CIV VII: 1UPT, Stack of Doom or Carpet of Doom. What's your prefs?

[Leucarum]

I have literally not even once in more than a thousand hours of Civ 6 gameplay, at least half of which was on the highest difficulty level, seen a single carpet of doom more than three tiles across in every direction.

I have kind of seen one - but it was on the switch vanilla version which often had weird AI decisions - where a city state had filled every tile on its large island with (mostly) catapults.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

carpet of doom, please, it's realistic

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It will be interesting to see what civ7 actually does. Hopefully, we get more info on Aug 20 during the gameplay reveal.

We've discussed what we want but what do we think Firaxis will actually do in civ7? Will they stick with civ6 style 1upt with some minor tweaks or do something more "radical" like Humankind's combat with stacks and 1upt tactical combat? Or something else?

 

[InsidiousMage]

We've discussed what we want but what do we think Firaxis will actually do in civ7?

I think the military system will allow for a "peaceful" playstyle where you don't need a massive army to defend yourself, whatever that ends up being. Aside from the anti-1UPT diehards, the main complaint about warfare was the weakness of the AI so I think that will probably be an area of improvement. I also don't think we'll see a radical departure from Civ6, so probably 1UPT and a defensive advantage in the early and mid game.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think the military system will allow for a "peaceful" playstyle where you don't need a massive army to defend yourself, whatever that ends up being. Aside from the anti-1UPT diehards, the main complaint about warfare was the weakness of the AI so I think that will probably be an area of improvement. I also don't think we'll see a radical departure from Civ6, so probably 1UPT and a defensive advantage in the early and mid game.

I agree that is probably what Firaxis will do. Smaller armies have many advantages like easier for the player to manage, less micro with moving units, and easier for the AI. 1upt does work better with fewer units and bigger maps so that there is more space to maneuver. I think civ7 will have bigger maps and also make terrain easier to maneuver with fewer choke points in order to make 1upt easier for the player and for the AI. I also would not be surprised if Firaxis expands on the attach and corp/armies mechanics by letting players attach siege units or combine mixed units into corps and armies. This would allow players to have mini armies while still keeping the spirit of 1upt. Also, attaching or combing mixed units would make it easier to maneuver units. And honestly, as much as I would prefer limited stacks, if Firaxis does 1upt right, I won't mind at all.

I do think there needs to be a good balance between defense and offense. You don't want to make it too easy to defend with a small army or domination becomes too frustrating. Terrain should provide a good defensive bonus but you don't want to make defense too strong. One issue with classic 1upt is that it limits how many units can even surround a city. And with walled cities + a ranged unit granting the player 2 ranged attacks per turn, cities become pretty strong in defense. If terrain also limits how many attacking units can surround a city, it can make it very hard to take the city. The player can struggle to even get enough units around the city to take it, while the doubled ranged attacks slowly erodes your units down to nothing. And yes, the AI is weak but I think that is because 1upt can make it very tricky to move units within range of a city and with the city double range attacking you, you cannot afford to waste time getting your units into position. So the AI will struggle in solving how to even move their units into position to take the city while the human gets 2 ranged attacks to take them out one at a time. I would suggest getting rid of the separate city ranged attack from walls but instead, walls would buff the ranged attack from a ranged unit in the city center. This would encourage players to garrison the city with a ranged unit to get the ranged attack and walls would buff that ranged attack to make it more powerful. Walls would still grant the city that extra layer of hit points. But cities would no longer have the double ranged attack which is often too strong. This would make cities strong but give the attacking army a bit of a more chance.

 

[Prester John 2]

If they keep 1upt I hope at least they'll tone down wall defensive strikes. And make to AI to actually keep ranged garrison in their cities. What Civ6 lacks right now is an AI that actually threatens the human player militarily, post the classical age.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I have literally not even once in more than a thousand hours of Civ 6 gameplay, at least half of which was on the highest difficulty level, seen a single carpet of doom more than three tiles across in every direction.

Neither have I, which I would attribute to the balance of power between defense and offense firmly weighted towards the former.

The AI does build enough units over the course of a game that if successful, they'd snowball, further increasing production and #s of units. They don't ever really reach that point, though, because they can't effectively tackle walls. They can't parlay units into more territory and production and not only that, but they lose their existing units after one or two assaults on fortifications.

The AI should be at least capable of a conquest victory on a standard size map, but it really isn't. A logjam would be the consequence of a militarily successful AI pursuing conquest. No Civ6 AI is remotely close to that.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think the military system will allow for a "peaceful" playstyle where you don't need a massive army to defend yourself, whatever that ends up being. Aside from the anti-1UPT diehards, the main complaint about warfare was the weakness of the AI so I think that will probably be an area of improvement. I also don't think we'll see a radical departure from Civ6, so probably 1UPT and a defensive advantage in the early and mid game.

