Stacks of Doom are great!

Wulf38 · Jan 2, 2011

ohioastronomy said:
Second, I think there are semantic issues here. I can certainly see the tedium in the Civ 4 unlimited pile of stuff model. But would two units per hex really create a litany of horrors? Do tactics vanish when you can put more than one unit in a hex?

Agreed. The problem with war in Civ4 isn't the concept of stacking. The main problem is the sheer number of units that come into play later in the game, which is tedious to manage and reduces the significance of any single unit to almost nothing. The other problem is that there's no limit on stacking, which means you can concentrate all that force on one point.

This is why I liked Civ5's 1upt rule at first. It forces units to spread out more, but goes too far in that direction. It doesn't fit the scale of a typical Civ map, so the land gets cluttered with units. It's also part of the reason why human players can get such ridiculous K/D ratios against the AI. Since they can't concentrate their units, you never need to face anywhere near their full force at once. In Civ4 I actually fear surprise invasions from the AI, because it can load several galleons full of units, declare war, and ram them all into one of my coastal cities on the same turn. In Civ5 I barely even care if the AIs declares war on me, since it's unlikely that they'll actually capture cities.

I think it would be fun to allow mini stacks of 4 units, make units somewhat cheaper, and limit each civ to 20 units or so. You'd still have to make interesting decisions about how to compose your stacks and where to deploy them. It would allow more concentration of force, but not too much.

Sonereal · Jan 2, 2011

Wulf38 said:
I think it would be fun to allow mini stacks of 4 units, make units somewhat cheaper, and limit each civ to 20 units or so.

This is a terrible idea.

Let me tell you why.

The idea that Madagascar can field the same size army as the People's Republic of China is pretty asinine, no?

Indeed it is.

Terrible hard limits like that are terrible for a reason. You talk about "1upt not fitting the scale" but in the same breathe talked about limiting civilizations to just 20 units?

If you want to punish the AI, use hard limits like that because those will kill it. If I had the same number of units as the AI, ever, I will win. Because I'm smarter than the AI at war planning. The reason why the higher difficulties increase AI production is because everyone knows that the AI isn't as good as a human.

Islet · Jan 2, 2011

Sonereal said:
Without even going back and reading any post in this thread,

Then perhaps you could read them at some point? :rolleyes:

Some of the arguments for and against SoDs deserve to be evaluated and discussed even if you might disagree with them.

Stacks of doom are trash. There is nothing fun about stacks of doom. They're incredibly stupid and unusable and are so easy to take down with a few simple units. People complain about the AI's inability to handle armies in CiV but like to ignore that in CivIV, the AI isn't smart enough to divide up stacks and avoid getting smash to death with five catapults or something ridiculous like that.

I don't believe the AI pours all of their units to a single giant stack waiting for you. From my experience, they like to keep 2-3 smaller stacks in reserve.

Besides, no point sending your forces piecemeal against a giant opposing stack, if you can get it within your borders, the road movement bonuses would allow you to unleash your catapults against them first.

Because giant stacks of doom are stupid. Plain and simple. There's nothing awe-inspiring about them. There's nothing hard about taking one down. Stack busting in CivIV was as easy as sending 5+ catapults at something and then mopping up. It was that bad and simple to handle. Anyone who is impressed by a SoD in a game is easily impressed.

What else? Oh yeah, it made terrain pointless because siege units dominated period. If you had more siege units than your enemy, there's a good chance you won the battle. It doesn't help that if you smash the big stack, the war is over.

If the opponent, AI/human, decided to mass his entire invasion force in one giant stack then he should rightly deserve the penalty of Collateral Damage by Siege Engines. In fact, even the loading screen occasionally hints that moving in a stack has its disadvantages.

So, either you split your stacks up, or you better have some screening forces ahead of you. If you want, you can even go 1UPT in Civ IV! Just don't expect the opponent will share the same thoughts as you though.

