gilly775 wrote on Jul 28, 2012, 09:19:

crypto wrote on Jul 28, 2012, 03:11:
I find this review to be biased. I seriously do not like the 1upt bs that goes from the classic board games like risk where you could combine units onto one tile to make a stronger army. I'm trying to lay siege to a city and I end up with a bunch of units hanging around, turn after turn, waiting to get hit with a catapult. If there is a open tile around the city, why do I have to go around my own people to get there, why no just walk through them? do they not like each other? Because I'm not allowed to combine armies I spent countless resources and precious turns building weak units in mass quantities to take one weak enemy. I guess the best thing about this game was the demo.

Having massive stacks isn't a fun game for most people and it defeated the intent of the game. They didn't want people to have massive stacks of units running around clobbering cities in one round, in much the same way they tried to reduce settler spam (with limited success). Unit stacking was an artifact of design and wasn't supposed to be the defining element of combat.

It got fairly ridiculous in 4, with potentially hundreds of units on a square and the only counter being the easily banned nuclear weapons.