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

[InsidiousMage]

The fact that they are played by fewer people does not make them 'hypothetical'.

I should clarify by "hypothetical" I meant something people have experience, not does it exist or not. If you haven't played Humankind, any discussion about its combat system is hypothetical since you have no direct experience with it.

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.

One game you forgot, and which I think is kind of important, is Old World, which also uses 1UPT. Its by Soren Johnson, the lead dev of Civ4 and he goes into why he used it, and brings up an important point that isn't usually discussed here - what do you want the combat system, and the game its in more broadly, to accomplish? I'm pretty sure a key point for Civ7 is going to be to allow players to play peacefully while also not having to commit a large amount of resources to a military to defend themselves if necessary. This is a huge advantage 1UPT and city shots have over other systems.

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.

While I agree that moving individual units on a battlefield is more enjoyable that simply smashing stacks into each other, I don't think that is the primary consideration for why 1UPT will probably stick around for a while. As I already mentioned, it provide other benefits that are hard to replicate in other systems, like low cost defense for players who don't like war. Civ has to appeal a wide variety of players and, by and large, is generally a more
"peaceful" game than its competitors and any kind of combat system is going to have to keep that up.

 

[InsidiousMage]

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.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "stacks of doom." AoW4 uses limited stacking and only allows three stacks to participate in any one battle which means that if you are at war with another player you aren't going to war with only three stacks but with four, five, six, or more stacks because the AI is also going to have more than three stacks and you need to able to make for units lost in battle. That doesn't strike as that dissimilar from stacks of doom beyond a merely semantic point if you prefer 1UPT, which allows for warfare on a more limited scale.

 

[pokiehl]

One game you forgot, and which I think is kind of important, is Old World, which also uses 1UPT. Its by Soren Johnson, the lead dev of Civ4 and he goes into why he used it,

Thanks for linking this blog entry by Soren.

It’s a great reminder of how thoughtful good game design really is. The more I read stuff like this, the more I realize I probably don’t have very good game ideas.

 

[InsidiousMage]

It’s a great reminder of how thoughtful good game design really is. The more I read stuff like this, the more I realize I probably don’t have very good game ideas.

I think a thing that gets lost in the discussion of mechanics is that they don't exist in a vacuum - they exist in a game for a particular purpose. It doesn't how "good" a mechanic is if it works at cross purpose to what they game is trying to accomplish.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

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.

That's strange, because it basically is a "best of both worlds" thing.
You won't have stacks of doom (hard limit on that) and you won't have carpets of doom (soft limit, some way to reduce the overall amount if units people can muster is required but also very much desired), plus it saves problems with moving units around if you keep their number under reasonable limit.

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.

No limit = stacks of doom, sooner or later. It's inevitable, we already experienced that. With no hard limit there will always be someone who will create an insane amount of units, group them together and go to war with it. And they will move this stack of doom from one city to another, wiping any less prepared foes.
If you spread those units around, divide it into smaller stacks - it'll have to move slower and won't be able to engage with all units at once, giving other players better chance to counteract.

In general, the best solution so far to me is the overall reduction of the number of units (what's even the point of having to build 200 units to counter enemy's 250 units?) to keep units and tactics and technological advantage more important and hard limit on UPT (it can be modified with game settings) for better army management (moving around) and preventing SoDs.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

No limit = stacks of doom, sooner or later. It's inevitable, we already experienced that. With no hard limit there will always be someone who will create an insane amount of units, group them together and go to war with it. And they will move this stack of doom from one city to another, wiping any less prepared foes.
If you spread those units around, divide it into smaller stacks - it'll have to move slower and won't be able to engage with all units at once, giving other players better chance to counteract.

Of course, you need limits. I want stacks with limits, both a limit on stack size and limit on number of stacks, to prevent stacks of doom. I believe you can do stacks with limits. Stacks do not automatically mean no limits and therefore stacks of doom.

 

[Patine]

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

This is a non-answer, but phrased as though it should, inexplicably, explain everything.

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.

There is no such artifcial, binary, absolutist limits on meaningful discussion, or realistic expectations. Only you just declaring it so, and expecting it to be taken at face value.

I should clarify by "hypothetical" I meant something people have experience, not does it exist or not. If you haven't played Humankind, any discussion about its combat system is hypothetical since you have no direct experience with it.

They're only declared, "hypothetical," by those who to contrive their removal as options from the conservation.

I think a thing that gets lost in the discussion of mechanics is that they don't exist in a vacuum - they exist in a game for a particular purpose. It doesn't how "good" a mechanic is if it works at cross purpose to what they game is trying to accomplish.

