Get rid of SODs

[Argetnyx]

Why don't they bring back the 'stealth attack' option? In the Japanese scenario (Sengoku: Civ3) there were Ninjas who could choose which unit in a stack to attack and were invisible to regular units (like subs). Another unit, the Yamabushi, was used to counter the Ninjas; they could 'see' the Ninjas and defend against them not matter how many units were on the stack, since they were not on the Ninjas list of units that it could 'stealth attack', they were attacked (when they were the best defenders of course).

 

[Camikaze]

It's not every turn, so much as it is every major tech advance, and are you not reassessing and rebalancing your military options every time you get a major new unit anyway ?

It would force you to reassess your stacks every turn during war (i.e. when you are using them), as the size of enemy stacks changes.

And if that slows down the human advance to one nigh-indestructible stack, would that not open up ohter strategic possibilites to counter that ?

That's what this thread is trying to stop happening. Sure, it should be a possibility, but a very small one, so that every stack is not indestructible. Stacks in general should need to be weaker. So, yeah, it would open up another possibility, but not a good one.

If the ranges were fixed, yes; if they changed with tech advance and time, that could be arrnaged to actively prevent that.

Even if they did change throughout the game, at any given point, having more units in a stack would be advantageous. Whether that be 17 units being more advantageous than 12 in the Medieval Era and 18 units being more advantageous than 6 in the Industrial Era doesn't matter, there would be, at any given point, some higher number of units that would gain an advantage for being in a larger group.

I very much don't, thinking on it; I would far rather a decision that was deterministic and predictable.

Deterministic and predictable like the outcome of battles?

Why don't they bring back the 'stealth attack' option? In the Japanese scenario (Sengoku: Civ3) there were Ninjas who could choose which unit in a stack to attack and were invisible to regular units (like subs). Another unit, the Yamabushi, was used to counter the Ninjas; they could 'see' the Ninjas and defend against them not matter how many units were on the stack, since they were not on the Ninjas list of units that it could 'stealth attack', they were attacked (when they were the best defenders of course).

Well the Ambush idea would limit SoDs.

 

[Naokaukodem]

However, if you would rather something less deterministic, how about something like pre-combat odds ? Something where the odds of attacker or defender getting the choice are calculated based on number of defenders, number of targets, any other relevant factor, and then the decision is actually made in the same sort of way as a combat ? That removes your issue with a hard line in the sand ?

This looks like an organized army idea. You put melee attacks before, catapults and archers after, horses on the edges (they place themselves automatically, no need to micromanage your armies), and you launch your minions against the other army.

For example, an army without foot charging units would be not able to take a city with a wall (for example if your army is exclusively composed of horsemen), and an army without archers or catapults will die more quickly if not supported by archers or catapults trying to reach the wall with ladders.

With the same idea, an army in the open field against another army, will suffer greatly if it is not composed with horsemen.

 

[Argetnyx]

Well the Ambush idea would limit SoDs.

I'm not talking about 'ambush' I'm talking about the stealth attack. AND ways to limit that, so that SoDs are not completely outdone.

 

[techathon]

I think that possibly siege units could be more effective in taking down SoD, possibly if the stack has more than 10 units the same age as the siege unit it would destroy one of those with an attack and the number goes down with upgrades. Mabie you could get a spy to poison troops it they are over a certain number that infects the stack, making them weaker and not letting more units in the stack. Or bribing a unit to destroy a number of troops on their own team.

Possibly, you could build diffrent quantities of units, like you can make a 100 swordsman and a 500 swordsman. They could be put together to make an army of 600 swordsman and if they all have 5 strength, you could attack an enemy army with 3000 strength, then the defending army could do that and the bonuses could apply. Infections could be a problem, just like in real life. Or possibly you could have to supply all of those troops both ways would make the SoD more challenging as they would die of disease, and if you don't feed them enough, starvation.

 

[rysmiel]

It would force you to reassess your stacks every turn during war (i.e. when you are using them), as the size of enemy stacks changes.

How is this different from reassessing your forces every turn depending on how successful you were in the last turn in the game as is ? Every unit killed or injured and every enemy defeated changes the strategic landscape somewhat.

Even if they did change throughout the game, at any given point, having more units in a stack would be advantageous. Whether that be 17 units being more advantageous than 12 in the Medieval Era and 18 units being more advantageous than 6 in the Industrial Era doesn't matter, there would be, at any given point, some higher number of units that would gain an advantage for being in a larger group.

My point boils down, I think, to saying that one way of making stacks less frequent is to give them disadvantages such that they have to be a lot bigger to work at all. I see it as disadvantage for smaller/less balanced composition rather than advantage for larger, but I suppose they are functionally equivalent.

Deterministic and predictable like the outcome of battles?

And is it not part of playing the game well to manege one's logistics such that one goes into battleles with an advantage wherever possible in order to, if you'll pardon the expression, stack the odds in one's favour ?

 

[rysmiel]

This looks like an organized army idea. You put melee attacks before, catapults and archers after, horses on the edges (they place themselves automatically, no need to micromanage your armies), and you launch your minions against the other army.

