Unit Stacking

[Noddahrassa]

That said, 1UpT is more realistic than SoDs; people can't overlap each other in the real world. If they did, they'd go boom.

Oh come on, you can't be serious. Of course you can have several infantry divisions, tanks and artillery stationed in an area the size of Massachusetts, which is about as large as a tile gets. Why don't your cities go "boom"? You can have as many citizens as your whole army stacked into one tile, and they're just happy and fine. But two units, they go boom, ha ha. The reality and area arguments are clearly favor of the stack of doom, because you for sure can have millions of people in an area that large. The stack of doom is nevertheless undesirable, but not because the units wouldn't fit in there, that's ridiculous.

 

[Nicolas10]

Oh come on, you can't be serious.

He is serious... And don't call him 'come on.'

That's just dirty.

 

[Aesir Rising]

<snip> concern regarding CIV V's prohibition against the stacking of military units. <snip>

I just assumed removing features/mechanics such as this is to pave the way for the console port, both from a resource utilization perspective as well as from a UI design perspective.

 

[plasmacannon]

They are overcompensating. They found flaws in the "Stack of Doom" and decided to reduce it to only 1 unit per tile.
I don't like the 20+ units per tile either, but, 1 is too low.
I already had problems building enough units in Civ4.
Once walls, castles and fortified, city defense 3 Longbowmen on a hill were in place, cities became, very difficult to conquer.

I would think 2 units pet hex would be a good number. One could have a spearmen, and a swordsmen, but, be vulnrable to an axeman, for example.

I am worried about the lameness to come.
The English blockaded the entire US east coast at one time.
Will the English 1000 Naval vessel Fleet be reduced to just 4 boats, because, of cost restrictions?
If they change too much, they could create a dismal MOO3 failure, or almost as bad, spend alot to make a so-so game, that doesn't get picked up for a Civ6.

I quoted myself, because, I see the arguing about whether stacks are better, or 1 unit is better. I think they overcompensated. A max limit to the number of units per tile would have been acceptable. One unit per tile has been done by several games already. Why duplicate a less successful game? Simply reduce the number of units permitted per tile to reduce the exploitation of a SOD attack, or Stack defense.

The way they have made defending one's city in Civ5 is such that one needs one unit in the city, 6 around the city in a ring, 12 more around that, 18 around that?
That's 37 units defending that city from all direrctions (I'm assuming a hostile location, where one would need defense from all directions), yet, it is only 4 armys deep. Now, they want to reduce the number of units we can produce with income limitations too?

All this plus no espionage, culture, religion, a vast reduction of leaders of each country. The graphics look better, but, the mechanics are a step backwards.
Skip the Expansion crap, and just make a good game.

 

[Ahriman]

People forget the other reason 1upt is fail; it totally messes up any ability for strategic initiative through attack, and it makes the rock/paper/scissors system weak because the best defender that is most specialized against the attacker always wins.

Stack combat favors the defender twice; with favorable terrain and by letting their specialized counters fight against the unit they were designed to kill.

1upt favors the attacker once (you can attactually attack effectively with specialized units against the units they work best against) and the defender once (terrain).

So with 1upt I'll be able to use light cavalry to flank your line and attack your archers, rather than be forced to charge them into the teeth of your spearmen.

 

[Dale]

People forget the other reason 1upt is fail; it totally messes up any ability for strategic initiative through attack, and it makes the rock/paper/scissors system weak because the best defender that is most specialized against the attacker always wins.

Stack combat favors the defender twice; with favorable terrain and by letting their specialized counters fight against the unit they were designed to kill.

1upt favors the attacker once (you can attactually attack effectively with specialized units against the units they work best against) and the defender once (terrain).

So with 1upt I'll be able to use light cavalry to flank your line and attack your archers, rather than be forced to charge them into the teeth of your spearmen.

If you've ever played any of the Panzer General styled games you would know this is false.

 

[Ahriman]

If you've ever played any of the Panzer General styled games you would know this is false.

I haven't played them for 10 years and my recollection is fuzzy.
But how so? Please explain.

Stacks mess up specialization because they make specialization always favor the defender.
If we have Units A, B and C that are each strength 2 and +50% vs another type (eg A gets +50% vs B, B getes +50% vs C, C gets +50% vs A) then with Civ4 stack combat the defender will have a massive advantage - in addition to any terrain defensive advantages they might get.

If we put them in a row, then the attacker will have an advantage, because my A can attack your B, my B attack your C, and so forth.

Certainly in other 1upt hex games like Battle for Wesnoth the attacker has some initiative advantage; they can use their ranged units to attack the enemy melee troops who can't retaliate, and their melee troops against the enemy ranged units who are weak in melee, and their impact units against the enemy skeletons, their fire units against the enemy treants (woses), their piercing against enemy cavalry and their magic against enemy undead.

[Note by attacker I mean whoever's turn it is. The tactical attacker, not the strategic attacker who is invading someone else's country.]

