Reformed Combat – Limited UPT/Armies

I propose a reform to combat; I think that 1upt was a positive step and a better system when compared to “Stacks of Doom,” but I also think that it creates a cluttered map and doesn’t express the idea of an army well enough.

Bear with me if my suggestions and ideas are not yet fully realized. Obviously this proposed system would require some aspects of the game to become restructured and thus this proposition is reserved for a major expansion, which could overhaul the combat system, or Civ VI. Also, please read the whole post in order to fully understand the system I propose! I know it is long, but that just increases the chance you’ll miss something.

What I suggest is allowing three units per tile. You can group any three units and movement is governed by the slowest moving unit in the group. Units merged in this fashion would lose their autonomy, but would create stacking bonuses that would contribute to the army’s overall combat effectiveness. If there are multiple types of units in a group, you can choose how to attack with that army.

For example, if you were to combine a spearman, an archer, and a catapult, you could choose to attack an adjacent unit (via the spearman), a ranged attack (via the archer), or set up for a ranged attack strong against a city (via the catapult). When attacked, the result would depend on the combat bonuses inherent in that stack of units. If attacked by an army of three horsemen, the army would get a bonus against the horsemen from the spearman, but not as much as three spearmen together would provide.

Stacking same units would multiply the effects of those units, but would cause a loss in versatility; three catapults would be spectacular at city sieges, but would be as vulnerable as a catapult normally is. A catapult with a swordsman attached would be slightly more durable, but lack as much city attacking power. Three spearmen would devastate a group of cavalry, but would lack the option for a ranged attack.

This system would add a layer of tactics to the game beyond positioning; you’d have to decide how best to compose each army. Do you make an army of spearmen to combat horsemen stacks, or do you spread your spearmen out, one to each stack, to give each stack a slight defense bonus to each army (think 33% vs. 100%)?

Players would also have to weigh whether they wanted to stack their units, or to keep them separated out – keeping them by themselves would result in the ability to hit multiple tiles at once for pillaging purposes and to attack more targets per turn (as the army would only be able to attack one target once per turn, albeit with more strength vs. three separate units who could attack three different targets).

Visually, the limited stack system would also have appeal; if you combined a spearman, archer, and catapult, the unit on the screen would, as a result, have spearmen in front, archers behind, and a catapult at the back, enhancing the look of the unit. Two musketmen and a cannon would feature a line of infantry in front of the artillery, and so on and so forth.

Great Generals would also be altered – instead of a 15% combat bonus, they could instead be used to increase the number of slots in an army, from three to four, giving you the ability to make your army more versatile/powerful.

I know this is a relatively complicated system, but it adds a lot of nuance and depth to combat if implemented correctly and would bolster immersion, which some, including myself, highly value.

I turn it over to you now: Questions? Comments? Suggestions?

Anybody? Anybody?

Well, dang, I thought it was a cool idea...

It was.

CiV doesn't allowing stacks really annoyes some players that were used to older versions. But not me, as I thought it's very good to really must movement units. But a stack of three units isn't that bad or OP.

My only regret is that the bonuses stack. I mean, you can't have this for siege stacks, as them would be so much OP.

I'd have thought about of the idea about some new promotions, as to have a extra slot or aim to the unit that is weaker to your attack.

But the second promotion wouldn't be useful as, for what I read, the stack would behave as a giant unit (except on attacks, obviously).

I think this is a good idea and could work very well if properly implemented. I agree that there are a lot of details that would need to be worked out regarding upgrades and bonuses and whatnot.

ArnoldI said:

My only regret is that the bonuses stack. I mean, you can't have this for siege stacks, as them would be so much OP.

I'd have thought about of the idea about some new promotions, as to have a extra slot or aim to the unit that is weaker to your attack.

But the second promotion wouldn't be useful as, for what I read, the stack would behave as a giant unit (except on attacks, obviously).

Click to expand...

