What is so great about the combat?

[MkLh]

I've only played a bit of the demo, but I can't understand why people talk so much about the combat and how much better it is. You can no longer have a stack of doom, but I don't think there's anything really inspiring in only being able to have one unit per tile. You can throw around the word "tactical" and whatnot, but I wish there was more to be excited about that this and various other new limitations.

It could be a huge thing, but now it seems (ok, tested only on Prince) that the AI simply can't handle this 1UPT thing. No wonder, defending against human without ability to stack units in city etc. really is an extremely difficult AI problem.

 

[SuperJay]

However - they really need to add a "swap places" option so you can take a turn and have two units exchange positions. (Maybe I missed that command...)

That option is indeed included - I think it's an inherent function in the Move order, not a separate command. If you tell one unit to move into a hex occupied by another unit (and that unit has available moves left in this turn), they'll automatically trade places.

And yeah, 1UPT all by itself is nice, but it's the combination of that change, the move to hexes, the addition of truly ranged combat, and the removal of the zero-sum game that all work together to make Civ5's combat a sweet, delicious milkshake of pure joy.

 

[duxup]

I've only played a bit of the demo, but I can't understand why people talk so much about the combat and how much better it is. You can no longer have a stack of doom, but I don't think there's anything really inspiring in only being able to have one unit per tile. You can throw around the word "tactical" and whatnot, but I wish there was more to be excited about that this and various other new limitations.

The stack of doom was about as uninspiring as it gets. It was just a lot of unit management to replenish / shuffle stack(s).

I think making decisions on who is on the front lines, who makes the landing first, where to advance to, and geographic considerations is a lot more fun (and yes tactical).

 

[Yxklyx]

I didn't have an issue with SoD per se, rather, I thought there were just too many units being built by the AI. Another issue with SoD was the AI that could have been improved. I think the concept of SoD was just fine - it's the AI that needed to be worked on - imagine an AI sending multiple armies against multiple cities - now that would be cool.

 

[Mivo]

I prefer the new combat system because it's more like a board game. Or as Pawel said, closer to the classic style of strategy gaming (Panzer General etc.). It's also fairly intuitive and encourages positional playing and generally fewer combat units. Unfortunately, this makes it more challenging to program a decent AI (that understands concepts like choke points), and Civ5 is pretty weak in that respect. Mods and patches will hopefully address this.

 

[jjkrause84]

Well, a couple things, and not *just* the 1 upt but also the ranged rules and the end of winner-take-all combat.

Combined arms means something now - because you don't have two stacks slugging it out face-to-face, the battlefield ranges across the map a bit more. Which means that you can't rely on having all your units in the best defensive terrain. So it makes sense to have a mix of units that take advantage of different terrains, and then jockeying to make sure that each unit is used to its best advantage. Also, the new combat rules mean that you'll have a lot more damaged units running around, and managing your combat to successfully pass units back and forth from the front becomes crucial. Finally, you can no longer send your SOD directly to the schwerpunkt - you have to jockey around it and scrum over it. (as an add on, the fact that cavalry now serves their correct historical function is AWESOME)

Yep!

And....+1 for using the word schwerpunkt

 

[TheArsenal]

It's not just removal the SOD which is good, but additionally, the sheer reduction in the number of units on the map. I like to play on Huge Maps. Building and moving unit after unit, particularly for something like prepping SODs for a full scale cross continent invasion to meet the AIs SODs, was the definition of tedium. It is why, IMO, the late game could devolve into drudgery.

 

[SuperJay]

The stack of doom was about as uninspiring as it gets. It was just a lot of unit management to replenish / shuffle stack(s).

^ This.

Anyone who doesn't yet see it - comparing the old SoD combat system and the new Civ5 combat system is like comparing a drunken brawl with grandmaster kung-fu. One is just pure brute force, the other is elegant, refined, and made of awesome.

SoD combat wasn't even about combat, it was about production. Battles were won before the units even clashed - you won or lost at the Barracks in your cities, not on the battlefield. I never felt like a general maneuvering my troops in any previous Civ game - more like an accountant, checking off columns of production queues.

If you wanna be an accountant, play Civ4. If you want to be a general, Civ5 is the way to go.

 

[DoubleAG]

My only experience with the civilization series was civ rev, civ 4 and now civ 5. SoD's were absolutely ridiculous in civ 4 to the point that I stopped playing it until close to the civ 5 release. I can't understand how anyone could possibly want to go back to that. Here's an average siege battle in Civ 4.

