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

[Krajzen]

Honest question. Why do we even discuss this topic, as the dev decision in this regard was surely set in stone yesrs ago, and it's not something which can change during developent, barring some technical balance details? Almost all other stuff we discuss is something that can still change for release date or expansions, but not the most fundamental unit mechanics.

If devs were to be inspired by our discussions, that happened in like 2020 - 2022 period I think (unit system must be dealt with at the stage of basic map interactions)

 

[Nikolai II]

Honest question. Why do we even discuss this topic, as the dev decision in this regard was surely set in stone yesrs ago, and it's not something which can change during developent, barring some technical balance details? Almost all other stuff we discuss is something that can still change for release date or expansions, but not the most fundamental unit mechanics.

If devs were to be inspired by our discussions, that happened in like 2020 - 2022 period I think (unit system must be dealt with at the stage of basic map interactions)

This is an excellent point. Games these days take 6-8 years to develop, so this was long since decided.

 

[Roland Johansen]

You are wondering why people on the internet discuss useless stuff?

 

[aieeegrunt]

It may work, but that doesn't mean the envelope can't be pushed even further to create a comprehensive and innvative true compromise between the two extremes. Why settle for just, "it works?"

What kind of system are you thinking about?

 

[Patine]

You know, it's a game, and the realism is not all that matters. If it came to pointing out every unrealistic thing, there would be no game left...

However, on the other hand, in a game like Civ, there also has to be enough nods to realism to justify the historical trappings.

 

[UWHabs]

Honest question. Why do we even discuss this topic, as the dev decision in this regard was surely set in stone yesrs ago, and it's not something which can change during developent, barring some technical balance details? Almost all other stuff we discuss is something that can still change for release date or expansions, but not the most fundamental unit mechanics.

If devs were to be inspired by our discussions, that happened in like 2020 - 2022 period I think (unit system must be dealt with at the stage of basic map interactions)

We don't have anything else to go off of, so yeah, people like to argue. Especially for something as fundamental as movement and combat, there's not much they can really change. Although some healthy debate is really all we have now, and you never know which directly they're leading, if some argument in this long discussion will spark an idea in the devs that might make it in at some point.

 

[civac]

This discussion is useful for the future development of the community mod to make Civ7 playable.

Kidding. Or am I?

 

[uppi]

All the interesting aspects of combined arms combat only emerge when you combine multiple units of different types. You can have a situation of 5 groups of medieval swordsmen charging the enemy front line of 2 pikemen supported by the gunfire of one arquebussier, while those 2 pikemen are getting shot at from range by an early cannon disrupting their ranks. Meanwhile the small front line of 2 pikemen see 2 groups of knights emerging from their flanks charging the enemy medieval swordsmen flanks.

Who will win, 5 medieval swordsmen plus a cannon versus 2 pikemen, one arquebussier and 2 knights? It's 6 against 5, but the effect of combined arms on both sides and the technological differences may be decisive. And of course the luck of the dice and the terrain. There will likely be losses on both sides.

It may be a fight of 6 against 5 because of one side having a technological advantage in stacking or a leader combat trait or a general attached to the army.

If I had a penny for each time CTP/Millenia-style combat has been re-invented on these forums...

 

[Roland Johansen]

If I had a penny for each time CTP/Millenia-style combat has been re-invented on these forums...

It indeed seems that a bunch are unaware of the nice and elegant combat systems that have been developed over the decades, so then one needs to describe it in a few words.

 

[aieeegrunt]

If I had a penny for each time CTP/Millenia-style combat has been re-invented on these forums...

Millenia’s hilarious stop motion animated combat was a new tweest however.

 

[_hero_]

Honest question. Why do we even discuss this topic, as the dev decision in this regard was surely set in stone yesrs ago, and it's not something which can change during developent, barring some technical balance details? Almost all other stuff we discuss is something that can still change for release date or expansions, but not the most fundamental unit mechanics.

If devs were to be inspired by our discussions, that happened in like 2020 - 2022 period I think (unit system must be dealt with at the stage of basic map interactions)

Maybe an idea here will make it into Civ 8.

