1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Does anyone else miss stacking wars

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Alexey86, Mar 7, 2014.

  1. Alexey86

    Alexey86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    I still think stacking wars were more fun and engaging and really felt like a bloody war, especially lots of units all over the place, overwhelmed, distruction, omg when you see reinforcements coming and coming. You didnt know when the city will fall, or how frikin more units does he have there. If he was loosing on the battlefield he would just retreat into citys and defend there where he got more bonus points and waited for possible reinforcements.

    The AI combat was smarter IMO and more respected because he would just weeken you with lots of units, he would conquer citys more faster and simple. After a tired war with a big civ AI, you couldnt afford going at war with another or going with 2 or 3 nations at the same time was really heavy and hard stuff. The AI was more dangerous because of sheer numbers. The fact that he could move everyhere made it more compelling and didnt need to think much, it wouldnt suffer so much from Dumb AI combat syndrom. You would still beat him if he had a larger army of course but you would suffer a lot of loses just like in real wars.

    Now the problem is with the SOD where the human would conquer everything with like a 100 tanks in one spot, that problem has a simple solution with a simply limit stacking of 10-12 for example. Another idea would be give a space on tile for each unit like axeman has 1 slot, horseman occupies 2 slots, tanks 3 slots, catapults 2 slots etc. The number of slots in a tile would be 12 for example or other programers chooses for balance. So you can have either 4 tanks or 12 warriors or 2 tanks and 3 horseman or 3 tanks and 3 rifleman etc. When you have a combination on field you can have multiple small advantages or small disavantages. The possibilities are endless because in a all over the place war the combinations changes all the time moving units from one tile to another so it would be a heavy chess game. There could also be some kind of anti stacking artilery weapons or units developt like the bigger the stack, those units/artilery will make more damage so untill you take them out you would consider to split them apart more. Also I would put in citys a 32 slots availabe for better defending(that would mean 10 tanks max)

    My last paragraf would be my best personal combat idea for a civ game, where war is more tough, smarter, maybe fun or brain meltdown depends and the AI doenst need to develop you know AI hehehe.

    Still think that stacking wars were more fun and better ability from the AI because he could move units anywhere.
     
  2. CraigMak

    CraigMak The Borg

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,058
    Play against human opponents. Your problems are all fixed and one unit per tile is really strategic. Stacks made for mindless combat with far fewer considerations taken into account aside from my stack is bigger RAWR!

    Choke points meant for nothing, Difficult terrain meant for nothing, the only thing that that I don't like is the effectiveness of ranged over melee. Melee is just plain terrible against a ball of ranged units.
     
  3. Byzantine Bomb

    Byzantine Bomb Warlord

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Messages:
    267
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Barbarian stacks...*Shudder* I do not miss those.
    Stacks don't require a lot of finesse and skillful maneuvering, which is probably my favorite thing about the new system. Proper placement, maneuvering and attacking/defending of units of an army can allow said army to overcome a much greater force. I found stack battles to be sloppy and predictable.
     
  4. Alexey86

    Alexey86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    There were times when Civ3or4 was unpredictable in wars. You didnt know how many units does he have left all the time, especially in citys.
     
  5. j51

    j51 Blue Star Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,175
    Location:
    Ping Island
    If I missed stacking wars I'd still play Civ 4. IMO, even with both expansions, Civ 4 is still better than 5 in every gameplay feature except the combat. That said, as soon as I heard 5 wasn't going to have stacking, I was unable to play 4. That's how maddeningly tedious stacking becomes. It's the sole gameplay reason 5 is better than 4.
     
  6. Callonia

    Callonia Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    2,176
    Nope, I hated the stack of dooms. It was very mindless.
    With 1UPT each unit you have is actually important.
     
  7. Montezuma II

    Montezuma II Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    71
    Location:
    Alaska, USA
    Every once in a while. It's a good break from 5, but like the above posters said, 1UPT values each unit and requires more strategy IMO
     
  8. Loucypher

    Loucypher King

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    797
    The only thing that truly holds 1UPT back is the AI's poor handling of it. The moment they implement an actually tactically solid AI for that part, it's far, FAR superior to stacks. A few balance tweaks wouldn't go amiss either (There's a balance mod that weakens Archers when attacking cities/wounded units, which really helps).
     
  9. Funky

    Funky Emperor

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    The stack system has many significant advantages over 1UPT.

    - It makes war challenging, since the AI is actually able to comprehend it and pose a threat to the human.

    - It requires a lot more thought and skill than 1UPT, especially on higher difficulties or multiplayer, when it often comes down to on par stack vs stack fights.

    - You can move your army in 1 second instead of having to move every single unit every turn.

    - It fits the scale of Civ a lot better.

    - It places higher emphasis on the strategical aspect of the game rather than the tactical one.

    - It avoids awkward mechanics in besieging cities.

    - It's a lot more realistic.

    We must be honest and face the truth, namely that 1UPT has many major disadvantages compared to stacking (some even game breaking, like the hopeless AI). Now the stacking system in Civ4 isn't perfect, in particular the way it handles siege units. But it's patently obvious that the future of Civ lies in an improved stacking system and a complete disregard of this 1UPT nonsense.
     
  10. Krajzen

    Krajzen Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,814
    Location:
    Poland
    Could you give me a link to this mod?...
     
  11. Callonia

    Callonia Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    2,176
    Except for the fact where I never lost a single war in Civ4, Funky.

    I used to follow a rule in civ4's city defenses.

    If Size 5 and below, minimum 3 troops.
    IF size 6 and up minimum 12 troops.

    If Size 13 minimum 12-24 troops.

