Unit Stacking

[aziantuntija]

So, goodbye archipelago's, goodbye Earth maps...After all, how can we invade archipelago's, or battle on the Earth with thousands of chokepoints (like the Maya area, or south of the Khmer, or Europe and Mesopotamia with all its borders, or Ethiopia).

In Civilizations III, units were always everywhere, but in Civilizations IV, besides the few single units, most move in stacks. I wonder why...

Are you sure that you arent just thinking of civIV with 1upt? Cause thats what it really sounds like..

What you have to realize is that civV is going to be different game from civIV and you just cant really think of civIV maps (with square tiles) and say that: "You dont have any room to fight wars in europe on civV" or something like that

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Let's put it this way, If I could lump as many men as I wanted into one place, invading Honshu would be easy.

But if, like in real life, I could not put my entire army into the Tokyo bay, then an invasion of Honshu becomes formidable, like in the real world.

Try planning a Pacific war campaign sometime it's hard, but not impossible.

The trick is to bypass the more formidable islands and attack the larger ones in places where the enemy is not, because he can't be every where.

Attacking Italy however becomes much more realistic, an overland attack is somewhat difficult, but a amphibious attack is much easier the Italians can not defend their entire coastline on a map of any reasonable scale.

 

[need my speed]

Are you sure that you arent just thinking of civIV with 1upt? Cause thats what it really sounds like..

What you have to realize is that civV is going to be different game from civIV and you just cant really think of civIV maps (with square tiles) and say that: "You dont have any room to fight wars in europe on civV" or something like that

So, I guess that if I take the largest Earth map that exists for Civilizations IV Beyond the Sword, multiply it by 5 or something, then I have a map which fits in Civilizations V? I find that hard to believe...Squares or hexagons don't make that much a difference, if that's what you meant.

 

[aziantuntija]

So, I guess that if I take the largest Earth map that exists for Civilizations IV Beyond the Sword, multiply it by 5 or something, then I have a map which fits in Civilizations V? I find that hard to believe...Squares or hexagons don't make that much a difference, if that's what you meant.

Uhh.. What im trying to say is that you really need to forget civIV when thinking the new combat system or map structure in civV.

So, I guess that if I take the largest Earth map that exists for Civilizations IV Beyond the Sword, multiply it by 5 or something, then I have a map which fits in Civilizations V?

But as we can see, this is not an easy task for you

 

[need my speed]

Then explain it to me. If there can be only 1 unit at a tile, wouldn't that make for instance the Maya's horribly underpowered. They have way less land tiles than the Aztecs, so the Aztecs can easily roll over them. But you're probably right, so, explain it.

 

[RickInVA]

Now as Ahriman said, if this isn't your cup of tea, then that is entirely your opinion. In that case, though, Civ5 probably isn't the game for you. Indeed, Civ doesn't really sound like the game for you-given that every title in the series has at least *some* level of tactical level combat!

Aussie.

Aussie,

{sigh} I really wish you would stop trying to tell peple (myself included) what they might/should/will like or don't like. As I made very plain that I am a huge fan of tactical level wargames, but that in Civ I looked for something different, I would hope a reasonable person would realize that just because there is some tactical level considerations would not make me throw the baby out with the bathwater. As it occurs I think Civ4 is as close to perfect as a Civ game is likely to get for the style of play I like.

 

[RickInVA]

Let's put it this way, If I could lump as many men as I wanted into one place, invading Honshu would be easy.

But if, like in real life, I could not put my entire army into the Tokyo bay, then an invasion of Honshu becomes formidable, like in the real world.

Try planning a Pacific war campaign sometime it's hard, but not impossible.

The trick is to bypass the more formidable islands and attack the larger ones in places where the enemy is not, because he can't be every where.

Attacking Italy however becomes much more realistic, an overland attack is somewhat difficult, but a amphibious attack is much easier the Italians can not defend their entire coastline on a map of any reasonable scale.

Leaving aside the need to have an invasion where there is some possibility of landing supplies and reinforcemets later...your point is spot on for 20th century warfare. As said in previous posts for the vast majority of time the game of Civ covers this is not the way wars were fought, they were fought with the aim of destroying the enemy army, and the best way to acomplish this was to threaten a major city, draw out the opposing army, and have a slugfest.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Even in pre 20th century warfare there is no way the entire army of say France will be in one place the size of Paris.


