Yes, I missed that feature myself. A few modifications that would allow you to force a megastack to give battle, to attrite their strength more gradually, and encourage them to disperse a bit and fight on a broader front, and you'd recover something like a realistic wargame feel, without necessarily making the game too hard for the AI to handle.Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:@Simon_Jester: I do agree with the criticism of Civ V's war system vs. a real wargame, but still feel that it's leaps and bounds better than Civ IV's maddening stacks of doom. This is probably one of those personal tastes and preferences issues that cannot be resolved logically. However, while I prefer Civ V's basic approach, I do think both philosophies could be improved. Civ IV's could benefit by being more like Civ II's, with zone of control to prevent an entire doomstack army from snaking around any forts or "defenses" (quoted because there is effectively no such thing in Civ IV), and collateral damage for opposing stacks that are out in the open (although probably not so drastic as Civ II's "lose one unit, lose them all"). Ultimately, I wouldn't have such a problem with the infinite stacks approach if you could just force an attacker to actually attack instead of snaking all over your territory razing improvements and forcing you to go against their giant defensive bonuses (assuming they're smart enough to park their stack in rough terrain) to get them to stop.
(Megastacking SHOULD become instant suicide in the Atomic Age; the equivalent of an invading stack of doom would probably be the A-number-one target for a first use of nuclear weapons in real life... but Civ IV didn't let you nuke your own territory even if there were huge armies sitting on it)
That strikes me as the best possible way to improve the system, and relatively easy. The biggest catch is that it would greatly increase the computational load on the graphics chip, and frankly if you're buying Civ V for its cutting edge graphics you have bigger problems.Civ V's one-unit-per-tile approach could benefit from a greater number of smaller tiles to prevent the issues that you mentioned. This would lead to more variety in weapon ranges (especially with direct vs indirect fire), and would also have to mean that larger cities would take up more and more tiles, which could be interesting in and of itself.
The real trick is making sure that the optimal distance between cities increases to scale with the increased number of smaller tiles- in other words, cities are still 300 miles apart, it's just that each tile between them is 50 miles wide instead of 100. You'd need an incentive to discourage crowding cities, which would also have a number of other desirable effects on the Infinite Carpet of Buildings gameplay approach.