We already have this in Civ6. Unless you get nailed right at the start with the AI’s crutch of extra units, or Hammurabi is in the game and your warrios are facing Men at Arms it’s trivial to render the AI harmless with a minimal army

Just have walls and encampments in your border cities, along with a ranged unit for the encampments and a ranged or melee unit in the city centre and the AI can basically be city/ranged striked to death with minimal effort.

 

[agonistes]

I have literally not even once in more than a thousand hours of Civ 6 gameplay, at least half of which was on the highest difficulty level, seen a single carpet of doom more than three tiles across in every direction.

It happened every game for me. I would mod in maintenance changes to try and reduce the problem.

I saw Spain with a unit in every tile, and pushing land units out into the sea because there was no room left on land.

I can't imagine ever seeing a carpet only 3 tiles across.

And what about your troops?

Its just no fun managing and parking a hundred troops. Or moving a 50 ship navy.

 

[agonistes]

Neither have I, which I would attribute to the balance of power between defense and offense firmly weighted towards the former.

The AI does build enough units over the course of a game that if successful, they'd snowball, further increasing production and #s of units. They don't ever really reach that point, though, because they can't effectively tackle walls. They can't parlay units into more territory and production and not only that, but they lose their existing units after one or two assaults on fortifications.

The AI should be at least capable of a conquest victory on a standard size map, but it really isn't. A logjam would be the consequence of a militarily successful AI pursuing conquest. No Civ6 AI is remotely close to that.

I thought I raised that point - the player is forced to go to war simply to reduce troop counts and free up map space.

I am fully aware my play style is dissimilar to most other players. Perhaps that accounts for the difference. But it seems to be quite a difference - never vs every game.

 

[Leucarum]

Maybe some screenshots of what people consider to be a carpet of doom? One player's carpet might be another player's rug.

One thing which I think this thread has right is that the balance of ranged units/city strikes might be a bit off in civ 6. A lot of suggestions of reducing range, but slingers show how ineffective that would be in the other direction. Probably just tuning down the damage would be better?

 

[pokiehl]

I’ve never seen a “carpet of doom” in civ 6 either and I’ve certainly never felt the need to go to war to get rid of units.

 

[Leyrann]

We already have this in Civ6. Unless you get nailed right at the start with the AI’s crutch of extra units, or Hammurabi is in the game and your warrios are facing Men at Arms it’s trivial to render the AI harmless with a minimal army

Just have walls and encampments in your border cities, along with a ranged unit for the encampments and a ranged or melee unit in the city centre and the AI can basically be city/ranged striked to death with minimal effort.

I'm gonna be honest. Why would I waste a district slot on encampments?

Even if I get declared war upon out of nothing (highly unlikely, I tend to have DoFs with most if not all AIs, and if not there's a good chance I'll have my suspicions about an AI already), I can build up a sufficient army to defend myself before the AI can take my city. Just gotta build a bunch of ranged units, station them in cities or on defensive terrain, and maybe a few melee units (or, if vs'ing cavalry, anti-cav) to defend everything.

I can't remember the last time I've lost a city to the AI in a war that wasn't declared in the Ancient Era (if it ever happened...), and frankly, beyond not building encampments I tend to not even build walls. Again, unless attacked.

Honestly, I build encampments in two situations:
-Because it looks nice as a defensive fortification, e.g. blocking off a mountain pass.
-Because I'm going for a conquest victory and didn't forget that you need encampments for Great Generals. (I've played conquest victories without encampments where I did forget this...)

It happened every game for me. I would mod in maintenance changes to try and reduce the problem.

I saw Spain with a unit in every tile, and pushing land units out into the sea because there was no room left on land.

I can't imagine ever seeing a carpet only 3 tiles across.

And what about your troops?

Its just no fun managing and parking a hundred troops. Or moving a 50 ship navy.

Are you like, playing a different game?

As others said - I'd like to see some screenshots. Because I have no clue how this would happen. Booting up Civ VI right now, here's about what I usually see in a late game on Deity (taken from the last end-of-game save I have, which is like a year old or something) - note that I specifically went for the AI with the highest military score, and revealed the entire map so nothing could hide in fog:

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Maybe some screenshots of what people consider to be a carpet of doom? One player's carpet might be another player's rug.

One thing which I think this thread has right is that the balance of ranged units/city strikes might be a bit off in civ 6. A lot of suggestions of reducing range, but slingers show how ineffective that would be in the other direction. Probably just tuning down the damage would be better?

