4 ms·

The no death stack rule is one of the reasons I am still playing IV. It's completely unrealistic. D-Day was not one unit per tile. D-Day was the same tactic tha

The no death stack rule is one of the reasons I am still playing IV. It's completely unrealistic. D-Day was not one unit per tile. D-Day was the same tactic that you would use in IV, stop production of anything but military and then show up on the enemy's border with a death stack.

jszymborski 2y ago
You can still form corps and armies (i.e. stacks of up to three of one type of unit). I don't think combat "realism" is something Civ strives for, you might be better suited playing Total War if you want to micro-manage battles and the composition of your forces (which is tonnes of fun and I enjoy). But on the topic of realism, it's not exactly realistic for an area to hold an arbitrary number of troops. No hate to Civ IV though. Baba Yetu.
- rufus_foreman 2y ago
  >> it's not exactly realistic for an area to hold an arbitrary number of troops I don't expect it to be a war simulation but it should at least be somewhat grounded in reality. On D-Day the allies used 7,000 ships to land 130,000 on 5 beaches in a day. 850,000 troops and 150,000 vehicles within a few weeks. If they had more ships and troops to send, they would have used those too. I don't know what the upper limit would have been, but even the US, which was producing as much war material as the rest of the world combined, was not capable of producing troops or equipment that wouldn't fit on the battlefield. So, yeah I will stick with IV for now :) Will definitely try out VII when it comes out though, can't wait.
yongjik 2y ago
Civ 2 was the last one I played (after that... I became a dad), but you could station a phalanx in frigid arctic and it will stay put, for two thousand years, being a phalanx. Battle realism was not really something the series cared about.
- D13Fd 2y ago
  That’s actually not as unrealistic as it seems. Units in Civ have maintenance costs that represent feeding, housing, replacing people when they die, etc.

jszymborski 2y ago

You can still form corps and armies (i.e. stacks of up to three of one type of unit). I don't think combat "realism" is something Civ strives for, you might be better suited playing Total War if you want to micro-manage battles and the composition of your forces (which is tonnes of fun and I enjoy). But on the topic of realism, it's not exactly realistic for an area to hold an arbitrary number of troops. No hate to Civ IV though. Baba Yetu.

rufus_foreman 2y ago
>> it's not exactly realistic for an area to hold an arbitrary number of troops I don't expect it to be a war simulation but it should at least be somewhat grounded in reality. On D-Day the allies used 7,000 ships to land 130,000 on 5 beaches in a day. 850,000 troops and 150,000 vehicles within a few weeks. If they had more ships and troops to send, they would have used those too. I don't know what the upper limit would have been, but even the US, which was producing as much war material as the rest of the world combined, was not capable of producing troops or equipment that wouldn't fit on the battlefield. So, yeah I will stick with IV for now :) Will definitely try out VII when it comes out though, can't wait.

yongjik 2y ago

Civ 2 was the last one I played (after that... I became a dad), but you could station a phalanx in frigid arctic and it will stay put, for two thousand years, being a phalanx. Battle realism was not really something the series cared about.

D13Fd 2y ago
That’s actually not as unrealistic as it seems. Units in Civ have maintenance costs that represent feeding, housing, replacing people when they die, etc.