Shmike · Jan 2, 2011

I can't get into civ4 because of the stacks of doom, which is really a shame because it is better than 5. I played a game or two and enjoyed it, I just hated the stacks.

JBConquests · Jan 2, 2011

I don't hate Stacks of Doom. I played Civ 4 and all it's expansions and enjoyed stacks of doom but I got my fill of Stacks of Doom now and am ready for something new. Bring on 1upt.

flyingbunnys · Jan 2, 2011

Even after all the post I am still not convinced that stacks were better than what we have now even with the current flaws.

The one downside to IV was stacks wars would end in 1 turn when 1 stack beats the other.

Grimberht · Jan 2, 2011

I don't really understand all the buzz around the 1UPT tactical attributes.Maybe it is for a 4 yrs old, but once you've put your first archer on a hill defended him with 2 swordsman... you've done it all.

Moreover since MP is broken and the AI is absolutely dumb; how can one really appreciate the "advantage" of the tactical flavours. If its means that winning the large majority of your battles cause a fussy feeling of being smart after defeating the AI (a very dumb one) well fine... I guess 1UPT is just for you. But otherwise, how can you enjoy the tactical values of something you're basically the only one to "play" the way it should?

I agree SOD had its flaw... AI was dumb too, always bringing everything on an initial wave, most often stacking it for 10-15 turns on the frontier so you didnt even had to spy to see it... but really it was never has bad has 1UPT.

This is the worst idea they could have made... and has far has I'm concern (and till they prove me wrong, and they most likely wont) they've KILLED the franchise.

Smote · Jan 3, 2011

how to defeat a Civ4 ai stack of doom (any size, any units):

1. Get 6-10 catapults (with city attack)
2. Get a lot of swordsmen (with city attack)

Yield your first city (hopefully it is crappy).

Attack with catapults. Bring all enemy units to 1/4.
Attack with swordsmen, repeatedly, until enemy stack is dead. AI will sit in the city and try to heal while you repeatedly massacre their entire stack (you will kill an amount equal to your amount of swordsmen each turn).

tom2050 · Jan 3, 2011

It's also ridiculous to make the AI horrible with 1upt. Moderation is key. Limited stacks is what they should do for 6 so they don't ruin the game again. There are plenty of ways they can be implemented in a better way so combat is enjoyable and 'all units together is most powerful' is not the case.

Camikaze · Jan 3, 2011

Babri said:
Simply you are not to be convinced (and there is no need for that either). Maybe you assume that you represent the majority of the fans or something.
It is very clear from several polls that most people prefer 1UPT over SODs though some think that Firaxis could have chosen a middle path.

A poll that asks for a preference between 1upt and SoDs is asking a leading question. SoDs is a negative descriptor. I assume that's how it started off, and I assume that's how it has been ever since. It's been that way ever since I've seen the term, at any rate. It would be fairer to ask whether people prefer '1upt' or 'stacks' (although people would automatically assume SoDs here, even though that would most likely specifically not be the case) or ask whether they prefer 'carpets of doom' or 'stacks of doom' (although CoDs haven't developed nearly as much of a negative association as SoDs has). If you're asking for a preference between a reasonably neutral idea and a directly negative one, it's no surprise people will go for the former.

CivFart · Jan 3, 2011

I USED to like it back in the days. But thats because I didnt know any better. The removal of stack of doom was the ultimate political correct deed.

Now battles feel like they have strategy to it. You trust what you see on screen.

krasny · Jan 3, 2011

Stacks of doom are not great. That's why xUPT was implemented into RAND as a bonus, at first unsupported option. So many users started using it that it became supported. I'm not sure, but I think RiFE uses xUPT as well now. Why?

RAND?

RiFE?

Please enlighten me!

freeluos · Jan 3, 2011

I will face it. Even if they can implement limited stack sizes then there are still dozens of combat models. They will choose the dumbest, most crippled variant.

1upt, limited stacks, sods. It doesn't matter.

