Carpet of Doom vs Stack of Doom

Which one is your favourite?

  • Carpet of Doom

    Votes: 54 47.0%

  • Stack of Doom

    Votes: 38 33.0%

  • CTP style tactical war map

    Votes: 23 20.0%
  • Total voters
    115
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OneFootInThe...

Warlord
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
134
Location
kuzelj
What is your favourite?

You do not have to like either of the solutions, but as those are
historical "developed end game" combat outcomes, which is the one you like prefer to play with?

Also for old timers, there is CTP style war option...


image examples from the net

Carpet of Doom:


Stack od Doom:



CTP tactical battle view:

 
There's been too much debate about this topic to even say anything anymore. I lol'd at the first two pics though :p
 
Carpets of doom have a few advantages:

1. They rarely happen
2. The look like doom when you see one coming for you, unlike a single stack
3. They are much funnier
4. They're softer on your feet
 
Well, I voted for the "Carpet of Doom" without reading the follow-on posts. I thought this was another name for 1-Unit-Per-Tile 'cause I knew that the "Stack of Doom" meant unlimited units per tile. Anyway, I totally hated the "Stack of Doom" in Civ4 ('cause I totally sucked at that game), but in Civ1 & Civ2 it was OK 'cause you could blast the entire stack away with one lucky shot.:D

I guess I don't use the "Carpet of Doom." When I'm on a rampage I just use my super-stealth bombers + a few paratroops to conquer the entire world.:smug:
 
OneFootInThe... said:
What is your favourite?

You do not have to like either of the solutions,
Click to expand...

Another alternative would be the unit stacking option which was available in “Deadlock: Planetary Conquest”. It allowed for a maximum of four infantry, two armor, and four aircraft per tile. This had advantages as follows:

- Versus the 1UPT approach, why it allows for weaker units to be defended by stronger ones in the same tile (i.e. it isn’t as easy to “selectively cull the herd” from the AIs’ oncoming Carpets of Doom). Also versus the 1UPT it is more forgiving of AI misteps (such as sending unsupported militarily weak units against fortified positions).

- Gets rid of the micromanagement involved with Stacks of Doom.


Menzies said:
Carpets of doom have a few advantages:

4. They're softer on your feet
Click to expand...


:lol:

D
 

Attachments

  • Deadlock unit stacking.JPG
    Deadlock unit stacking.JPG
    62.6 KB · Views: 794
Personally, I like the ability to have tactical maneuvering on the main map. It allows the fun of tactical maneuvering without the intense time suck of bringing up another map to micromanage each battle. Even in the total war series, which has the tactical battle as its main feature, I find myself auto-resolving at least half the battles (I only play crucial battles, battles that look to be more interesting, or the occasional battle if I haven't played in awhile where I have overwhelming force and just want to have some fun with it).

If one isn't interested in making combat fun, but just serviceable for the empire-building game, I wouldn't mind a return of stack of doom with one exception. Make the entire stack attack the other entire stack as a single unit (with individual unit battles auto-resolved and factors such as ranged units taken into account). That way, the tedium of each individual attack is resolved and the uselessness of combined arms when the best defender defends is removed.
 
Bibor said:
"Carpet of doom" is a myth. That screenshot was made using a production mod in vanilla Civ5.
Click to expand...
I am pretty shocked to read this. A lot of those anti-1UPT-critics used the 'carpet of doom' as an argument. I had never seen such a thing myself, so I thought it was because Greece is a warmongering maniac. But now it is just the effect of an unbalanced mod....:confused:
 
The CTP-style tactical war map was really great. I kinda miss it.
If re-used, it could even be enhanced: better animated, complexified...

But stacks of doom are always nice. They make you feel powerful.


Know what I mean?
 
I don't know, I feel pretty powerful with an army that stretches across the entire landscape. Of course, I feel powerful like Xerxes felt powerful at Thermopylae because they can be a logistical nightmare, but I still feel powerful.

