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

[Leucarum]

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.

If the micro is already too much for stacking afficionados, probably this idea would be too much for everyone. The existing unit promotion system is enough customisation for me.

I'm not opposed to increasing unit maintainance though. I think encouraging fewer units would be a nice way to reduce overall micro. Probably a QOL improvement for everyone.

 

[phantom22]

Unit conflict switches to an X-Com style battlescape where the battles are turn based and you control your armies/armor/horses etc... against the computer. The normal game would be the geoscape equivalent. I can imagine utter obliteration, cunning strategic victory against all odds, not so cunning charge of the light brigade, and desperate retreats to save your army for another fight.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Unit conflict switches to an X-Com style battlescape where the battles are turn based and you control your armies/armor/horses etc... against the computer. The normal game would be the geoscape equivalent. I can imagine utter obliteration, cunning strategic victory against all odds, not so cunning charge of the light brigade, and desperate retreats to save your army for another fight.

It is off topic and I am NOT advocating this for civ. But when I play XCOM, I sometimes imagine a XCOM type game about WW3. Basically, remove the aliens and scifi elements. Keep the geoscape to show the big picture of the world war. Send your squad on tactical missions that would affect the course of the war. The game mechanics would be similar, still turn based, just with a more real world conflict "skin" to the game.

 

[phantom22]

I think the game series Jagged Alliance is more like that, but not exactly. I agree, a game like that with realistic weapons and units would be fun.

 

[Patine]

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.

The thing is, "tactical," is a detriment, not a benefit to a game like civ, as I've been saying. It's Sid Meier's Civilization, not Sid Meier's Gettysburg. I don't support zoom in maps, or other such things, either. But having multiple units in a space with algorithms to manage them is not inherrently the other extreme, and is not inherently unmanageable. 1UPT is not essential - in fact, it's one of the five worst mistakes of Civ6, in my opinion.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

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.

Limits the old way was economy.
One could deploy only as much units as its economy would support it.
Or going even earlier, in civ II, it was a combination of economy and the city that produced the unit, it had to support it, so also
food production was vital for the survival of the units produced, even if there was no evident supply lines, tactically it was as they were there.
CPU, or as we a call it now, AI, could cheat and produce more 'free' units than human players, or even go into negative economy output
without losing units, whilst for Human players, both units and buildings would have to be sold...

It would be actually very easy to limit the Stack of Doom, just by not allowing AI to cheat on the running costs of its military and buildings/infrastructures upgrades. For Human players it has never been that easy to build up massive Stacked Armies, unless Communism was somehow adopted in the Bronze Age...
(I guess some Roman governments types were more powerful than Communism in that regard, same for Ancient China, which I have no clues about...)

 

[Countmonte8242]

36% of the respondents voting for some form of SoD over only 31% for 1UPT. We have a winner.

6 days until I find out if I'll be buying this. If its still straight 1UPT, just about zero chance of that.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

36% of the respondents voting for some form of SoD over only 31% for 1UPT. We have a winner.

6 days until I find out if I'll be buying this. If its still straight 1UPT, just about zero chance of that.

Are units and combat really that big of a part of Civ for people, that it'd make people totally not buy the game? It seems like there are better games for that sort of thing.

 

[Countmonte8242]

Are units and combat really that big of a part of Civ for people, that it'd make people totally not buy the game? It seems like there are better games for that sort of thing.

Would be pretty boring for me without units and combat. Would not have lasted past Civ 1 without those. Teching, building cities, improvements, wonders are fine - but its the threat and competition combined with all that which make it fun for me. To each their own.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Would be pretty boring for me without units and combat. Would not have lasted past Civ 1 without those. Teching, building cities, improvements, wonders are fine - but its the threat and competition combined with all that which make it fun for me. To each their own.

Well yeah, not NO units, but civ isn't a tactical combat game. It's best being a "big picture" kind of thing. I don't see it turning into a "won't buy" because of how they choose to place those units on the board.

