Were "stacks of doom" really that bad?

[Trias]

You avoid scale mismatch between tactical combat and strategic map.

No, you don't. There is still a horrendous scale mismatch between the strategic and tactical map.

 

[Fistalis]

Wasn't a HUGE fan of stacks.. but when compared with the current implementation of 1UPT i think it was the lesser of 2 evils. Both have their good an bad sides.. I just feel the downsides of SOD were less overall than the downsides of 1UPT. I agree a middle area.. which could be implemented many different ways(XUPT, stacks that lead to a tactical battle map when they fight etc) would be best overall.

 

[Xenobenignitas]

 

[Samson]

I do not get the point that stacks were boring or difficult to manage. I find the number of mouse clicks and unrealistic and unfun thought that goes into managing an invasion with 1UPT far more boring and difficult to manage than a SOD. I do not really care about realism, but it does seem to me that SOD was more realistic. Prior to the industrial age invasions were pretty much SOD's, ie. all the army on on "tile" (a 100 mile square or something). In the industrial / modern age of civ 4 I tended to have multiple stacks, not dissimilar to the WW2 army groups.

I would agree 1UPT does allow more tactical options than available or optimal in civ 4, but civ is not a war game and I find these tactical decisions out of place in what is generally a game of grand strategy.

 

[elister]

SoDs were bad and 1UPT is not a complete solution.

I was thinking whether this will work?:

Units have to follow 1UPT when attacking but are allowed stacking otherwise (moving/standing still)? And if opponent decides to attack stacked units then the other party gets a chance to select one unit from stack which defends against the attack.
The later part of arrangement seems tricky but IMO can be made to a reasonable option.

What do you think?

 

[eris]

I don't think the stacks were all that bad, but the more I play Civ 5 and occasionally do Civ 4 (like when waiting for a patch and doing the civiatus thing) the more I find I prefer 1 UPT. Stacks become a question of can I make more units that you can? With 1 UPT I do find myself caring more which units I make and where I put them. I like that the battles involve moving around some instead of just smashing into each other. I do hope the AI gets better at handling it, but then again I am not hoping for a whole lot better because I am not all that good myself and don't want to go back to approaching every game as a military build up exercise.

 

[Clement]

I liked Civ 4 but i must admit i absolutely hated stacks of doom, sometimes i'd often just quit and start a new game when an unexpected war occurred and i saw a colossal enemy stack making its way towards me, i just couldn't face the tedium.

Having said that, i no longer play Civ 5 due to the diplomacy, so i am stuck in a sort of limbo between the two games, there must be a happy medium somewhere, 3UPT maybe? i don't know.

 

[Buccaneer]

A large stack with superior military (like one of Cav/Rifles going up against Longbows/Cats) was always unstoppable - the Bulldozer Effect. It got so predictable and tedious that one had to use a bunch of house rules to not do that.

I love 1upt because I used to play hex-based wargames. Playing against an AI back then was no different then now, just not a good opponent (which was why most wargames of that type were PBEM or hotseat). The initial version of Civ5 with its Four Horsemen of the Apocalpyse reminded me of BtS with the unstoppable and tedious stacks, only on a smaller scale. It gotten better but still needs improvements.

 

[lschnarch]

If you really want to get rid of 1upt it needs to be like Heroes' - a hero/general leading up to X units on one tile. When two armies clash, a tactical map opens up for combat.

But this is a hypothetical question, CIV5 uses 1UPT which can become great, once someone improves the combat AI.

"1upt is great. If only it weren't 1upt".
"1upt has potential. Somehow they only have to improve the combat AI."

Unfortunately, we are already 5 (five!) months past release. There isn't any indication that the combat AI will get the requested major improvements.

No, you don't. There is still a horrendous scale mismatch between the strategic and tactical map.

Yeah, the scale between tactical map and strategical maps is different. That is exactly the point.

SoDs were bad and 1UPT is not a complete solution.