Although I think Civ3 was actually the height of my stack of doom days. The addition of City Maintenance made it harder to maintain giant armies (although better players than me did). But there was something fun with an army of 20 Berzerkers, 10 Pikemen, and probably 30 Trebuchets in Civ3.
 
I don't mind the Carpet of Doom, really. 1UPT allows for stuff like Cavalry maneuvering that just isn't possible with a stack (you can't take out the enemy siege with your horses because they have 15 Pikemen on the same tile!). Plus, it looks badass.

Although I can see why some people would choose the stack though. I don't really mind managing troop movements (mostly because I make my guys march in a column like a Roman Legion instead of a wide line, and form them up when I actually see the enemy), but I can understand that one might find it very tedious. I do think that there should be a limit on the number of units on a tile. You didn't see the whole US Army crammed up in a 1 square mile when they invaded Iraq, did you?
 
First off I don't have Civ V and don't plan on getting it, but I never felt a problem with unlimited units per tile either in the game or considering 'realism'. I've seen people playing Civ V and I honestly can say I like Civ IV better (in many ways Civ II and III still compete in my head for my favorite, but my favorite mod is in Civ IV).

I feel like the attempt with 1UPT was to create a tactical feel to the game, but the scope of the game is strategic by default and I don't feel it meshes well. A few tiles in Civ IV represents what would've been nearly a full map in Pazner General.

I'm glad a lot of people like it because I want the Civ franchise to be here for the long haul; it's just not my thing.

The amount of space that a single tile represents 'in real life' is vast and it wouldn't be impossible to fit hundreds of thousands of people in an area the size of downtown Chicago; 43,000+ occupied a stretch of beach in WW2. There are numerous examples in history when multitudes of people fit in a small space, if just for a short period of time.

I do think there should've been some kind of limit put in place, like depending on the terrain a certain number of units would've been allowed: grass/plains=15 units, forrest/jungle/hills=5-10 units, mountains=1-2 units. If this was combined with the ability to damage multiple units in the stack with a bombardment then I would think it would've been a better route to go other than 1UPT.

I guess I'm just going to be waiting for Civ VI then.
 
Once again, "realism" isn't a good argument because unit moving has never been realistic. It takes 50 years or more to walk between cities in your empire early in the game. No military force would ever take 50 years, they'd give up and start farming or something if it took that long.
 
Bibor said:
"Carpet of doom" is a myth. That screenshot was made using a production mod in vanilla Civ5.
Click to expand...


but if AI was any good, and you were a good player, like SOD "end game" in previous versions of civ COD is a natural "end game" outcome...

the fact that AI is poor currently that you do not need to have nearly as big army as it has, to compete effectively is another issue altogether.
 
Louis XXIV said:
If one isn't interested in making combat fun, but just serviceable for the empire-building game, I wouldn't mind a return of stack of doom with one exception. Make the entire stack attack the other entire stack as a single unit (with individual unit battles auto-resolved and factors such as ranged units taken into account). That way, the tedium of each individual attack is resolved and the uselessness of combined arms when the best defender defends is removed.
Click to expand...

this is possible in Civ IV already, not sure if it was there in vanilla anymore, but in BTS it is there for sure, you just click an option and SOD's attack as a unit and resolve immidiately.
 
André Alfenaar;10381747 said:
I am pretty shocked to read this. A lot of those anti-1UPT-critics used the 'carpet of doom' as an argument. I had never seen such a thing myself, so I thought it was because Greece is a warmongering maniac. But now it is just the effect of an unbalanced mod....:confused:
Click to expand...

I had Monte put up a Carpet of Doom in a nonmodded game on a large epic map the other day. But hey, he was pushing up against a chokepoint I had made, he was good for a screen full of troops , and a few turns cleared the problem. I had at the same time a much smaller France to my north, and lo and behold Napoleon introduced us all to the atomic bomb. First poor Mecca said hello, after that it was my turn as the USA.

