1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

A simple solution to "stacks of doom"

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Diplomat32, Jan 7, 2011.

  1. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    I can't remember exactly where or when, but someone explained it to me that the main difference is that in Panzer General, there was a hard cap on the total number of units you could have. I do not think this is a better system for Civ, but it did make sense to explain the differences.
     
  2. Diplomat32

    Diplomat32 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    55
    I don't think there is anything wrong with stacks, even large ones. After all, all the great armies in history were large stacks, maybe even "stacks of doom" in civ terms. The problem is that there is no limit to how many units a civ cam produce. This is what leads large stacks to become "stacks of doom". In real life, there is a limit to how large an army. You can build all the weapons in the world but at some point you'll run out of people to use them. I think the best thing civ could do is to have some kind of population limit to how many units a civ can have at any one time. This way, civs can still have large stacks just not "stacks of doom". Also, I think that cities should lose population when too many units are destroyed. This would represent the loss of life and the demographic and economic effect of war.
     
  3. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    Population and units are reasonably separate from each other in the game. Population doesn't really go into production, and is explicitly used for purposes other than providing manpower for units, so I don't really think it would make all that much sense for population to be diminished by war losses.
     
  4. He-Who-Hunts

    He-Who-Hunts 2nd Legionary Cohort

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2005
    Messages:
    265
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Earth
    I like this limit per-stack Idea but I think 15 is WAYYYYY to much.

    Maybe we should implement a civ 3 army style idea, where you can merge 3 units into 1.

    They'd have to all be of the same type, but it would be easier to manage thats for sure
     
  5. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    That doesn't solve any problems, though. It's still essentially 1upt, but you're reducing the difference between each 'unit' by combining.
     
  6. Diplomat32

    Diplomat32 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Messages:
    55
    I know that is how it is done. But I've always felt like civ should not separate the two. Population should be required to provide manpower to units in order to more realistic. In real life, armies require people. They are a fundamental resource needed to build an army just as iron is required to build swords. And as we saw in WW1, when nations fight a large scale war and lose millions of soldiers, it has a huge impact on their nation. As it is now, civ treats units like they are smartphones that you can just crank out as many as you want. This is what contributes to the stack of doom problem. And it also means that losing a ton of units has no negative effect since you can just keep cranking out more units.
     
  7. Goknub

    Goknub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    I believe a stack of 2 with a Diminishing Return of 50% for No. 2 would work, designating the Primary unit would allow either a better defended Archer or Swordsman with light ranged ability.

    Hard limits would be useful to prevent Carpet o Doom. Also to prevent City Carpets if smaller tiles were used.

    A Civ should begin with a 6 Unit limit as an "Imperial" Army, with each subsequent General allowed a further 6 with penalties for leaving a Generals "Area of Influence". This keeps the tactical maneuvering whilst limiting Death Carpets. Production should be quite fast in order to provide reinforcements as needed.

    I quit my last game after my CoD couldn't maneuver anywhere smaller than Africa.
     
  8. NinjaCow64

    NinjaCow64 Thought Bubble Thinker Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    8,099
    Gender:
    Male
    I remember that someone wanted a Civ 2 style stacking system, if the top unit dies, they all die. Also, you make it that the weakest unit goes to the top, so if there was a tank and a warrior the warrior would go on top. This would kill SoDs because one strong unit could defeat your whole army, but it would solve many problems with 1UPT like “I just wasted five turns manoeuvring my CoD around a lake. Bummer.”
     
  9. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    Hard limits would cause carpets of doom to be more prevalent. If you limit the number of units to a tile, then the same number of units must spread out over more tiles, creating a bigger carpet.
     
  10. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    Nah. During most of history, armies have generally concentrated and advanced on very narrow "fronts" - stacks of doom in Civ terms. Broad fronts stretching from sea to sea (or neutral border) are mostly a feature of the bigger wars of the 20th century.

    Realismwise, what 1upt ends up doing is blowing up stuff that should be relevant on the scale of a battlefield (a fraction of a tile) like flanking and weapon range and make them take place on the scale of a country. If more tactical combat was the goal, a better way to achieve it, from a realism standpoint, would have been stack movement on the general game map and zooming in to a tactical map for combat. (Obviously, this would have other drawbacks, even if one agrees that more tactical combat was needed.)
     
