I hate Stacks of units

[Gelvan]

In Civ 1 units had a strength and a defense, wood gave +50%, hills +100%, walls +200% defense. This was simple, and you could go with a chariot and conquer the world - this was unrealistic (someone argued, that it's not completely logical if your newly built battleship is killed by a spearman), so it was changed in Civ 2, they had health points and they had fire rate, which was great for modding some wizards and dragons, but still the poor battleship was killed by a spearman, and so in civ 3 completely new rules were made, the AI had to cope this and what's that? stacks of 25 units appeared on my hills and my spearman where killed in a looooooooooooong fight. I then restarted Test of Time and let Civ 3 disappear.
In Civ 4 I started with the second difficulty level, because everything was new and so my enemy only built one or two axeman and everything was fine.
Then I tried a higher difficulty level and omg AGAIN stacks of 20 units because it is just not possible to win any battle against a city without an army, better two.
This may be realistic if you look a WW1 - but it's not FUN. I don't play civ to let ALL my cities only build unit after unit so that I have a rate of 20 to 5, when attacking this barbarian civ with my pretorians.

Do you like this? I hate it. I don't want an "Empire" Game, if I want this I play it. I want a civ game, where economics are more important than the number of axeman you can possibly build in a given time. I think Civ 1 was not as logical, but the AI was also not as eager to build itself 30 units for 1 city.

 

[Yzman]

I do like stacks of units...but I don't like huge stacks. I believed combined arms should win, not numbers.

 

[FuRRie]

And combined arms do win battles ...
New players build 30 Maceman and manage to kill an enemy and have 15 Maceman left.
A decent player Builds 10 Maceman / 5 knight / 10 Catapults / 5 Pikes (just a random spread) and wins with losing 2 Maceman and 3 Ctapults...
You do the math.

 

[Jops]

I tend to agree with the first poster. Each unit represents a division or an army already, so there's no need to stack units together into an army of armies. Civ 1 had this better than any of the sequels.

 

[Aurelius321]

Yeah bit in Civ1 my three tanks could feasibly get fended off by a few musketmen on a hill. However, if realism is what your looking for remember that Rome, Persia, WWI and II, and now China has armies of ridiculous proportions... Just to name a few.

 

[Tee Kay]

Attacking cities without siege weapons = suicide.

In Civ4 combat is all about combined arms. You need to know your enemy's strength and weaknesses eg if they have a lot of chariots then build a lot spearsman to counter them. If you encounter a city with heaps of archers then lay siege to it.

 

[RedRalph]

I have to say I agree. I'm constantly lobbying for a military slider so you can build units of various strengths, I dont mean say a maceman as opposed to a swordsman, but say one country has its military slider on 20% that will produce a better unit than a country that has its slider on 10%.

thats how it works in real life. Otherwise China, North Korea and Iran would be by far the preeminent nations

 

[BlastDuke]

I want a civ game, where economics are more important than the number of axeman you can possibly build in a given time. I think Civ 1 was not as logical, but the AI was also not as eager to build itself 30 units for 1 city.

IIRC the Civ1 stack rule was different: The best defensive unit in the stack was the defender and if it lost the whole stack was destroyed. So it was very risky to move stacks close to enemy troops.
The civ1 rule has the disadvantage of being unrealistic (why lose X units when only 1 unit actually has lost a battle and the X others didn't get the chance to fight) but its change resulted it the stack-mania of civ3 and civ4.
Civ4 introduced the collateral damage system to counter stacks - which is a big improvement over civ3 IMHO. Maybe stacks should be limited in size (increased size with GG in stack) or should cause increased unit costs (unrealistic, too?!) to make stacks a little bit less attractive. An other idea would be some kind of bonus for combined-arms-stacks (big discussion topic for game designers)...
just my 2 cents

 

[Roland Johansen]

If empires of 10 cities each meet, then I don't want the battle be decided by a few battles between a few units. That would make the outcome of the battle of these empires far too random. A few bad or good rolls of the dice would determine which empire would win. That's why I like the fact that armies consist of many units.

However, the game should also be easily manageable and the combat part should not be totally dominant and time consuming. So I would like to see a form of combat where stacks of units fight together. You see a mini screen where the catapults of both sides fire, then the archers fire and then the melee units meet eachother in the centre. A battle ensues and after a time one of the melee lines break and the archers and catapults of the losing team are destroyed by the melee units of the victorious team. After some graphic representation of such a combat (10-15 seconds at most if large armies meet, visual representation can be switched off), the winner of the battle is decided. The weaker side is destroyed (maybe some survivors) and the stronger army also suffered some losses.

This way, battles between large number of troops can be managed easily and quickly, creating a quick combat system with plenty of realism and enough units to make combat not have a very random result.

 

[Arlborn]

If empires of 10 cities each meet, then I don't want the battle be decided by a few battles between a few units. That would make the outcome of the battle of these empires far too random. A few bad or good rolls of the dice would determine which empire would win. That's why I like the fact that armies consist of many units.

