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

[Evie]

Without some tactical features, warfare is just a game of throwing piles of units at each other in the most brain-dead, boring way. At its most challenging it's a grindind game ; the rest of the time the challenge is non-existent. I see no interest in that gameplay vision.

At the end of the day map scale is a gameplay abstraction that reflect more technological limitations and a desire to generate competition (more limited space = more competition) than any necessary limitation on the nature of the game. Using it as an excuse to limit what should or should not be in the game is an unnecessary limitation that is only likely to harm the game.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Like I've said elsewhere, my only issue with 1UpT is that it makes the maps feel more cramped, an issue that's easily solved by simply making the maps bigger and/or more granular

 

[Roland Johansen]

Since the AI can't handle 1UPT in even a somewhat competitive level, it can't function as the combat system for Civilization. For a computer player to be able to threaten the cities of a competent human player, you need to give it such a large economical and technological advantage that the economical/technological part of the game gets unbalanced. Next to that, the movement of a carpet of units becomes unwieldy as you need to spread your army over your whole territory. And also, the spread out nature of units doesn't represent the way that armies fought in ancient, classical, medieval and renaissance times. In those era's troops were gathered together in a few large armies of mixed troops which decided the outcome of wars.

The whole army in one huge stack of units is also not ideal. Mostly because it feels disjointed from how we think about war. Sure, in the early wars till the industrial age, troops were often concentrated in a few big armies (usually not one in a big empire). But especially in the industrial and modern days, we have front lines of troops. There is just a limit to how many troops are useful and feasible to gather together in a small area.

So, many of us here are arguing for a middle ground. Have a limited number of troops in a stack.

• It removes the movement problems.
• It allows realistic combined arms within the stack of units. Combined arms of units can give benefits as it has in real life throughout the ages. It also benefits the empire that has the resources for combined arms.
• A few stacks of units represents ancient till renaissance wars, a front line of stacks would represent the more numerous units in industrial and modern wars.
• Generals can be used to lead limited stacks of units into battle, giving various bonuses to the stack.
• The maximum size of stacks can be changed with technology to accommodate the ever larger number of units that you get in a typical game.
• You could allow to go over the stack limit but with crippling combat penalties for the units in that stack, just to accommodate for rare movement problems (rare as units are in a few stacks).
• Exactly how combats between stacks work could be designed in multiple interesting ways. You could still allow some tactical combat movement on a separate combat screen, or you could go for an autoplayed combat on a separate combat screen to show you how your composition of troops works out against the enemy composition of troops. You do want to give the player some feedback how combined arms works. Combat can be fast with only a few stacks in play instead of many individual units.
• Non-combat units should be completely separate from any type of stacking limit.

 

[reddishrecue]

The game should have stacks just because 1UPT does have some issues when you have a lot of units around. Why not have them have both 1 upt and stacks of doom as well? With the unit that has the highest defense defending the stack of course and not only defeating the whole stack with 1 unit but just that particular unit that is defending.

 

[Leucarum]

The civ series is (for a lot of people) a gateway into 4X, and the 4X game with the broadest mass appeal. Investing heavily in AI probably isn't the best use of firaxis' budget, compared to similar games with a more niche, specialist market. I personally doubt that 1UPT is the source of the AI's woes in Civ6, as much as AI (understandably) not being the top priority for devs?

 

[Arcaian]

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.

I agree it would be very dubious, which is why I didn't say that - not sure why you're quoting me in the reply here when I explicitly said that "I can't state conclusively that people enjoy 1UPT more than unlimited stacking" instead of claiming that it was greatly preferred, and I said that "I'm happy for there to be some movement towards limited stacking too, so long as the fun of the 1UPT combat system remains", which is pretty explicitly in-line with your suggestion for a compromise. I'm not sure if this is you quoting me but then replying to a general comment (that I feel isn't being said here?), or if it's just a complete misread of my message, but it feels pretty frustrating to be misread this completely either way, especially in combination with what seems to be your fairly combative tone to the ideas being expressed here.

Either way, I don't particularly mind the exact details of the implementation of the combat system in Civ 7, but I do hope that it maintains the interesting sets of decisions involved in Civ 5/6 combat, and that there continue to be moments where I make a decision along the lines of "I'm playing on a high difficulty and the AI could well rush me, I'll settle a city here behind this mountain range to force them to come at me through the narrow pass, that should make my land easier to defend". Both of those are important to my enjoyment of the game.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Limited stack sizes I think is the way to go. You don't want one massive giant stack, because that simply isn't realistic or fun to play against, but 1UPT has too many limitations.