No, it's not; because that way lies a tactical game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

No, it's not; because that way lies a tactical game.

Oh well you said it master!

As said TheMeinInTeam (I think it's him) in another topic, tactical is not an argument itself against a feature in Civ.

Indeed, tactical is already a good part of Civ (more what touch the small skirmishes in fact, the SOD battles being pretty untactical.)

Armies would be an essential add to Civ.

 

[Camikaze]

I would like to see that quote. Can you by any chance find it?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Found it! It's there: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8306789&postcount=33

 

[Camikaze]

Thanks.
I think that what he says is right, but that pretty much anything tactical in the game will damage game play. Sure, being tactical does not technically automatically mean that it is a bad idea, but it generally does. I think it's safe to use 'tactical' synonymously with 'bad for game play' with relation to civ.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Not in the case of armies. That would make the game definitly better.

 

[Camikaze]

Creating the need for a variety of units within a stack would only increase the need for stacks, however, and therefore increase their predominance. Which is what this thread is trying to stop. Ergo, it wouldn't be good.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I personnally see no problem with SODs... except that they denude the game of strategy... wich is precisely when armies come.

 

[Trias]

One solution to the predominance of SoDs in civ3/civ4 is to add collateral damage to ALL units. This is basically what happened in civ2 but less extreme. Upon successfully attacking a stack of units damage should be done to all units in the stack. This makes stacking unit in a tile risky, while on the other hand it makes successfully defending the tile easier, so there is a trade-off there.

The amount of damage done should depend on the unit and could also depend on the combattypes in the defending stack. Some units could do more/only collateral damage to archers, while others damage melee units, etc. (This would further encourage building a balanced mix of units.) Further there might be a damage cap on the amount of collateral damage dealt, which again could very from unit to unit.

In civ4 doing collateral damage was the prerogative of the siege units, so if all units do collateral, they should probably get ranged bombardment back. Which should be nerfed with a damage cap to prevent it becoming the dominant strategy it was in civ3. (Catapults should maximally reduce units to 90% strength or so, with late game artillery/planes should maybe maximally reduce units to 60%.)

Interestingly most of this can be modded into civ4 with existing mods + vanilla XML parameters. So, if there is interest to test this it would be easy to make a mod to do so. (Although the AI would probably completely suck at applying this in the field.)

 

[Camikaze]

The problem with that is that it would severely affect small stacks of three or four units, also. It would turn battle completely in the attacker's favour, which would probably only mean that an attacking stack could be bigger and successful, with all the other nerfs.

 

[Trias]

The problem with that is that it would severely affect small stacks of three or four units, also. It would turn battle completely in the attacker's favour, which would probably only mean that an attacking stack could be bigger and successful, with all the other nerfs.

That depends on the amount of collateral damage dealt by each unit. The disadvantage grows linearly with the size of the stack, since all units in the stack are effected equally. For small stacks this would only be a small change with respect to the current situation. There is an advantage to having more units in a tile as it gives a supply of (almost) fresh defenders. Of course, these will take light damage if there has been two or three previous successful attacks, but should still be useful. If you however stack 10+ units there is almost no additional defense value of the extra units since each will be severely damaged by collateral damage by the time it is their turn to defend.

I guess being in a city/fort should limit the amount of collateral dealt, otherwise defending cities might become really hard. But it also should not be completely eliminated.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, okay, I was assuming that the collateral damage cap of 5 units would still apply, meaning the disadvantage would be effectively capped at 5 units. But so long as damage is still done to the same proportion of units on a tile, instead of a fixed number of units, then it would work. However, I think that this would take away from siege weapons, and make them more irrelevant in the game. It would be better, IMO, to change collateral damage to affect a proportional amount of units instead of a fixed amount, but to keep siege as the sole dispensers of collateral damage.

 

[Trias]

Well, okay, I was assuming that the collateral damage cap of 5 units would still apply, meaning the disadvantage would be effectively capped at 5 units. But so long as damage is still done to the same proportion of units on a tile, instead of a fixed number of units, then it would work. However, I think that this would take away from siege weapons, and make them more irrelevant in the game. It would be better, IMO, to change collateral damage to affect a proportional amount of units instead of a fixed amount, but to keep siege as the sole dispensers of collateral damage.

Of course, it takes away from siege weapons. (That is partly the point, the suicide catapults really need to go.) In return, siege weapons should regain the ability to bombard at range. This gives them the unique ability to deal damage from a distance, which would make them very valuable in the battle field. Past experiences (civ3) show that this makes them so valuable, it needs some kind of nerf. (i.e. a damage cap.)

(We don't want to replace the predominance of SoD with that of planes/siege.)

 

[Camikaze]

I'm working under the assumption that bombardment by siege will be reintroduced. I guess it would make siege weapons very powerful, but this could be countered by simply raising the production cost of them. As opposed to making them obsolete through giving their abilities to other units, which would be harder to rectify.

Now, if my idea of attaching siege units to other units to act as a sort of promotion to that unit (similarly to how Great Generals are attached) catches on, then your idea of all units providing collateral damage would probably be partially instituted automatically, with the units with siege attached having collateral damage abilities.