Inconceivable
Learned
Meanwhile in CivIII and IV, you can literally stack 200 units together. The only reason not to stack too much is nukes, that's it.
Well, there's also the COLLATERAL DAMAGE that very much exists in Civ IV, indeedilydoo.
Meanwhile in CivIII and IV, you can literally stack 200 units together. The only reason not to stack too much is nukes, that's it.
I'm seeing catapults getting used pretty heavily even into mediaeval era on the Realmsbeyond forum's game reporting threads. Sure losing tens of catapults would hurt, but you'd be doing that to set up an even greater number of favourable battles, which absolutely is something that happens and can be worth it.hell no, because siege units are unfil for that role, they're severely underpowered, you need to sacrifice tens so that their spread damage could affect enough units in the stack. basically you need a hugely bigger stack yourself, but at that point 1) you wouldn't had been attacked in the first place 2) with such a stack you would had been razing cities already
hell no, because siege units are unfil for that role, they're severely underpowered, you need to sacrifice tens so that their spread damage could affect enough units in the stack. basically you need a hugely bigger stack yourself, but at that point 1) you wouldn't had been attacked in the first place 2) with such a stack you would had been razing cities already
Yeah, in Civ games, the sense of scale has always been all over the place. How much is a turn (and as you say, why does it take 10 years to cross that river), how many men is there in a unit, how much is 1 population.Finally if one turn represents, dunno, 10 years how many units should be able to cross a tile? ONE?
I disagree with this. Just google something like the great battles of the punic wars, and you'll find that brilliant meneuvering, overcoming a superior force, etc. is always being noticed, revered and romanticized in military history,Civ is a strategy game not a tactical game, numbers win wars, production wins wars, technology wins wars not some brilliant maneuvering that should not even be noticeable on time scale the game operates at.
I disagree with this. Just google something like the great battles of the punic wars, and you'll find that brilliant meneuvering, overcoming a superior force, etc. is always being noticed, revered and romanticized in military history.
I suppose it is a matter whether you believe Napoleonic Wars would have happened anyway, only under a different name.As loved as great leaders are by history in many cases one does wonder whether they mattered all that much in the end.
[...]
You can list many such examples. A militarized society that values leadership will generate good leaders, its not really a great person its the fruit of your strategy.
Defenders being strong suits Civ p. well, otherwise conquest is too easy. When you've got a siege or other standoff where neither army can make progress (or doesnt want to risk it), but still can maneuver around or wait for reinforcements, that's what gives the strategy map depth.The doomstacks in 4 were annoying in that the vulnerable units were all protected by the perfect defender for each attack. I recall dealing with city defender doomstacks via siege weapons/bombers.
It definitely gave the defender too much advantage. Always defending with the best counter was too strong. That, in my opinion, was the entire problem with doomstacks. If a defender were chosen at random, or if there were some way for the attacker's speed to come into effect (My cavalry are faster than your spearmen and archers. How do your spearmen always end up between my cavalry and your archers?). If the faster unit chose the engagement conditions, that would open up some strategic options. Doomstacks would still exist but they wouldn't lead to the same dominance of defenders.
1UPT was a logical enough attempt at a fix, but, who cares about the strategic and tactical options it leads to if the AI can't competently use it? Plus 1UPT makes a lot of the scale issues more obvious.
I never played Civ5. Civ 6 has 1UPT and the AI sucks with it. The religion stuff is stupid. I like the idea of cities being more specialized with districts.
Civ4 was a more solid 4x and it was more fun to conquer the world than in Civ6.
All my commentary is based on playing against the computer, because jesus H christ who has time to wait for humans to take their turns?
Winning was never a problem, and player vs player is irrelevant to 99% of the people who play the civ games.I'd like to point out that being holed up in your cities is a sure way to lose. Good players will pillage you to death and you will be wayyy behind. Of course AI is worse in this regard but as a player you can pillage the AI. Its not always necessary to take cities.
What is goofy about big armies moving as a single army?While I think doom stacks are kind of goofy, I have never considered them a gameplay problem. There are usually tools to deal with them such as bombardment in Civ4.
However, for LARPing purposes it is kind of silly to have a big old map to maneuver in, but have so many units concentrated in a few tiles when it is time to fight wars.
The AI knows how to pillage, even if it doesn't always do a great job at it. And winning can be hard for almost anyone if you pick high enough difficulty, IIRC I couldn't beat the highest 2 levels of AI in Civ4 without savescumming, even though I'm sure there's someone out there who can.Winning was never a problem, and player vs player is irrelevant to 99% of the people who play the civ games.I'd like to point out that being holed up in your cities is a sure way to lose. Good players will pillage you to death and you will be wayyy behind. Of course AI is worse in this regard but as a player you can pillage the AI. Its not always necessary to take cities.