Well, I was thinking of it this way: with the implementation of the stack system, every unit in the game would be reduced in effectiveness by 2/3; that is to say, a full stack of catapults with my system would equal a catapult as it is now in the game. Basically we'd be producing a third of a spearman, a third of an archer, a third of a catapult, and we could keep them as they are or we can combine them, depending on our strategy.

Just like in real life, though, you'd have to make an army in order to stand a chance against a city; a small band of swordsmen aren't going to stand a chance, but some swordsmen with some archers and siege weapons, and you've got yourself an army ready to siege a city.

As for promotions, I suppose there could be a system in place that allows you to direct your promotion to a single part of the stacked unit (i.e., you could still give an archer in the stack a barrage or volley promotion, and it would only take effect on a ranged attack), or to direct a promotion to the army overall (new promotions, for example a marching bonus to increase army movement speed or perhaps a formation promotion that would bolster combat effectiveness on defense by a percentage increase).

The idea is good. The problem however is to avoid creating a automatic superstack that would always be chosen. Your three catapults for example would be eaten by probably any melee unit, so you put at least one meat shield in there. See how variation goes down again?

More generally though, ranged units would be overpowered (if you keep the same strength) and main-melee units (like the swordsmen) would see no action at all.

Put an archer behind a swordman and he will kill everything without being able to be harmed, not? Ranged units are balanced right now that in order to get to a spot from where they can attack, they sometimes need to expose themselves. That would not exist anymore.

My main objection however would be, why bother? Why don't we got directly to a system with armies with categories of units and a few "outriders" / single units (like scouts). What's the benefit of making it 3 per tile (or 9-per-tile or whatever).

The big benefit of the 1upt is that the system is easy to comprehend and doesn't need huge calculations. Good for new and casual players, as well as for the AI. I'd have nightmares what would happen with your 3 per tile-system, unless we programm the AI to use like 3 standard modells which then in turn would kill variation and unexpectedness by the AI

Perhaps the unit that attacks is the unit that takes the damage; if the army performs no action at all, the unit with the highest combat strength (the "toughest" unit) takes the damage.

To balance the ranged units, I would suggest that ranged units in general do less damage. To compensate for the lack of damage, perhaps ranged units could come with a new feature, "Disruption." This would allow you, as an attacker, to disrupt an enemy formation (army), which would allow you to use a second army or individual unit and attack your unit of choice within that stack, regardless of what the last unit was that attacked in that formation or if the army was fortified.

This would minimize ranged units effectiveness in taking down melee units, but would bolster them to be tactically useful.

And I don't imagine army comp would go out the window; sure, you can add a swordsmen to your two catapults for the increased defense, but some may opt to have one catapult in every army or something like that.

There would, of course, be a bevy of new promotions available; perhaps cavalry could have an option to directly attack siege units in a stack, which would, as a result, minimize the role of swordsmen in a stack. Consequently, you'd have to take this into account and furnish rear-guards to counter enemy cavalry pushes to take our your siege equipment, a role that would bring cavalry more prominence and promote cavalry's use, as is historically accurate, as chargers and flankers.

Yeah, it would be problematic for the AI; they can't even handle the current, relatively simple combat, which I frankly find inexplicable. I'm not a game designer, I'm not a coder, and I'm not an expert on how Civ's AI functions, but it seems like a lot could be done to improve it without too much effort.

I think some form of limited UPT would be a good idea, and a more interesting combat system than either stacks of doom or 1UPT.

One possibility I think would be cool is an attrition system, where units take damage at the end of each turn they end with more than one unit on the tile, say 10 damage per turn for each unit beyond the first on the tile. This would make stacks of doom still a bad strategy, but allow some flexibility in movement and temporary protection of certain vulnerable units.

It might also make sense to allow an extra unit per tile before it kicks in in your own territory, though this would have to be tested for balance. Maybe nerf city defenses to adjust. Could also have a late game technology which increases the limit to two per tile before attrition, since the clogging problems get most severe in the later stages.

What do you guys think?