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

[agonistes]

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...)



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:

View attachment 699124

Sorry, I don't have any screenshots saved. And I won't be playing civ any time soon.

 

[agonistes]

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….

Just so we are clear, I'm not talking about carpets in my territory, or in territory I am invading.

As far as I am aware, there is no command that limits a nation from building units. They will build until they cannot afford the units.

 

[pokiehl]

As far as I am aware, there is no command that limits a nation from building units. They will build until they cannot afford the units.

This isn’t true in my experience.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

They will build until they cannot afford the units.

Caveat: In My Experience, this is only true for City States. Frequently in late/middle game City States I see them with armies of units larger than the regular AI Civs, but among the Civs themselves, almost never.

That said, one of the biggest problems is that the building of units and maintaining an army by the AI Civs has nothing to do with the in-game situation. Very, very often when playing a Domination game, I would be half-way through conquering all the opponents, and the remaining opponents would still be sitting with a minimal number of military units and no Anti-Me alliances. This is a major reason why I don't play Domination games any more: shooting sitting ducks is not only not sportsmanlike, it isn't any fun, either.

 

[Leucarum]

This isn’t true in my experience.

Was it true in Vanilla? That is where I have seen the AI go nuts, but it was also on the switch version... Not sure if there's more AI differences there.

Also as Boris said, it's city states where I have seen this happen.

 

[pokiehl]

Was it true in Vanilla? That is where I have seen the AI go nuts, but it was also on the switch version... Not sure if there's more AI differences there.

Also as Boris said, it's city states where I have seen this happen.

I don’t recall ever seeing it in vanilla.

With city-states it might make sense because they’re limited to only being able to build the specialty district of their type. That means they can run out of infrastructure to take care of if they’re left to their own devices.

 

[Leyrann]

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.

First, this is the highest military score AI on the map. And we're talking deep lategame here. As in, when I loaded up the save I noticed I'd nuked one of my neighbors to take a few cities and just play around because I was bored waiting for culture victory to pop levels of late. Information/Future era technology being researched, that kind of stuff.

Second, from experience, I don't need (nor build) armies this big when going for a conquest victory - or a war in general. I'm far more efficient with my units than this.

And also, if you randomly spread your units out across the map, you're doing something wrong.

Sorry, I don't have any screenshots saved. And I won't be playing civ any time soon.

You could do the same thing I did - just boot up Civ for a minute to load a previous game and take a screenshot. I haven't actually played Civ 6 yet this calendar year, I'm pretty sure. (been busy with other games)

 

[GeneralZift]

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.

I don't think this divide is as clean as you think.
Among the people at Civfanatics, this split is as you see.
But I would put it to you that the 1UPT vote would pull ahead if you considered non-veteran casuals who play Civ5 and Civ6 and don't use forums.

So actually it's probably way easier for Firaxis to 'do nothing' and maintain status quo 1UPT or make minor improvements and adjustments to prevent carpets than it is for them to totally flip to the other side of the spectrum.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I wonder if civ7 will expand the idea of attaching units or the corps/army mechanic of merging units. For example, what if civ7 allowed you to merge up to 4 different military units, instead of just 2-3 identical units. You could merge say an infantry, an artillery and two tanks to form an "armored division" unit. This would represent the type of combined arms we see in modern armies. And this way you could have like mini-stacks while still only having a single unit. The main advantage would be reducing clutter on the map to prevent carpet of doom effects. It would also give the offensive player a bit of an edge again as the "armored division" unit would be powerful enough to breakthrough a defensive line or take a heavily defended city. This could be a way of preserving the essence of 1upt while addressing some of the concerns that some have about 1upt.

 

[pokiehl]

This idea of "limited stacking" comes up a lot. My view of it is that it's a "worst of both worlds" thing. You just get the problems of both 1UPT and unlimited stacking without actually solving anything. I'd rather they just decide on an approach and stick to it.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

This idea of "limited stacking" comes up a lot. My view of it is that it's a "worst of both worlds" thing. You just get the problems of both 1UPT and unlimited stacking without actually solving anything. I'd rather they just decide on an approach and stick to it.

To be clear, I am not talking about limited stacking. I am talking about actually merging units into a single "super unit", similar to how corps work in civ6 where you can merge 2 units into a single unit. By merging units, you still have 1upt, it's just that each unit can be more powerful since it can have the combined abilities and strength of multiple units.

 

[pokiehl]

To be clear, I am not talking about limited stacking. I am talking about actually merging units into a single "super unit", similar to how corps work in civ6 where you can merge 2 units into a single unit. By merging units, you still have 1upt, it's just that each unit can be more powerful since it can have the combined abilities and strength of multiple units.

Yeah I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure what exactly is different about limited stacking vs unit merging, except for the presumed inability to "unmerge" for the latter. The concepts are six one way, half-a-dozen the other way. Same problems.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think the limited stacking as it stands in civ6 (corps/armies/fleets/armadas) has particularly broken the combat system. Though the cost is a bit steep to form them maybe? I doubt they'll go to merging non-identical units within this system. Too many variables to consider, and I don't think there'd be as much to gain - would having 33% of an archer be better than having a separate archer that can act independently?

 

[Patine]

To be clear, I am not talking about limited stacking. I am talking about actually merging units into a single "super unit", similar to how corps work in civ6 where you can merge 2 units into a single unit. By merging units, you still have 1upt, it's just that each unit can be more powerful since it can have the combined abilities and strength of multiple units.

