A question about 1UPT, and how I'd solve it for 6

[Socrates99]

Youve never had your units run into each. Other on the way there?

Sure, but usually its my mounted units first and they can retreat. Generally if they do get killed its rarely game breaking. Its not like I don't check on 'em every turn. You just really do not have to move every single unit every turn. A lot of the time if its an opponent I'm already at war with I'll use the mounted units to hit and run pillage until the main army gets there. Its fun.

 

[qwerty25]

Sure, but usually its my mounted units first and they can retreat. Generally if they do get killed its rarely game breaking. Its not like I don't check on 'em every turn. You just really do not have to move every single unit every turn. A lot of the time if its an opponent I'm already at war with I'll use the mounted units to hit and run pillage until the main army gets there. Its fun.

Okay i get what youre saying but seriously. Have you never encountered the problem of road congestion when moving troops? Basically like when i have 20 troops on one side of the nation and i want to move them say 25 tiles right using roads. Each unit if they can move 6 tiles on roads will take up space earlier and earlier on the road until they collide with each other exiting auto move. Or when moving through a place two tiles wide and youre moving three columns of units theyll pile up and also exit automovement. Thus forcing you to manuallily move the units turn by turn or in a very calculated manner to avoid exiting auto movement. Plus with differnt move speeds it can approach micromanagement hell.

This obviously isnt a concern from ancient to classical (and horses have no problem too as you mentioned) but starting in medieval it starts to happen. Plus 20 troops is lowballing it in many games. It could easily be a lot more units.

 

[Socrates99]

I think auto move only gets broken when another unit ends its turn on the goal tile, not when they start tripping over each other. So if your really moving an army a great distance it shouldnt be an issue. The only time auto move breaking really annoyed me was when a unit would move onto the goal tile under the fog of war. My unit shouldn't know what's happening under FoW.

I guess I've never found it to be as much of a problem as people describe it. During peace time I stage most of my military on my roads which helps keep them fairly in order to start. Once they're off the roads you clump them and auto-move them with the mounted units out front. If they run across enemies that's when you micromanage.

 

[qwerty25]

I think auto move only gets broken when another unit ends its turn on the goal tile, not when they start tripping over each other. So if your really moving an army a great distance it shouldnt be an issue. The only time auto move breaking really annoyed me was when a unit would move onto the goal tile under the fog of war. My unit shouldn't know what's happening under FoW.

I guess I've never found it to be as much of a problem as people describe it. During peace time I stage most of my military on my roads which helps keep them fairly in order to start. Once they're off the roads you clump them and auto-move them with the mounted units out front. If they run across enemies that's when you micromanage.

I am specifically talking about when the unit ends its turn on the goal tile. When moving at a great distance your army will end up on each others tiles unless your army is small,its completely flat with no hills/mountains, or all of your units have exactly the same movement points.

To get back on topic, your original question was:

Trying to wrap my head around something here. I don't understand how people can complain about micromanaging 1upt and at the same time profess distaste for the lack of micromanaging necessary to run V's cities. Isn't number crunching builds, micromanaging citizens and adjusting sliders similarly tedious? I mean either you like micromanaging or you don't, right?

The answer was that people hate micromanaging the movement of armies to the battlefield. You might not have that problem, but plenty of others do. I and many others (I think, obviously can't claim to represent everyone) don't find micromanaging movement in battles annoying. Its the mass transportation of units thats annoying. Same with moving large amounts of units across the sea.

To get back,back on topic. The marginally decreasing strength per tile is still pretty overpowered. 4 swordsman would have an outsized advantage over 1 swordsman oneshotting it, forcing most swordsman to group together. I think you've misjudged your formula because the strength value in the first place is already logarithmic? or something like that. So adding strength by a percentage of the original would actually preserve 2 swordsman strength in one tile.

Practically speaking it would shift 1UPT to like 3ish UPT. Besides how would a 3 swordsman lose to anything else in the era? The only way is to get 4! swordsman. [correct me if wrong]

I think there should be multiple units per tile at fixed number. idk 6 or something. And only allow 1 attack per tile. Damage inflicted on the one unit on the tile will affect all units on the tile at a lower rate. Or something like that. idk how to create balanced stuff.

 

[Socrates99]

I am specifically talking about when the unit ends its turn on the goal tile. When moving at a great distance your army will end up on each others tiles unless your army is small,its completely flat with no hills/mountains, or all of your units have exactly the same movement points.

To get back on topic, your original question was:


The answer was that people hate micromanaging the movement of armies to the battlefield. You might not have that problem, but plenty of others do. I and many others (I think, obviously can't claim to represent everyone) don't find micromanaging movement in battles annoying. Its the mass transportation of units thats annoying. Same with moving large amounts of units across the sea.