@speed

Also the devs have likely already thought of this and have created larger maps, also there are going to be fewer units, so it's unlikely that the Aztecs will have a unit in every tile.

 

[Aesir Rising]

Aussie,

{sigh} I really wish you would stop

I gave up once I started being told I needed to distinguish between infinite stacking and unlimited stacking.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

I gave up once I started being told I needed to distinguish between infinite stacking and unlimited stacking.

just... I... Wow.

 

[Aesir Rising]

Yeah, I got rejected for writing:

Also, "infinite stacking" is all but irrelevant and probably only serves to confuse people in the topic discussion. The only person afaik that mentioned anything about unlimited or infinite stacking was Thyrwyn, and he was using it as a straw man argument. I personally know of no games that have infinite stacking rules. Not even Civ IV, since there are soft caps in place to prevent that (unit upkeep and maintanance, for example).

Then I got told I was being pedantic for use of the terms "hard" and "soft" limits. Pretty common and generally well-understood game terminology - used across a variety of game genre.

This conversation/argument became about winning the thread. I'm not on the debate team. I just don't accept the idea that 1UPT is automatically going to be a better tactical experience - which is what is being espoused here. I just as easily (or more easily) see a Civ V using an improved (over its predecessors) stacking ruleset that would be as (or more) tactically rich than anything a 1UPT system can provide. And after giving examples of other games where this is about a true and factual statement as is possible for a subjective topic, those examples were rejected for reasons I cannot understand.

Tangentially, I had to ask myself why the designers would move to 1UPT. The considerations that came up were along the lines of cross-platform development and having to plan for a possible console version of the game - and then msj0 added statements about 1UPT perhaps being easier to develop (simpler AI requirements, for example). Neither consideration seems to support 1UPT being inherently superior with respect to a tactical gaming experience. Not that Civ series games were ever primarily about unit-level tactics in the first place - being about as abstract a gaming experience as I can think of.

[Edited to add:
And I look forward to designers going into some detail about the 1UPT design decision. So far, the only two tid-bits were:
* liking it to Panzer General, and
* it will move combat out of the city tiles

Pretty sure you could do the 2nd point with a stacking ruleset. And while PG was highly-regarded, it says nothing whether that dynamic translates well to a Civ game, where as often as not my "funnest" games weren't Conquest victories. So, I look forward to designers going into some detail about the 1UPT design decision.

I am jazzed about hexes though. Always preferred them over tiles for outdoor maps. Better movement and direction of fire (or unit facing) mechanic and all.

 

[aziantuntija]

Then explain it to me. If there can be only 1 unit at a tile, wouldn't that make for instance the Maya's horribly underpowered. They have way less land tiles than the Aztecs, so the Aztecs can easily roll over them. But you're probably right, so, explain it.

Cause you are worried about Maya's army size in civV when playing on worldmap, i have to assume that you know what the civV's worldmap is going to look like. I dont know what the upcoming worldmap in civV looks like so i cannot discuss about that Maya's army size problem, heck i cant even be sure if there even is any problem with Maya's army size!

So if you want to continue this discusson, im going to have to ask you a picture of civV's worldmap, at least i need to know the number of hexes that Maya's have in the worldmap.

 

[need my speed]

Alright, it will be the exactly the same, including terrain, graphics, squares, civilizations, everything will be the same as the world map of Civilizations IV. You can't prove me wrong, so I am right?

In all seriousity (yeah...), what do you think the world map will look like then? Because apparantly, multiplying it by 5 or something to remove chokepoints is a stupid suggestion, so...We can be sure that the world will be realistic (with mountains and water etcetera) and of real size (you know what I mean, no super large Europe and super tiny Asia or something like that), so there are guaranted to be many chokepoints, unless everything is enlarged. I think.

 

[aziantuntija]

Alright, it will be the exactly the same, including terrain, graphics, squares, civilizations, everything will be the same as the world map of Civilizations IV. You can't prove me wrong, so I am right?

