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

[Trav'ling Canuck]

When people suggest limited stacking, it sounds like it's just a request for more flexibility in armies/corps to some extent... So why not just allow that?

Allow up to N ( max number could be limited by tech) of the same unit to stack, and allow the stacks to be broken apart (Only at full health to avoid the question of how damage would get split and prevent gaming the system somewhat). You don't have to worry about working out what happens when you merge different types of unit, the stack still functions the same as any other unit. And it's not much different to an army?

It's a reasonable approach for a game and could also be used to reflect (abstractly) improvements in command-and-control up to the early gunpowder age. For most of human history, all major battles could be depicted as taking place in a single hex, so improvements to stacking rules to allow for fun battles between opposing stacks is a reasonable game objective.

Starting approximately in the 1914-18 war (Great War, World War One, whatever you want to call it), command-and-control improved to the point that armies spilled out of the single hex and and spread across the map, presenting a whole different type of combat. You could still jam a lot of units into a single (civ-sized) hex, but weaponry and tactics made that less effective than spreading out and protecting your flanks. You could model that in-game, using spill over damage as some have suggested, combined with flank attack bonuses, etc., but it becomes a whole different sort of combat logic to try and teach the AI (and the player).

There's no easy one-size fits all of history combat model, unless the dev team invests heavily in why we ended up in nation-sized fronts in the 20th century and integrates those changes seamlessly into a combat system that can also model ancient one-hex battle warfare. I doubt they'll do so, but I'd love to see them try! Then again, I'd love to see them teach the AI to use airplanes, so I'll temper my hopes to them coming up with a one-size fits no part of history system that is at least enjoyable to play and that on higher level difficulties the AI can manage well enough to offer a challenge.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

When people suggest limited stacking, it sounds like it's just a request for more flexibility in armies/corps to some extent... So why not just allow that?

Allow up to N ( max number could be limited by tech) of the same unit to stack, and allow the stacks to be broken apart (Only at full health to avoid the question of how damage would get split and prevent gaming the system somewhat). You don't have to worry about working out what happens when you merge different types of unit, the stack still functions the same as any other unit. And it's not much different to an army?

It's not a just allow that problem.

Even a limited per Era/Tech/Conscript to General soft/hard cap implementation, comes with other gameplays mechanics that requires a good amount of balancing.

I can think of two examples.
A mountain pass/stronghold/fortification where only a limited amount of units can attack/defend at the same time

New maps heights, levels, that could drastically change (HK does that) ranged units reach. Now place a city on top of a mountain flat, like the ancient Hebrew cities, or Indian.
It would need earthworks, and ramparts to just approach, otherwise a single path may allow for just colums. If there is no road, a catapult, with wheels, may not be allowed to enter
that tile space. You need engineers to be able to build roads then.
Now you got the entirety of the Roman Army at the footstep of your last stronghold, with colums of units.
How are you going to survive if your city can host only say three units? Can the city villagers get up in arms and defend the city?
Is the city health+walls+terrain completely un-conquereable? Could some siege mechanic alter its health other than bombarding IF bombarding was not possible?
Like starving the pop, or poisoning the acqueduct? All relevant questions.

There was never a time in the Civ V-VI era when limited stacks were accounted for. Cities as per Civ V-VI will get completely oblitered if some serious mechanic altering is not implemented.
2K-Firaxis could just ramp up city health by X % for every pop in a city, multiplied by terrain modifier, multiplied by the stacked units bonuses, etc... or just go something
completely different... like different army composition giving some special abilities (Ninja army*Warrior monks?)(Legionaire+ballista)(slave rebels+villagers militia), etc etc.
Nomadic civs (North american indian tribes, Mongols, Berbers, etc) also could be able to re-settle cities without losing population?
What about stacking civilian units? In Civ VI you can't move a settler over a worker... and everybody come with amphibian promotion... galleys embarkment will come back?
Or we could stack a settler to amphibian unit instead, making them relevant, so we don't have tanks and helicopters and every kind of possible unit running over water tiles as if they were an Ice hockey field?

