kiwitt
Road to War Modder
... and that fact more than anything makes this a good move, regardless of arguments of scale etc.
Unit Stacking
- Thread starter michaelkottler
- Start date
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
yes i agree, i dont really care about scale, i was just arguing for the sake of arguing, i care about gameplay. This change will either make it more fun and tactically challenging, as i hope or tedious and time consuming at which i shudder at the thought.
Dont mind the 1UPT approach, it may even stop the game from getting really boring late game. I just hope they make maps really big, If they're gonna make a Earth Map, I shouldn't be able to hit Paris from England with Archers, Cannons, Artillery, All the mechanized stuff etc... The distance of Paris and England in game is a good example of what bombardment should reach and where that stops and cruise missiles start. I want a good balance of realism and gameplay, and if they ruin it with the Earth map in game then Ill be really disappointed.
Also I hope they make the 1UPT thing moddable, because if I don't like it Id like to change it to stacks of 2, 3, 4 w/e
Also I hope they make the 1UPT thing moddable, because if I don't like it Id like to change it to stacks of 2, 3, 4 w/e
Tiny world map or huge world map?
Theres a tiny world map? No, I played the huge world map, I don't play it anymore but I am certain that the sea separating England and France is one tile and depending on if you have a modded version of a huge world map then you can start London at the side closest to France (I know the land on that side of the English island has a river streching two tiles inland and on one side its a hill, where you usually start London on, and another a grassland, the grassland tile is the one im talking about). So from that spot you can volley arrows on French land, in fact you dont need to build a city there to do it (Its just you can fire further with walls apparently, effectively making you able to barrage Paris). Im all saying this through memory, and if Im wrong I cant be wrong by more then 1 or 2 tiles so if archers cant hit Paris from London then Catapults would etc. I stopped playing this map when I found the Eurasia and the other ones had bigger maps then I finally ended up using a modded Gigantic (or was it Giant?) version of Earth, which is pure concentrated essence of amazing. So yeah.... make more tiles so scaling is better.... or Ill have to wait for a mod...
Dear god. I try to stop replying to you, but you simply won't let me stop. Almost like s*x.
Do you know how to read?
I've already stated my points on this; yes, there physically is enough room to fit any amount of matter in a finite space. Therefore, I'm agreeing with you, yes, a SoD is physically possible.
The real questions are: Why would you? and Why can they still fight effectively? which you are choosing to completely ignore.
also, take a quick look-see at Schuesseled's post. It should be easy to find his point; he bolded and underlined it for you.
Suho1004
Warlord
I've been following this thread on and off, and it seems our two schools of thought are really at odds. The MUpT (to borrow MrHan's abbreviation, I think it was--although I'm guessing it's been used elsewhere) school are not really interested in getting involved in the nitty-gritty of combat. For them, Civ is an empire-building game on a grand scale, where, as Noddahrassa said:
The 1UpT camp, on the other hand, is more interested in detailed combat, where tactics play a much larger role than in MUpT.
Civ4 is my favorite game in the series so far. I have to admit that, yes, there are problems with the stack of doom. I agree that it negates the R/P/S element because once you get enough troops together, you're going to have the counters to anything the enemy might throw at you, and vice versa. So it all comes down to numbers and tech.
But I still enjoy playing Civ4 very much. I don't really mind the SoDs, and I will admit that I get a kick out of putting together a big SoD and steamrolling through enemy territory. Where it starts to break down for me is the endgame, which often feels tedious because there are so many units on the board. Battles are often a foregone conclusion, but you have to go through the tedium of destroying every one of the enemy's troops. I don't get the sense that I am fighting decisive engagements, or that how I move my troops has a significant effect on the outcome of the battle--I just run from one mountain/forest tile to the next until I reach a city. Wipe out the defenders, rinse, and repeat.
So I'm looking forward to Civ5 and a completely new and fresh combat system. I may continue to play Civ4 even as I play Civ5. Maybe some days I just want to put together a SoD and mow down someone. Maybe other days I want to sit down for more detailed combat. In other words, some days I want to wear my president's cap, and other days I want to wear my field commander's cap. I think it will be nice to have that choice.
But, in the end, I agree with Noddahrassa when he said it all comes down to taste. Issues like scale are secondary, if not irrelevant. It really boils down to whether you like your Civ as a bigger picture game or more detailed/tactical in terms of combat. Me, I don't know if I have a preference for one over the other at the moment, but I am definitely looking forward to what Civ5 is going to bring to the table.
The 1UpT camp, on the other hand, is more interested in detailed combat, where tactics play a much larger role than in MUpT.
Civ4 is my favorite game in the series so far. I have to admit that, yes, there are problems with the stack of doom. I agree that it negates the R/P/S element because once you get enough troops together, you're going to have the counters to anything the enemy might throw at you, and vice versa. So it all comes down to numbers and tech.