Probably, but often such reasons are failures, in applicable, but some often want to cling to them, and insist others do.

 

[Leucarum]

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.

This is one of the most insightful explanations I've seen on the thread. Definitely encapsulates what feels good about 1UPT !

I'd add that 1UPT really lets players express skill and out play the AI rather than having to outmuscle them, ramps up the feel of leveraging terrain compared to stacks (covered by your definition of tactical but relevant to the 'play the map' theme in civ6), and that 1UPT feels very seamless compared to other systems. Whatever system they arrive at in Civ7 I hope they retain those elements and the overall tactical feel.

1UPT isn't perfect though. I don't want to be a zealot even if it's my preference... I'd personally love to see an iteration which reduces the micromanagement inherent in 1UPT, and tones down the power of ranged units. But that's just me.

 

[Patine]

This is one of the most insightful explanations I've seen on the thread. Definitely encapsulates what feels good about 1UPT !

And his explanation describes the biggest flaw and problem with 1UPT - it's tactical, on a global, strategic-scale map. It's jarring and nonsensical, and doesn't give one the feel of military conflict on the scope that Civ is played on. Certainly, having a situation akin to the World Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, the U.S. Civil War, or the Mongol Conquests, is basically impossible, meaningfully, because you're stuck doing the Battle of the Chains, Waterloo, Gettysburg, Paschendale, the Bulge, or Okinawa, at best, nstead, but on the scope and scale of their overrarching wars. It's nonsensical, and highly frustrating, and certainly doesn't, "feel good," to me.

 

[Leucarum]

And his explanation describes the biggest flaw and problem with 1UPT - it's tactical, on a global, strategic-scale map. It's jarring and nonsensical, and doesn't give one the feel of military conflict on the scope that Civ is played on. Certainly, having a situation akin to the World Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, the U.S. Civil War, or the Mongol Conquests, is basically impossible, meaningfully, because you're stuck doing the Battle of the Chains, Waterloo, Gettysburg, Paschendale, the Bulge, or Okinawa, at best, nstead, but on the scope and scale of their overrarching wars. It's nonsensical, and highly frustrating, and certainly doesn't, "feel good," to me.

There's plenty of abstractions in civ, I'm very happy with what you're describing being one of them. The battle minigames really put me off games like humankind or age of wonders. It just feels jarring and the minigame isn't deep enough to justify it.

I don't think 1UPT or stacking would make or break civ7 for me, the only thing that might make me pass on civ7 is having multiple battle scales.

 

[Arcaian]

And his explanation describes the biggest flaw and problem with 1UPT - it's tactical, on a global, strategic-scale map. It's jarring and nonsensical, and doesn't give one the feel of military conflict on the scope that Civ is played on. Certainly, having a situation akin to the World Wars, the Napoleonic Wars, the U.S. Civil War, or the Mongol Conquests, is basically impossible, meaningfully, because you're stuck doing the Battle of the Chains, Waterloo, Gettysburg, Paschendale, the Bulge, or Okinawa, at best, nstead, but on the scope and scale of their overrarching wars. It's nonsensical, and highly frustrating, and certainly doesn't, "feel good," to me.

It's interesting to me that you constantly criticise facets of Civ you don't like - 1UPT, districts, etc - for being unrealistic and continue to ignore people's comments that they prefer it for gameplay reasons. Civ has a huge amount of abstractions that are completely nonsensical, and yet you've stated before that you're fine with them. A few months ago in this thread, someone mentioned that it's completely absurd that it takes literal centuries to build a single monument at the start of the game in response to you using these arguments of scale to criticise 1UPT. Your reply agreed that it was unrealistic, but nonetheless justified its continued existence due to gameplay impacts. Why is it that 1UPT can't be justified by gameplay, but building times can? Frankly speaking, 1UPT leads to interesting choices that were not present in the series before 1UPT was introduced, and I want those sorts of choices to continue to exist in Civ 7. I don't particularly care about the scale issues here, the same way I don't care about the scale issue of building times in the ancient era, or the amount of cities on the map compared to reality, or the amount of time it takes to explore the world around you, etc. These are unrealistic abstractions that make the gameplay more enjoyable, and I'm here first and foremost for the enjoyable gameplay. Realism is important in maintaining the feel of the game, but it can't be placed as a higher priority than gameplay in a videogame.