To get back,back on topic. The marginally decreasing strength per tile is still pretty overpowered. 4 swordsman would have an outsized advantage over 1 swordsman oneshotting it, forcing most swordsman to group together. I think you've misjudged your formula because the strength value in the first place is already logarithmic? or something like that. So adding strength by a percentage of the original would actually preserve 2 swordsman strength in one tile.

Practically speaking it would shift 1UPT to like 3ish UPT. Besides how would a 3 swordsman lose to anything else in the era? The only way is to get 4! swordsman. [correct me if wrong]

I think there should be multiple units per tile at fixed number. idk 6 or something. And only allow 1 attack per tile. Damage inflicted on the one unit on the tile will affect all units on the tile at a lower rate. Or something like that. idk how to create balanced stuff.

I honestly don't get how moving armies being tedious is why a return to stacks is a good idea. 1upt makes UUs so much more interesting. It added a new layer to the game. Tediousness was inherent to SoDs as well except it was in rallying and forming the SoD and in what should have been the most fun aspect, the actual battles. Just click attack repeatedly on the same tile over and over....and over and over and over...

 

[qwerty25]

I honestly don't get how moving armies being tedious is why a return to stacks is a good idea. 1upt makes UUs so much more interesting. It added a new layer to the game. Tediousness was inherent to SoDs as well except it was in rallying and forming the SoD and in what should have been the most fun aspect, the actual battles. Just click attack repeatedly on the same tile over and over....and over and over and over...

I never said 1UPT combat was bad and I still want to keep it. I just want to remove the hassle with moving units. I do find 1UPT better than SOD in civ four.

 

[Socrates99]

I never said 1UPT combat was bad and I still want to keep it. I just want to remove the hassle with moving units. I do find 1UPT better than SOD in civ four.

Gotcha.

 

[Fromage10x]

Well, it's not the only reason, but it is a reason.

There's also the effects that 1UPT has on production, the fact that people who don't like it see it as inappropriately focusing the game on warfare, the fact that the maps aren't really designed for or big enough to allow for tactical combat of this kind, and (as a personal bugaboo) the main complaint about stacks seem to be that they make no sense, when it's been replaced by having a unit of men taking up a several square mile area so completely they can't let another in...and then being able to shoot another unit of men just as many miles away.

So...yeah, it's just one of the factors of why 1UPT is not universally beloved, but it also seems like one of the easiest to fix, so people who like 1UPT but see problems with it often bring it up as something that could be improved.

 

[Socrates99]

Well, it's not the only reason, but it is a reason.

There's also the effects that 1UPT has on production, the fact that people who don't like it see it as inappropriately focusing the game on warfare, the fact that the maps aren't really designed for or big enough to allow for tactical combat of this kind, and (as a personal bugaboo) the fact that supports main complaint about stack seem to be that they make no sense, when it's been replaced by having a unit of men taking up a several square mile area so completely they can't let another in...and then being able to shoot another unit of men just as many miles away.

So...yeah, it's just one of the factors of why 1UPT is not universally beloved, but it also seems like one of the easiest to fix, so people who like 1UPT but see problems with it often bring it up as something that could be improved.

I hate saying this and I hate myself when I have say it but...its a glorified board game. The "this unit takes up miles of space" or "that unit can shoot hundreds of miles" are really lame duck complaints.

 

[Fromage10x]

I only bring it up because anti-stack activists like to pretend somehow that it's more accurate or realistic, and that is flatly ridiculous (in fact, I think I said that in the post you quoted).

It isn't a claim on its own, but rather a refutation of an appeal to realism.

 

[bookman_]

Well, it's not the only reason, but it is a reason.

the fact that supports main complaint about stack seem to be that they make no sense, when it's been replaced by having a unit of men taking up a several square mile area so completely they can't let another in...and then being able to shoot another unit of men just as many miles away.
.

So following this logic, in V a road is hundred of miles large.

 

[Fromage10x]

Seriously? Look I get the game is an abstraction, I'm saying that treating cities and units of people on the same scale is no less of an abstraction then having stacks of units.

It's like if you said having castles move in chess is so unrealistic, let's replace them with grapefruits.

Not only does it fundamentally misunderstand the nature of what it's trying to fix, it's replacement is just as ridiculous at best.

 

[Socrates99]

I only bring it up because anti-stack activists like to pretend somehow that it's more accurate or realistic, and that is flatly ridiculous (in fact, I think I said that in the post you quoted).

It isn't a claim on its own, but rather a refutation of an appeal to realism.

Do anti-stack folk actually say that? From what I've seen its mostly about 1upt combat being more fun. Realism usually isn't the argument the pro 1upt group use. Its more something the SoD advocates love to bring up. Pretty much in the same manner you did in your original quote.

Fun>realism any day.

 

[Fromage10x]

I've seen it, but if you are not one who thinks or proposes it, then clearly that part of the post was not for you. I kinda went through pains to make sure I was targeting it pretty specifically.

