Why 1upt? (serious question/idea)

[PawelS]

@man-erg: It's not a bad idea, it would be something like CTP combat. But I still prefer 1upt.

 

[bitula]

Sorry to pour some water into the wine, but it sounds a bit like SoD with best defender first. Just not on one hex, but spread out.

If you see a difference, you would have to explain in more detail.

Why so? If may become "SoDish" if there is not enough terrain to unpack. But it is absolutely 1UPT in most cases. Note, in my proposed implementation, by default you cannot attack with a stack, nor can you defend with a stack.

 

[bitula]

Rule a) Limit stacks. 5 units per tile, end of story.
Rule b) All combat is assessed in 1 go, taking all elements of a stack into account. 1 click on your stack, 1 click on the enemy. Then casualties are calculated, units retreat etc based on a combat results table.

Limit makes no sense. You can limit it yourself in SoD. Just don't put more than five in a tile...
The other idea has nothing to do with incorporating 1UPT concept. It is a simple stack without the ability to micromanage the battle...

 

[Gustavberner]

a vision for CIVs combat system.

There is no more 1. unit per tile, but there is a stacking limit.


The stacking limit increases with technological advances. This reflects how advances in infrastructure and logistics makes bigger armies possible.

so until the first "logistics" tech is aquired then you are stuck with 1UPT. Then you maybe get 2, then 3, etc. (I am not sure what numbers will be correct) Units in the largest possible stack (depending on current tech level) would incur an increased upkeep cost when not in your territory, it is after all expensive to maintain an army in the field.

To balance these stacks:

a system of flanking is enacted

basically a supporting attacks mechanism is enacted. If you have units on tiles adjacent to your target then you get a bonus to your attack. Basically you are rewarded for manouvering so that your opponenets stack is isolated and that you surround it. If a unit is completely surrounded then it is "CUT OFF" and incurs a huge penalty. This a stack of Doom might be the armoured fist that you need but it is also vulnerable and expensive.

I believe something like this would solve the Stack 'o Doom problem as well as the annoyances caused by "1UPt"- Also in the early game we would see strong armies making beelines for cities (like they had to do) and in the late game this would be long battlefronts.
a PS:
unit combos:

What if certain combinations of unit gave increased bonusses. Say if your stack contains both infantry and archers both my fight better.

also on artillery (and ranged units which I would purge from the game) - What if your cannon instead of actually attacking and figthing gave a certain promotion to your riflemen- either permanently (like a great general) or temporary (as long as they share a stack)



advantages:
Armies would behave more "historically" - a single strong army in the ancient/medieval and large fronts in the later game.

Their would be stacking. Thus easing traffic and pathfinding- but the stacks are limited and you are punished for letting yourself be flanked and even surrounded. Combined arms would be encouraged.

Is this modable I wonder and do you see any glaring problems?

 

[Humakty]

I'd rather have unlimited stacking with growing combat malus the more you pile units up.

1 UpT is a real PITA at times, even if its miles ahead of civ 4 system to represent modern warfare and any time period guerilla tactics.

 

[bitula]

The stacking limit increases with technological advances.

But what do you think makes this realistic or historical? Ages pass and troops get thinner - "miniaturization" - so they fit in a smaller place? This just makes 1UPts obsolete and reduces the element of tactics towards the end game. I think we should think out revised 1UPts and not revised SoDs, because if we go with SoD, why would we ever play Civ5 at all. 1UPt is said to be its main feature.

 

[Civgeek]

That is the commonly made error:
1upt (if implemented correctly, and in Civ5 it is not) is tactically superior.

The problem is that in Civ, you are playing on the strategic map.

.....

Point is, performing the 1upt on the strategic map doesn't make much sense.

