opinion that anyone is certainly able to have, but the reality of actual battles at any scale above 5 miles per hex is that before 1800 AD most if not all battles would take place in a single hex.
Chalks
The blue pieces
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,097
My thoughts...
1) I don't see how it follows that just because more games use one particular system then that system is inherently better. Quality is not measured in quantity.
2) I agree, there is gameplay being lost from the absolute 1 unit per tile restriction, however, attempting to flesh this out would lead to extremely complicated rules and unit types. This sort of thing is better represented as unit upgrades. Upgrade tanks with "infantry escort" or an infantry unit with "medics". The unit becomes stronger in a specific way as if stacked, without any complex "you can only stack units of type X with units of type Y unless Z" rules.
3) Scale is important here. This is a simulation - it does not matter for the purposes of the simulation if the units are visually spread over all of France or over 5 miles. It's a line of archers and a line of swordsmen vs another army over grassland terrain. In the scale of Civ, these battles are only going to be between a few units (the numbers of units will be much smaller in 5). The representation of the terrain will be out of proportion, but the individual soldiers are standing 3 miles high too. It's a representation, not a simulation.
4) As above, it does not matter
5) There is more realism in one unit per tile than there is in unbounded hundred unit stacks.
6) In a world war scenario where the best tactic is to move ever single military unit into a single city and push forwards with it is both unrealistic and lacking in interesting tactics. Without Civ 5 to play it is difficult to judge if 1upt will be an improvement but it seems likely.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
I find it ironic that some people think that a 1upt system will somehow magically enhance the tactical experience in itself, when it wont even allow for the reenactment of some of the most classic battles throughout history - where brilliant tactics was a determining factor in defeating numerically superior enemy forces - since it wont be possible to represent the numerically superior forces properly (in stacks).
Giving combat advantages to spreading out your forces - and possibly also minor situational disadvantages to stacking them as well - would by far have been a superior solution to eliviate the SOD problem and enhance the tactical gameplay.
As it is they have merely replaced one flawed system with another - that IMO creates more problems than it solves.
Giving combat advantages to spreading out your forces - and possibly also minor situational disadvantages to stacking them as well - would by far have been a superior solution to eliviate the SOD problem and enhance the tactical gameplay.
As it is they have merely replaced one flawed system with another - that IMO creates more problems than it solves.
M
Me,myself,and,I
Guest
I dissagree I think it will improve combat I would rather have unrealistic combat then unfun combat.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
1) No, quality is not measured in quantity, but there is something to be said for systems that have been used for decades, sucessfully, in many situations. Many posters in this thread have compared the 1 unit per hex change to one (1) game that has a similar system (Panzer General {?}) as "Proof" that it is a good system. I will stack my hundreds of games against their one game as "proof" any day. Can improvements come along? Sure. But what it seems to me is that most of the supporters of 1 unit per hex just seem to like it. I have not read anything from a supporter that in the end amounts to anything other than "I like this better". You can like it better, but at least admit that the other side has a point!
2) A stacking limit (a basic feature of hundreds and hundreds of games) is hardly complicated.
3) Here is a major disagreement. This insane dichotomy of scale doesn't bother you; I will never buy this game because of it. We opponents of 1 unit per hex can offer endless real word examples to support stacking; the supporters of 1 unit per hex cannot offer even 1 real world example of how a battle at any time before 1800 (probably more like 1900) would occupy even 2 hexes, let alone 5, 10, or 20.
4) See 3.
5) That is personal opinion at the most, simply wrong at the worst. As I and others have shown for most of history the "giant stack" was the way war was waged. Please provide evidence that this is incorrect. I have offered a simple system that would allow warfare in the game to evolve over time like every other aspect of the game. Add in techs that would impact stacking, special units, leaders, and it would add a richness to the game so that 1 unit per hex would look like a person standing next to the Statue of Liberty in comparison! (That is MHO) How is "I line mine up and you line yours up" so much more Tactical, so much better, so superior to "I stack mine up and you stack yours up"?
6) A situation for which I have offered a simple, elegant, solution.
We are all allowed our opinions and our likes and dislikes. IMHO 1 unit per hex is a simplification, not an enhancement. You may disagree.
Just to "spice things up", I am interested in what sort of unit mix you think would represent a classic battle like Pharsalus or Waterloo. I ask because to have tactics you need to have a certain number of units, more than just one or two. Given the limitations of units implicated by strategic resources, and the general intent to have fewer units, how do you envision this working?
aziantuntija
Prince
You really seem to struggle with this one dont you RickInVA? 
Im not too sure about what kind of messy limited stacking system you are talking about, but what i do understand is that you DONT WANT to play or see the actual battle, you just want to stack things up. If you wanted the battle to look and feel like real battle instead of just stacks, you wouldnt be too worried about the map scale wich we dont even know yet.
I think that the map scale isnt going to be as NEARLY as much wrong as you think it is going to be. Wanna know why i think that? To tell you that, well have to forget those ancient battles for a while and talk about more recent war where my grand parents were fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
I know ive allready showed this once but im going to show it again, please look at the strategic map picture where you can see Soviet Unions attack directions. Now, in Civ4 the size of that war area is 5 squares and from wiki you can see that there is 8 main attack directions coming from Soviet Union. So its 5 squares and 8 directions, its really not that far away from truth if you think that after all, its just a game, plus, im 100% sure that earth map is going to be even bigger in civ5, it most certainly ISNT going to be smaller IMO.