I don't agree that fun>realism though. It's pretty silly to draw a line between them, as they are not in any way opposites nor is it necessary for one to suffer to achieve the other. Sometimes games are realistic, sometimes they aren't. Some people like more realistic games, some people like less realistic games. Fun is so subjective it's trite and useless to use it as a metric.

 

[mentos15]

I have wanted to post the below in reply to a few other posts regarding armies and combat in threads that otherwise were not solely about combat, but I have assumed - perhaps wrongly - that I should place this in a thread that already is focused on this subject. Sorry if resurrecting this thread was the wrong way to go.

Also, I can imagine that none of the below is original, however, I have yet to come across it personally and wanted to get it out there.

Basic ideas:
+ Up to 5 units can be merged
+ More Units = More bodies = greater Hit Points
- Trade off (as per Civ) Inefficiency - Combined Combat Strength is Less Than the Sum of individual Units strengths. Inefficiency grows with # of Units in Army.
(see leader below, which can remove/reduce that penalty.)
+ Army composition not known by default to opposing players, or perhaps opponent can only see most common unit in the army. Example, Army of 3 warriors and 2 archers, opponent will know warriors but not archers unless the army is scouted.
+ Units generally cheaper than Civ 5 to encourage army building
+ Keeps similar traits from Civs Past and Future.
+ Generally, an Army doesn't have "room" for one of everything; and an Army may be more easily dealt with if it is only comprised of one thing.
+ Armies will get "commands" similar to the Air game of Sweep/Intercept mechanic based on composition. Example, If army has mobile units, it can choose to attempt to flank opponent, or use their mobile unit to defend against an opposing flanking.

Optional ideas are other things that have sprung to mind, but may equally well be edited out to prevent things from getting too complex.

Standard Unit
+ Lowest Cost
+ Above Average "Hit Points" per Unit
+ Effective vs anti-mobile
- Vulnerable to mobile
(Optional) +Occupy / Policing - reduces resistance time of annexed city.
(Opt) +Meat Shield - no other unit types in army take damage until Standard HP of Standard / Anti-Mobile reduced to 25% of original HP

Anti-Mobile
+ Average Cost
+ Effective vs Mobile
+ Above Average HP
- Vulnerable vs Standard
(Optional) +Occupy / Policing - reduces resistance time of annexed city.
(Opt) +Meat Shield - no other unit types in army take damage until Standard HP of Standard / Anti-Mobile reduced to 25% of original HP

Ranged
+ First Strike
- Vulnerable to Mobile
- Average to Below Average HP

Mobile
- Low HP
- Higher Cost and/or Strategic Resources needed.
- Vulnerable to anti-mobile
+ Very Effective vs Ranged and Siege
+ Evasion - Reduced Damage vs Ranged/Siege
When solo unit:
+ Increased movement
When serving with army - Think of the Civ 5 air "Missions":
+ Flanking - Give Army Combat bonus if opponent has Standard Units
+ Penetration - Attempt attack on Ranged/Siege,

Siege
+ Very Effective vs Cities / Fortifications (can reduce/negate opposing army fortification bonus)
- Very Low HP
- Very Ineffective vs Mobile and Recon
- Ineffective vs other Unit Types

Specialized Units:

Recon/Stealth
- Very Low HP
- Very Low Combat Strength
When solo unit:
+ Movement Bonus (e.g. no negative terrain modifiers and/or increased base move)
+ Stealth
- In "stealth mode", no movement bonus
+ Can enter tile with opposing units w/o attacking
+ Opposing Non-recon units will not "see" recon units in adjoining tiles
+ Ability to see opposing recon units
+ (Opt) Ability to Spot for Siege Units
- required for siege units to attack from further than adjacent tile if that unit has the range.
When serving with army:
+ Chance to see opposing army's composition.
+ Bonus to ranged / siege damage (Spotting)
+ Reduce chance of opposing recon "seeing" army composition

Leader - Command / Officers / general / admiral
- No use individually.
- Very Low HP
- No Combat Strength
- Only 1 Leader per Army.
+ Leadership - Removes or Reduces Inefficiency Penalty
+ Logistics - Leader does not count towards unit cap for army
+ Organization - Additional (Minor) bonus if adjoining / nearby friendly army has a leader

Engineers
- Low HP
- Low Combat Strength
+ Basic Fortification - Passive Defense Bonus for Army
+ Advanced Fort. - Active build of fortifications. Each turn per tile increases defense up to max allowed.
+ Supply Lines - ability to create roads

Medic
- Low HP
- No Combat Strength
With army:
+ obviously, increased healing.
W/o army:
+ Can heal adjacent units / units in same tile


This is already too long and is not a polished idea, but I think the first step was for me to get some stuff down on paper, so to speak....