NASAROG
Prince
Not really. I like how E:FE has armies as well as E:MotB. That would be awesome.
Does anyone else miss stacking wars
- Thread starter Alexey86
- Start date
What do you think about Third Solution - stacks which, after encounter, fight on battlefield a la Heroes of Might and Magic/King's Bounty?
In my opinion, this could be awesome... If handled properly. Otherwise, I would like to see improved 1UPT or for example 3UPT
In my opinion, this could be awesome... If handled properly. Otherwise, I would like to see improved 1UPT or for example 3UPT
Callonia
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 2,180
I got FE:LH, the armies work because there is tactical maps for battles to fight out on.
And cities have their Militia plus max of extra nine units you can put in it.
Although there is ******ed bias in FE:LH if you manually defend the city with your militia with ur units. They will vanish after the first battle but if you auto resolve it, they will stay around for human players. -.-
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,570
Imo. 3UPT would kill the whole purpose of having different unit types (ranged units, melee units, mounted units). If you get 3UPT, every tile would consist of mini armies á la 1 melee unit + 1 ranged unit + 1 siege unit which then means that all "units" (stacks) will be identical and all-purpose. The beauty of 1UPT is that it really lets the individual properties of each unit come through and that picking one type of unit inevitably means you'll have to forego another type of unit in this spot.Otherwise, I would like to see improved 1UPT or for example 3UPT
rschissler
King
In theory that could be true, but I'm sure no one is that precise in having the perfect ratio of different types of units.
MisterBoomBoom
King
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 700
It would serve to heighten an actual multi hex or even one against one battle with more depth while still not having to suffer through the "my 32 units against your 30 thing." I prefer 1UP but if it has to expand do so with melee-a ranged-and something purely air defensive (like a mini combined army org)
Not if units in a class have different purpose. defensive ranged, offensive melee, etc... You'll get offensive stack, defensive stack, mixed stack ...
And you can bring back specific properties to units with stack: outflanking, collateral damage, support fire (defensive, offensive, counter), etc...
To illustrate limited stacking, I've just made a short video of one turn in my current test game with the development version of C&SO (and some other WIP mods):
Link to video.
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,213
There it is^^
A mod that allows you to stack in civilization 5. Just like that mod that allowed you to shoot arrows in civilization 4.
A mod that allows you to stack in civilization 5. Just like that mod that allowed you to shoot arrows in civilization 4.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,926
So it's just how you want to play. Sonereal you want more realistic gamplay (warhammer player ? ), I want fun and challenge. 1upt is funnier.
Thanks Teproc.
First of all, no. I can totally understand why you think 1UPT is an acceptable mechanic for a Civilization game if you've never played Civilization before V.
Except 1UPT isn't an acceptable mechanic in a strategic game unless that game is something like Panzers General and, lets face it, this is no Panzer Generals.
There is absolutely no difficult defeating the AI in this game in war. Unit-by-unit, you will always do better.
Second, that's how a *lot* of players want to play.
Since Firaxis can't design a combat AI to save their own lives, they're better off ditching 1UPT and going with something more flexible than the objectively inferior 1UPT system.
That's why you don't see any 1UPT mods (XUPT only) for Civilization IV, but I've seen at least stacking mods for Civilization V.
Teproc
King
Obviously a lot more players are fine with it, since Civ V is much more popular than Civ IV. Naturally the graphics and other stuff are a part of that, but I find it funny that you use this argument when Civ V is criticized for "dumbing down" and going for the lowest common denominator...
It is not objectively worse, YOU prefer stacking. I find 1UPT to be infinitely more enjoyable. I have played every Civ game since I was a young kid, and I have never gotten majorly invested in them before Civ V (well, I did with Civ I) because I found war to be boring and repetitive. 1UPT made me renew my interest in the game. I can get the realism argument, I can get the strategy>tactics argument, but I don't get how one can possibly find stacking wars to be more fun to play than 1UPT wars.
And why shouldn't the solution be to design a better AI ? If Civ VI goes back to stacking, I might stick with Civ V personally, much like you presumably stuck to Civ IV.
Or it's because it's much harder to mod from a infinte stacking system to a 1UPT than from a 1UPT to a 3UPT or something similar. But you know, whatever weak argument you need to make is fine.
kaspergm
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 5,570
Nice looking mod, but what I see in the video exactly shows me what I would expect: Namely a systematic layout of stacks by player that means melee unit (for defence) + ranged unit (for attack) + siege unit (for city attack or I reckon some collateral damage effect?).
