Where are you supposed to house your troops?

Can you post a source for this please? If this is actually true it will completely ruin the game for me.

No real source, more interpretation.

Consider the fact that they said units will actually use the resources you have(ie. 5 units/iron), as well as require upkeep every turn and consider that the game is 1upt.

I may have been exaggerating when i said 15 units would be a huge army in the late game, but I think it would be a very large army in medieval times.

If you have 2 iron resources and 1 horse resource, you can build 5 knights and 5 swordsman(for example), you acquire an iron resource in a trade from a city state and now have an additional 5 swordsmen

right there is 15 units and it required you to have 4 resources in total, 3 iron and a horse.

Now I don't know how prevalent resources will be in Civ V, but I would hope they are worth going to war over. If I found my capital city and theres 2 iron and a horse in the BFC(big fat... circle?), then I'm really hoping I just got a really lucky start and this isn't something to be expected from most games.
 
No real source, more interpretation.

Consider the fact that they said units will actually use the resources you have(ie. 5 units/iron), as well as require upkeep every turn and consider that the game is 1upt.

I may have been exaggerating when i said 15 units would be a huge army in the late game, but I think it would be a very large army in medieval times.

If you have 2 iron resources and 1 horse resource, you can build 5 knights and 5 swordsman(for example), you acquire an iron resource in a trade from a city state and now have an additional 5 swordsmen

right there is 15 units and it required you to have 4 resources in total, 3 iron and a horse.

Now I don't know how prevalent resources will be in Civ V, but I would hope they are worth going to war over. If I found my capital city and theres 2 iron and a horse in the BFC(big fat... circle?), then I'm really hoping I just got a really lucky start and this isn't something to be expected from most games.

Don't forget you'll need some archers and catapults as well, and a navy......
 
I've been getting the impression that most units will require resources (this is speculation though), I wouldn't be completely surprised if you needed oak to create archers for instance
 
I believe that a nation will be able to make enough defense units without any specific resource...
I think of the like as civ4 warrior, archer, longbowman, musketman, infantry, machine gun, anti tank...
 
Seems to me that there will be basic units like warriors, infantry etc that will not require resources. But that special units will... Spears, Swords, knights, Airplanes, ships, tanks. There will have to be. Otherwise resources would have to be more abundant.
As far as housing troops. I am thinking a resting place like the tent idea would be great. Perhaps even the parking garage like a fort where all troops are housed until you go on the offensive. Once war has been declared or war economy implemented troops are shown and can be moved.
I love the idea of 1upt... long protracted lines of troops would be very cool. Especially if they could dig into terrain and create trenches and lines. (picturing the Maginot line or Seigfried Line).
 
I see your point, but one of the purposes of 1upt is that you shouldn't have vast amounts of units.

This the part of the game I think will be lame.
I remember reading about armies of hundreds of thousands of units used by empires like ancient Egypt or Greece.
They may have just a spear, or chariot, but, they were huge.
Perhaps, they should base the army sizes on the materials used in construction.
A Knight needs Horse resourse, Iron resourse, and varies techs.
Where a stone slinger could have few limits at all, perhaps, the population of your cities -1 (need to leave 1 behind to be a city).

and
I've been getting the impression that most units will require resources (this is speculation though), I wouldn't be completely surprised if you needed oak to create archers for instance.

Should be Yew resourse for Bows. ;)
 
It's always possible they'll be "housed" off-board, with some sort of special rules governing deployment. With the elimination of infrastructure, and units that seem to get routed rather than killed (?), that's certainly possible.
 
This the part of the game I think will be lame.
I remember reading about armies of hundreds of thousands of units used by empires like ancient Egypt or Greece.

Hundreds of thousands of units? I don't think so!! Rome had like 50-60 legions in the field, generally.
 
So based on the size of board wouldn't the army that fills a hex be considered a legion sized or division size? If so that unit would have to act more like an army rather than a specialist like a bowman or sword I ould think.
 