Babri · Jan 3, 2011

Sonereal said:
Without even going back and reading any post in this thread, I realize by the thread title I was going to have to put the OP on my constantly growing list of people who give me aneurysms with their posts.

Stacks of doom are trash. There is nothing fun about stacks of doom. They're incredibly stupid and unusable and are so easy to take down with a few simple units. People complain about the AI's inability to handle armies in CiV but like to ignore that in CivIV, the AI isn't smart enough to divide up stacks and avoid getting smash to death with five catapults or something ridiculous like that.

Stacks of doom are not great. That's why xUPT was implemented into RAND as a bonus, at first unsupported option. So many users started using it that it became supported. I'm not sure, but I think RiFE uses xUPT as well now. Why?

Because giant stacks of doom are stupid. Plain and simple. There's nothing awe-inspiring about them. There's nothing hard about taking one down. Stack busting in CivIV was as easy as sending 5+ catapults at something and then mopping up. It was that bad and simple to handle. Anyone who is impressed by a SoD in a game is easily impressed.

What else? Oh yeah, it made terrain pointless because siege units dominated period. If you had more siege units than your enemy, there's a good chance you won the battle. It doesn't help that if you smash the big stack, the war is over.

Seriously, the only challenge of the war when it comes to CivIV is the first few turns of the war. It was something you could expand on. It was something that no longer worked.

Froptus · Jan 3, 2011

I loved CIV 4, especially with ROM installed, and I played it for hundreds of hours. The only thing I really disliked about the game was the SoD. I think 1upt is better but unfortunately it definitely has its problems.

Somebody out there needs to come up with a better solution. Combat in CIV has to fun, interesting, and challenging.

Me,myself,and,I · Jan 3, 2011

krasny said:
RAND?

RiFE?

Please enlighten me!

No clue what RiFE is, but RAND is short for Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn. Rise of Mankind is a mod that greatly expands cIV (New techs, units, resources, civics etc etc...) and A New Dawn is a large feature add-on (Fixed borders, advanced diplo, ruthless AI, XUPT, revolutions, etc etc...) that goes with RoM (it is a mod mod). RoM:AnD (or RAND) has made cIV one of my favorite games of all time. (and if you don't like a feature in the game, you can simply turn it of.)

On-Topic
Civilization is a empire building and grand-strategy game. War is an integral part of it, HOWEVER war is not the most important part of it, and should a zoomed battle system be implemented that MUST get the back burner to strategy. Unfortunately my favorite combat model of all time could not work in civ. In reality a war would be a clash of two armies/navies or if the losing side had enough troops clashes between a series of armies, by the mediaeval era it was possible to survive the destruction of your main army and come back again every time, but as time went by fewer and fewer troops were needed to control a larger and larger area, by the time of the American civil war a war became an engagement of several armies in several places in rapid succession, and finally with the first world war a war was a series of battles fought along an entire front. In cIV we fought the pre 20th century way of war, and in ciV we fight the 20th/21st centuries' way of war. What we really need is a combat model that allows for this change of scale.
/rant

Bad Brett · Jan 3, 2011

Smote said:
how to defeat a Civ4 ai stack of doom (any size, any units):

1. Get 6-10 catapults (with city attack)
2. Get a lot of swordsmen (with city attack)

Yield your first city (hopefully it is crappy).

Attack with catapults. Bring all enemy units to 1/4.
Attack with swordsmen, repeatedly, until enemy stack is dead. AI will sit in the city and try to heal while you repeatedly massacre their entire stack (you will kill an amount equal to your amount of swordsmen each turn).

Yeah, do this to a city with 100% cultural defense, behind a river, stacked with CG3 Longbowmen. Even if you somehow manage to capture the city, you will most likely lose your entire army in the process.

It's funny how so many people try so hard to convince us that SoD's required no strategy at all (especially compared with the four horsemen before the patch :rolleyes:

). In reality, there are a lot of decisions that need to be made that you ignored eniterly.

