Combining 1upt and +upt systems?

[Eurik]

In another topic the 1upt vs +upt discussion flared up again. Argument for 1upt is basically the better strategic possibilities and argument for +upt is basically the better movability and army density.

Thinking it over I came up with a solution in which the best of both may be combined. It has the following rules.

1) Units can be stacked
2) When units stack the player must choose the order in which units battle. (Mimicing the positioning of units).
3) From one tile of stacked units only one unit should be allowed to attack per turn (the unit put in front).

With these rules you are able to build very movable and dense armies due to their stackability. At the same time you need to apply strategy on how you position your units in your stack. And also you still have the possibility to use multiple tiles to enhance your strategy.

I am interested in argumented opinions.

 

[jasper]

if i understand correctly then this sounds terrible. range units get screwed. you either stack them and one range unit gets an atttack or none if the front unit is melee. i just dont understand why you would ever stack range units under these rules.

 

[Victoria]

So you suggest a grinder stack?
I imagine a stack like this would just contain the strongest units.
How long would a battle take for 20 units in each stack and would it be challenging or just grinding?
There seems to be fairly large amount of people happy with armies. To me they are a good compromise.
There also have been developers on here saying that you can have a good AI for 1 UPT, you just need to sink the funds into it

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I tend to lean towards the one-unit-per-tile, although I think the stacks have their merits.

The only way to reconcile them, I find, is to have TWO map overlays: one strategic, one tactical. The strategic map is mostly to group, move, and position your units. The tactical map is zoomed in, underneath the strategic map, and is used to do the actual fighting. I would say more, but Sulla explains it much better than I ever would:

http://www.sullla.com/designingciv.html

scroll down to "Units and Combat" section

 

[Eurik]

if i understand correctly then this sounds terrible. range units get screwed. you either stack them and one range unit gets an atttack or none if the front unit is melee. i just dont understand why you would ever stack range units under these rules.

4) Ranged units in stacks keep their attack turn for ranged attacks.
5) Ranged units can range attack every unit in the enemy stack by choice.

So you suggest a grinder stack?
I imagine a stack like this would just contain the strongest units.

You can use that as strategy. To place the strongest units in front and the weaker units behind. That would not differ from strategic choices in the 1upt system.

How long would a battle take for 20 units in each stack and would it be challenging or just grinding?

Perhaps not even as long as 1upt battles with the same amount of units, because in the latter case you would need to move the units in the back first into attacking position (losing one turn). Remember also that you can still make different stacks on different tiles to have more units to attack per turn.

There seems to be fairly large amount of people happy with armies. To me they are a good compromise.

Indeed. But also a fairly large amount of people are not happy, calling the 1upt 'carpet of doom'. This solution combines the best of both systems (I think). Even good systems often have room for improvement.

There also have been developers on here saying that you can have a good AI for 1 UPT, you just need to sink the funds into it

Yes. The system I propose would need a good AI also, since the 1upt is included.

I tend to lean towards the one-unit-per-tile, although I think the stacks have their merits.

The only way to reconcile them, I find, is to have TWO map overlays: one strategic, one tactical. The strategic map is mostly to group, move, and position your units. The tactical map is zoomed in, underneath the strategic map, and is used to do the actual fighting. I would say more, but Sulla explains it much better than I ever would:

http://www.sullla.com/designingciv.html

scroll down to "Units and Combat" section

I have been thinking about such a 'zoom' option too but forgot about the possibility to stack units there on base of their type. (I was thinking RPG's instead of MoO).

I think Sulla's solution would also be a great improvement. More revolutionary than my proposal in this topic and perhaps even better. What bothered me sometimes a bit about Sulla's solution, especially in RPG's, is that the battles are boxed and thus restricted in movement in relation to the larger map.

Nevertheless I would wholeheartedly welcome this improvement, remembering the fun I had with Master of Orion.

Another solution would be of course to enlarge all maps 100x by making tiles much smaller. But I can image that would be an assault to your PC's capacity.

