civ V Warfare

[SpencerH]

One change I'd like to see is to move away from the system that allows the defenders to choose the combat pairings ie I attack with HA I face spearman, I attack the same stack with with an axman I face something else.

It should be the attacker that has the choice of which unit it engages in a stack being attacked but there should be a chance based upon the mobilities of the particular attacker and defenders (in the stack) that an alternative defending unit could move to intercept.

How this would work in engagements between single units of mixed combat arms teams, as seems to be the design in Ci V, is unknown of course.

[MikeH]

That system would massively favour the attacker. It'd be almost impossible to defend because you couldn't counter any unit, except if you got lucky. It would massively unbalance combat.

[Lord Avalon]

Well, if it is one unit per hex, then the attacker will get to choose.

[SpencerH]

That system would massively favour the attacker. It'd be almost impossible to defend because you couldn't counter any unit, except if you got lucky. It would massively unbalance combat.

No, it means that you would need a combined arms approach to defense (unless fortified). In combat, both sides seek to maximize any tactical advantage thay believe they may have but it is the attacker who (by definition) has the first move. Depending on the situation, the defender has a chance to counter the potential tactical advantages of the attack with maneuver but whether that counter is successful will depend on factors such as the defenders mobility, preparedness, etc.

In the current civ combat system the tactical advantage of cav for example (ie its battlefield mobility) is completely obviated by a system where cav are virtually useless against a stack containing a few spearmen (who have instantaneous defensive mobility). IMO, that is as ridiculous a situation as the classic warrior v tank debacle.

[MikeH]

What you are talking about makes sense for the one unit per tile model, but not for the stack model.

In current Civ cavalry have strategic mobility in how fast they can move and plunder the region before they get to the battlefield, and tactical mobility modeled by their flanking and withdrawl bonuses to attack. If you have a few spearmen in a stack and loads of cavalry, they'll beat them down eventually. How many battles of that era were fought where one side successfully one with only one type of unit? Even the mongols used combined arms.

[onodera]

ZOC's back?! Awesome.

I wonder if ranged units will be able to assist defending melee units in adjoining squares. Otherwise I cannot imagine pike-and-shot working as it should, unless it is a single unit now.

GGs allowing stack doubling is a great idea. I don't know if different units should be able to share a cell, but merging two identical units, combining their promotions and doubling their combat strength would be a scary upgrade. Imagine the Germans using a Panzer*2 to storm through your defenses. Well, maybe doubling just health or attack, not both, it sounds too scary now.

[Dinner]

But why? Stacking doesn't add any tactical value to the gameplay in this design. There's an entire new paradigm at work here with combat, and unit stacking just doesn't fit into it.

In my opinion stacking does add a lot of military value especially when you're trying to break through the enemy's defenses quickly. It really seems like the team decided the Civ4 MP players fought to many wars and now are trying to neuter the effectiveness of war. Allowing a GG to stack two units would bring some of that effectiveness back and it would make GGs more valuable.

[gribbler]

In my opinion stacking does add a lot of military value especially when you're trying to break through the enemy's defenses quickly. It really seems like the team decided the Civ4 MP players fought to many wars and now are trying to neuter the effectiveness of war. Allowing a GG to stack two units would bring some of that effectiveness back and it would make GGs more valuable.

This only limits the effectiveness of war in some situations. They're trying to make you take geography into account. They also may be forcing you to build a navy more often because if you reach an impasse on land the sea provides an alternative. Also naval bombardment could be crucial for forcing your way through an isthmus.

[Krill]

In my opinion stacking does add a lot of military value especially when you're trying to break through the enemy's defenses quickly. It really seems like the team decided the Civ4 MP players fought to many wars and now are trying to neuter the effectiveness of war. Allowing a GG to stack two units would bring some of that effectiveness back and it would make GGs more valuable.

Devs, please don't listen to him. The rest of the OT don't.

[Ming]

In my opinion stacking does add a lot of military value especially when you're trying to break through the enemy's defenses quickly. It really seems like the team decided the Civ4 MP players fought to many wars and now are trying to neuter the effectiveness of war. Allowing a GG to stack two units would bring some of that effectiveness back and it would make GGs more valuable.

It really depends on how they handle the "value/strength/abilities" of the single units. If done right, there will still be the opportinity to smash through enemy lines. This is not a problem in other war games using a single unit per square concept.