Yes, I think tuning down the damage of ranged attacks might be good, especially the ranged attack from city walls. I've also suggested getting rid of the city ranged attack altogether and having walls just buff the ranged attack of the ranged unit in the city center instead. This way, players would still want to garrison a ranged unit in their cities and would get a real benefit from doing so but would not get a double ranged attack which I consider OP. Same with encampments. Have them buff the ranged attack from a ranged unit inside them but not give an extra ranged attack. And a walled city with a nearby encampment and ranged units in both is 4 ranged attacks per turn which is insanely OP IMO. As others have stated, you can destroy an entire army without needing any defending units other than the garrisoned ranged units. That's crazy.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

View attachment 699124

This screenshot is a great example of why I don't like 1upt. That is too many units. It is a nightmare to move. Units are blocking each other's path. And it is a mess. There are no armies with actual formations. It's just a bunch of units randomly spread out across the map. And combat is not fun either. It is always the same: bombard with ranged, try to attack with melee, slide units around to try to get past each other. That is not deep tactics.

 

[Krajzen]

The results of this very poll show how terribly difficult is to invent popular solution to the problem of military organisation in Civ...
30% of people are pro 1UPT, 36% are pro two versions of SoD and 32% are pro other solutions - wow, the results are almost identical as if we went with the random statistical distribution between three options, if we were a parliament it would be a miserable deadlock

Firaxis has faced an interesting dilemma. If you go with either 1UPT or SoD you immediately alienate at least one third of the playerbase, but if you go for something radically new then it's a gamble between having much less or much more discontent. Between those strategies, I think they chose the latter to go with the ambitious challenge.

 

[tedhebert]

It happened every game for me. I would mod in maintenance changes to try and reduce the problem.

I saw Spain with a unit in every tile, and pushing land units out into the sea because there was no room left on land.

I can't imagine ever seeing a carpet only 3 tiles across.

And what about your troops?

Its just no fun managing and parking a hundred troops. Or moving a 50 ship navy.

I’m with Leyrann here… his screnshot show my reality late game for MY civ, and other civs have way less….

honestly the only carpet of dooms I’ve had are with NFP’s Voidsingers….

 

[Leucarum]

This screenshot is a great example of why I don't like 1upt. That is too many units. It is a nightmare to move. Units are blocking each other's path. And it is a mess. There are no armies with actual formations. It's just a bunch of units randomly spread out across the map. And combat is not fun either. It is always the same: bombard with ranged, try to attack with melee, slide units around to try to get past each other. That is not deep tactics.

I wouldn't call that a carpet of doom though! It is messy, but that's more an AI issue I'd say, and I doubt you'd have difficulty moving units except at choke points... Which is kind of the point. In that image, the border between Gitarja and Tomyris would probably become a sliding tile puzzle pretty quick at war, but that's a feature not a bug IMO. It makes tight mountain passes into a tactical feature you can use! You lose a lot of that depth without 1UPT.

 

[Leucarum]

Yes, I think tuning down the damage of ranged attacks might be good, especially the ranged attack from city walls. I've also suggested getting rid of the city ranged attack altogether and having walls just buff the ranged attack of the ranged unit in the city center instead. This way, players would still want to garrison a ranged unit in their cities and would get a real benefit from doing so but would not get a double ranged attack which I consider OP. Same with encampments. Have them buff the ranged attack from a ranged unit inside them but not give an extra ranged attack. And a walled city with a nearby encampment and ranged units in both is 4 ranged attacks per turn which is insanely OP IMO. As others have stated, you can destroy an entire army without needing any defending units other than the garrisoned ranged units. That's crazy.

Yeah, I think the ability of ranged units to shut down an attack is too good in Civ. I like the tactical options opened up by ranged units, but their power needs tweaking otherwise in a 1UPT world you'll always want just enough units to hold the line and then behind them a wall of archers.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The results of this very poll show how terribly difficult is to invent popular solution to the problem of military organisation in Civ...
30% of people are pro 1UPT, 36% are pro two versions of SoD and 32% are pro other solutions - wow, the results are almost identical as if we went with the random statistical distribution between three options, if we were a parliament it would be a miserable deadlock

I wonder if the divide between 1upt and stacks stems from the fundamental divide between micromanagement and macromanagement. We know some civ players like micromanagement while others hate it. I feel like players who like micro probably like 1upt and players who prefer macro probably prefer stacks.

Firaxis has faced an interesting dilemma. If you go with either 1UPT or SoD you immediately alienate at least one third of the playerbase, but if you go for something radically new then it's a gamble between having much less or much more discontent. Between those strategies, I think they chose the latter to go with the ambitious challenge.

Firaxis could try something that is not super radical, but just tweak 1upt a bit, in order to keep the 1upt fanbase happy while also trying to soften the problems of 1upt for players who don't like 1upt.