You can also propably understand that Finnish Winter War was not the biggest war in the world, yet there were over million soldiers in that war in about 1300 km (5 squares) range. And before you split any hairs, i know they werent all standing in line inside that distance. It really makes you think how realistic would it be if a REALLY BIG WAR would of been fighted out in something like 2 squares, what could of very much be the case in limited stacking. It would be something like 2 million men with modern warfare equipment in 520 km battleline, if both sides have million soldiers, they are having 1923 men inside every 1 kilometer per side on average, and it really isnt better with 3 squares 1282 men per km either, not to mension that there would be same amount of soldiers per Km in the other side also. Realistic warfare? I dont think so.
So stacking units is NOT fun, and it is NOT even realistic.
Oh, i almost forget, the ancient battles. If limited stacking doesnt work in modern warfare, it will surely work in ancient times, doesnt it? You are so worried about the ancient battlelines spreading across the map arent you? Cause you are so worried that it might be a bit unrealistic altough we dont even know yet anything about the map sizes. Altough, IMO maps are goint to be bigger.
Have you ever played civ4? I suppose you have, then you must of been noticing that the armies tend to grow when moving away from ancient times. Basicly when playing civ4 in ancient times, you just had something like 5 military units sometimes even less than that. If you have also noticed that Firaxis has told us very clearly, that there is going to be much less units overall in civ5 than there was in civ4. Not to mension that units are being produced much slower than they were in civ4. When you combine these given facts, (also the fact that there wasnt that many units during ancient times in civ4 either) you really should understand that battlelines are most likely going to be pretty small in ancient times in Civilization V.
You are saying that there are many games that use limited stacking, and because there are more games that use limited stacking, than games that use 1upt system, it makes limited stacking a superior system in terms fun. Now, i dont really like FPS games, i think Civ games are much better. But if i would be thinking like you, then i would be wrong about Civ games being better than FPS games, because there are MUCH more FPS games out there than there are Civ games. And therefore the next Civ game should be a First Person Shooter.
Im not too sure about what kind of messy limited stacking system you are talking about, but what i do understand is that you DONT WANT to play or see the actual battle, you just want to stack things up. If you wanted the battle to look and feel like real battle instead of just stacks, you wouldnt be too worried about the map scale wich we dont even know yet.
I think that the map scale isnt going to be as NEARLY as much wrong as you think it is going to be. Wanna know why i think that? To tell you that, well have to forget those ancient battles for a while and talk about more recent war where my grand parents were fighting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
I know ive allready showed this once but im going to show it again, please look at the strategic map picture where you can see Soviet Unions attack directions. Now, in Civ4 the size of that war area is 5 squares and from wiki you can see that there is 8 main attack directions coming from Soviet Union. So its 5 squares and 8 directions, its really not that far away from truth if you think that after all, its just a game, plus, im 100% sure that earth map is going to be even bigger in civ5, it most certainly ISNT going to be smaller IMO.
You can also propably understand that Finnish Winter War was not the biggest war in the world, yet there were over million soldiers in that war in about 1300 km (5 squares) range. And before you split any hairs, i know they werent all standing in line inside that distance. It really makes you think how realistic would it be if a REALLY BIG WAR would of been fighted out in something like 2 squares, what could of very much be the case in limited stacking. It would be something like 2 million men with modern warfare equipment in 520 km battleline, if both sides have million soldiers, they are having 1923 men inside every 1 kilometer per side on average, and it really isnt better with 3 squares 1282 men per km either, not to mension that there would be same amount of soldiers per Km in the other side also. Realistic warfare? I dont think so.
So stacking units is NOT fun, and it is NOT even realistic.
Oh, i almost forget, the ancient battles. If limited stacking doesnt work in modern warfare, it will surely work in ancient times, doesnt it? You are so worried about the ancient battlelines spreading across the map arent you? Cause you are so worried that it might be a bit unrealistic altough we dont even know yet anything about the map sizes. Altough, IMO maps are goint to be bigger.
Have you ever played civ4? I suppose you have, then you must of been noticing that the armies tend to grow when moving away from ancient times. Basicly when playing civ4 in ancient times, you just had something like 5 military units sometimes even less than that. If you have also noticed that Firaxis has told us very clearly, that there is going to be much less units overall in civ5 than there was in civ4. Not to mension that units are being produced much slower than they were in civ4. When you combine these given facts, (also the fact that there wasnt that many units during ancient times in civ4 either) you really should understand that battlelines are most likely going to be pretty small in ancient times in Civilization V.
You are saying that there are many games that use limited stacking, and because there are more games that use limited stacking, than games that use 1upt system, it makes limited stacking a superior system in terms fun. Now, i dont really like FPS games, i think Civ games are much better. But if i would be thinking like you, then i would be wrong about Civ games being better than FPS games, because there are MUCH more FPS games out there than there are Civ games. And therefore the next Civ game should be a First Person Shooter.