What I see now is that suddenly we can ranged units in every single tile without having to fear for them dying because of low defence. This in turn will mean many more units get to attack each turn, which will mean that more units die and you will need to produce more units overall. A very bad outcome imo. that does nothing good for the game.
Teproc
King
Yeah I agree with kasper here, I think 3UPT or something similar is interesting, but would work better if it restricted to only have one type of unit( melee/ranged/siege) together.
"ranged" units are renamed "support" unit in the mod, some are offensive (canon, artillery) and can provide offensive support and counter-fire, while some are defensive (Gatling gun, machine gun) and provide only defensive fire without possibility of offensive ranged attack, but deal more damage to melee units than canon and artillery.
I plan to give outflanking ability to mounted units and tanks (offensive melee units) to pick the weakest unit on a plot when they attack it.
And after that there will be defensive melee units (spearmen, spikemen) that could prevent the "outflanking" from the mounted units.
Units can also take more damages before dying in the mod.
I think I miss the point here, what is the interest of such a mechanism ?
rschissler
King
shaglio
The Prince of Dorkness
What I like most about the 1UPT in Civ 5 is that, at least in my experience, I do much more fighting battles in the field between territories (Unless I'm going for a Domination Victory). In Civs 1-4, it was just stacks attacking cities. So you can have your Battle of Gettysburg, Custer’s Last Stand, and Charge of the Light Brigade instead of just your Battle of Bunker Hill and Sack of Constantinople. For me, just sieging cities all the time got repetitive and boring.
Well, my personal interset in Civ started way back in the nineties because (in a time where most strategy and simulation games were wargames) it was a game that could be won peacefully being a builder. If I want war games I can play war games any day. But I play Civ because I enjoy running an empire, making politics and dealing with other nations. My focus never is and never was on war. I never played anything Panzer General or Battle Isle or stuff like that. Bores me to death. I am not interested in tactical warfare (at least not in hex/1upt style - although I apreciate what the Total War games do). So trying to force that play style on me by turning Civ from history/politics game with a bit of warfare into a 1upt battle tactics game with (a still) abysmally bad AI and a bit of empire management in the background backfired horribly - at least as far as I am concerned.
In a Civ game war should always be one option but it should never be the single game defining element that all other elements in the game have to be compromised for. But in Civ V they are: compared to Civ III and IV a lot of game elements have been changed for the worse - just to somehow make 1upt work. Something btw. which even the game's lead designer admitted not too long ago...
Teproc
King
Except Civ V is probably the hardest game in the series as far as warmongering goes because of happiness and science penalties. People complain all the time that tall and peaceful is "the only way" to play this game and that warmongering is too heavily punished
I used to prefer tall and peaceful as well in Civ III and IV (I didn't play much of Civ II, and Civ I was all about war for me), but that was because I found war to be boring with stacks. Now I still enjoy playing tall and peaceful, but I also enjoy war because of 1UPT.
@Gedemon : It would keep the current focus on placement of your army and using terrain to your advantage, while allowing to field bigger armies. As Kasper said, an unrestricted 3UPT (or similar) would lead to you just having uniform regiments on each tiles, with one melee to protect powerful ranged and siege units.
I used to prefer tall and peaceful as well in Civ III and IV (I didn't play much of Civ II, and Civ I was all about war for me), but that was because I found war to be boring with stacks. Now I still enjoy playing tall and peaceful, but I also enjoy war because of 1UPT.
@Gedemon : It would keep the current focus on placement of your army and using terrain to your advantage, while allowing to field bigger armies. As Kasper said, an unrestricted 3UPT (or similar) would lead to you just having uniform regiments on each tiles, with one melee to protect powerful ranged and siege units.
No, that's exactly one the compromises I talked about. Force in 1upt => AI programmer unable to do it properly => players abuse it with no end in Vanilla and G&K => Firaxis' final solution: nerf warmongering/ruin AI behaviour with ridiculous warmonger penalties. Brilliant!
You are right: in the end BNW turned out peacefull builder heven. But not because that was an deliberate design decision - but because Firaxis was unable to make AI 1upt warfare work and had to compromise other game elements (good, rational and reasonable AI).
If you consider that an Infantry Division and a Panzer-Division of WWII were "uniform", then yes.
Similar threads
