A possible solution to moving carpets of doom: a "column march mode"?

megabearsfan

megabearsfan

Prince
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
552
Location
Las Vegas, NV
I was thinking about the problems of late-game unit management and "carpets of doom" that can make it difficult and time-consuming to move large numbers of units across the map. Perhaps units could be put in a "Column March Mode" that allows them to be moved as a stack? While Column Marching, the stack is still affected by zone of control (even if the units in the stack are immune to it), the stack cannot enter cities, units in the stack cannot attack until they are "deployed" (i.e. moved out of the stack), and the stack itself would be vulnerable to attacks (i.e. ambushes). If an enemy unit attacks the stack, damage would be applied to all units in the stack.

This could alleviate some of the tedium of having to move large numbers of units across the map, as well as situations in which large numbers of units have to funnel through a narrow gap between obstacles. On top of that, there could be a command that has to be issued in order to start stacking units, that way, you don't accidentally stack them while clicking and dragging units on the front line (and thus making them vulnerable to attack), and you can still "swap" the positions of units as you do now.

What do people think of this idea? Does it seem like it would work?
 
To Clarify:

- Implement MUPT for units; this is possibly restrained by type
- Collateral damage is implicit and is equal to the damage any one unit takes
- Stack Limit?
 
Ja, I think it would be a good thing and would also add some more strategy and realisticness
 
ThorHammerz said:
To Clarify:

- Implement MUPT for units; this is possibly restrained by type
- Collateral damage is implicit and is equal to the damage any one unit takes
- Stack Limit?
Click to expand...

- Doesn't have to be restrained by type, but stack would have movement speed of the slowest unit in the stack.
- Correct: implied collateral damage. Damage dealt could be equal for all units in the stack. In this case, the stack as a whole could be assumed to be a single unit that has the raw combat strength of the weakest unit in the stack without any promotions (taking the higher of melee or ranged strength, and not counting civilian units). All units in the stack take damage based on the results of that combat.
Or, all units in the stack could take damage as if they had been individually attacked by the attacking unit (thus, some units may die, others would survive). This would require the game to perform a background calculation of a battle between the attacking army and each unit in the stack individually.
- Doesn't have to be any limit to the size of the stack. Maintenance costs, general unit cap, and the inability to attack if you can't deploy the stack would help control stack size.


One technical consideration to overcome: how to handle a situation in which all tiles are filled with stacks of units, such that none can move or attack each other?

And the next question becomes: can civilian units be stacked? If so, I would suggest that they cannot perform actions while stacked (i.e. improve tiles, settle cities, etc). Then what happens if the stack is attacked by an enemy? Should all units be captured or killed?
 
megabearsfan said:
One technical consideration to overcome: how to handle a situation in which all tiles are filled with stacks of units, such that none can move or attack each other?
Click to expand...

You disband them. Or launch a couple nukes. Or quit the game. Or wait for a victory screen.

Whichever one is more convenient for the player.

EDIT: It will also be a pain in the ass if you want to teach how to use this feature to the AI.
 
megabearsfan said:
- Doesn't have to be restrained by type, but stack would have movement speed of the slowest unit in the stack.
- Correct: implied collateral damage. Damage dealt could be equal for all units in the stack. Or, all units in the stack could take damage as if they had been individually attacked by the attacking unit (thus, some units may die, others would survive).
- Doesn't have to be any limit to the size of the stack. Maintenance costs, general unit cap, and the inability to attack if you can't deploy the stack would help control stack size.


One technical consideration to overcome: how to handle a situation in which all tiles are filled with stacks of units, such that none can move or attack each other?
Click to expand...

That has happened to me before and I had to delete the spare unit that got stuck. I couldn't finish my turn because of it.
 
what if a number of units could be combined in a super-unit (army) like in civ3? (not a stack)
with increased strength and hitpoints (requires GG)

i aslo think all units should be able to "change port" like the great admiral
or be rebased in the same fashion between cities connected by railroad (but railroad wouldnt have an effect on the "tactical" moves)

to hide units from the map if arent used there could be a "quartering" command so they'd sit in cities just like planes but could be "mobilized" in case of emergency (appear on the map). in the quartered state units could require lower maintenance and quartering capacity could depend on buildings like castle and military base.
 
killmeplease said:
what if a number of units could be combined in a super-unit (army) like in civ3? (not a stack)
with increased strength and hitpoints (requires GG)

i aslo think all units should be able to "change port" like the great admiral
or be rebased in the same fashion between cities connected by railroad (but railroad wouldnt have an effect on the "tactical" moves)

to hide units from the map if arent used there could be a "quartering" command so they'd sit in cities just like planes but could be "mobilized" in case of emergency (appear on the map). in the quartered state units could require lower maintenance and quartering capacity could depend on buildings like castle and military base.
Click to expand...