 

[vonSharma]

I agree with the 1UPT peeps. I hated massive armies. I remember in Civ3, Rise of Rome which was probably the greatest scenario of all time, all you had to do was mass produce legions fast enough, maybe lay a couple of strategic forts and you'd win.

If you watch enough history channel, you will see when they diagram battles, from the Macedonian army to WWII, you can see the different units (infantry, cavalry, artillery, etc) represented by blocks and maybe they aren't 100 miles away from each other, but looking at some of the aerial screen shots (the graphics btw are a 100 times better than Civ4) of military units brought those formation diagrams in my head. Breaking someone's line will be meaningful and a hell of a lot of fun. The British tried to SoD Washington's army in New Jersey and Washington completely effed them up by deceiving them with a fake force at Trenton and then flanking the blank out of their tail and supply lines (March from Princeton to Trenton).

I am a seasoned Civ player, I have played 1000s of hours and always play on Emperor and higher and NO QUESTION, smaller armies that represent large divisions instead of whatever they represent now will be a MASSIVE improvement and make the game much more meaningful and fun. I am ultra stoked about CiV.

*** And if Civ is smart, they'd add minor techs like phalanx and legion formations (like in the Civ3 scenarios) which would really boost warfare

 

[Maeztu]

I agree with the 1UPT peeps. I hated massive armies. I remember in Civ3, Rise of Rome which was probably the greatest scenario of all time, all you had to do was mass produce legions fast enough, maybe lay a couple of strategic forts and you'd win.

That's because the AI doesn't know how to defend its cities properly, not because more than 1 unit per tile is essentially a bad thing.

 

[Alyosh]

I think that the concept can be executed in a way that makes for great strategic and tactical possibilities. I enjoy the ways both Strategic Command 2 and Commander:Europe at War have implemented the idea of having a single unit per tile. The interplay of armies in these games tends toward the strategic end of the scale but the tactical element is more sophisticated than simple stacks of death.

I think if the military aspect of Civ5 is similar to those games, it'll be a refreshing step away from stacks of death.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Some people claim that wars prior to WWI were done in "stacks"-which is complete & total nonsense. Take a look at all the major wars & you see a very clear demarcation in the armies-Shield/Spear walls at the front, regular melee units in the middle & archers/cavalry at the back. From everything I've read to date, 1UPT will reflect this, not the huge fronts seen in WWI. If you simply are talking about the size of a single hex, then lets not forget that it also takes units decades to move a very short time in Civ-whether stacked or not-so if your opposition to 1UPT is based on *realism*, then I must simply point at you & laugh at your inconsistency.

Aussie.

 

[kiwitt]

There is a problem I have with the 1UPH concept and this is Archers being able to shoot over a hex, which in some instances = 100 miles in scale.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

There is a problem I have with the 1UPH concept and this is Archers being able to shoot over a hex, which in some instances = 100 miles in scale.

Yet you have no problem with it taking 50 years to travel 100 miles? In a game like Civ, which combines both Strategic & Tactical elements onto the same map, some realism has to be lost. To complain about archers shooting over 100 miles, but not take issue with movement rates, highlights an inconsistency in your arguments!

Aussie.

 

[kiwitt]

In the mod I am developing - one turn = 2 weeks. To march over that distance will take cover a hex or two.

Like Civ 4, the scale realism increases the shorter the turns represent.

A better option would be for Archers to have a first strike bonus, then a long distance shot.

 

[MrHan]

Oh come on, you can't be serious. Of course you can have several infantry divisions, tanks and artillery stationed in an area the size of Massachusetts, which is about as large as a tile gets.

That you can do. What you can't do in real life is mass a quantity of swordsmen large enough to create a neutron star into a single tile. Compared to being able to create a swordsman-neutron-star on a single tile, being limited to 1UpT is much more realistic.

Also consider: what's to say a single unit doesn't represent an entire army or battalion instead of, say, 3 individuals? This might make you go on about how that's unrealistic cuz irl, you can have more than one type of military personnel/equipment in the area of one tile, but before you do, consider: 1. Civ is not real life, and 2. The above paragraph.

Why don't your cities go "boom"? You can have as many citizens as your whole army stacked into one tile, and they're just happy and fine.

I'm glad we share the same opinion on this. I agree with you, this makes no sense. If people were packed so densely, they're bound to get unhappy or horny; and after a point, they would come together create a singularity.

The reality and area arguments are clearly favor of the stack of doom, because you for sure can have millions of people in an area that large. The stack of doom is nevertheless undesirable, but not because the units wouldn't fit in there, that's ridiculous.

You do actually have a point - assuming your interpretation of the area of a tile is correct, you would be able to pack millions of people in the size as large as that represented by a tile. Technically, you can fit the entire population of the world in an area the size of Texas, and if you stack them vertically I'm pretty sure you can even find a way (e.g. large skewers) of fitting them on a city block. You could also pack them into a mathematical point if you manage to create a singularity.
</dry joke>

You're missing the point. The point isn't that they wouldn't fit - you can fit anything into anything given that you have enough energy; even neutron degeneracy dissolves after a certain point. The point is: why the hell would you? What isn't realistic is not the fact that you can fit x number of people in a certain area, because you most definitely can (singularities); it's the fact that, no matter how many you squeeze into a single tile, they fight as if they had all the room necessary to fight effectively available to them - as if all other units temporarily didn't exist. You could probably pack all US military equipment in a tile the size of Massachussetts, but upon doing so they would become completely ineffective. This is what makes Infinite UpT unrealistic and makes 1UpT the much more realistic alternative, especially when given the tiled environment of a Civ game.