 

[DeckerdJames]

That would mean making the game X times over. Balance, features, testing, developing. Everything.

I guess it would be worthwhile based on the poll. It would allow them to please more than 1/3 to 1/4 of the players. They could tweak them individually for balance. Though they might want a broader poll.

 

[Leucarum]

It's not a just allow that problem.

Even a limited per Era/Tech/Conscript to General soft/hard cap implementation, comes with other gameplays mechanics that requires a good amount of balancing.

Well, I was mostly making the point that armies and unit stacking are pretty much the same thing. If the amount of units you can stack is the same as you can put in an army, then this is equivalent to just saying "you can unstack armies at full health" and I don't think that would even move the game balance dial one milimeter.

Honestly, I am very much "meh" on unit stacking. I am more curious what people are envisioning when they say "limited unit stacking" and how it would differ from what already exists. I'd say there's a bunch of implementations which wouldn't really affect gameplay but might assuage the stackers? If firaxis even regard it as an issue to resolve.

 

[_ViKinG_]

I like how it is in Civ V.

 

[AffineConstant]

I guess it would be worthwhile based on the poll. It would allow them to please more than 1/3 to 1/4 of the players. They could tweak them individually for balance. Though they might want a broader poll.

The poll suffers from selection bias, the majority of people here play too many 4X games a lot and thus want what they know from other 4X games, doom stacks. The majority of Civ players don't care, Civ V and VI are well reviewed by players and sold perfectly well.

"Solving" war/combat should be pretty easy in one way, damage needs to be amped up significantly. Say, 2 units of equal strength fight on plains (no defensive bonus) the resulting health should go from 100% to 50% after just one turn of combat.

This would give enough leeway to change tactics, possibly. More importantly units die in war fast enough that the map getting overcrowded isn't a problem. Chess has each piece die after one time, chess is still popular even with a "crowded" board. Going towards that route would solve the entire overcrowding/too many units problem.

 

[Nikolai II]

I guess it would be worthwhile based on the poll. It would allow them to please more than 1/3 to 1/4 of the players. They could tweak them individually for balance. Though they might want a broader poll.

Then I expect you to be happy with another 8 years to release and a base price of 160 dollar.

 

[aieeegrunt]

When people suggest limited stacking, it sounds like it's just a request for more flexibility in armies/corps to some extent... So why not just allow that?

Allow up to N ( max number could be limited by tech) of the same unit to stack, and allow the stacks to be broken apart (Only at full health to avoid the question of how damage would get split and prevent gaming the system somewhat). You don't have to worry about working out what happens when you merge different types of unit, the stack still functions the same as any other unit. And it's not much different to an army?

This is the worst of both worlds. Fiddly stack management AND it’s still 1 UPT mechanically.

 

[GeneralZift]

Realistically, what they will probably end up doing is just UPT plus more and more appeasement for Doomers compared to 5 & 6

 

[Markus5]

I would modify 1upt. You can have one unit of each type on a tile. So, a max stack would be something like 1 melee, 1 anti-cav, 1 ranged, 1 light cav, 1 heavy cav, 1 siege, 1 support, etc. Less carpet-y.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

The poll suffers from selection bias, the majority of people here play too many 4X games a lot and thus want what they know from other 4X games, doom stacks. The majority of Civ players don't care, Civ V and VI are well reviewed by players and sold perfectly well.

"Solving" war/combat should be pretty easy in one way, damage needs to be amped up significantly. Say, 2 units of equal strength fight on plains (no defensive bonus) the resulting health should go from 100% to 50% after just one turn of combat.

This would give enough leeway to change tactics, possibly. More importantly units die in war fast enough that the map getting overcrowded isn't a problem. Chess has each piece die after one time, chess is still popular even with a "crowded" board. Going towards that route would solve the entire overcrowding/too many units problem.

