A vision for civ

[chumchu]

You can have unit stacking with a drawback for concentrating too many units on the same tile (simualting supply problems) . The natural choice to me is first increasing the supply cost and then losing hp on units if way over the limit. I prefer this model to collateral in civ IV as collateral makes battles a lot more swingy.

[Krill]

I think a better way to implement 1UpT is to change it to 1 Army per tile. I think Civ 3 is actually a good idea for that implementation. Just make it so that armies scale from say, 2 units at the start of the game to something like 25 units in the late game. Once units are added to armies you can't remove them (so no more late game civ 4 headaches of figuring out exactly how many units to leave in each city, every single turn), have to upgrade all units of a specific type at the same time (large gold sink), and the units add hp and strength to the army. So if you add a pike, it might add 70hp and 5 strength and cost much less than adding a knight which gives +100hp and 10 strength. Then you can add "special effects" if an army has over 50% of a certain type of unit ie over 50% mounted means it keeps the movement points of the mounted type unit, over 50% armoured units means the army keeps the blitz ability etc.

Gives much greater granularity of armies as hammer sinks, you remove late game SOD and stack composition headaches, you reintroduce the combined arms decisions. I see quite a few advantages to this method.

[antisocialmunky]

Yeah I think something like that would be nice. I also think it might be cool in an alpha centauri sort of way if the basic units add their modifier (with diminishing returns) to the army so you can custom build a 3x pike that does +100% damage to mounted or a pike and a sword that gives you +50% city attack and +50% against mounted.

[Krill]

If units and military are a hammer sink, then I don't see the point in making a stacking limit that makes units increasingly useless ie diminishing returns. I think it's better to try and balance around a hammer and opportunity cost. Yes, you could make a 25 unit army, but perhaps it's better to have five 20 unit armies than four 25 unit armies. After all, if you are trying to replace an army per turn, then an empire needs to build 20-25 units per turn, which depending on haammer cost can mean an overall output of over 4000 hammers per turn.

That's plenty to allow the upward movement of tile output and the associated economic rebalancing.

[unaghy]

Reading back whole discussion, what do you think, did Civilization 6 fixed some of the problems discussed?

Eg. no corruption or fixed costs, player can land as many cities in beginning as he wish, only restriction is soft housing cap in terms of "fresh water", "cant be closer than 3 tiles from another city center" and increasing costs of a settler over time.

[Dhalphir]

I'm honestly probably just going to keep playing Civ IV forever. I haven't got tired of it yet, and I understand that sequels need to strive to add something new to the game or change it in some way, yet Civ IV is (nearly) perfect as is, so it's kind of hard to know what to change.