 

[Patine]

It's interesting to me that you constantly criticise facets of Civ you don't like - 1UPT, districts, etc - for being unrealistic and continue to ignore people's comments that they prefer it for gameplay reasons. Civ has a huge amount of abstractions that are completely nonsensical, and yet you've stated before that you're fine with them. A few months ago in this thread, someone mentioned that it's completely absurd that it takes literal centuries to build a single monument at the start of the game in response to you using these arguments of scale to criticise 1UPT. Your reply agreed that it was unrealistic, but nonetheless justified its continued existence due to gameplay impacts. Why is it that 1UPT can't be justified by gameplay, but building times can? Frankly speaking, 1UPT leads to interesting choices that were not present in the series before 1UPT was introduced, and I want those sorts of choices to continue to exist in Civ 7. I don't particularly care about the scale issues here, the same way I don't care about the scale issue of building times in the ancient era, or the amount of cities on the map compared to reality, or the amount of time it takes to explore the world around you, etc. These are unrealistic abstractions that make the gameplay more enjoyable, and I'm here first and foremost for the enjoyable gameplay. Realism is important in maintaining the feel of the game, but it can't be placed as a higher priority than gameplay in a videogame.

What I am saying are my own views and preferences, as well. But you portrray them as nothing but antagonism, and even almost to the point of being objectively wrong, and obtuse, for me to hold or state, just because it dissents from a forum majority, or doesn't portray an, "all-or-nothing," view on game realism, but a more selective preference of suit to my own tastes. Everyone on these forums is stating their opinios, and none inherently are superior or inferior to others, and Firaxis has the final say.

 

[BuchiTaton]

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?

The role of leaders in CIV is acclaimed as one of the key elements that provide recognition and involvement, something of this can be translated to combat units in a similar way that TRPGs do it. The idea is to have customized armies composed by units, these armies are like the party members of a TRPG were the player provide equipment to each one, then the traditional units (like crossbow, hussars, etc.) provide point to certain values (range, defense, mobility, etc.) and abilities (stealth, siege, healing, etc). In these kind of games you dont go around having characters that are 100% maxed only in one element like say range, so in a similar way a 100% archers army would have serious downsides.
Have less but more personalized armies (combat units) make each of them more significative and traceable, players could be more attachment and commitment to them.
By the way the units forming these armies could still be unmerged like you can move equipment between the party members in a TRPG. Also the name of "army" can be changed to other level of organization if it sound too big for a one tile combat group.

 

[Leucarum]

The role of leaders in CIV is acclaimed as one of the key elements that provide recognition and involvement, something of this can be translated to combat units in a similar way that TRPGs do it. The idea is to have customized armies composed by units, these armies are like the party members of a TRPG were the player provide equipment to each one, then the traditional units (like crossbow, hussars, etc.) provide point to certain values (range, defense, mobility, etc.) and abilities (stealth, siege, healing, etc). In these kind of games you dont go around having characters that are 100% maxed only in one element like say range, so in a similar way a 100% archers army would have serious downsides.
Have less but more personalized armies (combat units) make each of them more significative and traceable, players could be more attachment and commitment to them.
By the way the units forming these armies could still be unmerged like you can move equipment between the party members in a TRPG. Also the name of "army" can be changed to other level of organization if it sound too big for a one tile combat group.

Isn't that accomplished by unit promotions already? I don't know if going to that level of micromanagement is a good idea.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Isn't that accomplished by unit promotions already? I don't know if going to that level of micromanagement is a good idea.

Micro is relative, the average player of both TRPG and 4X games do not min/max, so how much you change the configuration would be player's decision. Meanwhile many (if not most) of people that dont like CIV6's level of "carpet of doom" already see that gameplay as micromanagement, moving a lot of individual units is a chore that you can not avoid whatever you are minmaxing or not.
Also, too much minmaxing could be limited by logical considerations like the need to spend turns and money in armies configuration changes, added to the linkind of armies to their home city, so the futher apart is an army from its base of operations (encampment/fortification) this turn into something expensive. This would add balance and realism in an intuitive way, the futher your troops are from their home the logistic and morale are affected.

 

[Leyrann]

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.

Now there's an idea, actually. What if we were to assign every unit a size (personnel count), perhaps even one you can increase by putting more production in, and allow stacking, but introduce a maximum that a tile can support before attrition becomes a thing?

This even allows an easy opening towards logistics - later in the game you can increase the number of people a tile can support with supply lines and the like.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "stacks of doom." AoW4 uses limited stacking and only allows three stacks to participate in any one battle which means that if you are at war with another player you aren't going to war with only three stacks but with four, five, six, or more stacks because the AI is also going to have more than three stacks and you need to able to make for units lost in battle. That doesn't strike as that dissimilar from stacks of doom beyond a merely semantic point if you prefer 1UPT, which allows for warfare on a more limited scale.