  11. pi-r8

    pi-r8 Luddite

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,511
    Location:
    Babylon
    whatever cap you put on the number of units- that will become the standard. No one will ever use less than the max number of units. (unless you put the max really high, like more than 10 units per tile)
     
  12. Saarud

    Saarud Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2004
    Messages:
    113
    I like 1upt rule however I don't think they evolved it enough. I think units should be able to merge into larger units. Meaning that when the game starts you can't merge units but as you discovers new techs or unlock other means this increase. In modern times perhaps 12 units could be merged into one megaunit. This way you really could make your units unique. Question is would AI ever been able to merge units in an intelligent way?
     
  13. Rusty Edge

    Rusty Edge Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2007
    Messages:
    2,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cheeseland
    IIRC, Panzer General involved battles with the AI already set up & dug in on the map.
    They didn't have to march across a continent and form line of battle under fire, or deal with maps as varied as those in Civ.
     
  14. KevinMiles90000

    KevinMiles90000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    279
    I don't know how easily this could be coded, but the best solution from a gameplay perspective would probably be to subdivide each hex into 7 smaller hexagons.




    Have each 7 hexagon "clump" still represent one tile/hex when it comes to city management, but for moving military units it would increase the amount of tiles x7. This would almost completely eliminate the "traffic cop" aspect of unit management and open up the game significantly to actual tactics. Also, it would allow for actual navigable rivers and solve the "blue worm" problem. It might also allow for some "mountain pass" areas on the map where mountains no longer become this impenetrable forcefield. There could be a few hex pass through from which to send a few units.
     
  15. Drawmeus

    Drawmeus Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    1,213
    (Tone is difficult to communicate - take my word for it that this is not intended to be hostile or negative)

    How would you deal with the UI implications of this? specifically, each of those sub-hexes is really, really small, and clicking on them is hard/seeing what units are on it is hard/mistakes are going to happen.
     
  16. noncognosco

    noncognosco Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    229
    Location:
    North Carolina
    So....basically you are saying put more hexes in? Just play on a bigger map and you will get the same effect.
     
  17. forty2j

    forty2j King

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    NJ
    It's more like, there's a strategic map at one scale, and a tactical map at 7x zoom.

    I don't hate it.. but I agree with the UI implications.
     
  18. KevinMiles90000

    KevinMiles90000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    279
    There is problem some solution for that, I think honestly the biggest obstacle would be how much more computing power it might take.


    Being able to "group" units into a clump might also be cool. So you could set up a formation with several units and then move them together, then have the option of breaking down that group into individual units and assigning orders that way. You wouldn't be able to attack with them as a group, just for ease of movement across long distances.

    I think increasing the amount of hexes and then significantly increasing the flanking bonus would actually add some tactics to the game. So the flanking bonus would work like a 10% bonus for an adjacent unit and 30% more for the next one, and then 50% more for the next one and so on.


    Having smaller units on the map would also add some scale to the game and make it feel more epic. So a group of archers aren't taking up the same space on the map as an entire city.

    Also, having rivers take up one "tactical hex" combined with embarkation would lead to some pretty cool strategies where you could send an army down a river at a faster speed than on land.
     
  19. Polish

    Polish Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    195
    Location:
    Avilton, MD
    I really don't see how this would be much different from stacking seven units in one tile. The game already provides a 1 UPT operational wargame feel and agreement seems to be universal that it is pretty complicated for the AI to handle--this would be even worse. Seems reasonable to assume that it would require a lot more computing power. I guess my real reaction is that there is really not a 1UPT "Problem" that currently really needs a solution with the exception of the strange inability of civilian units not allowed to move through the military units of other nations with whom you are not at war.
     
  20. forty2j

    forty2j King

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    735
    Location:
    NJ
    Units would have 1/7th of the hammer cost (I would guess), 1/7th of the strength (or, you just multiply city strength by 7 and leave everything else alone), and 3x the movement (since it now takes 3 moves to cross 1 strategic hex). City defense would be pretty similar, but it could open up some open field tactical combat. You could also start doing neat things with bombardment, like letting trebuchets hit 3 tactical hexes (cluster), cannons 3 tactical hexes (in a line) and artillery 7 tactical hexes (in a cluster).

    Teaching the AI how to use this would be a challenge.
     

Share This Page