For those of us that are old-school boardgamers (but still enjoy Civ!) this is exactly the issue. Trying to implment a tactical or probably more correctly operational-level combat scheme on what is essentially a strategic game was doomed from the start. I am really surpised they didn't see this going in. From a pure game design point-of-view, you would expect that to implement such a system you would have the players interact with strategic level assets on the main map such as armies (STOD anybody?) or navies and then breakout to a tactical battle map for combat if you wanted to add concepts like unit stacking, ranged combat, flanking, manouvering etc. etc. I think they probably missed a great opportunity to create a truely unique evolution of the game by not going this route. Wouldn't have been for everybody, but probably would have ended up with a much better tactical combat subsytem (and combat AI) than the current hybrid. And just think of the tension of having to actually "win" a critical encounter on the battlefield with "the fate of empires hanging in the balance".

 

[vandyr]

I love 1upt and I also like the traffic jams. I don't find as much fault with is as many others, short of the AI's handling of it.

 

[migkillertwo]

If I may I think I have a much simpler solution. It comes in two parts.

1) Civilian units can stack. Workers cannot "work together" like in Civ4, but they can stack infinitely.

2) Military units can take a turn to 'pack up' and become civilian units. They could look like wagons/baggage trains/military trucks depending on the era.

This still seems like the best overall solution to me.

In a multiplayer game that would work pretty good.

But, there are 2 problems I see with the 2nd idea
1: In multiplayer, this wouldn't be a problem. I'm sure human players will be courteous and not block neutral units
2: I really do not think that the AI could handle the sort of complexity that arises from this new mechanic. The AI is bad enough as it is, that's why I actually doubt that we will see any real "expansion packs" like we did for Civ IV, where there were lots of new units in every pack. Every unit has to be used differently, and because of this the AI is really strained.

 

[wurstburst]

I like 1upt. I like the tactical combat elements that go with it. I'd like to see a few changes, though to make for a bit more flexibility.

1 - Allow civilians to stack infinitely (but as someone else said above, only 1 worker actually working a tile at a time).
2 - Allow for a small amount of co-existing military of different types. For example, you could allow for a single tile to hold 1 foot or mounted unit PLUS 1 ranged or seige unit. Require the foot or mounted unit to be eliminated before the ranged or seige unit can be fought if stacked together. This would make combined arms formations to be a bit more powerful, discouraging some one dimensional rush strategies a bit. And it would really cut down on some of the log jams that happen when moving and positioning armies. It would also solve the often unsolvable issue of how to protect ranged units on hills, without moving your protecting units into the killing fields in the open ground in front of the ranged units. I think the AI would have a much easier time with some of these concepts (protect a ranged or seige unit by moving with it).
3 - allow all units to move after an attack, if MP are left. This would let even foot troops to attack into open ground and retreat back a space. While not specifically a 1upt issue, the fact is that you can't move a healthy unit onto the same space as a unit that got damaged attacking (to protect it), so having the ability to move back to safety after open ground attacks is a huge difference.

 

[HorribleHarald]

I don't like this new direction to tactical warfare and I know that many other do not either. Civ is merely controlling your own empire than focusing on war. That is the biggest disapointment in CIV5. If I do like micromanage my battle I choose prefer TotalWar-serie game.

 

[vandyr]

I don't like this new direction to tactical warfare and I know that many other do not either. Civ is merely controlling your own empire than focusing on war. That is the biggest disapointment in CIV5. If I do like micromanage my battle I choose prefer TotalWar-serie game.

I like both aspects of empire management, including more indepth warfare, and I'm glad to see it being evolved in the Civ series. As far as your Total War comment, if you wanted to micromanage cities you should choose Ceasar or Cleopatra or one of those type of empire sims. Civ is a blend of the two, imo, and does it fairly well. Best of both worlds

 

[bitula]

Another idea is to implemented it as in Pool of Radiance or Homm. Units stack, but whenever there is a battle, it happens in the battlefield of the given tile where they obey 1UPTs. So for example if you are in a forest there will be a separate battlefield in a zoomed-in multi-tile secondary area dominated by forests (or groups of trees). And before battle you could arrange the units in a formation you like. Sounds good? This seems to solve everything!

 

[PawelS]

Another idea is to implemented it as in Pool of Radiance or Homm. Units stack, but whenever there is a battle, it happens in the battlefield of the given tile where they obey 1UPTs. So for example if you are in a forest there will be a separate battlefield in a zoomed-in multi-tile secondary area dominated by forests (or groups of trees). And before battle you could arrange the units in a formation you like. Sounds good? This seems to solve everything!