It's not hard to not attack that stack of archers with 1 spearman on a hill. It's not hard to park my stack of archers with 1 spearman on a hill and watch the AI suicide into them either. But it would be deeper strategically, in my opinion, if there were more counterplay available.
My point was that the spearman on the tile with the archers shouldn't be able to defend them from all angles from all attackers. Faster units getting to choose the terms of engagement would make sense from a thematic and realism standpoint (Cavalry harrasment of massed archers was a legitimate tactic).
I don't think firaxis is going to come up with a decent AI that can work with 1UPT. I'll never want to play civilization with other humans, I'm not that patient, and people aren't that reliable. So I hope the next civ goes back to stacks, but with some changes from the civ4 implementation. I don't think I'll get a decent ai without stacks...
I dunno, maybe just allowing ranged units to attack like they do in civ6, but with stacking like in civ4 would be good enough.
That's what Crassus thought too.Caesar was playing easy mode Roman legions vs barbarians, at that time any Roman general did more or less very well.Rome definitely had better troops and tech.
Since I believe I was the one who brought this up, my complaint was specifically about encouraging something that's completely out of touch with reality - the catapult/cannon suicide tactic.And complaints about how this or that historical tactic doesn't work, is p. tunnelvisioned... You can't catch all the nuance of warfare, especially in a system that's meant to simulate wars from all eras in the same system.
Yeah, the artillery in the style of SMAC / Civ3 / whatever else, where you dont suicide just bombard from the neighbor square, is better.
Yeah, the artillery in the style of SMAC / Civ3 / whatever else, where you dont suicide just bombard from the neighbor square, is better.
I always thought that this idea was ridiculous, what with bombarding units from hundreds of kilometres away but then they made archers do it in 5 and 6 so whatever.
I must point out that artillery does not 'suicide' in any way. Its how the combat works in Civ4, units fight and the losing unit dies, it works the same for all units just artillery gets collateral damage (makes sense, you would want archers to do collateral damage? swordsmen?) and a bombardment action against cities (not forts tho, obvious omission). A highly promoted artillery unit actually can win plenty of combats since anti artillery STR promotions are rare and usually not worth taking and artillery itself has decent STR. Plus artillery units can take great city attack promotions and three of those are 100% STR against cities.
Either style can be rationalized, if armies are on adjacent squares they can be said to be on adjacent hills waiting for a big battle if you want. Even if the squares are much larger than just those hills. When the battle can last for many turns, it's a silly assumption that the attacks to another square are hit-n-run attacks by the lone unit from the army base camp into the camp of the other army. The flow of attacks between the units on both sides just represents the ebb and flow of a battle, even if it last multiple turns and therefore only makes sense in an abstracted timeline. But the artillery as an attacker that can die, its reasonable too, when an army attacks another it's fair that the attacking artillery can take casualties just as well as anything.Yeah, the artillery in the style of SMAC / Civ3 / whatever else, where you dont suicide just bombard from the neighbor square, is better.
I always thought that this idea was ridiculous, what with bombarding units from hundreds of kilometres away but then they made archers do it in 5 and 6 so whatever.
I must point out that artillery does not 'suicide' in any way. Its how the combat works in Civ4, units fight and the losing unit dies, it works the same for all units just artillery gets collateral damage (makes sense, you would want archers to do collateral damage? swordsmen?) and a bombardment action against cities (not forts tho, obvious omission). A highly promoted artillery unit actually can win plenty of combats since anti artillery STR promotions are rare and usually not worth taking and artillery itself has decent STR. Plus artillery units can take great city attack promotions and three of those are 100% STR against cities.
Just call it an approximation of spent munitions if you must, but putting it with the same sentence as "reasonable" is just.... bruh.But the artillery as an attacker that can die, its reasonable too, when an army attacks another it's fair that the attacking artillery can take casualties just as well as anything.
Until you recall that bombers can bombard a tile just fine, collateral damage and all, without the need to commit as an attacker. The obvious solution to fix all this fuckery is right there in the system, yet for some reason it only comes to play in the endgame.Its how the combat works in Civ4, units fight and the losing unit dies, it works the same for all units just artillery gets collateral damage.
Nothing crazy about some artillery getting destroyed in a battle, even of the winning side.Just call it an approximation of spent munitions if you must, but putting it with the same sentence as "reasonable" is just.... bruh.But the artillery as an attacker that can die, its reasonable too, when an army attacks another it's fair that the attacking artillery can take casualties just as well as anything.
You talk about Stealth bombers. Normal bombers could be intercepted.
Yeah, everyone knows you can only destroy artillery while it's shelling you... Of course 1 spearman can protect 1000 archers from an army on horseback coming from all sides.Nothing crazy about some artillery getting destroyed in a battle, even of the winning side.Just call it an approximation of spent munitions if you must, but putting it with the same sentence as "reasonable" is just.... bruh.But the artillery as an attacker that can die, its reasonable too, when an army attacks another it's fair that the attacking artillery can take casualties just as well as anything.