In CIV6, it is not the money that is limitting, but the amount of strategic ressource you have to pay each turn for later age units. If you don't have a lot of petrol, you can't really field a sea of tanks...
Or you can just spam units that don’t require the resource. Money being a universal resource is a better hard limiting factor, IMO.Yeah, resource limits do prevent unlimited armies, but you can always cheat some of that away, especially before you get to the era where units require per turn maintenance (abusing policy card upgrades).
Strange, because it isn't impossible at all. Keeping one ranged defender in the city, building walls and castles and stationing two or three units next to it is enough. If the situation is worse than expected, sending there two or three units as reinforcement is something completely different than having to send somewhere 70 units at once.Carpet 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 10 units (yes, I've experienced it) invading your empire (I keep 1 defender in each of my cities because I spend all of my production on buildings).
Please read the post I was replying to, my post wasn't serious, I really don't know why so many people thought it was. I was replying to a post claiming they it's impossible to beat a stack of 100 units. If an AI has built 100 and you haven't, you've already messed up regardless of whether those 100 units can be stacked. I really thought the "I focus all my production on buildings" part of my post would have tipped people off that I was joking aroundStrange, because it isn't impossible at all. Keeping one ranged defender in the city, building walls and castles and stationing two or three units next to it is enough. If the situation is worse than expected, sending there two or three units as reinforcement is something completely different than having to send somewhere 70 units at once.
Doesn't sound too hard. 1UPT creates chain reactions of pathfinding issues, where you may need to move 3 units to move 1. If units took damage if they were over a tile's supply limit, for example, using the formula of [max(0, number of units - supply limit) / number of units], or in other words, if you have 3 units on a tile with a supply limit of 2, 1 damage is dealt divided across the three units, meaning 0.34 damage to each, then we'd have a scenario where you can make a slight tweak to A* pathfinding to reduce the value of a tile accordingly.I'm mostly worried how difficult it would be to teach the AI to work with those supply limits properly. This is the kind of rule that an AI tends to really dislike.
I don't have to read it, since you replied to my post and I know what I wrote.Please read the post I was replying to, my post wasn't serious, I really don't know why so many people thought it was. I was replying to a post claiming they it's impossible to beat a stack of 100 units. If an AI has built 100 and you haven't, you've already messed up regardless of whether those 100 units can be stacked. I really thought the "I focus all my production on buildings" part of my post would have tipped people off that I was joking around
My opponent has a stack of 100 units, I have 5 stacks of 20 units. I win because their stacks take more collateral damage than my stacks do. No need for artificial stack limits. If you build a stack of doom, that doom isn't your opponent's, it's your own.I don't have to read it, since you replied to my post and I know what I wrote.
Yes, it's much easier to repel an army of 10 units suddenly entering your territory than to repel an army of 100 units. I think it's rater obvious. Especially when AI gets the bonuses to training speed.
I played Civ IV with and without the stack limit. Playing without it is a nightmare. There are civs our there that are building insane amount of units. If you want to survive you must build units constantly as well. Say goodbye to your economy. And even then there will be someone who used the ridiculous AI reasoning and managed to walk across the entire continent just to stab you with a stack of 100 units. Great, it's rather obvious the garrison in that city won't be able to defend it, so you have to reinforce it by sending at least 70 units there. Cool.
Now playing with the stack limit. Imagine it's set to 20. Even if the enemy has 100 units invading - they have to divide it into 5 stacks. If you placed your city on a well defendable spot - it's possible that you'll have to defend against 20 units only. Of course they will have fresh units close behind, ready to replenish losses, but so will you, if you prepared yourself, because gathering 20 units somewhere is not the same as gathering 70 or 100 units somewhere.