That's a good suggestion but it sounds similar to the existing airport already. Airports allow units to be transported to other cities like that already. Maybe it is some kind of primitive airlift that you're suggesting but its made to prevent this unit stacking bug.
 
reddishrecue said:
That's a good suggestion but it sounds similar to the existing airport already. Airports allow units to be transported to other cities like that already. Maybe it is some kind of primitive airlift that you're suggesting but its made to prevent this unit stacking bug.
Click to expand...

well, airlift is transporting between any 2 cities w airport, change port - between 2 cities with harbor which have a water route and not too far from each other, and railroad trasportation between 2 cities connected by RR on the same landmass. a water or RR route can be blocked so transportation isnt possible.

i think we need a mechanic similar to airlift earlier in the game to get rid of moving armies manually each turn until they reach destination.
 
killmeplease said:
well, airlift is transporting between any 2 cities w airport, change port - between 2 cities with harbor which have a water route and not too far from each other, and railroad trasportation between 2 cities connected by RR on the same landmass. a water or RR route can be blocked so transportation isnt possible.

i think we need a mechanic similar to airlift earlier in the game to get rid of moving armies manually each turn until they reach destination.
Click to expand...

The thing though is that earlier in the game, it really isn't a necessary mechanic to have, since armies are generally smaller. There are exceptions, and you can definitely build huge armies early in the game. But the idea of making Railroads and/or Airports have some effect that allows rapidly moving multiple units simultaneously could work. It would come into play at a time when such an ability is becoming more important, and it fits thematically with how railroads and flight changed troop mobilization.

So I'm imagining a process along the lines of:
1.) You drag and click on a bunch of units,
2.) click on a city that is connected to your railroad/airport hub,
3.) select another city that is connected to your railroad/airport hub,
4.) all the selected units automatically move to the first city and then appear at the destination city.
5.) You can then move them out of the city. Or perhaps such a movement consumes the units' turn, so you have to wait till the next turn in order to use the units?

So in such a system, railroads wouldn't replace roads, they'd be a supplement to roads. Roads would speed up general movement, but railroads would act as hubs that connect any two points in the network, so that you can only enter/exit at cities. This is something that I have proposed before on the 2K forums. So instead of railroads being an upgrade to roads, perhaps Combustion could unlock Highways, which would function as railroads currently do in Civ V.
 
While it was poorly implemented the whole point of 1upt was so that there was a dynamic in which you had to be strategic in the ways you deployed your army. It

Set up the possibility for choke points and using terrain dynamics to your advantage. 2 examples come to mind.

The Spartans vs Persia in which the spartans occupied an area in which persia could not use its full force and encircle them. I've used this to my advantage hundreds of times. A pair of Melee units are positioned in such a way that they fight off a stack virtually by themselves.


The second tactic is the rock, paper, scissors nature of the game in which you have to protect different units weaknesses. One of my favorite tactics is placing mounted units way outside my frontier border and when the enemy comes to take my city have them come from behind and pick off all the seige units and then encircling the melee. I used this vs Shaka as the mongols. He had a carpet of doom but my Keshiks circled around wiped out his rear seige and left his melee encircled.



Implementing your plan elimitates both those dynamics and from a realist perspective it be a lot harder to see a massive army coming to destroy your civilization when there confined to a tile when they should span the width of the continent. I realize the weaknesses in the AI being able to do these things but I think your solution is too much a swing in the opposite direction. I like having to plan out how to deploy differing speed units in such a way that their not left wide open to a flanking attack. Hopefully firaxis is working as we speak to build civ6 AI logic to a point that they can understand how to better move.
 
Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions
 
OnceAKing said:
While it was poorly implemented the whole point of 1upt was so that there was a dynamic in which you had to be strategic in the ways you deployed your army. It

Set up the possibility for choke points and using terrain dynamics to your advantage. 2 examples come to mind.