You build a stack of siege units and melee units. You bring that stack over to the enemy city filled with archers and spearmen (or the modern equivalent). Oh and thanks to the ridiculous defensive bonuses for cities don't be surprised if you lose a few modern units to medieval archers. Anyways, you get to the city and bombard its defenses. Then you sacrifice some of your siege units to get collateral damage. Finally you move your infantry in and repeat until you've conquered the enemy civilization.

Here's an example of a Civ 5 seige. You move your forces towards an enemy city. Your melee units are in the front and your archers and siege units (and maybe some cavalry) are in the back. You see the opposing army entrenched in the forests and hills surronding the city. You use your siege units and archers to soften them up, then you move you melee units in to finish them off. You place your seige units on the hills surrounding the city and your melee units in front to absorb the city attack and to defend from a possible counter attack. Your siege units bombard the city and your melee units move in and capture it.

Can someone please explain how anyone could possibly enjoy civ 4 combat more?

 

[Txurce]

Meh. Everyone used SoD for years and years. Now suddenly we see how horrible that was? Not really.

Suppose we had 1UPT in Civ III and Civ IV with hexes, and then suddenly in Civ V the Great New Thing is Square Tiles and (drum roll) introducing the wondrous and illustrious SoD game play. The band wagon would be playing the same tune only opposite.

Not that big of a deal really. If it's new it must be better is not true. What is true is that you can get used to either.

It's as big of a deal as switching from checkers to chess. You wouldn't know if you'd never played chess before, though. Then you might think it's the same a going from chess to checkers.

 

[SuperJay]

Can someone please explain how anyone could possibly enjoy civ 4 combat more?

If you don't really like to think tactically (gosh, there's that word again!) or prefer not to think at all - and just want a very simple "MORE UNITS = I WIN" system, then you'd like Civ 4 combat more.

Ironically, it seems many of the same people complaining about the Civ 5 combat system are also complaining that the game was over-simplified.

 

[jjkrause84]

The SoD problem could have been largely solved in Civ4 ahd they simply let the attacker choose what unit to attack in the enemy stack. It would not be as good a system as 1UPT is, but it would have been a fairly simple (I imagine) way of greatly discouraging SoD's in Civ4....also adding ZoC would have helped as well.

Maybe there's a mod for this?

 

[duxup]

The SoD problem could have been largely solved in Civ4 ahd they simply let the attacker choose what unit to attack in the enemy stack. It would not be as good a system as 1UPT is, but it would have been a fairly simple (I imagine) way of greatly discouraging SoD's in Civ4....also adding ZoC would have helped as well.

Maybe there's a mod for this?

I don't think solving the SoD was ever really a possibility in Civ4. The SoDs came about not just because it was possible to have big stacks but unit production also allowed it. Also the pain of the SoDs was IMO as much from managing them (sorting them out, replenishing them, etc)

 

[ohioastronomy]

There are numbers between 1 and infinity, and a more modest stacking limit could have achieved the same thing about massive units stacks while preserving a semi-intelligent AI. Even a limit of 2 would be a much better game because the AI could escort vulnerable ranged units more easily.

If you have experience in wargames you can run circles around the AI. And playing a game against incompetent AI opponents with huge artificial advantages is not the same as playing an even game, sorry; so upping the "difficulty" level isn't a substitute.

 

[dworkin]

I've only had time for a few hours play but I'm now thinking of my units as a mob o' doom. The mob consists of almost every unit since cities seem semi-capable of defending themselves long enough for the mob to turn up and kill everything.

The combat is different. Before attacking I have to choose how. Do I soften up with archers and kill with melee or the other way around to prevent putting my fighters in an exposed hex? Is the general currently in the right place and does he have moves to assist all the battles I want? Can he be in place to aid those I figure will get attacked?
Where do I put the artillary? Do I buy an extra unit since that could make all the difference? Are my ships in place to guard against coastal attacks?

It seems very thinky atm.

 

[NCC81701]

Suggestions being thrown around that limited stacking should be allowed is fundamentally flawed. One of the key issues w/ SoD was that you had no choice at which units you wish to attack within the stack, which makes combat completely mindless as you throw either more units or better units at the stack to defeat it.