Chess do not clear the board, it makes other pieces slaves.
When your pawn reach the end of the board, it can then free one piece, and in doing so it decides also the class of this new unit.

I play chess, in Lichess, with a 1900 Elo. I don't play only 4x.(no bullet) Cheers.

I was here just bc of smthg I read yesterday, about city razing, and ways to avoid total annihilation.
Battle of Corinth. Achemid league vs Romans. Corinth fall, and the Romans make all of Corinth popolation slaves. Also Corinth raised a second army of 12.000 slaves to defend itself, plus armed civilians.
Still got completely wiped out. Cultural artifacts stolen, slaves captured ans sold, etc.

Regarding Chess route, what is it exactly??
Chess has complete kills if you want to make an anology... but its much more than that.
Remember capture the king mode? ( Ok, I admit it, I played too many 4x...
In Chess there are two worlds basically: positionally vs strategical.
I can think of a tall vs wide conversation analogy.
Also I guess it would make a very intersting thread all on its own
goodday.

 

[Patine]

Chess do not clear the board, it makes other pieces slaves.
When your pawn reach the end of the board, it can then free one piece, and in doing so it decides also the class of this new unit.

I play chess, in Lichess, with a 1900 Elo. I don't play only 4x. Cheers.

It's not really an analog with any direct application, though, anymore than is my sideline playing World of Warcraft.

 

[Krajzen]

I would modify 1upt. You can have one unit of each type on a tile. So, a max stack would be something like 1 melee, 1 anti-cav, 1 ranged, 1 light cav, 1 heavy cav, 1 siege, 1 support, etc. Less carpet-y.

The problem is, at this point it just all becomes mindless with no strategy involved and no variety. In every era you are going to have only one unit of all those types anyway, so you just produce and put all of them together and your job at army composition is done. This is essentially turning all armies into the same unit but with extra steps.

 

[pokiehl]

The problem is, at this point it just all becomes mindless with no strategy involved and no variety. In every era you are going to have only one unit of all those types anyway, so you just produce and put all of them together and your job at army composition is done. This is essentially turning all armies into the same unit but with extra steps.

I feel like this idea is so common but it just combines the worst of stacks and the worst of 1UPT.

 

[UWHabs]

The problem is, at this point it just all becomes mindless with no strategy involved and no variety. In every era you are going to have only one unit of all those types anyway, so you just produce and put all of them together and your job at army composition is done. This is essentially turning all armies into the same unit but with extra steps.

Yeah, I think if you spread it out too much, it would just be "who can build all the types". The simplest way that might work that would allow some level of variety would be to limit you to one melee option and one ranged/siege option. So at least you have choice between swordsmen/pikemen/horsemen/knights/etc... for one spot, and archer/catapult/battering ram, etc.. for the other.

Personally, I think that's enough variation - ranged and siege units are essentially the units that are weak to being attacked directly. You could expand out a little more, but to me if you limit to stacking options like that, it should simplify a lot of the action. Ranged units can go back to have range 1 by default (maybe you give them range 2 if attacking from a city or fort), and you avoid the worst part of stacks where you almost kill a unit but don't quite get there, and now have to get through a bunch of other strong units before you can go back to finish them off.

You could argue for a 3rd type - maybe you get melee/mounted/ranged as your 3 choices, at least in civ 6 unit types terms, each of the options has 2 choices each era more or less to deal with and choose between. Beyond that, you need to really change the model for unit cost/support to avoid it just being a carpet of stacks of doom. Which again could be another option - if units cost like 10x in maintenance than they do now, and also had to have food support, then you could create a system where in theory you could stack 6 or 10 or whatever units on a tile, but in practice could not realistically afford the support costs to do that.

 

[Leucarum]

This is the worst of both worlds. Fiddly stack management AND it’s still 1 UPT mechanically.

Ultimately I agree. Trying to find a simple limited stacking solution beyond what was already in Civ6 makes me think that it's best to just stick with 1UPT...

