Should probabilistic mortal combat return?

please no stacking. The only stacking I feel ok with is to 'attach' a civilian to a military unit to avoid the burden of moving them , like if you want your warrior or scout to escort your settler early on or a great merchant.
 
Small stacks mean the same problems of carpets of doom without any of the tactical strategies. There's no attempts to flank to take out ranged units or anything like that because the ranged units are protected by defending units.

Small stacks is the worst of both worlds, not the best.

Oh, come on. :) I know this statement, it was argued to pieces before release of civ. In fact I was one of supporters of this statement. But open your mind for a moment. There's combinations that would be more effective than others in certain situations. It would be primarily used to get rid of logistics nightmare. Also ranged damage spreads in a stack, ranged units could be at all times protected, but still in danger (alternatively ranged bonus/penalty could be 5-10% per unit in the stack, up to 20%-25% when full 5 units, meaning ranged units would get 20% more damage output against a stack). There are still such things as flanking bonus. If my stack of 5 (2 archers, 2 spears, 1 warrior) gets ambushed by similar stack and they would just face off, the outcome would be an expected one; fast carnage until one side remains. But if they were to ambush the stack with semi circling with 2 spears and 1 warrior with 2 lone archers behind, the outcome would be different. As ranged units can't kill off one unit at a time be "precision firing", concentrating on one unit at a time would be ineffective. While their archers get to attack whole stack at once, spreading the damage to all, my ranged including hence dumping their attacks, and melee receiving flanking bonuses. Depending on circumstances this ambush could be fatal. Also horse units could be receiving better flanking bonuses and as they move after attack...

There could be situations where being in a stack is more beneficial and there could be situations where spreading out would be more effective or even necessary. Primarily it would be addressing logistic issue. And no carpets of doom. I can't imagine having so many units in order to form carpet of doom of mini stacks. If there can be, then unit output should be limited more, tied to population and so on. So that one rarely could amass more than 10 or so units. Navy separately. Would make wars more pleasant methinks. :)

It's not the best of two worlds, not even close. It's a compromise.

More alternatives:

Units in a stack work like fighters do (they are stacked and can each intercept only ONCE until given promotion of additional interception per turn). So they could defend ONCE. So that you wouldn't attack that one sword in the stack over and over again until he's dead, before you attack archers or others, but rather best unit is used for defense, but when he defended once next best is defending, even if the first is still best. :dunno:
 
[Limited stacking] ... it would be primarily used to get rid of logistics nightmare ....

I don't like it. I think it would add a nightmare of complex rules and make the logistics nightmare worse!

All a limited stacking system would do is dilute the benefit of both systems, at the cost of adding extra complexity where we're always thinking "hmm, are these units allowed to share a tile?" "Oh dang, I've made this group on this tile but now these units left over don't go together!" Etc....

.... It's not the best of two worlds, not even close. It's a compromise...

Shouldn't we be trying to think of something which *IS* the best of both worlds????!!!

BTW I like your proposed ranged unit rules a lot! :)
 
I would choose for a unlimited stacking option with damage (calculated against best defending unit) for all units in the stack.
example: pikeman+musketman+crossbow is attacked by a knight.
The pikeman is the best defending unit and combat takes place as if it was the knight against only that pikeman. The pikeman receives 25 damage => the musketman and crossbow also receive 25 damage each.
You could say that the pikeman protected the musketman and crossbowman from more damage.

Benefits:
- This system prevents Stacks of Doom, since you could kill a 20 unit stack with only 3 units, therefore making it a bad idea to put that many units on one tile.
- easy logistics and movement of soldiers
- balance between benefits of stack against lone units.*

Downside:
- I'm sure somebody will find something. ;)

*Lets say you have a pikeman+musketman and the enemy has two knights. Keeping them alone will make the musketman more vulnerable, but will allow a counterattack from your pikeman? Or stack them, giving more damage to the attacking knights, but make counterattack more difficult because youre pikeman won't be fresh?
 
Another idea that is already implemented in the ocean: keep 1UPT but have 2 separate classes of troops that can overlap. So like embarked land units can be covered by boats and civilians can be covered by military. So too, can ranged and melee overlap because they are two different classes. then we could finally drop the ridiculous archer range back down to 1 where it belongs...just like gatling guns.

At most this would result in:
1 civilian, 1 melee, 1 ranged in a tile. No more as 1 UPT is still in effect for the all other units of those types. Of course this would make taking cities cake with a well-balanced army, but I think we'd be impressed at how much better the AI would do with this system. I would also be in favor of having a combined damage mechanic where the covered archer/civilian takes some damage if the hex is attacked to make it more balanced.
 
What about changing bash to attack to entanglement for combat. What I mean is your swordsmen move into the same time as the other civ's spearmen and they fight as long as they both occupy that tile. Ranged can attack the tile but it hurts both units and a moral hit. Keeps 1UPT and its multi turn health but lessens the issues with space/pathing and adds that fighting to the death feel.

I think it would add some tactical depth as well. You would want to create some form of formation or battle lines. You would want to cycle melee units and keeping ranged just 1 tile back would be risky. If the break your lines they can pin your ranged, etc. Mounted could actually flank and pin down/crush ranged.
 
No, no, no please. Anything but Civ IV's combat system.
Units had a way too short life expectancy, there was few satisfaction in improving a core of veteran forces. And I felt I spent too much time building units, instead of developing my empire.
 
Top Bottom