I was thinking whether this will work?:

Units have to follow 1UPT when attacking but are allowed stacking otherwise (moving/standing still)? And if opponent decides to attack stacked units then the other party gets a chance to select one unit from stack which defends against the attack.
The later part of arrangement seems tricky but IMO can be made to a reasonable option.

What do you think?

You have described Civ4's stacking system.
One unit attacks after the other. The defender chooses the unit with the best chances.

 

[Buccaneer]

Unfortunately, we are already 5 (five!) months past release. There isn't any indication that the combat AI will get the requested major improvements.

You do recall that it took 6 (six!) months for the first significant Civ4 patch to vanilla?

Is there something about newer releases that makes some people lose all sense of history and perspective, as well as patience?

 

[lschnarch]

You do recall that it took 6 (six!) months for the first significant Civ4 patch to vanilla?

Is there something about newer releases that makes some people lose all sense of history and perspective, as well as patience?

Yes, Civ4 did have some technical problems. ATI-bug and MAF come to mind immediately.

But I lack any memory of emergency changes to key design elements like diplomacy, nor do I remember the widespread request for substantial changes of the combat system.

And talking about patience: it is fine that you are satisfied with paying in September '10 to get a delivery in the next year (and even that is only a desperate hope, not more).
Hundreds of thousands of players have paid on release day. They paid flawless money, which wasn't in need of being patched. Your remark actually is a slap into the face of all these customers.

But you seem to be fine with a game which can be beaten on even the highest difficulty levels by almost anybody. For sure, there is a reason for this attitude.

 

[Polish]

They were easier and without as much interest and challege as 1UPT. Produce as many units as you can then pile 'em up and roll 'em out, Squash whatever you come to. Rinse and repeat.

 

[jdp29]

The above collection of "arguments" against "SoD" shows why it was so unpopular.

a) "I really have to spend time, thoughts and preparation into war?"
Yes, you have to. That is something unavoidable when wanting to lead an empire.
b) "I really have to stop them? No auto-stop at my city with me happily blowing them away by my 24"-2000bc-rail guns?"
Yeah. SoD's had to be stopped. Which in turn meant you had to decide whether you could do so with one SoD of yours, or whether you would have to split your stack into two (or more) to be successful in stopping theirs.
Which lead to the tactical decision of how to compose any of your stacks. Which lead to the tactical decision of where to engage and where to just allow the enemy to take control. Which was based on strategic decisions about when, where and how many units to produce.
c) "I have never understood how to minimize my losses in a SoD vs SoD battle"
Too bad.
Fighting an enemy SoD involves quite some thought when you're interested in minimizing your losses.
The latter is quite important on the right difficulty level as you would like to keep your defenders or keep your attack going although you will have to heal, drop a garrison in the newly conquered city and so on.

In total, any unlimited stacking system of course has its flaws, too.
In direct comparison, it is much superior, though.

You avoid traffic jams within your own territory.
You avoid traffic jams due to any neutral unit sitting somewhere.
You gain the importance of having to build up a proper economy, enabling you to establish said stack in the first place.
You gain the same tactics on a vertical level which you have on a horizontal level now.
You avoid scale mismatch between tactical combat and strategic map.

That's just it tho, I don't want to spend that much time on one stack per turn. It is boring. I'd rather see what my city can build next than deal with trying to make the correct unit attack next. I'd rather uncover another part of the map than try to get all my sick units healing. I just don't have the patience to micromanage something to that extreme.
And that is what it really comes down to, either you enjoy micromanaging, or you don't. I don't recall needing to micromanage this much in Civ I thru Civ III. Civ IV seems to be an exercise in micromanagement. I can do some of it, but after awhile it just gets too tedious.

 

[Teodosio]

Let me just say first that I am a semi-veteran of civ and I would also obviously know about stacks of doom. I've played civ 5 a little bit and know that they wanted one unit per tile so to make warfare more realistic, but I'm not convinced I actually seen it as making it worst could some tell me what I'm not seeing?