The Spartans vs Persia in which the spartans occupied an area in which persia could not use its full force and encircle them. I've used this to my advantage hundreds of times. A pair of Melee units are positioned in such a way that they fight off a stack virtually by themselves.


The second tactic is the rock, paper, scissors nature of the game in which you have to protect different units weaknesses. One of my favorite tactics is placing mounted units way outside my frontier border and when the enemy comes to take my city have them come from behind and pick off all the seige units and then encircling the melee. I used this vs Shaka as the mongols. He had a carpet of doom but my Keshiks circled around wiped out his rear seige and left his melee encircled.

Also, the idea adds further strategic options, since your units are vulnerable when in Column March. So you have to decide whether the risk of the stack being attacked is worth the convenience of moving them as one.


Implementing your plan elimitates both those dynamics and from a realist perspective it be a lot harder to see a massive army coming to destroy your civilization when there confined to a tile when they should span the width of the continent. I realize the weaknesses in the AI being able to do these things but I think your solution is too much a swing in the opposite direction. I like having to plan out how to deploy differing speed units in such a way that their not left wide open to a flanking attack. Hopefully firaxis is working as we speak to build civ6 AI logic to a point that they can understand how to better move.
Click to expand...

These (OP) suggestions don't eliminate these dynamics because the stacks can't attack. So if you fortify units in a chokepoint, or on the other side of a chokepoint, then the other units still have to funnel through. All the strategy is still preserved. The suggestion is aimed at eliminating the tedium of having to move your own units across your own territory one at a time.

Plus, the suggestion adds additional elements of strategy, since the units in the stack are vulnerable. You have to decide whether the risk of being attacked and having your whole army damaged is worth the convenience of moving them all at once.

But yes, teaching the A.I. to use this is tricky, and that is probably where the whole mechanic would fall apart.
 
megabearsfan said:
The thing though is that earlier in the game, it really isn't a necessary mechanic to have, since armies are generally smaller. There are exceptions, and you can definitely build huge armies early in the game. But the idea of making Railroads and/or Airports have some effect that allows rapidly moving multiple units simultaneously could work. It would come into play at a time when such an ability is becoming more important, and it fits thematically with how railroads and flight changed troop mobilization.

So I'm imagining a process along the lines of:
1.) You drag and click on a bunch of units,
2.) click on a city that is connected to your railroad/airport hub,
3.) select another city that is connected to your railroad/airport hub,
4.) all the selected units automatically move to the first city and then appear at the destination city.
5.) You can then move them out of the city. Or perhaps such a movement consumes the units' turn, so you have to wait till the next turn in order to use the units?

So in such a system, railroads wouldn't replace roads, they'd be a supplement to roads. Roads would speed up general movement, but railroads would act as hubs that connect any two points in the network, so that you can only enter/exit at cities. This is something that I have proposed before on the 2K forums. So instead of railroads being an upgrade to roads, perhaps Combustion could unlock Highways, which would function as railroads currently do in Civ V.
Click to expand...

i think harbors should "airlift" too because railroads wont trasport armies between continents and before Industrial there are pretty massive armies already. Whereas before the astronomy moving even a small army by water is terrible because of friendly units blocking the narrow coastal passages.

i view the process as such:
1. you place a unit in the city A
2. choose "transport" action for the unit; cities in reach of the command are highlighted with orange (accessbile by RR) or blue (accessible by water route & have a harbor); here should be no garrison in the destination city
3. choose one of those cities
4. unit is transported, and loses remained moves
and you can send another unit from city A next turn.
thats pretty like how arilift works, right?

yeah about highways, i have the same idea. an upgrade of roads, for the faster movement. whereas the RR is for long distance transportation and production bonus
 
killmeplease said:
i think harbors should "airlift" too because railroads wont trasport armies between continents and before Industrial there are pretty massive armies already. Whereas before the astronomy moving even a small army by water is terrible because of friendly units blocking the narrow coastal passages.

i view the process as such:
1. you place a unit in the city A
2. choose "transport" action for the unit; cities in reach of the command are highlighted with orange (accessbile by RR) or blue (accessible by water route & have a harbor); here should be no garrison in the destination city
3. choose one of those cities
4. unit is transported, and loses remained moves
and you can send another unit from city A next turn.
thats pretty like how arilift works, right?

yeah about highways, i have the same idea. an upgrade of roads, for the faster movement. whereas the RR is for long distance transportation and production bonus
Click to expand...