On the other hand if you are allow to choose which units to attack within the stack then there is no point in stacking as you can simply choose to kill the artillery and supporting unit one by one. If you stack multiple of the same unit to make the stack stronger, then there is no difference in balancing the game such that the original unit was stronger in the first place but takes longer to build.

W/ the 1upt system now, you have more choices on which units you want to attack limited by terrain and positioning. It actually takes some thinking in how your army approach the field, positioning of each unit, and the order in which each unit is destroyed. Each unit is now more valuable since it provides an offensive function in attack, and blocking function in defense.

Overall SoD was never fun, you simply build more or better versions of the same units and throw them at each other. Sacrificing artillery units to do collateral damage to a stack never really made sense. 1upt is clearly a superior system and the game is better for it.

 

[Lillefix]

Sounds like they reuse the same random seed when reloading. Don't know how it was in Civ 4, but maybe they do this to prevent people from going back to "rewrite history" It may be a bug.

You can turn it on and off in the options. Like in every civ game since civ2.

 

[jjkrause84]

I don't think solving the SoD was ever really a possibility in Civ4. The SoDs came about not just because it was possible to have big stacks but unit production also allowed it. Also the pain of the SoDs was IMO as much from managing them (sorting them out, replenishing them, etc)

You're probably right. I guess for me the most frustrating thing was that it was impossibel to take down a balanced stack...my knights would always (logically) charge head-long into enemy pikemen!

Thank God we've got 1UPT now.

 

[el_hidalgo]

The SoD problem could have been largely solved in Civ4 ahd they simply let the attacker choose what unit to attack in the enemy stack. It would not be as good a system as 1UPT is, but it would have been a fairly simple (I imagine) way of greatly discouraging SoD's in Civ4....also adding ZoC would have helped as well.

Maybe there's a mod for this?

ZoC would be really cool. Definitely beyond my modest modding abilities. There are easier ways of discouraging SoD's in Civ4 through modding, however. For example, adding unit maintenance costs to all civics (as apply to Pacifism now) or adding additional maintenance costs or UnitCombatTargets in UnitInfos. Or you can go to the UnitClassInfos file and mess with these values:

iMaxGlobalInstances The number of this unit that can exist at one time in the world; -1 means no limit.
iMaxTeamInstances The number of this unit that can exist at one time in one team; -1 means no limit.
iMaxPlayerInstances The number of this unit that can exist at one time in each civilization; -1 means no limit.
iInstanceCostModifier The percent increase to the cost of the unit for every one that exists; normally 0.

Might not be the most elegant solution, and wouldn't necessarily discourage SoD's from being formed, but it would force you to think more about the size and composition of your army, and how much emphasis to give to defense rather than offense, given the limitations you would be faced with.

 

[WuphonsReach]

So, after 24+ hours (eep) of play...

- Zone of control around melee units is good. I want to see that expanded to have a range of 2 tiles instead of just one on advanced units, or units based out of a fort. Modern era weapons should also have a larger zone of control, possibly up to a range of 3 tiles for certain units (or units sitting inside of forts or cities).

- The great general building (citadel) is under-powered. It needs to exert a larger zone of control and do a lot more damage by era. Right now, I'm far more likely to just have my GG trail my units around.

- Archer range of 2 is great, but that should expand to a range of 3 with modern-era weapons (anything past gunpowder). Things like field artillery should have a range of 3, while a modern mortar team still has a range of 2.

- City bombard range should be upgradeable once you get past gunpowder to a range of 3. That will let cities help defend their entire territory.

- One combat unit per tile is interesting. One the whole I like it. It does make it slow to turn an army around and change direction. Which is actually enjoyable and somewhat real-life because armies can't change from pointing north to pointing south in a heartbeat. There's a lot of confusion if you have to reorient everything at the last minute to meet a threat from a different axis.

- There are a few changes that I'd like to see with regards to allowing limited stacking. If one unit is fortified, it should act as the defender, while another unit can sit on the same tile and do offensive attacks.

- The AI does not understand the concept of moving multiple units together. Instead it will race faster units ahead of the pack. In a 1UPT system, with range attacks, an army needs to move as a blob and not as individual units.

- The AI does not grasp the concept of "this hex is not safe". The AI needs to be changed so that it understands potential danger of ending a turn on a particular tile (that city will shoot at me, those archers will shoot at me). People have reported embarked enemy land units staying offshore and getting picked off by a city's ranged attack.

- Not sure that the AI grasps the concept of "bring siege engines" before tackling cities.