 

[RealAntithesis]

I would like a flexible limited stacking system that allows civilian and religious units to stack with anything, but armies consisting of a finite number of linked military units (also linking with unlimited support and civilian units). The linked stack moves together, but the individual military units can attack at will (but the entire army fortifies or sleeps together). Great Generals can also be linked for additional benefits.

It will be up to bombard units to cause collateral damage to linked armies and other units in the same tile (and maybe to a lesser extent from other units).

I still don't like the current implementation of corps and armies. They are actually only just stronger versions of individual units and play exactly the same as a single unit, except stronger and they cost more. This just effectively makes units cost more once corps and armies are researched since everybody would be getting them.

It also significantly increases micromanagement from combining individual units into corps and armies (because otherwise they wouldn't stand a chance against opposing corps and armies).

At least with proper stacked armies, this remains flexible and is not just a cheap way of multiplying the different types of units by three (and effectively obsoleting the more singular versions).

 

[Victoria]

To me armies and corps work well, a brilliant idea where combining into a larger unit makes them more powerful and so limits the value of a carpet while avoiding a doom-stack. They should not be dismissed as "just a cheap way" which to me is just being disparaging to try and play down their value. As I understand it The 1UPT won the original argument and the army/corp idea cemented it with more people so it becomes just a vocal minority calling for it back.
Firaxis got it right and I appreciate that.

 

[RealAntithesis]

Obviously corps and armies are valuable - but I think they do cheapen regular units. Why build them when corps and armies are available?

 

[Victoria]

While infantry would normally be better in larger units as the tend to be frontline grunts, having the choice not to have cavalry or destroyers as they can be great for advance/guard troops. Also there are times you just want a unit quickly, then you often need a few spare units to join together. There is flexibility in their design I like.

 

[Tdot1]

Obviously corps and armies are valuable - but I think they do cheapen regular units. Why build them when corps and armies are available?

Well, Corps and Armies do not actually cheapen regular units, as they are just combinations of many units, and in fact you lose a lot of military power by having corps and armies, it just makes sense when you are limited on space and not limited on unit count.

But onto the larger issue, I think it could do with having a mix combination of ranged and frontline units, maybe where the melee unit only is on the defence and the ranged unit is just attacking. This would help stop it being super OP, which I think is a major concern.

 

[RealAntithesis]

Well, Corps and Armies do not actually cheapen regular units, as they are just combinations of many units, and in fact you lose a lot of military power by having corps and armies, it just makes sense when you are limited on space and not limited on unit count.

With 1UPT and the traffic jam, there are only a limited number of units that can attack a limited number of other units. Which means you would want to attack or defend using the strongest possible units or you may lose some (rather than sending a damaged unit to the back for healing). The strongest possible units are always going to corps and armies since you can fit the same number of them on the same tiles as single units for a more concentrated attack (or defense). In my game, the AI has nothing less than armies. So having anything less than armies would be a bad idea. Which means all the units in the game have just gotten stronger and more costly.

The conceptual objection I have with the current implementation of corps and armies is that they act exactly the same as single units. Real armies are diverse and have a number of different units with different functions (which can be naturally simulated by using stacks of individual but different units). Civ6 armies are just homogenous groups of exactly the same unit which, apart from its strength and cost (and the stars on the icon), are otherwise exactly the same as single units. To me, this is boring, lacks imagination, and is just a cop out.

But onto the larger issue, I think it could do with having a mix combination of ranged and frontline units, maybe where the melee unit only is on the defence and the ranged unit is just attacking. This would help stop it being super OP, which I think is a major concern.

A proper army implementation shouldn't be OP, since the other player should also have their own armies (perhaps made up differently depending on their intended role).

 

[Victoria]

The 1 UPT to me does mimick the jam of a real army on the move.
Civ does a great compromise in my view as it is a strategic game, not a tactical one but does allow the ability to battle transposing the smaller battleground onto the larger map in a way I believe works apart from a bad AI. It allows the concept of unit movement over an area that is more fun in my view than pushing a massive stack around with little skill involved, just whoever has the most units wins. The idea this becomes a grinder stack makes it more clunky.
The current ability to utilise different terrain and flanking during a battle makes it rich and interesting as opposed to a stack bash where the skill is the luck in which order you place your unts as opposed to the opposition?