Collateral damage was a better mechanic than 1UPT

[maxp779]

Collateral damage is a mechanic from Alpha Centauri. The jist of it is you destroy 1 unit in a stack of 50 and the other 49 units take damage. So you could wipe out a stack of doom with 6-7 battles. You could still use a stack of doom yourself for convenience then split it up when you're in enemy territory.

The AI will never be challenging at warfare unless given massive bonuses as long as 1UPT is a thing. That just dosent sit right with me, I like playing on an even footing with my opponent.

 

[Ryika]

I like playing on an even footing with my opponent.

Then why are you even playing against the AI? It will never be on "equal footing" with the player, AI vs Human is inherently unfair, and will always be.
Multiplayer is what you're looking for.

 

[RealAntithesis]

1UPT vs unit stacking appears to be one of those religious type debates along the lines of Mac vs PC, AMD vs NVidia and Intel, Israel vs certain others in the Middle East etc. People have strong views about one or the other.

There have been several proposals put forward to address the issues with 1UPT (and yes, there are a number of issues that have been discussed ad nauseam), in various ways. But just saying that this is what we have - live with it, doesn't really help.

 

[RealAntithesis]

Re: collateral damage - Civs 1 and 3 had this. Civ3 had cannons which reduced health across all units in a stack or army. Civ 1 just destroyed all units in a stack if one was killed.

I like the idea of limited stacking + some sort of collateral damage, coupled with the use of Great Generals to create army stacks.

There are a number of ways to do this that make some sort of sense, especially if it reduces the ridiculous situation of all the terrain (and water) tiles being covered with units because there's no where else for them all to go.

 

[TomKQT]

1UPT vs unit stacking appears to be one of those religious type debates along the lines of Mac vs PC, AMD vs NVidia and Intel, Israel vs certain others in the Middle East etc. People have strong views about one or the other.

There have been several proposals put forward to address the issues with 1UPT (and yes, there are a number of issues that have been discussed ad nauseam), in various ways. But just saying that this is what we have - live with it, doesn't really help.

It surprises me a bit how often is the discussion started now. It was natural when CivV was released, but Civ6 isn't the first game with this mechanics and it didn't change it very much. Are there so many players who came to Civ6 from Civ4 or older games?

 

[Kissamies]

It surprises me a bit how often is the discussion started now. It was natural when CivV was released, but Civ6 isn't the first game with this mechanics and it didn't change it very much. Are there so many players who came to Civ6 from Civ4 or older games?

Long time fans of the series that don't stop calling the idea that they perceive as bad bad even if the devs have doubled down on it. I am also one who believes that stacks with limitations would be the better way to go. Collateral damage + effectiveness penalty from being in a too large stack. Also enough bonuses from encirclement/flanking. Carrot and the stick.

 

[Ryika]

Really makes me wonder why people think a system with "limited stacking" would be easier for the AI to understand anyway.The problem with having to swap around units would become a bit easier for them, but at the same time you introduce a whole new problem, namely the AI having to figure out how big they can make their stacks without getting crushed in unfavorable exchanges. I don't see how such a problem could even come close to solving the issue of AIs requiring far more units than the player, if anything, I'd assume the problem gets worse given.

Sounds like trying to solve a problem by introducing a much bigger problem.

 

[KrzTeKILL]

Yeah that's the issue, the AI has to stack into one tile or else it can't play.

If you increase the collateral damage/mechanics to the point that you would need more than one stack, or needed to spread out your units, then the AI would face the same problems it does with 1UPT -it cannot manage the many different possible 'game boards', the complexity of the rules, and the many different sized armies.

 

[RealAntithesis]

But it would at least reduce traffic jams and the issue of units being forced to spread out to every single tile because there's no room.

 

[Ryika]

Reducing the number of units players can realistically field would also reduce that issue, without having to add more complexity.
Make units cost more production/energy depending on the amount of units you already have, or introduce supply limits like we know them from Civ 5.
Both methods solve the issue outside of the battlefield, which I think is what is required.

You could even buff corps/armies to encourage "stacking" of units that way, but of course then they should cost more maintenance than normal units.
That's a system that the AI can handle quite well, because you can't "unstack" units in the current combat system, it's like the basic combat system, just with higher combat values.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Before we get too far into the 1 UPT vs stacking debate we need evidence that Firaxis can give us a functional UI more recently than over a decade ago. Trash tier UI will make any system look bad, and trash tier UI is what we have sadly.

Stacking offers up some considerations you don't have with 1 UPT from a tactical perspective (magnifies defensive terrain, increased emphasis on collateral as size increases, makes fork strategies very dangerous) while giving up some importance of ZoC and defeat in detail. You can make a fine game around either mechanic, provided you marry that choice to functional controls and non-false-choice balancing.

My suggestion is to fix the UI first because if you don't most of the utility in taking one tradeoff vs another is lost.