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

[SupremacyKing2]

The upkeep should also include food so it forces the player to make a strategic choice between growing your cities population and having a large army.

I think having a food upkeep cost to units is a must. It also has the nice bonus that when the war ends and you disband some units you don't need anymore, there would be an increase in pop growth which would represent the pop boom we see historically after many wars.

 

[tedhebert]

I think many games have showed us how to do stacking armies without getting stack of dooms (which I loathe, and which is why I HATE IV).

I know it's sci-fi fi instead of historical, but Galactic Civilization 4 (and earlier versions) incorporate limits to the number of units in your 'fleets', and that limit can be incremented throughout the research tree to a hardcapped max.
Each unit as a 'cost' on that limit, and the better the units get through time, the more costly they become.

I think VII need to go that way as a logical extension of corps/armies and allow for limited stacking.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It will be interesting to see what civ7 does. Will the devs try something completely "radical", go back to stacks but with limits, or just try an incremental improvement on the civ6 combat system?

 

[AriochIV]

1UPT logjams are really easy to fix, and the solution is as old as Civilization I. Allow multiple units per tile, but discourage stacking by destroying all units in a tile when a battle is lost in that tile.

This would also serve to make range-1 ranged units not-useless.

In terms of who defends, you can either use the Civ I rule and use the highest strength or defensive value, or you can go the Civ VI route and treat every stack as if it was a dynamic corps/army.

 

[ShadowWarrior]

I might be wrong, but from my own experience, stack of doom conjures up fear because cities are rendered virtually defenseless when the stack shows up next to it. The AI is programmed to do serious damage to the cities that it conquers, if not outright obliteration. This means that we players have to watch our cities that got taken from us get razed to the ground by the stack. Those are cities that we invested so much time and energy on.

Perhaps then the solution to stack of doom is not so much to eliminate or limit it (such as by capping the number of unit that can be placed on the same hex), but to temper the aftermath of cities that were conquered. In another word, game developers set obstacles to razing cities, so that when we do get our cities back in the future, it is relatively easier to build it back up to the level before they were annexed by the AI. This would make stack of doom a lot less distasteful.

 

[choevi]

All in favor of 1UPT. The "hassle" of units being in the way of another when trying to move them around is a very appropriate way to model the importance of proper logistics in warfare and can be mititagted with a stronger focus on (stackable) support units. The best medicine against carpets of doom is a proper, escalating representation of unit cost.

 

[Patine]

I really like 1UPT compared to old school doomstacks. But I would like to see changes to make 1UPT less restricting.

I think a rational and thoughtful compromise between the two, rather than absolutes, is what's needed.

 

[Patine]

The "hassle" of units being in the way of another when trying to move them around is a very appropriate way to model the importance of proper logistics in warfare and can be mititagted with a stronger focus on (stackable) support units

Not on a global-scale strategic map is it, all, "appropriate."

 

[Patine]

The 1UPT system is much easier to fix without implementing overly complicated rules for combat. All you would have to do is increase the cost and upkeep of a unit while also buffing the unit accordingly. The upkeep should also include food so it forces the player to make a strategic choice between growing your cities population and having a large army.

It makes no sense, at all, though, in a global-scale, strategic map. This is Sid Meier's Civilization, not Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

 

[Arcaian]

I might be wrong, but from my own experience, stack of doom conjures up fear because cities are rendered virtually defenseless when the stack shows up next to it. The AI is programmed to do serious damage to the cities that it conquers, if not outright obliteration. This means that we players have to watch our cities that got taken from us get razed to the ground by the stack. Those are cities that we invested so much time and energy on.

Perhaps then the solution to stack of doom is not so much to eliminate or limit it (such as by capping the number of unit that can be placed on the same hex), but to temper the aftermath of cities that were conquered. In another word, game developers set obstacles to razing cities, so that when we do get our cities back in the future, it is relatively easier to build it back up to the level before they were annexed by the AI. This would make stack of doom a lot less distasteful.

I can't speak for everyone who disliked the stacks of doom in the older days of Civ, but for me personally the impact they had on conquering a city wasn't a significant concern. I enjoy 1UPT substantially more than unlimited stacking because it allows interesting tactical gameplay, because it makes me care about each individual unit more which interacts nicely with the promotion system, and because it makes me care about the terrain I'm settling in a great deal more. Adjusting the damage done to cities would have a minimal effect on my dislike of unlimited stacking, and if they went for your route of unlimited stacking I would strongly consider at least waiting till all the expansions are out to get the game.

 

[Patine]

I enjoy 1UPT substantially more than unlimited stacking because it allows interesting tactical gameplay, because it makes me care about each individual unit more which interacts nicely with the promotion system, and because it makes me care about the terrain I'm settling in a great deal more.

But, why are tactical features a selling point on a global-scale, strategic map, where they make no sense?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

But, why are tactical features a selling point on a global-scale, strategic map, where they make no sense?