I play Civilization since Civ1 on SNES.
Stacks of doom were the single feature that ruined my games. I am really really glad they are gone, hopefully for good.

It was pure tedium to fight stacks since there was no terrain, no manouvering, no flanking, etc...
The entire strategy was just to build the biggest stack.

 

[Zhahz]

Yes. Unlimited stacking is silly.

I prefer 1UPT since it has the potential for deeper strategy - IF the AI doesn't suck horribly. AI has limits but unfortunately Firaxis didn't make any attempt to get remotely close to those limits with Civ5, instead they just mailed it in with rudamentary AI that sucks.

If you must have stacks, go with something like GalCiv has where you have a logistics/other ability that dictates how large your fleets (stacks) can be, which works out pretty well since you can blend in tech, racials, and whatever else you want to add variance to stack caps. Or in civ you could require a "general" (leader) unit to move stacks around, otherwise you have fixed tile/city limits. You need some limiting factor to keep stacks from becoming stacks of doom and idiotic.

 

[Misotu]

You do recall that it took 6 (six!) months for the first significant Civ4 patch to vanilla?

Is there something about newer releases that makes some people lose all sense of history and perspective, as well as patience?

I make no comment on Civ V absolutely, other than to say that it was obviously not in a fit condition to be released. Whether it will *eventually* be worth playing , only time will tell. I hope it will, and I am still playing it in the meantime as there are aspects of it that I enjoy for fun (although not for challenge, truth be told).

But I have to take issue with your remarks. I had defected to SMAC and SMAX after the release of Civ III, which I really did not enjoy in its original form. When Civ IV was announced, I bought a new and very expensive PC and screen purely for the purpose of playing it. I played Vanilla Civ as soon as it was released ... and I was very, very happy with it.

Sure, later patches and expansions improved the game and BtS, in particular, introduced some excellent additions to the point where I do not play vanilla any more.
But to draw any kind of parallel between vanilla Civ IV and the current state of Civ V is really unacceptable. You question other posters' sense of history and perspective? Then I will question your objectivity. Civ V is, quite clearly, beta product. The changes announced for the next patch (which is not, of course, the first patch!) are so extensive as to boggle the mind, and leave no-one in any position to argue that this game is in anything other than beta condition with regard to balance.

Enough already with the comparisons with Civ IV vanilla Civ IV vanilla was a good game: challenging, playable and considerably better balanced than the latest offering.

 

[Save_Ferris]

I think the change was meant to be more realistic and it balanced out with the hex and city defense system.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Yes, Civ4 did have some technical problems. ATI-bug and MAF come to mind immediately.

But I lack any memory of emergency changes to key design elements like diplomacy, nor do I remember the widespread request for substantial changes of the combat system.

That's because you've completely forgotten that siege could kill in Vanilla Civ 4, that Financial had cheap banks on top of everything else, that one could easily and regularly pull off a Civil Service Slingshot, etc. True, Vanilla lacked flaws in Diplomacy, but these were happily introduced in Warlords with the advent of Vassals.

There is something about new releases -- or even patches -- that makes people forget things.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Civ IV vanilla was a good game: challenging, playable and considerably better balanced than the latest offering.

What, the AI that didn't build enough cottages and had trouble growing its city past size ten? The AI only got fundamentally challenging when the patches started incorporated the BetterAI Mod. Funnily enough, Civ 5 seems to have been scouring the mods and taking ideas from them for their patches.

 

[sketch162000]

No, not in my opinion. When Civ V's 1upt was announced, I rejoiced. I was a player who was annoyed by an enemy rolling up to one of my cities with an unstoppable stack, so I was excited to finally be rid of that mechanic. After playing Civ V, however, I gained a new appreciation for stacking. IMO, simply being free of SoD's is not worth the new problems that 1upt has brought with it.