Armies equal to or greater than 100,000 men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramesses_II
Campaigns and battles
Ramesses II as a child (Cairo Museum)Early in his life, Ramesses II embarked on numerous campaigns to return previously held territories back from Nubian and Hittite hands and to secure Egypt's borders. He was also responsible for suppressing some Nubian revolts and carrying out a campaign in Libya. Although the famous Battle of Kadesh often dominates the scholarly view of Ramesses II's military prowess and power, he nevertheless enjoyed more than a few outright victories over the enemies of Egypt. During Ramesses II's reign, the Egyptian army is estimated to have totaled about 100,000 men; a formidable force that he used to strengthen Egyptian influence.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Punic_War
Western Mediterranean (218 BC - 213 BC)
Hannibal's overland journey
Route of Hannibal's invasion of ItalyThe Carthaginian army in Iberia, excluding the forces in Africa, totaled, according to Polybius,[3] 90,000 infantry, 12,000 cavalry and an unknown number of war elephants and was thus one of the largest in the Hellenistic world and equal in numbers to any that the Romans had yet fielded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonidas
and "300 Spartans were assembled in an attempt to hold the pass of Thermopylae against a massive Persian army of between 80,000 and 290,000 men-at-arms who had invaded from the north of Greece under Xerxes I. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_warfare
The Magadha Empire further east in northern and eastern India and Bengal had an army of 6000 war elephants, 80,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry and 8000 armed chariots. Had Alexander the Great decided to continue his campaign in India, he could have faced extremely strong opposition from such a large army.
the Maurya Empire was recognized as a great power by the Hellenistic World, and the kings of Egypt and Syria sent their own ambassadors to his court. According to Megasthenes, Chandragupta Maurya built an army consisting of 30,000 cavalry, 9000 war elephants, and 600,000 infantry, which was the largest army known in the ancient world. Ashoka the Great went on to expand the Maurya Empire to almost all of South Asia, along with much of Afghanistan and parts of Persia. Ashoka eventually gave up on warfare after converting to Buddhism.
The Qin army was said to have had 1,000,000 men.

All as quoted from the wikipedia.

So, how many will I be able to build in Civ V, If I play Egypt? or Persia? or China?
3? 5? can I reach 10 units?
Will these squads of 16 units represent 100 men? or 1000 men? or 10,000 men?
Stacks, however annoying, did try to represent more units.
There were large armies in the past, and Civ V promises to REDUCE the low numbers we already have in Civ4.
This I find disappointing.
I look to test my strategy skills with large number of troops, and conquering the world, not, suffer because someone built a flawed game, that is losing its Fun factor, in favor of some new idea about game mechanics.
:(
 
I think it is a little to early to call the combat system flawed.

How can you say a system is flawed until you actually know how it works?:crazyeye:

From hwat I have been reading, and also my own opinion is that It's been a common opinion that combat in the past was flawed. Lets see what happens with the new system before we say it doesn't work.;)

If they allow a player to control more resources then before it may be possible to have an army of 20 - 30 specialized units and just as many non specialized.

In Civ 4 I would always build my stacks based on what the guy I was going after had. If he had 20 horse based units in a stack I would build mine using spears or pikes and make just as many. If he had 60 I would make 60 if he had 10 I would make 10... In version V they just may have less than I would see in IV.

I love the implications of bidding over a particular resource with a niegbor so that I can make more units or a particular type of unit. I love the implications of a particular resource being on a border and countries fighting over it. Or rushing to capture resources and having that country have to come out the city and stop me or risk everything.

It's not just about my stack being larger or stronger than your stack anymore it's about putting your armies in the right place at the right times, defending resources and particular hexes, while vying and squabbling with your allies for control of even more resources.

It makes you really need to defend that ally of yours with all the resources who really isn't interested in fighting so you can.

It's really a whole new dimension in combat and diplomacy and above board resource management and strategy that none of the other games ever had.
 
How can you say a system is flawed until you actually know how it works?:crazyeye:

Truth. I think we can all agree that more information on some of the gameplay particulars would be very much appreciated. It's about time those floodgates opened. Perhaps at E3?
 
I think this will be good. It will make combat more realistic. Think of it as you controlling Divisions instead of companies of troops. Many interesting tactical considerations arise of this. I think movement speed will be VERY Important in Civ 5. Especially in modern warfare....It also brings the interesting dynamic of troop transport via helicopters and transport planes (which really help troop speed)....a possible scenario would be that a small tactical team over runs an airfield (or whatever they might have in CIV 5) via helicopter insertion after bombardment by bombers and fighters....they are then reinforced by a landing transport plane that lands on the airfield you just captured....and now you have a Foward Operating Base to launch into your enemies territory with a connection to your other territories....It also makes more sense because in modern times you didnt have Infantry just hiking across the continent on foot there were supply chains, and operations launched from FOBs that were set up.
 
Armies equal to or greater than 100,000 men.