So it kind of made a good game, these different military threats by two maniacs. But I did realise that if I want to avoid so many troops that it just become tedious, I need to play a standad map, still on Epic speed. But at the same time, it wasn't a perpetual carpet, it was as I said after a buildup and when fought down things became normal.
 
OneFootInThe... said:
this is possible in Civ IV already, not sure if it was there in vanilla anymore, but in BTS it is there for sure, you just click an option and SOD's attack as a unit and resolve immidiately.
Click to expand...

How do they defend? Do catapults automatically attack first and then the best combat odds follow? Otherwise, that's just bad strategy. Plus, that would actually further reduce the point of combined arms (are Chariots attacking Axemen in this combined stack, for example?). I was thinking of some other strange formula that would be similar to the auto-resolution of battles found in the Total War series.

But if I am playing Civ4 and already have enough of an advantage that scrolling through units for the best outcomes (as tedious as that is) is unnecessary, I will keep that in mind. Would at least make wars less mind-numbing.
 
jfby said:
First off I don't have Civ V and don't plan on getting it, but I never felt a problem with unlimited units per tile either in the game or considering 'realism'. I've seen people playing Civ V and I honestly can say I like Civ IV better (in many ways Civ II and III still compete in my head for my favorite, but my favorite mod is in Civ IV).

I feel like the attempt with 1UPT was to create a tactical feel to the game, but the scope of the game is strategic by default and I don't feel it meshes well. A few tiles in Civ IV represents what would've been nearly a full map in Pazner General.

I'm glad a lot of people like it because I want the Civ franchise to be here for the long haul; it's just not my thing.

The amount of space that a single tile represents 'in real life' is vast and it wouldn't be impossible to fit hundreds of thousands of people in an area the size of downtown Chicago; 43,000+ occupied a stretch of beach in WW2. There are numerous examples in history when multitudes of people fit in a small space, if just for a short period of time.

I do think there should've been some kind of limit put in place, like depending on the terrain a certain number of units would've been allowed: grass/plains=15 units, forrest/jungle/hills=5-10 units, mountains=1-2 units. If this was combined with the ability to damage multiple units in the stack with a bombardment then I would think it would've been a better route to go other than 1UPT.

I guess I'm just going to be waiting for Civ VI then.
Click to expand...

Just watching people play is not the same as throwing out your preconceived notions and giving it the 'ole college try yourself... just saying.

But I respect your opinion, and your right to denounce a game you've never played before.

Just curious though... do you think Civ VI is going to go back to stacked armies? I have a feeling that 1 UPT is here to stay in regards to the Civ world.

______________________________________________​

In my case... I love 1upt. I don't care about the realism. I enjoy the fact that I can build and maintain a small specialized army, and with some basic tactics I can use them very effectively. But more than that... The reason I am embracing 1upt is because now TERRAIN MATTERS!

In ciV, the tactical values of terrain matters when you are placing cities, building forts (and citadels), and generally moving around. This, in my opinion, brings the terrain to life in a way that transcends tile yield. It is in this way, very refreshing.

Realism suffers with "scale" but benefits with "strategic terrain". The AI needs some help, sure, but I honestly believe 6 months or a year from now someone (the developers or modders once the DLL is released) will have tweaked the AI and worked out the few crazy logic flaws it has.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blake00
Star Trek Doom and Quest for Glory IV 3D Hexen GZDoom mods
Replies
0
Views
746
Blake00
Blake00
Eddie Verdde
  • Poll
Poll: Stack of Doom, Carpet of Doom or something in between?
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
10K
Marla_Singer
Marla_Singer
N
Discussion for new proposal: new medic as a civilian unit instead of combat unit with medic promotion
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
4K
BornDownUnder
B
Solver
Millennia: Age of Verbosity [long-form review]
Replies
13
Views
926
Taefin
Taefin
Plains-Cow
  • Poll
Chopsticks vs. Western Cutlery
6 7 8
Replies
140
Views
6K
Plains-Cow
Plains-Cow
Top Bottom