The highways are also a good idea that was missed back in civilization 2. Other things that used to exist in civilization 2 were asked by many individuals before. Another thing the Romans invented the first few primitive highways during the classical era. Eventually the highways were improved and upgraded. Sun Tzus war academy was also asked to be brought back along with the Leonard's workshop wonder. Games nowadays take up a lot more space than they used to.
 
I think to simplify it you should drag a box over your army and choose a destination for them and they'll begin to march towards that point. It would have its problems but it's a simple solution.
 
AuganM said:
I think to simplify it you should drag a box over your army and choose a destination for them and they'll begin to march towards that point. It would have its problems but it's a simple solution.
Click to expand...

This would also be a nice feature. I don't think it would work though because obstacles would screw up the formations, and units would get "lost" and constantly block each other's movements.

killmeplease said:
i think harbors should "airlift" too because railroads wont trasport armies between continents and before Industrial there are pretty massive armies already. Whereas before the astronomy moving even a small army by water is terrible because of friendly units blocking the narrow coastal passages.

i view the process as such:
1. you place a unit in the city A
2. choose "transport" action for the unit; cities in reach of the command are highlighted with orange (accessbile by RR) or blue (accessible by water route & have a harbor); here should be no garrison in the destination city
3. choose one of those cities
4. unit is transported, and loses remained moves
and you can send another unit from city A next turn.
thats pretty like how arilift works, right?

yeah about highways, i have the same idea. an upgrade of roads, for the faster movement. whereas the RR is for long distance transportation and production bonus
Click to expand...

That would work for transport between your own cities, but it wouldn't be helpful at amphibious invasions. So you could move units across a sea or ocean to a city/colony on the other side of the sea or another continent. But the feature wouldn't facilitate an amphibious assault directly onto land. So you'd still need support for embarking units (or have dedicated transport units like in Civ IV).

I've suggested on several occasions that units should be able to embark/disembark without ending their turn at cities with a harbor. They would just consume 1 movement point when moving from the city tile to ocean tile or vice versa.
 
megabearsfan said:
This would also be a nice feature. I don't think it would work though because obstacles would screw up the formations, and units would get "lost" and constantly block each other's movements.



That would work for transport between your own cities, but it wouldn't be helpful at amphibious invasions. So you could move units across a sea or ocean to a city/colony on the other side of the sea or another continent. But the feature wouldn't facilitate an amphibious assault directly onto land. So you'd still need support for embarking units (or have dedicated transport units like in Civ IV).

I've suggested on several occasions that units should be able to embark/disembark without ending their turn at cities with a harbor. They would just consume 1 movement point when moving from the city tile to ocean tile or vice versa.
Click to expand...

Why not make embarkment an option to the player so that the units could eventually embark like they do now in civilization 5 or if the units could enter or exit a transport like they used to in civilization 4 and the older versions? This seems sort of similar to the unavailability of selling the bank that people often complained about before, particularly when a city isn't that useful and when people want to raze a city to make the most money out of razing a city.
 
megabearsfan said:
That would work for transport between your own cities, but it wouldn't be helpful at amphibious invasions. So you could move units across a sea or ocean to a city/colony on the other side of the sea or another continent. But the feature wouldn't facilitate an amphibious assault directly onto land. So you'd still need support for embarking units (or have dedicated transport units like in Civ IV).

I've suggested on several occasions that units should be able to embark/disembark without ending their turn at cities with a harbor. They would just consume 1 movement point when moving from the city tile to ocean tile or vice versa.
Click to expand...

in most cases you would create a colony, buy a harbor there and ferry your expedition force unit by unit. normandy landing type grand scale invasions should be pretty rare.

i think it should be possible also to transport your units to allies' cities..

the biggest problem of embarkation it feels for me is the situation where a unit can escape destruction by jumping into the water. harbor-only embarkation seems right.. but how would you get back from an uninhabited island?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marla_Singer
How would you improve combat in Civ7?
5 6 7
Replies
122
Views
9K
Malexander
M
S
Questions for people who don't like stack of doom
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Saxo Grammaticus
Saxo Grammaticus
M
Leader experience points and customization
Replies
0
Views
353
Malexander
M
King Phaedron
Giants and Aliens
Replies
4
Views
425
Thunderbrd
Thunderbrd
K
Developers please add this simple AI script to Red death AI 😊
Replies
0
Views
61
karakzorn
K
Top Bottom