A simple solution to "stacks of doom"

[CivFanaticMan]

The only problem I had with the old system is that outdated units could still beat high tech units because of raw probability. Thats what needs to be changed from stacks. There are other smaller issues, but stacks is not the problem.

 

[Kael]

In my opinion xUPT has most of the disadvantages of 1UPT and none of the advantages.

You are still dancing around tile limits, only at a higher threshold. You are mostly playing as if tile limits are off, only to have them get in your way as you try to move your units around. And stacks are still a major issue, you just have stacks of stacks that require micro to continue feeding your main stack.

 

[Ex-Cop]

You either get a tactical game ( Panzer ) or grand strategy game ( Civ 4 ). I don't think you can merge both models with your current thinking.

 

[Camikaze]

What Kael says is absolutely right. Placing a limit on stack size does not solve any problems.

*Insert standard post about unlimited stacks with appropriate penalties being the way to go*

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What they need is Stack v. Stack combat

So that
10 Swords v. 3 Swords+2Pikes+4Knights

is just like a 1 unit v. 1 unit battle

and
10 Swords attacking in one stack gives similar results to 10 swords attacking in 5 stacks, Make Healing expensive.. essentially almost as bad as rebuilding.

That is what needs to be done... Stacks need to be treated as Single Units when doing combat. (the combat model might have to be slightly more complicated)

 

[Camikaze]

That's a highly tactical approach, and would require the player and AI to worry about stack composition an awful lot (assuming different units had an impact on the outcome of combat). That necessarily detracts from the strategic focus of warfare in particular and the game as a result.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That's a highly tactical approach, and would require the player and AI to worry about stack composition an awful lot (assuming different units had an impact on the outcome of combat). That necessarily detracts from the strategic focus of warfare in particular and the game as a result.

Actually I'd say it makes it Less tactical and more strategic.

If the only thing that affects military success is
What's in your army stack in thi general area of the world?
as opposed to "what arrangement is your army stack in?" [Civ V archers in back, horses on the sides, etc.]

Then it becomes much more strategic.

It becomes closer to the Stack of Doom, but
1. Stack v. Stack would be 1 Attack... 1 action

So I get My stack of
6 swords and 4 Archers
and attack the enemy stack of
3 Swords 4 Pikes and 2 Knights... and in one calculation there is the combat result.

 

[Camikaze]

Thing is though that each little stack would essentially function the same as one unit. The only difference to 1upt would be that you have to micromanage the composition of your force. You still have worry about placement.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Thing is though that each little stack would essentially function the same as one unit. The only difference to 1upt would be that you have to micromanage the composition of your force. You still have worry about placement.

Placement would be simpler because you would only have 1 "unit" to place.

You would worry about composition... but that would be worrying about what units to produce and which units to commit to this "general area".
Basically Strategy (what units do I want attacking the Japanese in the North and which do I want defending from them in the South, and which do I want defending against the enemies in the West)

Assemble those units into 1 stack and now you only have 3 "stacks" to move. (especially if cities defend themselves.)


To solve some of the SoD problems (units slipping by), you would need to have some ZoC system(having an effect similar to reducing the number of 'tiles' on the map for movement purposes, making blockages of terrain easier)


While it would act the sme as "1upt" in combat senses.. it would effectively reduce the number of units without crippling maintenance/production costs. A better economy would Not mean that your army occupies more tiles, instead it would mean your army is made of stronger 'stacks' on the tiles it occupies.

 

[Windsor]

What Kael says is absolutely right. Placing a limit on stack size does not solve any problems.

If the AI could attack you with 10 stacks each with 5 units instead of marching 50 units one by one into the grinder the AI would be a lot harder to beat as the AI would hit you much harder over a short time, rather than several small punches.

Any system that allows you to concentrate more power onto 1 tile is favouring production power(and thereby AIs).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If the AI could attack you with 10 stacks each with 5 units instead of marching 50 units one by one into the grinder the AI would be a lot harder to beat as the AI would hit you much harder over a short time, rather than several small punches.

Any system that allows you to concentrate more power onto 1 tile is favouring production power(and thereby AIs).

If you can have a strong stack of 5 units that can handle any one of the AIs 10 stacks of 5 units, then

thats the same as having a strong single unit that can handle any one of the AIs 50 indivdual units.

it only becomes different if

1. Healing is impossible/very expensive (so those 50 weak units, or 10 weak stacks will wear it down, just as well as a stack of 50)

AND/OR

2. Stacks are unlimited. (so the AI can send all its troops in one stack, at all your troops in one stack)

The choice for units per stack is really
1 or Infinite

 

[Windsor]

If you can have a strong stack of 5 units that can handle any one of the AIs 10 stacks of 5 units, then

thats the same as having a strong single unit that can handle any one of the AIs 50 indivdual units.

This comparison doesn't make any sense. In the first case, the human has 5 units, then you compare that to a scenario where the human only got 1 unit...

But say you got 5 units to defend. Stack limit is 5. With 1upt, you do 3 in front and 2 in the second row. With 5upt the things change and it's no longer clear how to defend. If you choose to stack you loose flanking bonus and defend a smaller area. However, if you choose to spread out, the line becomes so thin it will no longer hold.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This comparison doesn't make any sense. In the first case, the human has 5 units, then you compare that to a scenario where the human only got 1 unit...

But say you got 5 units to defend. Stack limit is 5. With 1upt, you do 3 in front and 2 in the second row. With 5upt the things change and it's no longer clear how to defend. If you choose to stack you loose flanking bonus and defend a smaller area. However, if you choose to spread out, the line becomes so thin it will no longer hold.