I usually had full garrison of 20 units in the most important cities on the border, smaller garrisons in safer areas and two or three full 20 units stacks as mobile armies fortified in crucial spots. And wars were never more awesome. Invasions of 6-7 full 20 units stacks, creation of frontlines, long brawl for defensible terrain when my stacks were being constantly attacked and I was sending in reinforcements to hold the entire line of hills or a mountain pass, enemies breaking through the lines, me trying to close the gap... Instead of two insanely huge stacks roaming around that could conquer almost any city in one turn - there was a real war of attrition with frontlines, pincer movements and breakthoughs. I still remembr a war against Russians from months ago. They were bent on conquering me, invading as soon as truce ended every time with at least 7 full stacks. My cities and armies were on the hills, they were desperately trying to win, sending in wave after wave. My initial armies suffered severe casualties, so I kept reinforcing them. After 20 turns Russians lost horsehockyload of units, so they gained access thourh Aztec lands and tried to stab me from the north. I had to create a new mobile army to defend that area. After I inflicted huge losses on their main axis of attack I decided to counterattack and sent few full stacks there to capture their city. Unfortunately I overestimated their losses and my armies were severely crippled when I reached my goal. I had to retreat back to my borders to replenish armies. They kept sending soldiers but because they already lost the bulk of their army they could mount any serious attack, only mini stacks of 2-3 units working together. On the power graph I was more on less on the same level while they were plummeting down constantly. And after many turns of war of attrition I gathered new armies, invaded and took what I wanted.
Amazing, realistic and extremely fun.
It's literally superior to unrestricted SODs in every aspect.
They smash though your first stack of 20 units, then they smash through your second stack of 20 units, then they have a high chance of smashing through your third and fourth stack since they still have advantage in numbers.My opponent has a stack of 100 units, I have 5 stacks of 20 units. I win because their stacks take more collateral damage than my stacks do. No need for artificial stack limits. If you build a stack of doom, that doom isn't your opponent's, it's your own.
Try that ingame. You'll find that their stack will lose. The difference is one of collateral. Collateral damage deals damage to 2 units, but never brings a unit to lower than 50% health, by diving your army into several stacks, you take advantage of that, reducing your opponent's damage per turn, and with a higher damage per turn, you'll kill your opponent's stacks before they kill yours. It's like button mashing in a fighting game, it's easy to do, but it puts you at a disadvantage against someone who actually knows what they're doing.They smash though your first stack of 20 units, then they smash through your second stack of 20 units, then they have a high chance of smashing through your third and fourth stack since they still have advantage in numbers.
Besides, keeping 5 stacks of 20 units few tiles apart is the same as keeping one stack of 100 units there, so it's the same and you're imssing the point completely.
Another balance mechanic that might be good for stacks is that as the stack grows larger, the more well know about it is. VISIBILITY. If you have a stack of 100 on the board, word of it will go far and wide. Therefore, a stack of that size might be visible on the map even in unrevealed areas and from great distances. Perhaps as far as 10 or 20 tiles away in the ancient era, and in later ages an army of that size could be tracked by word of mouth from around the world. So, secrecy could be a balancing mechanic with large stacks vs small stacks.
Interesting idea. I think that’d be cool.Another balance mechanic that might be good for stacks is that as the stack grows larger, the more well know about it is. VISIBILITY. If you have a stack of 100 on the board, word of it will go far and wide. Therefore, a stack of that size might be visible on the map even in unrevealed areas and from great distances. Perhaps as far as 10 or 20 tiles away in the ancient era, and in later ages an army of that size could be tracked by word of mouth from around the world. So, secrecy could be a balancing mechanic with large stacks vs small stacks.
In Civ4, it's almost always correct to pile up everything into a single stack even against collateral.My opponent has a stack of 100 units, I have 5 stacks of 20 units. I win because their stacks take more collateral damage than my stacks do. No need for artificial stack limits. If you build a stack of doom, that doom isn't your opponent's, it's your own.
Elaborating a bit on How To Apply Stacking:I like that. And I think the opposite should also be true. A single unit might be completely invisible on the map, especially in certain terrain like jungle and forests, unless you move into that tile with your own unit. This would allow covert tactics like sneaking a single unit behind enemy lines to pillage tiles and cause mayhem.