However, the game should also be easily manageable and the combat part should not be totally dominant and time consuming. So I would like to see a form of combat where stacks of units fight together. You see a mini screen where the catapults of both sides fire, then the archers fire and then the melee units meet eachother in the centre. A battle ensues and after a time one of the melee lines break and the archers and catapults of the losing team are destroyed by the melee units of the victorious team. After some graphic representation of such a combat (10-15 seconds at most if large armies meet, visual representation can be switched off), the winner of the battle is decided. The weaker side is destroyed (maybe some survivors) and the stronger army also suffered some losses.

This way, battles between large number of troops can be managed easily and quickly, creating a quick combat system with plenty of realism and enough units to make combat not have a very random result.

That would take as long...
Quick Battle option for you..
Anyway it is nice, the CIV4 system.
To be more realistic, it could be the system of CIV:CTP, as probably the quoted replier said he wanted, but ah well, CTP had this system and wasn't near the sucess of the original CIV series..

 

[Napo981]

If empires of 10 cities each meet, then I don't want the battle be decided by a few battles between a few units. That would make the outcome of the battle of these empires far too random. A few bad or good rolls of the dice would determine which empire would win. That's why I like the fact that armies consist of many units.

However, the game should also be easily manageable and the combat part should not be totally dominant and time consuming. So I would like to see a form of combat where stacks of units fight together. You see a mini screen where the catapults of both sides fire, then the archers fire and then the melee units meet eachother in the centre. A battle ensues and after a time one of the melee lines break and the archers and catapults of the losing team are destroyed by the melee units of the victorious team. After some graphic representation of such a combat (10-15 seconds at most if large armies meet, visual representation can be switched off), the winner of the battle is decided. The weaker side is destroyed (maybe some survivors) and the stronger army also suffered some losses.

This way, battles between large number of troops can be managed easily and quickly, creating a quick combat system with plenty of realism and enough units to make combat not have a very random result.

Yeah... that's what I'm pushing for!!

 

[scorth]

If empires of 10 cities each meet, then I don't want the battle be decided by a few battles between a few units. That would make the outcome of the battle of these empires far too random. A few bad or good rolls of the dice would determine which empire would win. That's why I like the fact that armies consist of many units.

However, the game should also be easily manageable and the combat part should not be totally dominant and time consuming. So I would like to see a form of combat where stacks of units fight together. You see a mini screen where the catapults of both sides fire, then the archers fire and then the melee units meet eachother in the centre. A battle ensues and after a time one of the melee lines break and the archers and catapults of the losing team are destroyed by the melee units of the victorious team. After some graphic representation of such a combat (10-15 seconds at most if large armies meet, visual representation can be switched off), the winner of the battle is decided. The weaker side is destroyed (maybe some survivors) and the stronger army also suffered some losses.

This way, battles between large number of troops can be managed easily and quickly, creating a quick combat system with plenty of realism and enough units to make combat not have a very random result.

This makes sense to me!

 

[Powerslave]

I voted "no". Sometimes, when a very large AI declares war on me, I start a new game, but not because I think I will lose the game; rather, it's because I don't want to waste two hours moving units around on the map. Sometimes I go back to those huge war games and kick ass. It quite depends on my mood.

In real life, massive numbers of troops in a single spot call way too much attention to themselves, suffer huge losses when bombarded, and can't all fit in a narrow tunnel through a mountain. It's ridiculous to expect hundreds of tanks, in formation, to effortlessly drive down country roads. Oh well.

 

[Vehem]

If empires of 10 cities each meet, then I don't want the battle be decided by a few battles between a few units. That would make the outcome of the battle of these empires far too random. A few bad or good rolls of the dice would determine which empire would win. That's why I like the fact that armies consist of many units.

However, the game should also be easily manageable and the combat part should not be totally dominant and time consuming. So I would like to see a form of combat where stacks of units fight together. You see a mini screen where the catapults of both sides fire, then the archers fire and then the melee units meet eachother in the centre. A battle ensues and after a time one of the melee lines break and the archers and catapults of the losing team are destroyed by the melee units of the victorious team. After some graphic representation of such a combat (10-15 seconds at most if large armies meet, visual representation can be switched off), the winner of the battle is decided. The weaker side is destroyed (maybe some survivors) and the stronger army also suffered some losses.

This way, battles between large number of troops can be managed easily and quickly, creating a quick combat system with plenty of realism and enough units to make combat not have a very random result.

Dale's Combat Mod does something similar to this, except without the mini-screen, but incorporating air support and similar. I don't think there's a BtS version yet - but it's worth looking at if this issue is really spoiling your game so much (and definitely worth a look even if not).

 

[jray]

If empires of 10 cities each meet, then I don't want the battle be decided by a few battles between a few units. That would make the outcome of the battle of these empires far too random. A few bad or good rolls of the dice would determine which empire would win. That's why I like the fact that armies consist of many units.