In either case the problem is
With a stacking limit of X,
and 0 cost healing,

Human player can arrange N*X units on N tiles in such a way that they can take any other group of AI units that can be sent at them at one time, and the Human players units will be healed before the next AI wave hits..regardless of how many waves can be sent.

Now
If the stacking limit is removed.. the AI can send 'waves' large enough to break any formation (if it has enough of an economic advantage)
OR
If Healing is made costly enough, then the AI waves that don't kill the player's units can still cost the player. (just like losing+building the waves costs the AI... so if the AI has enough of an economic advantage, it is an advantage)



The two best models would be

1. Stick with 1 upt... but make healing actually cost money (1/10 unit buy cost per hit point)

2. Get rid of stacking limits, and deemphasize the individual unit (make the experience system more global.. so all units of type X have abilities Y.) allow stack v. stack combat

For #2 I'd probably eliminate free-easy healing as well.

 

[Windsor]

In either case the problem is
With a stacking limit of X,
and 0 cost healing,

Human player can arrange N*X units on N tiles in such a way that they can take any other group of AI units that can be sent at them at one time, and the Human players units will be healed before the next AI wave hits..regardless of how many waves can be sent.

But the number of Units the player has is a constant.

Now
If the stacking limit is removed.. the AI can send 'waves' large enough to break any formation (if it has enough of an economic advantage)

And this cannot happen if X is say, 500?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

But the number of Units the player has is a constant.



And this cannot happen if X is say, 500?

If X=500, then 95% of the time no player will ever be able to reach the cap, so there is no difference between capped and uncapped.

I mean CivIV probably had a limit to the number of units per tile too (probably somewhere in the millions or so, to prevent the machine from crashing.. it was probably a limit of units per map though)

 

[Camikaze]

Placement would be simpler because you would only have 1 "unit" to place.

You would worry about composition... but that would be worrying about what units to produce and which units to commit to this "general area".
Basically Strategy (what units do I want attacking the Japanese in the North and which do I want defending from them in the South, and which do I want defending against the enemies in the West)

Assemble those units into 1 stack and now you only have 3 "stacks" to move. (especially if cities defend themselves.)


To solve some of the SoD problems (units slipping by), you would need to have some ZoC system(having an effect similar to reducing the number of 'tiles' on the map for movement purposes, making blockages of terrain easier)


While it would act the sme as "1upt" in combat senses.. it would effectively reduce the number of units without crippling maintenance/production costs. A better economy would Not mean that your army occupies more tiles, instead it would mean your army is made of stronger 'stacks' on the tiles it occupies.

I guess if you striped it right down to basic strategy you wouldn't need to worry about composition, but as much as I'm an exponent of 'civ is not a tactical game', there does need to be fun in warfare.

If the AI could attack you with 10 stacks each with 5 units instead of marching 50 units one by one into the grinder the AI would be a lot harder to beat as the AI would hit you much harder over a short time, rather than several small punches.

Any system that allows you to concentrate more power onto 1 tile is favouring production power(and thereby AIs).

If you are fighting with one unit per tile vs. one unit per tile, that's exactly the same as fighting with five units per tile vs. five units per tile. The AI would only be harder to beat assuming you didn't also use 10 stacks of 5 units.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I guess if you striped it right down to basic strategy you wouldn't need to worry about composition, but as much as I'm an exponent of 'civ is not a tactical game', there does need to be fun in warfare.

If you are fighting with one unit per tile vs. one unit per tile, that's exactly the same as fighting with five units per tile vs. five units per tile. The AI would only be harder to beat assuming you didn't also use 10 stacks of 5 units.

The issue is the "unbreakable front".

My "clump" is positioned and managed in such a way that the AI "clumps" can't attack it and do any more damage than I will heal before the next AI "clump" hits.
The AIs production bonus is that way totally negated.
Now if there is
1. less tactical complexity to the warfare
or
2. some cost to the healing

Then the AI production bonus will be viable

I do agree warfare needs to be fun... just like nonwarfare needs to be fun.
But the fun can come from
strategy (determining best unit mixes for particular locations, and getting them there/producing them in time)
as well as the randomness + rewards of warfare*


*that is the other key thing... warfare is unfortunately the most efficient way to advance your civ to victory (because it also pulls other civs farther from victory).. more "Competitive nonwarfare" is needed, so that players don't just go to war because peace is "Next turn".."Next turn", etc.

 

[seasnake]

I was playing Pirates the other day and the solution dawned on me: Stacks on the world map up to X number, but then a combat screen generating for playing out 1UPT per tile like in the Pirates option to attack and sack a city. Your ranged units can bombard, you're mounted units move farther than melee and all of the bonuses apply. It's basically taking the same combat you do know when two groups of units meet each other, but on the world map itself you can load up stacks again.

Then make Forts create Zones of Control, so you can build Forts along your coast and it will prevent the enemy from landing stacks just anywhere and going on a rampage. Make's Forts very valuable along borders and coasts (which is fair). Let Forts have Garrisons and make certain techs allow forts to attack like a city.

I'd play that game until my eyes fell out.

 

[ZheGerman]

I agree, the SOD is dead and that is how it is fine! I hated the SOD in CIV4, especially with the ranged units it would be stupid. 1upt is good and realistic, but the AI needs improving. It worked fine in Panzer General 1, why can't they do it today?
the Only exception should really be: my civis can move unto my tiles or neutral ones if a neutral foreign unit is on it! That is a bug and nothing else!!!

 

[qwerty25]

I think the biggest problem in this game is not 1UPT it self but the land. For 1UPT to work you need a lot of space to move around. But, if they gave you that much space you would have so many more cities that produce more units which then need even more land. The company then tried to solve this by lowering the amount of hammers you can get and Civ5 is the result.