 

[canadamufc]

From experience playing with Vox Populi, i fear that the only reason we dont get a true carpet of doom is because the AI is incompetent in Civ VI. I don't want to boot up V right now, but wars in Vox Populi always involve absolute massive carpets of units just trading shots at eachother. It's fun in a way. But it's clear VI's ai doesn't do it because the AI is incompetent. In my experience the AI hardly has a "carpet", more like a footrug of units. But its not like a unit on every single tile the way VP does it.

I guess im comparing apples to oranges in a way, but this is how i feel the situation with CoD is.

 

[UWHabs]

The thing is, "tactical," is a detriment, not a benefit to a game like civ, as I've been saying. It's Sid Meier's Civilization, not Sid Meier's Gettysburg. I don't support zoom in maps, or other such things, either. But having multiple units in a space with algorithms to manage them is not inherrently the other extreme, and is not inherently unmanageable. 1UPT is not essential - in fact, it's one of the five worst mistakes of Civ6, in my opinion.

Well yeah, not NO units, but civ isn't a tactical combat game. It's best being a "big picture" kind of thing. I don't see it turning into a "won't buy" because of how they choose to place those units on the board.

I like to see it as macro tactics and micro tactics. I think spacing units out on the board, and having some high level of combat tactics (let's make sure my weaker units are protected, make sure I can counter the enemy, have a choice about which enemy unit that I want to eliminate first) are the tactics that make sense. No, I don't want to decide if my archers arrange themselves in a 2x4, or one long line, or take 5 seconds between volleys instead of 6 seconds, or whatever. But I do want a level of tactical play beyond simply "how many melee units do I need to keep with my cannons to protect them"

 

[Leucarum]

Are units and combat really that big of a part of Civ for people, that it'd make people totally not buy the game? It seems like there are better games for that sort of thing.

I think I am surprised at whether 1UPT/stacking would push someone away from buying the game. I don't think they make enough of a difference even if I do have a preference for one over the other.

Then again - I haven't been able to properly enjoy any civ-style games with combat minigames (e.g. Humankind or age of wonders)... So maybe I do understand somewhat.

 

[Leyrann]

From experience playing with Vox Populi, i fear that the only reason we dont get a true carpet of doom is because the AI is incompetent in Civ VI. I don't want to boot up V right now, but wars in Vox Populi always involve absolute massive carpets of units just trading shots at eachother. It's fun in a way. But it's clear VI's ai doesn't do it because the AI is incompetent. In my experience the AI hardly has a "carpet", more like a footrug of units. But its not like a unit on every single tile the way VP does it.

I guess im comparing apples to oranges in a way, but this is how i feel the situation with CoD is.

Civ VI can fit three times as many units on a tile as Civ V can.

And that's before counting support units, which didn't exist as a separate class in Civ V yet (and even if they don't count as 'army', they still cost production).

Also, Civ VI's production costs in general are pretty high, which limits the ability to build such a number of units more than your economy anyway.

 

[Arcaian]

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.

Honestly, I don't understand this response. You're obviously entitled to your own views, and none of us have opinions that are superior to anyone else's - opinions are subjective. Firaxis has the final say in the game. I did not portray your opinions as antagonism - I asked you why you're willing to suspend disbelief on some, but not all, game mechanics. I ask this because I legitimately think it is a perspective that limits the ability to enjoy the gameplay present, and it seems strange to me that an abstraction is acceptable if it was introduced in Civ 1, but not in Civ 5. You're acting like I'm writing with aggressiveness or personal attacks, yet it certainly hasn't been my intent to do so, and on a re-read of my message I do not believe I have done so. We're all here to discuss Civ, and I am engaging with your position on these topics with what reads to me as fairly reasonable discussions on the merit of a focus on realism or gameplay, and your response is to go significantly on the defensive and act as if I'm attacking you. You asked people to explain their desire for 1UPT in Civ. You were met with answers, which you immediately and totally dismissed because of your frustration with the realism of 1UPT, not for the first time. I asked you why 1UPT is uniquely being judged on this metric. I do not read this as an attack.