 

[Frederiksberg]

I voted for "stack of doom" even though it's sort of myth. Using a stack of doom is a poor strategy because you don't want to put any more resources into military units than needed (opportunity cost!). Even in a conquest game, you don't want to build a stack of doom, but build multiple mid-sized stacks for faster conquest. Applying your forces to the battlefield ASAP is of course of highest priority, why would you wait until you have some crazy oversized stack of doom?

 

[pokiehl]

I don’t really think “influence the devs” is a particularly noble goal. It's nearly impossible to find actual consensus on most ideas here, and as most of us are not game designers, most of our ideas probably aren't actually good.

I hope for the most part they take everything they read on social media with a giant grain of salt.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I'm surprised by the results. I've never actually seen the AI build a carpet of doom, I guess. It went from doomstack to carpet but never to carpet of doom.

It was an entirely different feeling on civ 4 deity. You did feel doomed. You'll probably roll up the carpet without difficulty.

To some extent it's always felt like your war builds your economy more than your economy builds your war in civ but that's never been more true than civ6. You can produce such massive snowball with such minimal investment regardless of whether or not there's a carpet of any size. Combat ai is just that woeful.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Speaking from first hand experience, you'd be surprised at how many more lines of code are required to fix that problem than your estimate of 1 line

Bombers are the only unit in Civ 6, that can actuall stack up, to 4, or 6UPT max.
It seems logical to an extent the the most powerful army weapon is deliberately removed from the code.
Bombers are effectively the only (limited) stack of doom feature that went though the ages.

What are the odds that there are no lines of code whatsoever regarding 'Air superiority' other than some dummy Agenda lines?

Civ V was quite different in using the stacks of Bombers. AI would build Sam units and surround cities with them asap they got the technology.
CIv 3, on the other hand, you could stack a flack unit, or SAM, into an army, with one infantry on top, and use inside your capital city to defend it against bombing raids.
The Army would take damage, and prevent the city structures to be damaged or destroyed. The AI without Army would consequently get completely crippled if an enemy
decided to bomb their capital. Bombing raids could reduce pop size to 1, and destroy all of its buildings. Only a composite army could save your cities.
RYYE AI used to stack also siege units, and move them along the files, and use them in field battles and in sieges. Again, armies even in ancient eras, were the only mean to survive
if such threat was incoming. Lines of code back then where much simpler also... maybe not 1 line of code though
(I'm leaving POSITIONAL, ATTACK and STRATEGIC tacticals lines empty, for obvious MAP related reasons in this example).

Computer player A1, beginning of turn:
Evaluate if A1 is at WAR/PEACE
Evaluate BEST current defensive tactics in WAR POOL and compare the odds with long term CIV AGENDA POOL.
IF odds are greater than >1 than OVERRIDE CIV AGENDA POOL

WAR POOL includes:
Is A1 the aggressor or the aggressed?
IF A1=aggressor then use BLITZ tactic
IF A1=aggressed then use GUERRILLA or TANK
Is A1 armies at great disadvantage or at great advantage?
IF disadvantage use TANK. IF NOT, use GUERRILLA.
Evaluate, available LEADER YES/NO
IF YES then BUILD ARMY-n
IF BLITZ then evaluate best ARMY-n possible composition for FASTER ARMY COMPOSITION and deploy for ATTACK.
IF GUERRILLA then evaluate best ARMY-n possible composition for ENEMY MAX THREAT and deploy for STRATEGIC defence.
IF TANK then then evaluate best ARMY-n possible composition for ENEMY MAX THREAT and deploy for POSITIONAL defence.
IF NO then prioritize ELITE units to move towards weaker enemy target (in order to maximize chances to create a LEADER)

$ All tactics includes armies and divisions.
$ tactical divisions are deployed by their composition to either one of possible tactics pools.
$ armies compositions should be split using units cost/power ratio to determine units allowance per division composition.
$ ARMY-n can serve more than one tactical division role, and be used accordingly
$ (e.g. has an Anti AIR U value > 0 then can be used for POSITIONAL defence, but if it has also an attack value > 1.1X enemy max defence UU then also ATTACK).
$ (e.g. Persian Immortal inherent values is 40 to build, 2 to mantain, and has 6/2/0 in offence/defence/ranged. formula in question should also consider other variables such as capacity for A1 to produce per turn.)
$ (IF a city can produce 120 per turn, does that means that 80 are wasted per turn, or the city can produce 3 UU per turn??
$ Optimize Military production efforts should be a focus for any formulas inquiring armies and divisions production and composition.)

