civ V Warfare

[Powerslave]

I think one unit per hex is probably a good idea as I really hates large stacks that exist in Civ 4.

One unit per hex doesn't necessarily mean that there will be one Civ 4 type of units per hex. I can imagine that instead you will be able to "design" your units with different types of troops. How big those units could be or what type of troops they could hold would be depending on technologies and such. Even if it will not be like this you must agree that it would be extremely fun. I always loved the design part in those games that have it.

Also I am very much looking forward to the scenario tool. I still play Civ 2 because of the great scenarios that people have made. Civ 4 is not really the same in this regards. There are some good super mods but really no scenario the way it was made back in the Civ 2 days.

[Ijuin]

I would assume that the one unit per tile limit only applies to units on the map, and that cities and military bases (airbases and fortresses) can still hold some larger number (at least four).

I would hope that you can at least let a unit "pass through" a space occupied by another friendly unit. Let's say that you have a garrison blocking some isthmus. With a hard one-unit-per-tile limit, your garrison would have to unfortify and move aside to let another friendly unit pass, and then move back and refortify (including the time penalty for fortifying). This would REALLY hurt you if the unit that you are moving forward is a defensively weak one, because your isthmus is less protected while you have to move aside to let it through. In essence, it would mean that your own units would be an impenetrable wall to your other units.

As such, I would like to see the one-unit limit be for combat only--no unit may initiate or participate in an attack as long as it is stacked with another combat unit, and also any unit stacked with a defender should die with the defender (as was done in Civ2). That would force players to not stack for combat, but would avoid the problem of having to make your own units move out of the way. In real life you do NOT have to move one batallion out of the way in order to move another forward, unless the location is so crowded that it's already standing-room-only.

[vulture]

I would assume that the one unit per tile limit only applies to units on the map, and that cities and military bases (airbases and fortresses) can still hold some larger number (at least four).

I would hope that you can at least let a unit "pass through" a space occupied by another friendly unit. Let's say that you have a garrison blocking some isthmus. With a hard one-unit-per-tile limit, your garrison would have to unfortify and move aside to let another friendly unit pass, and then move back and refortify (including the time penalty for fortifying).

Well Panzer General is mentioned as the inspiration for the combat system, and while that doesn't mean "it is exactly like Panzer General", it is a bad idea to lift out some parts of the system and not others; the PG system was so popular precisely because the interplay of mechanics worked well, meaning you have to be very careful about what you chose to leave out lest it break the usuability and fun of the system entirely.

PG allowed units to pass through each other, and allowed movement of multiple hexes per turn. Dismounted infantry could move 3 tiles (heavy weapons infantry could move 2, courtesy of heavier loads). Land vehicles could move up to 8 or so tiles for the fastest. And units could move through each other to get to any unoccupied tile in range (after pathing around any unpassable terrain like rivers or swamps).

But that system depends on units moving multiple tiles per turn. Often many tiles. That isn't going to be as straight forwards on a civ map without greatly rethinking the scale of the map and the size of a city radius. Conversely, sticking to the same scale, it suddenly becomes a big advantage to the defender able to use the road network (or railroad network) to move units large distances while the attacker is limited to one or two move units in enemy territory (if unable to use enemy roads)

Of course it is fairly useless to speculate (although it can pass the time to examine some of the issues that need to be resolved); if the designers are at all competent, they will have worked the system out and refined it in numerous play-throughs on paper of a variety of test scenarios to see how combat plays out, and tweaked the rules to make it interesting and fun, long before it ever got as far as being coded. And then tested it again when it was coded to make sure the implementation and UI work well together in game, tweaking it again as necessary. Issues that people are worrying about such as logjams of units, where new units are positioned on the map and so on ought to show up in the paper playthroughs and be resolved there before a line of relevant code is ever written.

[Jaybe]

... Issues that people are worrying about such as logjams of units, where new units are positioned on the map and so on ought to show up in the paper playthroughs and be resolved there before a line of relevant code is ever written.

WHAT!? Unit logjams are a MAJOR factor in warfare. Troop movement & deployment; a whole army collapsing because of front-line troops routing to the rear.

For the player not to have to deal with it is okay as long as it is abstracted, but it SHOULD be represented.

--
Realism is not opposed to good game play. It just takes better game design to make a game that plays well also be more realistic.

