Units aren't destroyed if they lose a battle!
- Thread starter Takeda
- Start date
bob rulz
Prince
The more I think about a limit of 1 unit per hexagon, the less I like it. I just have problems seeing how it is going to make a fun Civilization game. I'm building a huge empire - I want to have huge armies go with that. A single tile represents hundreds of square miles of. You can fit a LOT of troops into hundreds of square miles.
However, making it so that units can be weakened but not necessarily killed in battle, with retreat, suppression, and other similar tactics (including possibly surrender) implemented would help alleviate this somewhat.
I still have faith that Firaxis will make this work though.
However, making it so that units can be weakened but not necessarily killed in battle, with retreat, suppression, and other similar tactics (including possibly surrender) implemented would help alleviate this somewhat.
I still have faith that Firaxis will make this work though.
funat
Chieftain
@ Bob yeah it's going to be a little unrealistic, it's important to consider that a 'unit' is not in fact a single tank or spearman, but rather a division of soldiers with a single, or small number of individuals displayed for graphical convenience. That still doesn't entirely fix the scale problem, but Civ has never had perfect scale, and it never will because it would detract to severely from gameplay. Having the tactical battles should be fun, and a good amount of fun allows me to easily overlook something a little unrealistic.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
One thing I believe they Will have to support this are armies like in Civ Rev/Civ 3, where you can irreversibly combine some units.
Combined with massive maintenance and repair costs this should allow a large empire to put a lot of their economy into their military.
Minor Annoyance
Deity
I'm assuming the way it works is units have hitpoints but much fewer, like three, and each loss lakes off one. This would all be to add to the plan of having "fronts" and lines that can block. If a unit takes at least three turns to kill, you'd have to partly surround it to take it out quickly. But assuming they have a line of units you can't do that, and also killing one unit would open one hole in the like that one unit could enter at a time (actually with the two movement points for basic units it would be two units), but the enemy would likely reposition a tile back to keep the line intact.
This all sounds a lot more fun than having single tile armies that can walk around my single tile army so all serious action only happens at the city where one can be sure an attacked will need to go.
This all sounds a lot more fun than having single tile armies that can walk around my single tile army so all serious action only happens at the city where one can be sure an attacked will need to go.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
More likely a high number of 'hp' like 100.
In any battle both sides lose hp, but a unit only loses all its hp if it is seriously outmatched.
In any battle both sides lose hp, but a unit only loses all its hp if it is seriously outmatched.
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
The problem is: they based the combat model off of Panzer General. Panzer General had alot of units, on huge maps.
But for whatever reason... they nerfed unit numbers, so they probably realized that with so few units, it wouldn't work... so now they are close to impossible to kill.
Sure, having 9000 units on a map is tedious; but it is fun for myself, I like Huge Battles; even on small maps. If they went in-between I would be fine with that.
But when they go on some rampant extreme that is WAAAAY off-base of every Civilization game so far, I have to be extremely skeptical. 5 units for 1/4th of the game; and maybe 20 in the end-game. I might fall asleep while playing.
And with only 5 units, they might as well let you stack em... makes no difference with scarce nothing to play with.
But for whatever reason... they nerfed unit numbers, so they probably realized that with so few units, it wouldn't work... so now they are close to impossible to kill.
Sure, having 9000 units on a map is tedious; but it is fun for myself, I like Huge Battles; even on small maps. If they went in-between I would be fine with that.
But when they go on some rampant extreme that is WAAAAY off-base of every Civilization game so far, I have to be extremely skeptical. 5 units for 1/4th of the game; and maybe 20 in the end-game. I might fall asleep while playing.
And with only 5 units, they might as well let you stack em... makes no difference with scarce nothing to play with.
Maybe resources will be much more plentiful . . . Would solve that issue to a degree.
Fair enough. I guess it comes down to play styles. I personally prefer smaller amounts of units. I don't want to be bothered with hundreds of units.
I am reminded of someone's take on Railroad tycoon (old, old game). I think it might have been Sid Meir actually. He said something like, everyone plays for a different reason. Some people like building trains and operating the railways. One person he knew though, would sell off all his trains and just play the stock market the rest of the game because that's what he was truly interested in.
So, the smaller number of units will appeal to me anyway but not others. Hopefully there will be mods for people that like things the other way.
r_rolo1
King of myself
But that would make the capping of units to resource number * X virtually meaningless ....
I mentioned it earlier but
This review http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p2.html
has a story about them running test games on the AI and it talks about the AI building 6 warriors to go and rush a city-state in the early game. (And also of some of the warriors dying to barbs on the way to the city-state)
As I've read them over again it is really causing me to rethink my speculation on slower unit production and higher maint costs even tho some reviews outright say that it is slower/higher.
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Perhaps warriors are particularly cheap units... costing say 1/3 of the next best unit.
You keep mentioning this 5 unit limit, what is your source for this?
Minor Annoyance
Deity
I've heard five units per resource, i.e. five swordsmen with one iron. If five units were all you were ever going to have there would be no need to limit resource units that was. So I don't think five total units is at all right.
Ahriman
Tyrant
It was a hypothetical example used in one of the developer interviews. Those kind of numbers won't be final at all until they're done playtesting (ie; just before they release).
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
It might be terrific, I'm not trying to bring bad vibes (although I probably am with my straightforward bluntness), there is a limit that is known which is between 1 and 5 unit per resource able to be built. The numbers of units that can be built obviously depends on size of the map, but from what they have said, it is in agreement that it will be less than Civ 4.
Perhaps it will be a refreshing change of pace. I'm sure the game will be fun. Seems like they are changing things too drastically away from what made Civ such a hit; from Civ 1, 2, and 3... and even 4. Just as much seems to have been eliminated as new features added.
And it doesn't make sense why they need to so desperately look at other games combat models to make one, instead of coming up with one that they believe fits Civ-style gameplay. Have they lost their imagination?
Yeah, but for all we know iron (and other resources) might be way more common than Civ 4.
You also have to consider that not all units will require resources. Archers and catapults are unlikely to require iron. So if you have 2 sources of iron, you can field 10 swordsmen and as many archers and catapults as you want.
That's a far cry from only 5 units total, no?
You also have to consider that not all units will require resources. Archers and catapults are unlikely to require iron. So if you have 2 sources of iron, you can field 10 swordsmen and as many archers and catapults as you want.
That's a far cry from only 5 units total, no?
tom2050
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 5,516
ArataWata11
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 54
As some love to say "Where is the source that says this, speculation is not fact"
Agreed!
I think that's purely speculation or perhaps misquotes or exaggerates the recent preview where they site for example one iron resources is good for at least 4 iron based units. 