TANK tactics includes:
armies compositions units class priorities:
ARMY-n > Spearman > Anti AIR > Bombard > Guerrilla, Paras > Warrior, Marine > Ranged > Cavalry

TANK tactics also includes minumum divisions requirements for basic defence for the empire at all moments. Be country at WAR/PEACE.
divisions numbers should be calculated equal to numbers of cities with pop greater than > 3 pop
divisions should be deployed to each city > 3 pop. otherwise cities with lower > 3 pop should follow basic GROWING CITY orders (eg 3 ranged > 3 spearman > 3 warriors)

GUERRILLA tactics includes:
armies compositions units class priorities:
ARMY-n > Guerrilla, Paras > Warrior, Marine > Spearman > Bombard > Ranged > Cavalry > Anti AIR

BLITZ tactics includes:
armies compositions units class priorities:
ARMY-n > Cavalry > Guerrilla, Paras > Bombard > Ranged > Warrior, Marine > Spearman > Anti AIR

CLASS units i.e.
Bombard class includes: Catapults, Trebuchets, cannons, artillery, WWI Bombers, Bombers, Strategic Bombers, Quadriremes, Dromones, etc...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I can definitely agree with that. The AI definitely got less able to engage with systems the more were added to Civ6. It would be nice to see the AI fully engage with whatever the player could do. Even if it doesn't do it as an 'unstoppable force'

Though this is a little disconnected from the 1UPT argument, I think? The line tends to be that 1UPT is bad because it gives more options for the player to stunt on the AI. But is that true to any relevant extent? And if it is true, then from firaxis' point of view is it a bug or a feature that the AI can be gamed?

I'll play civ7 regardless of whether it has 1UPT or stacks, but stacking is often presented as a panacaea to everything bad in Civ6 and I don't really buy that argument. I don't think it'll change much.

This is why the Civfanatics forum exist in the first place, it's the place where modders and enthusiasts congregate to ordeal against (or contributes to) Firaxis panaceas...

 

[Leucarum]

This is why the Civfanatics forum exist in the first place, it's the place where modders and enthusiasts congregate to ordeal against (or contributes to) Firaxis panaceas...

"We're all doomed, the hour of _____ is nigh!"

There are some good ideas which come out if it though!

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Stack of Doom is literally the worst thing in the history of Civilization to me. Impossible to properly defend yourself against the stack of more than 100 units (yes, I've experienced it) invading your empire.

1 UPT isn't perfect either. Moving units around with such restriction can be annoying.

That's why I prefer the option available in one of the mods for Civ IV - ability to set the maximum number of units per tile. I've found that setting it to 15 or so is the best for me. In Civ VII I think that setting it to 5 or so UPT would be nice.

 

[Patine]

Stack of Doom is literally the worst thing in the history of Civilization to me. Impossible to properly defend yourself against the stack of more than 100 units (yes, I've experienced it) invading your empire.

1 UPT isn't perfect either. Moving units around with such restriction can be annoying.

That's why I prefer the option available in one of the mods for Civ IV - ability to set the maximum number of units per tile. I've found that setting it to 15 or so is the best for me. In Civ VII I think that setting it to 5 or so UPT would be nice.

Personally, I think the stack size should be based on unit types and military logistics and c&c techs, researched, and maybe a wonder or two, and a couple great general abilities.

 

[civac]

This makes no sense. If an opponent can get 100 units there is a priori no reason you can't get as many either. Also while the AI can fight somewhat competently in Civ3/4 they are still not that good at it and you can fight them with less then they have usually.