[onodera]

I would love to see the SMAC-like zone of control make its return. In brief, in case there are younglings here: enemy units cannot enter not only the tile your unit is on, but also any tile adjacent to it, unless you have a treaty of friendship. This made purely defensive units worthy, as you had to have 3x fewer stacks to defend your borders.

[wodan11]

I would love to see the SMAC-like zone of control make its return. In brief, in case there are younglings here: enemy units cannot enter not only the tile your unit is on, but also any tile adjacent to it, unless you have a treaty of friendship. This made purely defensive units worthy, as you had to have 3x fewer stacks to defend your borders.

That's not quite how SMAC works. Let X denote any tile your unit is on or adjacent. Enemy units cannot move from an X tile to another X tile, unless they already have one of their units on the destination tile. Enemy units can freely move from a non-X tile to an X tile.

[rah]

And just for the record, it's not just a SMAC thing. It is originally from old board games in the early Avalon Hill days. And Yes, I'd also like to see it's return. (despite the difficulties of programming the AI to deal with properly. )

[Arrian]

Having never played Panzer General, I'll reserve judgment on the combat system and just hope they know what they're doing. Combat in Civ has always had a lot of room for improvement, but it's also important to realize that it's more than a wargame. I assume Jon knows this.

A comment I saw elsewhere made sense to me: Rivers, at least big ones, should be serious obstacles early in the game. Fords would be important.

I like the idea of resources being limited. Building endless units with 1 iron source seems silly. The Civ3 implementation was to have resources randomly disappear/reappear. That sucked, hard. I'd give each resource a value representing how much of it is there. "Iron - 150." You get 150 uses from it and then it's exhausted. You don't get blindsided by this. You can plan ahead.

Renewable resources should obviously work differently (horses, elephants if they're in again). Speaking of which, it seems to me that a possible new resource would be hardwood timber, required for building large sailing ships. These types of resources would have a regeneration rate. Use too much too fast, and you'll run out (for max realism, the regen rate would be affected by your use, too, but that might be a bridge too far).

-Arrian

[Krill]

But that system depends on units moving multiple tiles per turn. Often many tiles. That isn't going to be as straight forwards on a civ map without greatly rethinking the scale of the map and the size of a city radius. Conversely, sticking to the same scale, it suddenly becomes a big advantage to the defender able to use the road network (or railroad network) to move units large distances while the attacker is limited to one or two move units in enemy territory (if unable to use enemy roads).

Something I've been thinking about is that roads should be usable regardless of where they are on the map and diplomatic statuses. That's one way to stop the defender road spamming, and equals out the advatnages a bit.

[Wernazuma III]

Something I've been thinking about is that roads should be usable regardless of where they are on the map and diplomatic statuses. That's one way to stop the defender road spamming, and equals out the advatnages a bit.

Yes, it was ridiculous that you couldn't use roads on enemy territory. CivRev doesn't have this, so I hope they'll give up on that in Civ5 too.

Instead, they could introduce supply lines, where your units, esp. those depending on special ressources weaken without working roads/rails and with enemy units between them and their border. Of course, this is only a wet dream...

[Theben]

I assumed the "no enemy roads" was an abstraction of partisan warfare slowing down your units.

As for multiple resources, they could allow benefits from having multiple resources of a type (like the magic resources in FFHII). FE, having X iron / y# of cities allows a -5% cost for iron units, or +5% combat strength, or some such.

[rah]

I assumed the "no enemy roads" was an abstraction of partisan warfare slowing down your units.

That was my understanding, but it may go a touch overboard, because it would still be faster moving down a road than without one. Assuming you'd be being harrassed regardless if you were on a road or not.

[giblets]

So I guess you could get two moves on enemy roads and three on friendly roads.

[Jaybe]

If you move in a route march (i.e., on the road/rail, at its speed), then you are NOT deployed for battle! Subtract 1/2 or more from your combat strength if attacked.

If you are deployed for potential combat, you are using the route as a path to take, but you are definitely NOT moving at optimum speed. Scouting units ahead and to flanks can help, but they can't move real fast and scout well simultaneously.

[Seeker]

I'd just like to Attention Whore and point out that in the old days of the original List (although i don't think I made it off the forum and onto the final List), I was the first one to suggest Panzer General style combat, although from the sounds of things they're implementing it a lot different from what was proposed by the people in that old thread.

I am still very much in favour of a 5-Star type system with hexes for Civ.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=104480

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3622