My Impressions

[Sir Og]

In the past when I thought about ways to improve combat in civ, I imagined a system with armies similar to what Asmodean proposes here. There are however a lot of limitations to such a system. One is what I already pointed out in my replies to Asmodean, the other is that if you get small tactical screen for each battle (as per gdijedi7 proposal) this will get old very fast and turns will become chores where you have to fight lots of small tactical battles each turn. then if all combat between armies is calculated automatically it will be very difficult to balnce the outcomes.

The current civ 5 system which does 1upt and overlays the tactical map on the strategic map is very clever and solves all of the problems listed above.

The huge problem however currently is implementation! Right now the interface that we have is AWFULLY inadequate to deal with the newly introduced system. There should be options to group units together, to move units together, to quickly select, automate some actions, etc.
The other major problem is AI. Both pathfinding AI for your own units and the most glaring problem: the way the computer cotrolled civs use the whole thing.

[notyoueither]

I don't agree that 1UPT is the only way or even a good way to remove SOD. There are several other ways:
1) Make units very expensive so it will take forever to create a large number of units (Civ V did this)
2) Make unit maintenance cost prohibitively expensive for large armies (Civ V did this)
3) Make collateral damage more serious than in Civ IV (but probably not as bad as Civ II when a whole stack would be killed if the one defending unit lose the battle) and by any range units.
With that people can still stack probably half a dozen or a dozen of their units and move them from one end of their empire to another for convenience. When they get close to the battle field, the player will have a choice of risking a serious collateral damage by stacking or spreading their units out. If they have 10 units stacked up and those units got blown away by 3, 4 archers then they will think twice about stacking even when it is still allowed. People might have 2, 3 units per tile when the field is too cramped though and a 3-unit stack is not a SOD, just a choice of better maneuver vs risk of more damage.
Without condition (1) and (2) above then even if stacking is not allowed, players still need to create a lot of troops to fight off the other players with similarly large nmber of troops and you probably see 50, 60 units on each side of the battle all over the map. That will be even worse than having SODs.

Point three is quite good, and it would be great if that is how this evolves.

I don't agree that having a large number of units spread over the map for a major confrontation between empires is a bad thing though. It is a matter of taste perhaps, but there are a lot of people who enjoy commanding large armies in simulations of Napoleonics and American Civil War. Some of the best war games of all time deal with hundreds of units per side spread across maps that fill ping pong tables.

[jnh140]

One big thing is that civ has never really been about the combat side of things. Its a management sim at its heart, and you eventually build armies and take them on their merry way.

As I keep saying, theres already a mod that breaks 1upt, so when a little extra interface comes out, you can all mod the game to your hearts desire and make any number or combination of all of these suggestions.

[Asmodean]

One big thing is that civ has never really been about the combat side of things. Its a management sim at its heart, and you eventually build armies and take them on their merry way.

As I keep saying, theres already a mod that breaks 1upt, so when a little extra interface comes out, you can all mod the game to your hearts desire and make any number or combination of all of these suggestions.

Yes, but.....if tactical combat is truly what Jon Shafer wishes us to play, then the AI mst be designed for it. At the moment, it seems to me, that it doesn't do the job. For argument's sake, though, I will go ahead and assume that Firaxis are going to improve the combat AI.
If you then mod the game, and remove 1UPT then you would suddenly be faced with an AI that is wholely inadequate at anticipating player moves. Not a good situation.

I have nothing against tactical combat. But it truly sucks to have it happen on the strategic map!

Asmodean

[Thoth]

1upt is the best feature in V

That's a pretty damning indictment of the game right there.

and once the improve how the AI used it, will make V the best in the series. SODs were just plain silly and took all strategy out of combat.

NO. They limited tactics but not strategy. There is a difference.

If you want a tactical war game, try the Panzer General series. Civ has always been a STRATEGIC game. Played on squares (hexes) representing hundreds of miles. Trying to map that to a tactical level is doomed to failure.

The strategy in Civ games has always been about how to gain a dominant position on the battlefield either via superior tech or superior numbers. Changing the game to emphasize "tactics" over strategy (especially when you can't come up with an AI that can actually fight) doesn't help.

[notyoueither]

Actually, on that last point...

I was just recalling today that Sid did several ACW games in the past. I have not played them, and do not know how well the AI performed. I would bet against no improvement in the Civ5 combat AI though.

[jnh140]

/shrug. I disagree. But agree with Rah. 1upt is extraordinarily important. It makes pensiulas defensible, single-tile islands become veritable fortresses, real choices can now be made whether its best to go over the mountains or around them. Are these hardcore tactical decisions? Hardly. Executing a primitive pincer attack or controlling a mountain pass is not high level tactics that warrants zooming into a tactical view. Most of this was irrelevant in previous iterations of civilization. About the highest level the tactics got was ZOC corralling AI units with practically impregnable mountain fortresses, way back in Civ II.

But I compare that to my most recent game, catherine got belligerant, and invaded a poorly protected eastern border. Using terrain, I was able to confound and foil the spearhead of a technologically and numerically superior force, and then badly bloody it. It hadn't taken the border city, and started pushing west with the bulk of the forces, spreading out. Thats where the counterattack was able to bombard out of the hills and jungle, sweeping in harrassing attacks from a great general and some mounted units. By the time they took the first city, I was able to bring in the full force, which I could press east down my main highway and start liberating things. Got a little gridlocked against crossbowmen, but was able to retake my land.

In any previous civ, I would have lost the moment I failed to build enough units and fell behind technologically. That army in a stack could have, with little trouble, pushed right down my highway and taken the whole empire, the delicious wonders and improvements in my two main cities lost. I suppose I could have blasted the highway and hunkered, but this was much more fun. Say what you will, enormous-three page SODs granted by an AI difficulty-derived bonus was weak sauce.