    If Size 15 and up, Minimum 30-50 troops.

    Thats what my City basically looked like. Oh sorry, the AI attacked me with 100+ Units?
    Ha. What a tiny puny army they attack me with!

    Basically that single stack of doom gets wtfpwnt by Garrison troops of mine then I unleash the Garrison on counter invasion and the AI gets steamrolled because it don't have any defenses left.

    And due to how railroads and such worked.. I regularly crush 1-5 countries in a single turn.
    Sorry but Civ4's stack combat is complete nonsense.

    Civ 5 does the combat much better, I can't just steamroll through half of the globe in a single turn unless I built that many XCOM units xD

    And this is me coming off from several thousand hours of play on Civ4. I'm sick of it.

    Also, ZOC of CIv4 completely sucks. You can't use ZOC on enemy stacks, the stacks will must murder each other because they will fight each other than pass by. No Flanking, no nothing.
    They lack presence.

    Now, ZOC in civ5 it actually works. Its quite refreshing.

    All firaxis have to do is stop sleeping on their butts then Civ5's combat will be fantastic. They need to run some kind of experiments and stuff.

    The way it is currently in Civ5 I'm basically invincible as well. I only get in trouble when I get attacked when I'm hopelessly outteched then the AI only can beat me through brute force.
    But then, fall of rome scenario has confirmed my suspicions. I played as west rome. I killed all of the barbarians off. And survived instead of dying off. As long as I never get outteched, I cannot be defeated basically.

    Firaxis is being cheapass by relying on insane bonuses on higher difficulty above King to pretend that AI is functional.

    And no, Stacks of doom doesn't even make the wars challenging at all whatsoever.
    Kill invading stack of doom then proceed to counter invade or forcibly vassalize the loser AI.
    I've had several domination wins that basically had me vassalizing the whole world just because I had so huge army to the point where they just surrendered by default. Ezmode. I could have over 1k troops easily in my home territory then vassalize the AIs one by one and kill the stubborn ones by smashing their stacks of doom then vassalize then vassalize even more AIs congrats! I now control the whole world! And all I had to do is invade a single tile of their country and they bend over.

    And very few of the games I had basically had me fielding stack of dooms in every single city I controlled. I can afford it so why not. Immune to invasion. Hurr durr.

    Stack of doom = spreadsheet numbers game.

    1UPT = Frontlines actually form and terrain become relevant. Wars of grudge gets fought.

    I once played online with a buddy of mine and after when he saw what my lands looked like in industrial era.. he was like OH MY GOD YOU HAVE SO MANY FREAKING UNITS! I was like eh, this is about normal for me. And he was like oh man no wonder why you haven't lost a single city but expanding through 6+ severely butthurt ais trying to murder me for several eras by now.

    I can promise you this, if Civ6 go back to stacks of doom combat I won't be purchasing it but rather, skipping it completely. After all if I wanted spreadsheet combat I can just go play EVE online and enjoy pretty fireworks from time to time.
     
  12. Evie94

    Evie94 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Ireland
    Five characters eh?
     
  13. Funky

    Funky Emperor

    Joined:
    May 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,291
    Ok, wow, you're right.

    Moving every unit every turn like in a puzzle game is a great inspiration and what Civ is all about. Having units spread across the land and archers firing hundreds of miles is realistic. And 1UPT makes the AI really competitive.

    Thanks for your comments, strange that I couldn't see all this before. :)



    No offense intended, read with humor ;)
     
  14. Alexey86

    Alexey86 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    SOD can be compromised with special anti-stacking artilery via moding for example.The bigger the stack the more it could suffer against those weapons.
     
  15. tomplum68

    tomplum68 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    145
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    No...
     
  16. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    9,309
    Location:
    France
    I already use limited stacking in a mod, not exactly as proposed in the OP, but pretty similar

    It use "stacking classes" (say recon, ranged, melee, ...), with multiple class allowed to stack, but a limit of 2 unis for each class.

    I like the "slots" idea, it would be a bit more complex to code but it make sense.

    The advantage with my current implementation is that it forces the AI to stack ranged and melee unit on the same plots (say to 2 melee and 2 ranged one one plot and same on another plot) when space is limited without having to learn it to do that in a system where it would be allowed to stack the 4 melee on one plot and the 4 ranged on another.

    BTW I'm wondering why so many people are assuming that more than 1UPT means Stack of Doom ?

    I assure you that there are intermediate values between 1 and +∞
     
  17. LoneRebel

    LoneRebel Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,289
    Location:
    Distinguished and Ever Loyal City
    I really don't see how stacking "required more skill and thought" than 1upt. The one with the larger stack would win, that's all.
     
  18. Loucypher

    Loucypher King

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    797
    Sure thing, here you go:

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=520872

    It does have a bunch of other tweaks making the game less science-focussed (but a bit more growth-focussed, I'd say), which makes it feel more balanced.
     
  19. kaspergm

    kaspergm Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,823
    No ... Don't miss it at all, like others have said, it reduced game to a matter of "mine's bigger than yours".

    And with regards to what was said above concerning AI, I also agreed what others said: Just because AI couldn't handle 1UPT very well in CiV doesn't mean SOD is better, it just means it's more fun to play against a capable AI than an incapable one.
     
  20. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,930
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Personally, I like limited ZOC.

    My complaint is they went too far in the opposite of Stack of Doom with 1UPT. It was was limited to say 3-4 units that would be awesome.

    I actually miss CTP2's army stacking with ranged, flanking, and artillery coordinated. If that combat system could be pasted onto Civ4's gameplay I'd die happy.
     

Share This Page