In all seriousity (yeah...), what do you think the world map will look like then? Because apparantly, multiplying it by 5 or something to remove chokepoints is a stupid suggestion, so...We can be sure that the world will be realistic (with mountains and water etcetera) and of real size (you know what I mean, no super large Europe and super tiny Asia or something like that), so there are guaranted to be many chokepoints, unless everything is enlarged. I think.

So basicly you are just angry cause the upcoming worldmap in civV isnt propably going to be balanced

But it wasnt balanced in civIV either so.. Maybe its just trying to be a worldmap.. And maybe youll just have to accept that fact that when your playing on a worldmap and your playing with English, your going to start from an island

 

[need my speed]

That was just an example to show that the only type of map we can still play will be pangea or continents or variations thereof (like hermispheres). Islands or maps with many chokepoints aren't going to work anymore in my opinion.

Where did I say I was angry? If that's the case, than you're happy that we can't play world maps anymore.

 

[aziantuntija]

That was just an example to show that the only type of map we can still play will be pangea or continents or variations thereof (like hermispheres). Islands or maps with many chokepoints aren't going to work anymore in my opinion.

Where did I say I was angry? If that's the case, than you're happy that we can't play world maps anymore.

i choose the wrong word, lets change the "angry" to "upset" better? English is not my native language so there can be lots of these kinds of mistakes in my writing

Well lets get back to business.

Islands or maps with many chokepoints aren't going to work anymore in my opinion.

That is like saying that the archers arent going to work anymore, because there cannot be stack of archers defending a city anymore. Maybe those maps are different from civIV, or maybe there is some other thing that we dont know yet.

You should really force yourself to understand that this is not Sid Meier's Civilization IV, and that this is not even a expansion pack to Sid Meier's Civilization IV. This is a whole new game and i really doubt that you have discovered something "that doesnt work" that Firaxis havent tought about at all, at least to the point when the game is finished and ready to hit the market. I really doubt that we are going to get a game where it seems like that the people who made the maps, didnt know there was going to be 1upt used in the game, and they would design the maps thinking that the units can be stacked up like before.

 

[need my speed]

Oh it doesn't matter, I'm also not a native English speaker. Some people just like throwing emotions and names out so...

Perhaps my imagination of what an archipelago map type should be, I want it to be hundreds of tiny islands with a few longer ones, but still tiny ones, inbetween. Of course, I realize Firaxis will think of something, but it still worries me a bit. On the positive side, having 1 unit per tile would result in larger Earth maps, or so I hope.

 

[RickInVA]

This is a whole new game and i really doubt that you have discovered something "that doesnt work" that Firaxis havent tought about at all, at least to the point when the game is finished and ready to hit the market. I really doubt that we are going to get a game where it seems like that the people who made the maps, didnt know there was going to be 1upt used in the game, and they would design the maps thinking that the units can be stacked up like before.

While I hope that that is the case, but its not like there has never been a game realease before where the game just "didn't work" for one reason or another. If you can think of a game that you consider to be "bad", I am sure that whatever about it you think of as "bad" was a feature gladly agreed to by the game design team. Probably they thought it would be great! I doubt many designers sit around thinking "Lets design a real flop today!", yet flops happen.

 

[aziantuntija]

need my speed i also expect the maps to be bigger than we have ever seen before, i also think that theyl have to do it because 1upt

While I hope that that is the case, but its not like there has never been a game realease before where the game just "didn't work" for one reason or another. If you can think of a game that you consider to be "bad", I am sure that whatever about it you think of as "bad" was a feature gladly agreed to by the game design team. Probably they thought it would be great! I doubt many designers sit around thinking "Lets design a real flop today!", yet flops happen.

Well ofcourse bad games do exist and sometimes the designers might of tought that "this would be great" but it turns out to be total flop. But you know what i think? I think that we can really forget that total flop thingie with Civilization series, i really think that we are going to get a good game from Sid. I have played civilization games since the first piece, i have played Sid Meyer's Gettysburg in the 90's and Sid Meyer's Pirates, they are all good games. i have never went back to the old Civilization once there has been a new civ game to play, because the new civ has ALWAYS corrected something that i really didnt like at the old one.

 

[Harvin87]

I think I'm missing something, could somebody tell me if you encircle a unit... would it make a difference if you attack from a flank or from the rear?