So, how many will I be able to build in Civ V, If I play Egypt? or Persia? or China?
3? 5? can I reach 10 units?
Will these squads of 16 units represent 100 men? or 1000 men? or 10,000 men?
Stacks, however annoying, did try to represent more units.
There were large armies in the past, and Civ V promises to REDUCE the low numbers we already have in Civ4.
This I find disappointing.
I look to test my strategy skills with large number of troops, and conquering the world, not, suffer because someone built a flawed game, that is losing its Fun factor, in favor of some new idea about game mechanics.
:(

1 UNIT= 1 hundred to 1 million men (depending on the unit.. and whether or not you have women in your military)

Just like 1 population point represents 10,000 to 10 million people


Civ 5 will move to MORE 'units' than Civ 4.

In Civ 4 you had your 'SoD unit', maybe 2 or even 3 of them and your 'defensive stack units' in the cities

In Civ 5 you will have 'defensive city units' (immobile automatic defenses) and several units on several tiles... or a few dozen units on a few dozen tiles.

Thinking of units as Armies might be the best. (how many armies does your empire need?)
 
1 UNIT= 1 hundred to 1 million men (depending on the unit.. and whether or not you have women in your military)

Just like 1 population point represents 10,000 to 10 million people


Civ 5 will move to MORE 'units' than Civ 4.

In Civ 4 you had your 'SoD unit', maybe 2 or even 3 of them and your 'defensive stack units' in the cities

In Civ 5 you will have 'defensive city units' (immobile automatic defenses) and several units on several tiles... or a few dozen units on a few dozen tiles.

Thinking of units as Armies might be the best. (how many armies does your empire need?)

This is certainly true and you make an excellent point. However, I think the concern that a lot of us have is that a large part of the military gameplay from the previous Civ games was the creation of your stacks (the composition, promotion mix, etc.) This took a lot of game time and it was something that was pretty enjoyable and strategic. I think a lot of us are wondering what they're going to replace that depth with now that it's gone.
 
This is certainly true and you make an excellent point. However, I think the concern that a lot of us have is that a large part of the military gameplay from the previous Civ games was the creation of your stacks (the composition, promotion mix, etc.) This took a lot of game time and it was something that was pretty enjoyable and strategic. I think a lot of us are wondering what they're going to replace that depth with now that it's gone.
I figure that there will be a lot more chokepoints in the map than in previous games. For example, in Civilization 4, rivers do not form a natural barrier against invasion. At best, they grant a penalty to the attacker, and if your opponent's units have Amphibious, which any good player should have, they might as well not exist. Perhaps rivers and similar terrain features will become impassable without bridges or transports to allow units to cross them. Maybe the defender can even blow up bridges to prevent attackers from getting across.
 
This is certainly true and you make an excellent point. However, I think the concern that a lot of us have is that a large part of the military gameplay from the previous Civ games was the creation of your stacks (the composition, promotion mix, etc.) This took a lot of game time and it was something that was pretty enjoyable and strategic. I think a lot of us are wondering what they're going to replace that depth with now that it's gone.

Instead of stacks one will have
"Blocks", "Blobs", or "Squares"

Groups of units where you not only control What is in the group, but Where it is in the group (and that will change in different terrains.... so you will move your block around changing the configuration to make sure the weak units stay protected and the right units are in front.)
 
So based on the size of board wouldn't the army that fills a hex be considered a legion sized or division size? If so that unit would have to act more like an army rather than a specialist like a bowman or sword I ould think.

So your arguing for having one all purpose unit? lol j/k
 
@ Plasmacannon. I really think you've got an issue with the *scale* that a unit represents. Just because there's 4 men in a Civ4 "Unit", doesn't mean that the unit represents *only* 4 men (a squad). Instead I think its probably better to think of a Civ4 Unit as anything from a Battalion (around 1,000 men) up to a Brigade (around 5,000 men). In Civ5, due to their greater rarity, difficulty to kill outright, & the greater number of actual "men" in the unit (judging from early screen-shots showing about 2x as many men as in Civ4). I'm guessing that a Civ5 unit will represent anything from a Division (around 20,000 men) to a Corps (around 30,000 to 40,000 men). In such a case, it would be very easy to simulate an army of 200,000 men (& equipment) with only 5 to 10 individual units. On an open grassland space, it would be very easy to line up a 4x3 "grid" of units (so 12 units total) in a 1upt system-representing an army of at *least* 240,000 soldiers (infantry, cavalry etc etc). Even resource limitations won't cause you to have small armies in historical terms. Also, far from trying to represent more men, I found huge stacks of units extremely tedious to create & move-& the subsequent combat between stacks was completely uninspiring. With a 1upt system in which you have fewer, but *larger* units, at least you have greater control of the battlefield tactics than if you simply smash 1 stack into another & hope for the best!

Aussie.
 
Back
Top Bottom