civ V Warfare

[rah]

It does appear that ZOC is back. YA

Let's know forget that 3 unit army with general from civ III days.

[MikeH]

I hope they never re-introduce unit stacking. Either the combat system is for stacks, or it isn't. And this no stack, front warfare sounds a lot of fun.

[rah]

Yeah, I'm looking forward to it, since it brought back all those early Avalon Hill memories. But I'm worried that war could become too tedious and have a negative impact on MP>

[Dinner]

That's my big concern. Imagine trying to move your units across a narrow bit of land only a few tiles wide. It would practically take the military option off the table.

[MikeH]

But that's brilliant, it means terrain becomes important in attack and defence and therefore also in city placement.

[rah]

Oerdin, I think that will actually add more realism back into the game. Strategic terrain bottlenecks have a tradition in military history. Currently in IV, it's meaningless because you can put 100 units in one square. Even if the defense has 50 units in the choke point there's nothing stopping you from moving 200 units in.

[Dinner]

I suppose it does add to realism but I would still like to see limited stacking introduced with new technology. Like such and such tech allows two units per square, a great general allows +1 units in the square he is in, etc...

[rah]

Yeah, a gg letting you double up would be ok by me.

[Boris Godunov]

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.

[giblets]

I would be fine with letting multiple units garrison a city. So initially a city could hold a single unit but a barracks allows one more and so on. Then if a city is well defended it needs to be surrounded before you can take it.

[rah]

I not sure of that, but it might give extra value to having a GG making it more desirable to attain one. We don't know how it will effect game play yet. We're just making assumptions.

[Dinner]

I would be fine with letting multiple units garrison a city. So initially a city could hold a single unit but a barracks allows one more and so on. Then if a city is well defended it needs to be surrounded before you can take it.

Yeah, especially if there were walls or a castle.

[Lord Avalon]

Maybe experienced units will be able to become overstrength, like in PG.

[Dinner]

It's the same in Civ4. You wanted to get lots of promotions because you could vastly increase the units power. I do think this will be even more important in Civ5 since there will be no unit stacking.

[Lord Avalon]

No, that's not exactly what I meant. A full-strength PG unit was 10/10 (think hit points). In campaign play, between battles an experienced unit could be beefed up to 11/10, 12/10, etc., depending on how many levels of experience it had and if you wanted to spend the prestige points to do it.

So what I'm postulating is that for every promotion, you could potentially boost a unit's hit points by x%, if you pay for it (or if an event granted it).

Now PG had different values for attack, defense (and what type of attack or defense), and strength, where in Civ IV there is just one combat strength value, so I'm not sure exactly how this overstrength idea would fit in.