Millennia has an okay idea where you start with the ability to stack three units in one army from the start of the game, and as you tech up are able to add more units to stacks. I believe it caps at six? (I think? My computer CANNOT handle the Millennia endgame). The combat system in Millennia is dreadful though, so please do not copy that.

But the limited stacks can function the way they did in Civ 4. Every combat is a 1v1, which the strongest unit in the defending stack squaring off against the attacker. The question is whether you end every attack with one of the units eliminated from the game (as in Civ4), or damaged (as in Civ 5-6). And what do you do with ranged units? Siege units? Air units? You need to consider those mechanics as well, if you're going to switch away from 1UPT.

 

[Patine]

Using it as an excuse to limit what should or should not be in the game is an unnecessary limitation that is only likely to harm the game.

There are a lot of such excuses we coulld through back and forth at each other. But, as I said right above, I don't want either extreme, I want a carefully considered and innovative middle-ground and compromise. And you seemed to be saying such, in paraphrasing, upthread, too.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Doomstack all the way.

Don't think the AI can really exploit 1upt to full effect. Too difficult to program it.

I'm a min/max guy. I can't help it. With 1upt, the challenge of the game will be diminished for me. I'll find the AI weak points and be unable to exploit them whenever in doubt.

 

[Luís Felipe Silva Pinto]

Yeah I really hate how the world starts to look like a bunch of Eperopolis (continetal size cities) in industrial age and later looking like a Ecumenopolis

 

[Patine]

I agree it would be very dubious, which is why I didn't say that - not sure why you're quoting me in the reply here when I explicitly said that "I can't state conclusively that people enjoy 1UPT more than unlimited stacking" instead of claiming that it was greatly preferred, and I said that "I'm happy for there to be some movement towards limited stacking too, so long as the fun of the 1UPT combat system remains", which is pretty explicitly in-line with your suggestion for a compromise. I'm not sure if this is you quoting me but then replying to a general comment (that I feel isn't being said here?), or if it's just a complete misread of my message, but it feels pretty frustrating to be misread this completely either way, especially in combination with what seems to be your fairly combative tone to the ideas being expressed here.

Either way, I don't particularly mind the exact details of the implementation of the combat system in Civ 7, but I do hope that it maintains the interesting sets of decisions involved in Civ 5/6 combat, and that there continue to be moments where I make a decision along the lines of "I'm playing on a high difficulty and the AI could well rush me, I'll settle a city here behind this mountain range to force them to come at me through the narrow pass, that should make my land easier to defend". Both of those are important to my enjoyment of the game.

Perhaps I did misread your intent. Your posts can be, "textually thick," like mine, and I've often had people misread me. I meant no malice.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I'm going to go on record and say they are going to fix the issues with 1UP in Civ7. You heard it here first.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I'm going to go on record and say they are going to fix the issues with 1UP in Civ7. You heard it here first.

Wish I shared your optimism.

If unit A is in position X, prioritize Y, then do Z.

All it takes is one off-meta prioritization(which will likely be put in deliberately, to make the game more accessible to casual players) and the AI will really underperform relative to a hard-core player.

That's not... the worst thing in the world. Casual players are the majority. But it will reduce strategic depth v AI. Which will limit my enjoyment.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Civ7 is made for multiple platforms, not just PC. For most platforms, 1UPT is the only realistic choice.

Stack. 1UPT. Stack of doom. Carpet of doom.

The problem is "... of doom". This is a game balance problem. Fix it so that fewer units can be supported.

 

[Patine]

Civ7 is made for multiple platforms, not just PC. For most platforms, 1UPT is the only realistic choice.

Stack. 1UPT. Stack of doom. Carpet of doom.

The problem is "... of doom". This is a game balance problem. Fix it so that fewer units can be supported.

How is absolute completely essential?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't want to bring back stack of doom. IMO, it made combat tedious. I've suggested some kind of method to form armies and have an entire stack resolve in one move. The closest analogy I can think of is Total War's auto-resolve feature.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

No it’s not. Not even close. There was never a time in human history when armies were large enough to literally be in each other’s way.

I think having to solve a sliding tile puzzle every time you move your units is way way worse of a hassle.

Because it's fun and engaging

Sliding tile puzzles just for something as simple as strategic level moves is neither

Civ7 is made for multiple platforms, not just PC. For most platforms, 1UPT is the only realistic choice.

Stack. 1UPT. Stack of doom. Carpet of doom.

The problem is "... of doom". This is a game balance problem. Fix it so that fewer units can be supported.

No, it really isn’t. Limited stacking works just fine. You can easily do 3 UPT without needing a seperate stack selection menu

 

[DeckerdJames]

Why not have multiple combat rule systems and activate them like game modes?

 

[Nikolai II]

Why not have multiple combat rule systems and activate them like game modes?

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

 

[Leucarum]

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?