I like tactical battles, and they are successfully implemented in many games (the Age of Wonders series are my favorite). But somehow I think this idea doesn't fit the Civ series, adding the tactical layer would overly complicate the game, and make it take much more time to finish. I know the scale is off, but I like using the real terrain on the map for tactical-style warfare.

 

[bitula]

I think this idea doesn't fit the Civ series, adding the tactical layer would overly complicate the game, and make it take much more time to finish.

But say, along this there would be a feature called "Quick Combat" where you could skip tactics and just do battle with the stack as in Civ4. This would make everyone happy! This would allow to go for tactics in case of important -decisive - battles and skip tactics for less important battles or battles where you're army is anyway far more powerful than the opponents and minor causalities are not of a big concern.

 

[Humakty]

I like tactical battles, and they are successfully implemented in many games (the Age of Wonders series are my favorite). But somehow I think this idea doesn't fit the Civ series, adding the tactical layer would overly complicate the game, and make it take much more time to finish. I know the scale is off, but I like using the real terrain on the map for tactical-style warfare.

Trying to transform strategy TBS games into fast paced RTS parodies is a real Talent of 2K Games. I remember a game based on an hypoteticall futuristic USA civil war which was also totally devoid of any depth.

I'm thinking strategy games only shine thanks to their complexity. Why loose so much time on a really basic TBS, when I've got a RTS offering as many (or more) gameplay options ? A least a game is over in 30 min...

 

[man-erg]

Limit makes no sense. You can limit it yourself in SoD. Just don't put more than five in a tile...

A limit *does* make sense as you cannot squeeze infinite military into a finite space. The problem is defining *what* that limit is as Civ is (deliberately?) abstract on hex and unit scale. Either way, a limit of "infinite" is blatantly wrong, as is a limit of "1". The answer must lie between those extremes...

Presumably a hex must be 'many' miles across? Depending on map size I'd hazard a guess at anywhere between 10 miles and a 100 miles. And how big is a unit? Somewhere from a few thousand to a few tens of thousands?

The other idea has nothing to do with incorporating 1UPT concept. It is a simple stack without the ability to micromanage the battle...

The goal is an efficient, plausable abstraction of combat in a high level strategy game. however many U's per T. Because 1UPT just feels so *wrong* at the current scale that it hurts! I agree with CivGeek, in that I am amazed the current system got past design stage. I would guess that the original plan was for something much more ambitiously tactical - aka Panzer General. But most of that ambition had to be cut to hit the release deadline and/or to make the game playable as a Civ game. Let's face it, the 1UPT combat as it stands now is a very poor imitation of Panzer General. Which itself was probably the most over-simplified hex wargame ever developed.

In principle, I agree with all those suggesting a move to a separate hex map for the tactical battle. The only problem - but it is a huge one - is the time added on to a game to complete all those tactical battles. Realistically, most of them would be tedious and unimportant anyway. Not worth added several hours on to a game for.

What I was suggesting was effectively the "Quick Battle" as it's used in Total War. Would a separate tactical map at 1UPT, with stacks on the main map be the best of both worlds and keep everybody happy, if, as Bitula suggested, you have the quick combat option?

 

[Methos]

Moderator Action: Move to Ideas & Suggestions forum.

 

[Paradigne]

I like it the way it is because you actually need to use a strategy as opposed to the 'no thought stack of doom'. I just wish they would have/will spend some more time on the AI.

 

[Civgeek]

What I was suggesting was effectively the "Quick Battle" as it's used in Total War. Would a separate tactical map at 1UPT, with stacks on the main map be the best of both worlds and keep everybody happy, if, as Bitula suggested, you have the quick combat option?

A "quick/fast battle" option would probably work, especially if it wasn't a global setting - so either/or every battle - but let you decide each time if you wanted to break out the tactical game. In fact, wasn't there an old PC game that did just that; Imperium or Pax Imperium or something like that?

Of course you still have the scale issue; trying to come-up with a set of rules for warfare from ancient times through the modern era (and beyond) is a really challanging game design problem.