But I still enjoy playing Civ4 very much. I don't really mind the SoDs, and I will admit that I get a kick out of putting together a big SoD and steamrolling through enemy territory. Where it starts to break down for me is the endgame, which often feels tedious because there are so many units on the board. Battles are often a foregone conclusion, but you have to go through the tedium of destroying every one of the enemy's troops. I don't get the sense that I am fighting decisive engagements, or that how I move my troops has a significant effect on the outcome of the battle--I just run from one mountain/forest tile to the next until I reach a city. Wipe out the defenders, rinse, and repeat.
So I'm looking forward to Civ5 and a completely new and fresh combat system. I may continue to play Civ4 even as I play Civ5. Maybe some days I just want to put together a SoD and mow down someone. Maybe other days I want to sit down for more detailed combat. In other words, some days I want to wear my president's cap, and other days I want to wear my field commander's cap. I think it will be nice to have that choice.
But, in the end, I agree with Noddahrassa when he said it all comes down to taste. Issues like scale are secondary, if not irrelevant. It really boils down to whether you like your Civ as a bigger picture game or more detailed/tactical in terms of combat. Me, I don't know if I have a preference for one over the other at the moment, but I am definitely looking forward to what Civ5 is going to bring to the table.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Suho, I'm much more keen on the empire-building elements of Civ over the combat elements, but the poor combat systems of past Civ games have diminished my overall enjoyment of Civilization-especially in the late-game. I'm hoping that by making combat a more involved process-rather than stack on stack-my interest in the *entire* game will be enhanced!
Aussie.
Aussie.
Well said. Now only if people would stop complaining religiously..
I have yet to read this thread completely, but I thought might try to point out one thing and see, if this perspective adds something to the discussion (hopefully it will).
Let's leave the matter of archers shooting over the Channel or single battles spanning over half the continent for a while. Let's look at it like this: there's this medium-sized civ, which is preparing for a large scale war with this huge civ. Let's assume the MS civ has about 10 hexes of territory (two cities in a densely packed region, some neighbours' culture pushed back here and there, etc.), but it is incredibly powerful industrially and is able to produce 2 high-end units every turn - one in each city. Now, because of the 1upt they will be able to amass only 10 units in their territory before having to send them to war, which means they won't be really able to gather a significant enough force to overrun their enemy, although they do have more than enough production potential.
Germany before WWII, that's the example I'm thinking of, of course. Teritorially medium-sized (compared to Russia), yet they were able to (in Civ terms) produce massive amounts of units and almost overrun their much bigger neighbour. Production and economy channeled into military production did that. In Civ V they wouldn't be able to do that, because, simply, they wouldn't have enough territory to keep their units on.
I know gameplay >> realism. Until yesterday I was completely happy with the new 1upt system, until I realised the above. As Danger Bird wrote in one of the first posts of this thread, Civ is a large scale game and a small scale game and both scales use the same map. And while the small scale works well with the 1upt system (and gives us some nice tactical challenges a'la Panzer General), the large-scale might not work so well, because what it will mean is basically that small, yet powerful civs will never be able to build an army large enough to represent their production potential (goodbye One City Challenge?)
EDIT:
In other words, the question: "Who can make the bigger stack of doom?" will be changed into "Who has more land to store their units on?"
Let's leave the matter of archers shooting over the Channel or single battles spanning over half the continent for a while. Let's look at it like this: there's this medium-sized civ, which is preparing for a large scale war with this huge civ. Let's assume the MS civ has about 10 hexes of territory (two cities in a densely packed region, some neighbours' culture pushed back here and there, etc.), but it is incredibly powerful industrially and is able to produce 2 high-end units every turn - one in each city. Now, because of the 1upt they will be able to amass only 10 units in their territory before having to send them to war, which means they won't be really able to gather a significant enough force to overrun their enemy, although they do have more than enough production potential.
Germany before WWII, that's the example I'm thinking of, of course. Teritorially medium-sized (compared to Russia), yet they were able to (in Civ terms) produce massive amounts of units and almost overrun their much bigger neighbour. Production and economy channeled into military production did that. In Civ V they wouldn't be able to do that, because, simply, they wouldn't have enough territory to keep their units on.
I know gameplay >> realism. Until yesterday I was completely happy with the new 1upt system, until I realised the above. As Danger Bird wrote in one of the first posts of this thread, Civ is a large scale game and a small scale game and both scales use the same map. And while the small scale works well with the 1upt system (and gives us some nice tactical challenges a'la Panzer General), the large-scale might not work so well, because what it will mean is basically that small, yet powerful civs will never be able to build an army large enough to represent their production potential (goodbye One City Challenge?)
EDIT:
In other words, the question: "Who can make the bigger stack of doom?" will be changed into "Who has more land to store their units on?"