If it ain't broke why try to satisty a vocal 20%

 

[aieeegrunt]

Ultimately I agree. Trying to find a simple limited stacking solution beyond what was already in Civ6 makes me think that it's best to just stick with 1UPT...

If it ain't broke why try to satisty a vocal 20%

Who says it isn’t broke and it’s only 20%?

It most certainly broke the AI.

It most certainly means a ridiculous amount of tedium solving a sliding tile puzzle just to move your units

This is a design problem that was already solved way back in the 70’s by SPI/Avalon Hill games for stacking and hex grid; it quickly iterated to three units per stack primarily to keep stack management to a minimum.

There are mods for Civ5 and Civ6 that give you this, and they work well.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Ultimately I agree. Trying to find a simple limited stacking solution beyond what was already in Civ6 makes me think that it's best to just stick with 1UPT...

If it ain't broke why try to satisty a vocal 20%

Civ III introduced generals and armies, with up to 3UPT and after Pentagon is built, 4UPT (per army)

Initially AI would quickly build armies and it would pose a significant threat to both other AI, and to you.
The final patch took out the AI capability to form armies. They would gain generals after an Elite unit would win a battle,
just to ignore it, and use to hurry a city production, but never to build an army.
You need a patch to fix the AI so it can build armies again.

Civ IV generals could build a special Military complex, join a city as a Great instructor, or lead a unit, giving it special upgrades.
Again, AI initially would build powerful armies, but then, after the final patch, AI was dumbed down, taking out the best
feature of the combat mechanic of the AI.
Again, you need a mod to just revert the changes and get the AI to be able to use generals again,
in so making the games fun and enjoiable.

In Civ III AI would instead usually build and associate one Spearman-pikeman, for every warrior-archer, and move them bundled together.
AI would form long columns, and protect the route with these long columns of units.
As a player, an important tactic is to stretch a defensive line that goes all the way from either opposite sides of your borders, leaving no empty
tiles, where the AI could sneak in. This prevent AI from roaming through your territory.

In Civ IV AI could not enter your borders without declaring war first, but the same principle applies.
You want to build a long defensive line all along your border and beyond, untill land ends.
You can then move other units around, but you never touch your defensive line.

In Civ V and VI, you can't do that. You need to open up a passage for units to get through.
But in Civ V you feel less the pain of dealing with sliding puzzle bc units have less stringent
movement penalties.

Civ V still had Great Generals, that could build strongholds, or give passive bonuses.
Civ VI has GG, which gives random upgrades, and can give also passive bonuses to nearby units.
Almost never, the AI in Civ VI uses any GG. AI is so dumbed down that GG are completely pointless to AI.

It's completely broke.
It's just that people is so used to Civ VI being a peaceful game, that nobody
even notice the difference of having AI use GG or not, bc AI barely even build units at all.
AI tactics works against other AI, but any modest player, that actually build a strong military,
will vaporize the AI, except for walled cities with just one hilly hex acces point, that takes ages to conquer.
A single walled city can completely halt your advance and the AI doesnt need to build a single unit.
This is beyond boring.
Only stacked units can solve this nonsense.

 

[Leucarum]

I think you're overstating the effects of 1UPT. I don't really mind either way, some stacking is fun as long as it doesn't get out of hand, and I like the sliding puzzle of 1UPT... But the discussion of it seems to get very hyperbolic very quickly. This isn't going to be a choice which makes or breaks the game.

Also I suspect some of the AI issues are an intentional choice from firaxis. Civ being the definitive gateway game for 4X you probably don't want to pour quite as much effort into making an insurmountable AI, and even at higher difficulties you want the AI to be flawed so let players have the fun of moving up difficulty levels. In a world where firaxis had infinite money they could satisfy everyone, but they have to prioritize where they drop funds... and I don't think AI investment is where it's at.

 

[aieeegrunt]

That is an impressive attempt at apologia for a terrible AI

It isn’t a question of the AI being good or not good enough

The Civ6 AI is awful, especially at combat, which is pretty damn important