 

[MrHan]

Yet you have no problem with it taking 50 years to travel 100 miles? In a game like Civ, which combines both Strategic & Tactical elements onto the same map, some realism has to be lost. To complain about archers shooting over 100 miles, but not take issue with movement rates, highlights an inconsistency in your arguments!

Aussie.

eh. But then again, scale is pretty much crap in Civ to begin with..
@kiwitt: suspension of disbelief is a skill that can make life much more enjoyable.

 

[Provost Martin]

Yet you have no problem with it taking 50 years to travel 100 miles? In a game like Civ, which combines both Strategic & Tactical elements onto the same map, some realism has to be lost. To complain about archers shooting over 100 miles, but not take issue with movement rates, highlights an inconsistency in your arguments!

Aussie.

So true.

I'm just glad the SoDs will be a thing of the past. And in Civ4 they were too easy to counter with massed artillery.

 

[kiwitt]

@kiwitt: suspension of disbelief is a skill that can make life much more enjoyable.

After nearly 40+ years of playing Strategy Games, including (board games made up of hexes - e.g. SSI, Avalon Hill, etc.) , I think I have developed that skill.

The best combined (strategy and Tactical) method on the computer I saw was the early Total War Series. (e.g. M:TW, S:TW). You had the strategic layer with Provinces and when the troops invaded a province it went into a 3D battlefield, you had the tactical layer. I played this series for over 4 years, before the latter releases, let me down, and my interest moved to WWII.

Civilization is primarily a Strategy Game (i.e. running an entire empire) and tactics will be a minor role, limited to correct placement of armies.

My ideal game would be a WWII Simulation, where you play out on a strategic map and then go into 3D battlefield, when need be, or alternatively auto-resolve. I have yest to discover this game.

Given the direction of the Total War Series, now @ 1800's, we could get one in a few years.

 

[Noddahrassa]

Some people claim that wars prior to WWI were done in "stacks"-which is complete & total nonsense. Take a look at all the major wars & you see a very clear demarcation in the armies-Shield/Spear walls at the front, regular melee units in the middle & archers/cavalry at the back. From everything I've read to date, 1UPT will reflect this, not the huge fronts seen in WWI. If you simply are talking about the size of a single hex, then lets not forget that it also takes units decades to move a very short time in Civ-whether stacked or not-so if your opposition to 1UPT is based on *realism*, then I must simply point at you & laugh at your inconsistency.

Aussie.

What you are talking about is battles, not wars. And this 1upt will reflect all right, except that in Civ, I want to fight wars, not battles. Strategically, early wars were fought quite precisely with stacks of doom.

Take Alexander's campaign: Piled all his units into one bunch and started wandering across the Persian empire, with the fleet following along the coast. No fronts, no flanking, no large areas occupied by troops. Just the king with his army marching at the enemy's capital. Stack of doom.

Take Napoleon's campaign: Piled 650000 men into one bunch and marched at Moscow. Again, no fronts, no flanking, just the stack of doom advancing on the capital. Perhaps some cavalry sent out left and right for scouting, but the main force all walked down the same road. That's how it was done, because it was the logical thing to do. And the game should reflect this, I think.

 

[MrHan]

What you are talking about is battles, not wars. And this 1upt will reflect all right, except that in Civ, I want to fight wars, not battles. Strategically, early wars were fought quite precisely with stacks of doom.

Take Alexander's campaign: Piled all his units into one bunch and started wandering across the Persian empire, with the fleet following along the coast. No fronts, no flanking, no large areas occupied by troops. Just the king with his army marching at the enemy's capital. Stack of doom.

Take Napoleon's campaign: Piled 650000 men into one bunch and marched at Moscow. Again, no fronts, no flanking, just the stack of doom advancing on the capital. Perhaps some cavalry sent out left and right for scouting, but the main force all walked down the same road. That's how it was done, because it was the logical thing to do. And the game should reflect this, I think.

mmm, yes, cuz there are tiles in real life. bet they overlapped as well, and when alexander (or napoleon) looked upon his army, he only saw one unit. to see the rest he had to click on the stack.

also, i sincerely doubt they actually piled them into one bunch. makes for a pretty funny picture, though, a mass of 650k men piled into one bunch rolling around the place. you do realize, don't you, that you can prove almost any point by exaggerating the truth, like you have?

and 2 SoDs running into each other still isn't a war - it's a battle, and a much crappier than one simulated by 1UpT. a war is a collection of battles - 1UpT being applied doesn't suddenly turn a whole war into a single battle. the concepts of battles and wars stay the same.