Units will cost maintence cost, Ever make a huge SoD leave a city? Well same thing will happen if you do that. Besides theres a limit to how much you can build per resource, ex. 5 swordsmen for one iron resource. Soooo.... yeah.
I thought
![[civ5]](/images/icons/civ5/entries/entry2.gif "Civ5 [civ5]"){kind=icon}
allowed an unlimited number of units 'stored' in cities, from a defensive perspective they 'merge' with the city and don't exist as an SoD. As a civ's military, they just exist notionally until they leave the city.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
I thought that was one of the first things mentioned concerning 1 unit per tile...And I thought it wasn't allowed to make fortifications and tactics useless. demeryt is right, units will become a frustrating, irritating, annoying hassle. Or at least, that's how it appears to me.
Ahriman
Tyrant
I thought
Do not assume this, this is over-parsing statements. They mentioned somethnig about a unit merging with a city, but it is very unclear what this meant.
It in no way guarantees that you can merge an unlimited number of units with a city, or that units can ever leave a city after being merged.
They might, but we dont' know.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
i'm pretty sure they said only 1 troop could be garrisoned in a city, and that it would merge with it to improve the citys defence.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hm, you are aware that the number of *most* units that you can build (certainly high-end, resource dependent ones) will be limited by the number of resources you have? Although we don't have a specific number, they're bandying about something in the 1 resource=5 units range on a regular sized map. Not sure what they're doing with non-resource dependent units, but one can hope that these too will be limited. So *no*, it's unlikely to turn into a "who has more land to store their units on?" It will probably end up being a "who can gain access to the most resources? who has the best unit & promotion combinations? who can place their units to maximum effect?" Basically, with the removal of the SoD & the implementation of a more tactically driven combat system, the person with the most units won't necessarily be the one who wins. Though my recollection of WWII might be fuzzy, Germany was successful in the early stages more because they embraced new technology & tactics rather than by sheer volume of units-a fact well represented in the new system I reckon!
Aussie.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Another thing-if you're on the offensive, then surely its the territory of your enemy that is more important than your own territory! Also, perhaps you should look at-say-an infantry unit not as a Company or even a Battalion, but as a Regiment or a Division-i.e. in the world of 1upt, I feel that a unit is going to represent many more people & equipment than in previous iterations-as reflected by the increased survivability of individual units. Once you can embrace this new scale, I'm sure that 1upt won't seem so bad to you!
Aussie.
Aussie.
Suho1004
Warlord
Well, I can't really argue with that, especially the part about the late game getting bogged down.
Before the idea of 1UpT was floated, it never really occurred to me why the late game got bogged down in Civ. I love this game, but I can't tell you how many times I have abandoned games after a certain point. I usually play games over many, many sessions, and while I will sometimes play a game on consecutive days, other times a game may sit for days or even weeks. In situations like those, I rarely go back to a game in progress after it has reached a certain point. The idea of diving back into the quagmire of late-game combat is unappealing, and thus I will often just start a fresh game.
I think this has a lot of do with the fact that I really enjoy exploring and planning out my empire (finding great city locations, etc.), but it also has to do with the combat system. I just took it for granted, though: Civ combat = bogged down late game. It never occurred to me that the SoDs might have something to do with it, at least on a conscious level. So I will join you in hoping that this change will enhance the entire game.
Rashiminos
Fool Prophet
I might be able to re-enact the Battle of Borodino in ciV one day.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
The late game bogging down was not because of SoD it was because of large numbers of units/cities.
Large numbers of cities could be managed through queues and governors.
Having those large numbers of units in SoD minimized the late game bogging down.
If the makers of Civ 5 are not going to have it bogging down late game, then they need to seriously reduce the number of units.
Having cities count as 'their own unit' is a good start.
Having units not necesarily die in combat (so that if you have a small number of units on the field they don't need to be constantly replaced in war) is a good point towards making a small # of units possible.
Then just change some of the numbers... imagine Civ 4 tanks costing 1000 hammers, and Infantry costing 700 hammers. Both of them costing ~20 gold in maintanance Each.
That would 'debog' the late game (assuming other units of the era had similar costs).. even if you had SoD.
Large numbers of cities could be managed through queues and governors.
Having those large numbers of units in SoD minimized the late game bogging down.
If the makers of Civ 5 are not going to have it bogging down late game, then they need to seriously reduce the number of units.
Having cities count as 'their own unit' is a good start.
Having units not necesarily die in combat (so that if you have a small number of units on the field they don't need to be constantly replaced in war) is a good point towards making a small # of units possible.
Then just change some of the numbers... imagine Civ 4 tanks costing 1000 hammers, and Infantry costing 700 hammers. Both of them costing ~20 gold in maintanance Each.
That would 'debog' the late game (assuming other units of the era had similar costs).. even if you had SoD.