I actually tend to use three stacks which can tear through any three AI stacks with at most 2-3 units lost even in autocombat (and without losses in manual combat), but yeah, in theory that's how it works.

 

[UWHabs]

What I am saying are my own views and preferences, as well. But you portrray them as nothing but antagonism, and even almost to the point of being objectively wrong, and obtuse, for me to hold or state, just because it dissents from a forum majority, or doesn't portray an, "all-or-nothing," view on game realism, but a more selective preference of suit to my own tastes. Everyone on these forums is stating their opinios, and none inherently are superior or inferior to others, and Firaxis has the final say.

And we're saying our own views. To me, 1 upt (or at least a limited stack setup) is essential because it gives a tactical view to the game, without breaking out into some weird mini-battles.

A few weeks ago I got back into playing civ 4 colonization for a bit, and just being able to put all your troops together just ended up... lacking. Like, sure, you have a bit of tactics in deciding which troop attacks first, and it's fun to get a little combined arms going. But you miss the tactical choices of trying to figure out how to siege a city, get your cannons into position, and defend against city attacks, that being forced to run the limited stacking encourages.

Now, granted, I think I've said it before, I think the current system gets a little strict. And I do agree that at the scale of a civ game, it leads to troubles. Another part I don't like is that since we do have fewer troops on the map, each one becomes more valuable, and so you end up over-engineering things to make sure you don't lose troops. Whereas the old way, you more or less accepted losses, if I have 15 cavalry troops, I know that I'm going to lose 5 or 6 of them in this battle sequence, and that's okay. And certainly troop movement is annoying, especially when your unit is on the road, and then their last movement is blocked by another unit so they step off the road, and now are messed up to start their next turn.

I do think there's a happy medium somewhere. I don't want to break out into mini-battles, to me that'd be worse than going back to any combat mode from a previous civ game. I do think that what we get will be closer to the civ 6 system in general. I think we could use probably one more solid iteration on the current model, before maybe in civ 8 the designers take a step back and decide if they continue on that road or scrap it for something else, if they so choose.

 

[Leyrann]

Whereas the old way, you more or less accepted losses

Maybe you did but I certainly did not.

I hated Civ 4's combat system (which Col just copied), primarily because it's impossible to avoid losing units. And, more specifically, it's impossible to avoid losing highly promoted units. Even if you're incredibly far ahead, that just gives you like, 95% or 98% chance to make it.

Independent of anything else, I want them to keep the fight and disengage system of the last two instalments, so that I can be 100% sure that I won't lose my highly promoted unit if I attack a weaker unit.

Basically, I want to lose units to mistakes, not to dice rolls. If I moved my unit too far ahead and it died, that's on me. But if I rolled a 1 and it died, that's on the combat mechanism putting too much value on a single dice roll.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I think I've mentioned this before, but I would like to see an option to turn unit stacking on/off in the game setup. As for what I personally prefer, I'll echo what Leyrann said about unlimited stacking leading to combat outcomes depend more on random chance than on the player's choices

 

[UWHabs]

Maybe you did but I certainly did not.

I hated Civ 4's combat system (which Col just copied), primarily because it's impossible to avoid losing units. And, more specifically, it's impossible to avoid losing highly promoted units. Even if you're incredibly far ahead, that just gives you like, 95% or 98% chance to make it.

Independent of anything else, I want them to keep the fight and disengage system of the last two instalments, so that I can be 100% sure that I won't lose my highly promoted unit if I attack a weaker unit.

Basically, I want to lose units to mistakes, not to dice rolls. If I moved my unit too far ahead and it died, that's on me. But if I rolled a 1 and it died, that's on the combat mechanism putting too much value on a single dice roll.

Oh yeah, anyone highly promoted I would coddle like they were my firstborn child. Losing a unit with 4 promotions attacking at like 95% odds is a terrible feeling... And there's definitely times in the old stacking days where I wish I could be like "oh yeah this unit with 4 promotions might have a slightly better chance on defense, but please sacrifice these other units first and safeguard this unit until it's my last one." i was talking about un-promoted units, being willing to use them as cannon fodder.

At least in 6, even when I lose my level 4 crossbow, that's usually because I made a (often wrong) calculated decision to leave him in the open in hopes that their city + units can't kill him on the return fire. Or that my archer on a hill across a river will be able to hold up against a barbarian spearman.