I just don't see why 1UPT is worth all of this effort and all these ideas to preserve. It's a bad idea that is ridiiculous in the scope and scale of a Civ game, and some people feel the need to defend it like it's an ABSOLUTE, NON-NEGOTIABLE ESSENTIAL. Can you explain this, please?
Moderator Action: Please do not yell in the forum with caps. leif

 

[InsidiousMage]

Can you explain this, please?

They find it vastly more appealing than the alternatives. Like, its not that hard to comprehend.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

They find it vastly more appealing that the alternatives. Like, its not that hard to comprehend.

Except that for too many of the conversations, the only alternative they mention is Stack of Doom, and that is not the only alternative.

In fact, of the latest non-Civ 4X games released or due to be released, none use either 1UPT OR Stack of Doom:

Humankind uses stacking strictly limited by Tech and Era and parts of the game map as a Tactical Map to fight the battles between stacks.

Millenia uses limited stacks with some rigidity of unit placement on a stylized tactical map but allows the gamer no agency to fight the tactical battles - they are all entirely 'automated'

ARA, announced for this September, apparently (I have not had a chance to play out battles, only view some limited video 'reveals') uses limited stacking and variable unit sizes but, like Millenia, largely 'automates' the actual fighting of the battles.

Is this a trend?
I seriously doubt it, other than a trend that someone designing all three games has noticed all the discussion about Civ's 1UPT Versus SOD and decided to avoid both. On the other hand, the alternatives chosen each have their own difficulties, so I do not think they have 'solved' any debate yet.

My own position is that neither 1UPT nor SOD nor any 'drop-out' into a separate tactical 'screen' is acceptable, and the negatives apparent from all three systems in the various games are proof of that.

I also think that any system that removes all tactical/operational agency from the player simply will not be acceptable. Any game that requires you to invest various in-game resources over numerous turns to build Units and deploy them and then in a single turn wipes them off the game map and tells you "So sorry, you Lost" is a recipe for Rage Quits and massive negative comment by gamers. They have to at least feel that they can influence the battle in some way.

What exactly is Enough Agency to placate the gamer while maintaining some vague semblance of spatial and temporal balance between Units and Game Map and Battle Resolution? That is the crux if the problem, and one I have not seen any game achieve yet.

In 7 days we may get a glimpse of Civ VII's attempt at achievement . . .

 

[InsidiousMage]

Except that for too many of the conversations, the only alternative they mention is Stack of Doom, and that is not the only alternative.

For the purpose of discussion, it kind of is. It really doesn't matter what imagined or hypothetical system you come up with because people really have experience with either stacks or 1UTP. Humankind has an incredibly small playerbase compared to Civ, Millennium doesn't even 500 players per day and Ara isn't even out yet. Stacking is also the other main kind of combat, that isn't simply hypothetical, pushed for on the forum so it is entirely reasonable to see that as the other option to 1UTP.

My own position is that neither 1UPT nor SOD nor any 'drop-out' into a separate tactical 'screen' is acceptable

Good luck with that then because I image Civ7 is either going to be 1UTP or tactical screen unless they've actually come with that basically reinvents the genre, which I find highly unlikely. I genuinely think unless you completely redo/reimagine some of the basics of the genre, those are your three options.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I just don't see why 1UPT is worth all of this effort and all these ideas to preserve. It's a bad idea that is ridiiculous in the scope and scale of a Civ game, and some people feel the need to defend it like it's an ABSOLUTE, NON-NEGOTIABLE ESSENTIAL. Can you explain this, please?

Personally, I think 1upt is terrible. I agree that it does not fit in the scope and scale of a civ game. If I were designing a civ game, I would never do 1upt. But the fact is that Firaxis is unlikely to ditch it. Also, many civ players want 1upt. So I am operating within that constraint that 1upt is here to stay and trying to figure out how to make 1upt suck less.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

For the purpose of discussion, it kind of is. It really doesn't matter what imagined or hypothetical system you come up with because people really have experience with either stacks or 1UTP. Humankind has an incredibly small playerbase compared to Civ, Millennium doesn't even 500 players per day and Ara isn't even out yet. Stacking is also the other main kind of combat, that isn't simply hypothetical, pushed for on the forum so it is entirely reasonable to see that as the other option to 1UTP.

The fact that they are played by fewer people does not make them 'hypothetical'. I would point out that EU also uses limited stacking in that it severely penalizes large SOD-type stacks by attrition whenever they are used.

My point is that Civ gamers like those in this Forum tend to view all possibilities as being only those that have been seen in Civ games, and that is much too limited an outlook, as indicated by recent games in the same genre that are trying other methods - not very successfully, I'll grant you.

I'll stick my neck out here, a bit, and postulate that what people like about 1UPT is primarily the Tactical Feel to it: the feeling that you are actually fighting individual battles with tactical interactions between flanking, ranged fire, follow-up melee attacks, and finding the best 'mix' of units to achieve economical victory. I will further postulate that any system that can give that same tactical feel And stay closer to the over-all distance and time scale of the game And not extend the time required to play a single turn by multiple amounts will be a winner.

- And further admit that I have no idea what that system or synthesis of systems might be, but I'm enough of an optimist to believe that it's out there Somewhere . . .

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Stacking is also the other main kind of combat, that isn't simply hypothetical, pushed for on the forum so it is entirely reasonable to see that as the other option to 1UTP.

Yes, stacks are the only other alternative to 1upt. But stacks do not automatically means stacks of doom. The problem is when people assume that stacks of doom are the only alternative to 1upt and that is not correct. You can do stacks as a viable alternative to 1upt without doing stacks of doom.