Because it's fun and engaging

 

[Patine]

Because it's fun and engaging

On a tactical-scale map, perhaps. On a global-scale map, it's jarring and aggravating.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Because it's fun and engaging

Not for me. I don't find moving units one by one to make sure they don't get into each other's path, having units suddenly reroute half way around the map because the path became temporarily blocked, or not being able to range attack a city because my melee units are in the way, fun or engaging. 1upt works in tactical war games like Panzer General because the scale is tactical and there is plenty of room for units to maneuver. In civ, where the scale is strategic, where there might only be 5 hexes between cities or 4 usable hexes next to a city to attack it, or a mountain pass might only be 1 hex, it does not make sense. For me, some form of stacking is a must-have. The only question is how to implement stacking so that it is fun and engaging.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Well, I find it fun. More fun than stacking, which is what repels me from Civ4, excellent game though it is in other respects. I don't care much for the scale, almost everything in Civ is out of whack scale-wise, it shouldn't take four hundred years to build an obelisk, it shouldn't take two centuries to train an archer.

 

[Patine]

Well, I find it fun. More fun than stacking, which is what repels me from Civ4, excellent game though it is in other respects. I don't care much for the scale, almost everything in Civ is out of whack scale-wise, it shouldn't take four hundred years to build an obelisk, it shouldn't take two centuries to train an archer.

But, it's a fun probably that should be reserved for a different, more appropriate game, not one played on a global scale over 6000 years of history. Although, yes, building times could be reevaluated, too, but that would MAJORLY change how the game was played, and the pace of the game, certainly, and might make it a bit hectic for many players, but it is also a valid point worthy of being looked into, in and of itsef.

 

[seasnake]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you need stacks of doom on the world map that as they grow have wider zones of control, and battles are fought on a battle map that is made up of the terrain the stacks are in. Age of Wonders did this 20 years ago and it it is still the best system for avoiding the problems of both carpets and stacks. Aircraft units do area of effect damage (like spells in Aow) with a miss chance. Anti aircraft can intercept. Artillery do area of effect damage are fired before either side moves and your opponent can’t see where they’re aimed, but land after movement and melee combat. Artillery also has minimum range and friendly fire, so they’re really for attacking big targets like cities and earthworks. Attacker gets to move first, but defender gets preferential terrain.

 

[Arcaian]

But, why are tactical features a selling point on a global-scale, strategic map, where they make no sense?

For me, because they're enjoyable! I find armed conflict far less interesting in the older games. Despite you finding it jarring and aggravating, that clearly hasn't impacted sales of Civ 5 and 6, which are the largest in the series - I can't state conclusively that people enjoy 1UPT more than unlimited stacking, but the presentation of 1UPT as something antithetical to the series seems strange to me when the majority of the players of the Civ series started with a game that uses 1UPT (and probably haven't played any other version of Civ). We're definitely a bubble here on these forums of people who have more experience with the older games. As Bonyduck says, so much of Civ is wildly out of scale - it takes centuries to conquer a single city in the earlier eras, the first voyage to circumnavigate the globe normally takes centuries, and by the time you'd have built up an army of one troop and got them to the front they're probably getting close to being outdated technology, for example. There are plenty of abstractions in the series because they lead to more engaging gameplay, and I do not mind limited stacking being one of them. I'm happy for there to be some movement towards limited stacking too, so long as the fun of the 1UPT combat system remains.

 

[Patine]

For me, because they're enjoyable! I find armed conflict far less interesting in the older games. Despite you finding it jarring and aggravating, that clearly hasn't impacted sales of Civ 5 and 6, which are the largest in the series - I can't state conclusively that people enjoy 1UPT more than unlimited stacking, but the presentation of 1UPT as something antithetical to the series seems strange to me when the majority of the players of the Civ series started with a game that uses 1UPT (and probably haven't played any other version of Civ). We're definitely a bubble here on these forums of people who have more experience with the older games. As Bonyduck says, so much of Civ is wildly out of scale - it takes centuries to conquer a single city in the earlier eras, the first voyage to circumnavigate the globe normally takes centuries, and by the time you'd have built up an army of one troop and got them to the front they're probably getting close to being outdated technology, for example. There are plenty of abstractions in the series because they lead to more engaging gameplay, and I do not mind limited stacking being one of them. I'm happy for there to be some movement towards limited stacking too, so long as the fun of the 1UPT combat system remains.

In a game like the Civ series, it's very dubious to say, "that a specific feature NOT having sunk a high-sales iteration means it's greatly preferred by the player base." Also, I feel approaching this from a, "one extreme or another viewpoint," or just a simple, "very limited stacking," or, "unlimited stacking, but managing combat targetting," or other near parrellelis, is unproductive, and the best answer would be a well-thought-out, and innovative compromise and middle ground that gives some nods to different views on play.

 

[Leucarum]

The only thing I don't want is a separate battle-map. I've not seen an implementation which wasn't jarring and felt like you were being dragged out of a civ game into a basic minigame.

1UPT doesn't bother me. Especially as Civ6 did allow limited stacking already where they made the most sense (armies/fleets and multiple unit types) I'd not tinker with this aspect of the game.

But It's not something I'm especially invested in. It won't be a deal breaker either way. Always surprises me how much of a big deal removing 1UPT is for some people!