However, the game should also be easily manageable and the combat part should not be totally dominant and time consuming. So I would like to see a form of combat where stacks of units fight together. You see a mini screen where the catapults of both sides fire, then the archers fire and then the melee units meet eachother in the centre. A battle ensues and after a time one of the melee lines break and the archers and catapults of the losing team are destroyed by the melee units of the victorious team. After some graphic representation of such a combat (10-15 seconds at most if large armies meet, visual representation can be switched off), the winner of the battle is decided. The weaker side is destroyed (maybe some survivors) and the stronger army also suffered some losses.

This way, battles between large number of troops can be managed easily and quickly, creating a quick combat system with plenty of realism and enough units to make combat not have a very random result.

Neat idea! And how about a "Hold Your Fire" button for the attacker that can be pressed at any time, to halt the invasion.

 

[Evil Twin]

I think Alpha Centauri had it right. Sure it had hitpoints and morale/strength like Civ IV, but it was just better. No stupidly huge stacks of anything (well except mind worms/locusts, but they're SUPPOSED to be swarms).
Honestly I groan each time in Civ IV when every half assed empire sends a mega-stack at me and I can either counter stack him or lose. Strategy doesn't come into it.

 

[mnf]

Two ideas:

1) To make small stack combat more interesting, how about just make combat a fixed number of rounds instead of to-the-death? Then rack up military maintenance so that the majority of battles will be fought with say ten or so units.

Having less units takes out the tedious management, and raises each unit's strategic importance. You will be building a division of Axemen instead of a "stack" of Axemen. Say an Axeman represents a whole division of 1000 men, it will be able to fight until it is at 10% strength at which point it will be forced to either merge into another Axeman division to increase its strength, or it cannot attack anymore and must sneak its way back to a friendly city for "healing". And no "healing" in enemy nor neutral lands, only merging divisions of the same type.

This will bring a "support line" into consideration for your wars. You need fresh divisions to swap out/reinforce your front troops. Lone troops will wear down and be destroyed if you don't reinforce. A destroyed unit will cause some unhappiness in one of your cities for some turn.

2) To eliminate huge stacks: Huge stacks will never vanish with the current model, though. As long as your economy can support it, you will want to bring huge stacks. There's strength in numbers. That's just how it is going to be.

But you can eliminate stacks if you put in a stacking penalty. For example Hearts of Iron II puts a "over-command" penalty if you assign too many divisions to the same commander.

So say on land, for each unit over the tenth in the same tile, all units in that tile will suffer a "logistic penalty" of -10% strength. This means having a stack of 20 units will null your strength to zero.

Just some random thoughts.

 

[Aurelius321]

Two ideas:

1) To make small stack combat more interesting, how about just make combat a fixed number of rounds instead of to-the-death? Then rack up military maintenance so that the majority of battles will be fought with say ten or so units.

Having less units takes out the tedious management, and raises each unit's strategic importance. You will be building a division of Axemen instead of a "stack" of Axemen. Say an Axeman represents a whole division of 1000 men, it will be able to fight until it is at 10% strength at which point it will be forced to either merge into another Axeman division to increase its strength, or it cannot attack anymore and must sneak its way back to a friendly city for "healing". And no "healing" in enemy nor neutral lands, only merging divisions of the same type.

This will bring a "support line" into consideration for your wars. You need fresh divisions to swap out/reinforce your front troops. Lone troops will wear down and be destroyed if you don't reinforce. A destroyed unit will cause some unhappiness in one of your cities for some turn.

2) To eliminate huge stacks: Huge stacks will never vanish with the current model, though. As long as your economy can support it, you will want to bring huge stacks. There's strength in numbers. That's just how it is going to be.

But you can eliminate stacks if you put in a stacking penalty. For example Hearts of Iron II puts a "over-command" penalty if you assign too many divisions to the same commander.

So say on land, for each unit over the tenth in the same tile, all units in that tile will suffer a "logistic penalty" of -10% strength. This means having a stack of 20 units will null your strength to zero.

Just some random thoughts.

So instead of one stack of one hundred units coming at you there will be ten stacks of ten units coming at you.

People are the lowest common denominator. Unless you put a unit CAP on a Civ (RTS Style, with only 40 units possible for whole empire) people will find a way to bring massive amounts of units. And you know what? They're right. I like games with a balance of peace and war... But if I'm in multiplayer if I don't have a good offensive/defensive force you can bet there will be someone who will bear down on me with twenty stacks of ten units a piece.

 

[RomanHoliday]

The stack is its own worst enemy. Collateral damage weakens everyone across the board. Just keep disposable cannons in your cities.

 

[mnf]

So instead of one stack of one hundred units coming at you there will be ten stacks of ten units coming at you.

Good point. So to stop stacks one has to work on the production side. Hmmmmm. But we do want people to have huge armies. Huge empire needs huge armies. Looks like maintenance is the way to go.