Thoughtful Thug
Deity
If only they had made a new AI instead of using the combat AI from the Civ4 Beta.
I don't know if that is true or not. But I know it is by far the weakest thing about the game.
If only they had made a new AI instead of using the combat AI from the Civ4 Beta.
Unfortunately all the other aspects - civilzations, leaders that were chosen, city names etc - give the impression they were trying to create something with at least a slight resemblance to history.
Now we are to believe that is not the case and that it is merely a coincidence that there is any resemblance to historical events, places, and people?
Seriously, the only war that I can think of where 1 Upt would work on a strategic scale would be the Great War, on the Western Front, but even then it was cramped and concentrated in a small enough area, that this may not even be appropriate.
I would like to hear of another instance where there was anything similar. Last I checked, the Romans and Carthaginians used "Stacks of Doom" (86,000 and 56,000 at Cannae), Marlborough used Stacks of Doom (52,000 at Blenheim), Napoleon used Stacks of Doom (72,000 at Austerlitz), Wellington used Stacks of Doom (68,000 plus 50,000 Prussians at Waterloo), and the Prussians and Austrians used Stacks of Doom (221,000 Prussians and 206,000 Austrians at Koniggratz).
At any rate, I do think some limitation is justified, but I would base it on some simple logistical calculation, such as, for example, 1 unit per tile on tiles with no roads, two with roads, four with railways, and so forth. It could be expanded even further by taking into account the type of terrain, whose borders they are in, if its farmland/town, and other things. Specific numbers could be toyed around with, but the general principle is worthwhile I think.
have you actually played the game? it works fantastically. easily the best change they made, combat is fun now.
Nice contrast between the two posts, but I think you both are overstating 1UPT: it needs some adjustment, but it is a large improvement over the stacks of doom. It makes no sense for civililian units, and I don't see why military units can't travel in stacks (with some sort of large combat penalty), and then set up closer to the battlefield in a 1UPT fashion.Yeah, I've played it, and it sucks.
because if you have any limit on it at all, then it essentialy because 1upt anyways, where one unit = one full stack. if you have a 3upt limit, then no one is going to field less than 3 units on a tile.
its simper to just do 1upt. have you actually played the game? it works fantastically. easily the best change they made, combat is fun now.
I think Civ 2 had the best way of dealing with stacks.
Yes, I find it really weird that nobody has mentioned this. I can't really see any downside of using this mechanic in civ 5 instead of 1UPT.
You could alternatively implement some form of high collateral damage rules pretty easily:
1. Strongest defending unit in stack always defends.
2. Every unit in stack takes equal damage.
Can you explain how it worked in CIVII?
I believe the intent of the 1upt was to alleviate the burden of dealing with SOD's that could number upwards of 100 or more.
Well, they certainly succeeded there. Civ V games take me at least 5 times as long to play as Civ IV games did, and I don't think it's just because I'm new to the game.If the developers had this as their actual "intention" they were complete fools - but I don't think that was the case. The "intention" was to introduce something new to the series that would impress players/take up a lot of time/allow for just doing more stuff moving units around in combat, because it was believed players were "bored" with the older civ games.
It seems to me that a limited stack, let's say 3 units, keeps many of the disadvantages of unlimited stack.It would seem to me a trivial thing to change the stack limit to 2-4, with a stack/no stack option in the start game menu. I believe this is where we will end up, with folks able to play what they find most enjoyable. And I believe over time, that will begin to heavily favor the small stack option.
I like the idea, somewhere on the forums a read an idea to introduce mass to the stacks value. Different terain could home a certain amount of massed units (and different units would have different mass)... It would make wars even more tactical, and would remove most of the annoyences of the 1upt system, w/o introducing the dreadfull SODs back to the game.
Your stack is flexible, but would be overwhelmed easily by a three melee stack. I can't imagine you don't see the difference in seeing a stack of three or a stack of thirty. A stack of three can be defeated, easily, by three melee units. Even two units would render that stack combat ineffective. A stack of thirty? Not possible, you cannot chew enough of them up to weaken them. But three? You'll easily overcome them. Part of the problem with facing a SOD is trying to actually kill a constituent unit - this is far easier, in fact far, far easier in a limited stack. Think of it in this term - what would be easier to kill, 1 stack of thirty, or 10 stacks of 3? Under recent Civ engines, the latter, because you would have the ability to defeat in detail.It seems to me that a limited stack, let's say 3 units, keeps many of the disadvantages of unlimited stack.
With 3upt in medieval era you could just stack one crossbowman, one longsword and one pikemen and there would be no counter to your stack. Indeed it would not be very different from having unlimited stack.
I don't think it's really different. I think that 3upt has the same disadvantage of unlimited stack, i.e. killing counters and rock-scissor-paper mechanics.Your stack is flexible, but would be overwhelmed easily by a three melee stack. I can't imagine you don't see the difference in seeing a stack of three or a stack of thirty. A stack of three can be defeated, easily, by three melee units. Even two units would render that stack combat ineffective. A stack of thirty? Not possible, you cannot chew enough of them up to weaken them. But three? You'll easily overcome them.
Why not allow 2 or 3? Why go from infinite to 1; there was no suitable number between those two extremes?
Why not permit army groups ala civ3? An army group that could permit 1 mounted unit, 1 ranged unit and 2 infantry units. That would seem reasonable to me.