Problem 1: City is behind a river
Options: Suffer from a 25% defense bonus or waste 1-2 turns, losing the defense bonus and perhaps have to put the stack on plains instead of hills

Problem 2: Cultural defenses are 100%
Options: Spend 5 turns bombarding it to 0%, use a spy (which requires planning), outnumber the enemy

Problem 3: Enemy keeps chopping new defenders while you are bombarding
Options: Stop bombarding and do a suicide attack, keep bombarding or pick a different city

Problem 4: Enemy have many strong defenders
Options: Promote catapults with CR1 and hope that they will win the battle, or suicide them with B1 to cause more collateral damage

Problem 5: The enemy were lucky and survived the first attack
Options: Attack with wounded units to keep the momentum, or let them heal while you wait for reinforcements.

Problem 6: Enemy reinforcements are on the way
Options: Withdraw to safer location and take care of the enemy stack first, or, capture the city and hope that you will be lucky enough to survive an enemy attack

Problem 7: War weariness is becoming a huge problem
Options: Make peace with the AI to save the economy or killing him off completely

So, to sum it up, any idiot could capture one or two cities by using said tactics, but if you want to capture 10 cities on a higher difficulty level, you'd better put some thought into what you're doing...

To attack with the entire stack is just stupidity. I've accidently lost medics and GG's in the process. And if you play the game correctly, siege weapons don't have to be suicide units. A CRIII treb will take care of most defenders. The strategy lies in actually getting CRIII trebs.

Celevin · Jan 3, 2011

Bad Brett said:
So, to sum it up, any idiot could capture one or two cities by using said tactics, but if you want to capture 10 cities on a higher difficulty level, you'd better put some thought into what you're doing...

Since you mentioned difficulty level, we'll only talk about AI.

You don't need to put any thought even on Immortal or Deity beyond "move the stack to a forest/hill beside the enemy city, and Verdun it 5-6 times". Yeah, that's right, I used Verdun as a verb. And I don't fail as hard as the Germans.

This isn't about coming up with a tactic on the forums and implementing it. This is about years and years of Civ4 playing on Emperor+ using this tactic. Extra thought into the tactic includes moving around the river, yeah, or bombarding or using a spy. But it still holds: The central tactic used (even if it has to be modified) in Civ4 warfare is move a stack to a city, bombard, use collateral damage, and win.

Me,myself,and,I · Jan 3, 2011

Bad Brett said:
Yeah, do this to a city with 100% cultural defense, behind a river, stacked with CG3 Longbowmen. Even if you somehow manage to capture the city, you will most likely lose your entire army in the process.

He said that he was yielding his first city, meaning the enemy will not be in a city with 100% defensive bonus. Second even a city such as you describe can be taken using the Verdun tactic, catapult down to 0% defensive bonus, move to the correct side of the river and bring plenty of troops particularly cheap anti-archer units.

Bad Brett · Jan 3, 2011

Celevin said:
This isn't about coming up with a tactic on the forums and implementing it. This is about years and years of Civ4 playing on Emperor+ using this tactic. Extra thought into the tactic includes moving around the river, yeah, or bombarding or using a spy. But it still holds: The central tactic used (even if it has to be modified) in Civ4 warfare is move a stack to a city, bombard, use collateral damage, and win.

Which in my opinion is just the right amount of battle tactics to have in a strategy game like Civ. They tried to make battle tactics more important in Civ 5, but since the game is so heavily unbalanced (horsemen before patch, importance of iron after patch and super dumb AI), you hardly need to use any tactics, except when you lure the AI into a choke point, which in my opinion is more an exploit.

Stacks of Doom are great!

Warlord

♫We got the guillotine♫

Chieftain

Warlord

Prince

Warlord

Chieftain

Emperor

Deity

Administrator

Warlord

Prince

Chieftain

Emperor

Chieftain

Me,myself,and,I

Guest

King

King

Me,myself,and,I

Guest

King

Similar threads