Not that it's particularly important, but I was especially confused by your comment on me attacking you for not having an "all-or-nothing" view on realism, given your constant attempts to shoot down existing game mechanics purely on the basis of their realism, while I am pushing for a trade-off between realism and enjoyable gameplay. I feel like I'm not the one with a black-and-white view of the benefit of realism for the civ series.

 

[Countmonte8242]

I think I am surprised at whether 1UPT/stacking would push someone away from buying the game. I don't think they make enough of a difference even if I do have a preference for one over the other.

Then again - I haven't been able to properly enjoy any civ-style games with combat minigames (e.g. Humankind or age of wonders)... So maybe I do understand somewhat.

Two things for me, yes just my personal preference -
1) I want a feeling of challenge / threat. Civ IV gives the best challenge of the series at high levels because the AI is more capable of making you hurt. 1UPT has clearly gimped the AI thus far in that respect.
2) Stacks give the grandeur of more units without the tedium of 1UPT. 1UPT is unnecessarily tedious to move units around. Its a huge QOL thing to me to be able to put a bunch of units into a group and move them around the board together.

These are not small things for my preferences, and make Civ IV still the best of the series to replay for me personally. Not going to buy a new, inferior game, just for updated graphics.

If Civ VII keeps 1UPT and ends up getting rave reviews, I'd have to try it out... however, will be surprised if we were to see that scenario....

 

[Patine]

Honestly, I don't understand this response. You're obviously entitled to your own views, and none of us have opinions that are superior to anyone else's - opinions are subjective. Firaxis has the final say in the game. I did not portray your opinions as antagonism - I asked you why you're willing to suspend disbelief on some, but not all, game mechanics. I ask this because I legitimately think it is a perspective that limits the ability to enjoy the gameplay present, and it seems strange to me that an abstraction is acceptable if it was introduced in Civ 1, but not in Civ 5. You're acting like I'm writing with aggressiveness or personal attacks, yet it certainly hasn't been my intent to do so, and on a re-read of my message I do not believe I have done so. We're all here to discuss Civ, and I am engaging with your position on these topics with what reads to me as fairly reasonable discussions on the merit of a focus on realism or gameplay, and your response is to go significantly on the defensive and act as if I'm attacking you. You asked people to explain their desire for 1UPT in Civ. You were met with answers, which you immediately and totally dismissed because of your frustration with the realism of 1UPT, not for the first time. I asked you why 1UPT is uniquely being judged on this metric. I do not read this as an attack.

Not that it's particularly important, but I was especially confused by your comment on me attacking you for not having an "all-or-nothing" view on realism, given your constant attempts to shoot down existing game mechanics purely on the basis of their realism, while I am pushing for a trade-off between realism and enjoyable gameplay. I feel like I'm not the one with a black-and-white view of the benefit of realism for the civ series.

I think it just comes down to the fact that certain abstractions are more egregious to game play, and actually playing the game, than others, in my opinion. As I said, I do not hold an, "all-or-nothing," take on realism, anymore than any other issue - some applications just break immersion and enjoyment for me worse than others. It probably comes down to other problems, in the end, I have not articulated, though, but I stand by my position, in general, on the issue.

 

[Gorbles]

36% of the respondents voting for some form of SoD over only 31% for 1UPT. We have a winner.

6 days until I find out if I'll be buying this. If its still straight 1UPT, just about zero chance of that.

Given that VI wasn't "straight 1UPT", I very much doubt VII would somehow make itself more purist in that regard.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Looks like limited stacks is the winner, even if the grouped unit have to re-deploy before attack, so...

The movement puzzle has been addressed...
It's still very early to judge the new mechanics, movements, positioning... the new 'stacking-unstacking' bears
with it new challenges, positional, and tactical problems that will vary with regards of maps and enemies...

Also, what is the leader on a chair (Ramses alike? from the Civ VII screenshots) in behind the formation doing????

 

[kotpeter]

It's the army commander. Commanders earn promotions for their army and can stack/unstack units. Units themselves do not earn promotions anymore.