Instead of 1UPT (one unit per tile) why not just make armies?

[12agnar0k]

@Dunkah, while I do not disagree that the idea of stacks can be fun or strategic, limited stacks do offer a problem that has been raised before. Which is that if 2UpT is the limit, then anything less than 2 units on a tile is not a "full unit". This is a valid arguement against limited stacking that does not exist really with Unlimited i.e Stacks of Doom. So basically the argument is having for example 4UpT does not add anything to game play as it is still 1UpT but each unit only compromises .25 of a unit. So having 3 units in 4UpT is just like having a damaged 1 unit.

Though the idea's of Forts where you can stack more than one unit to make a "hard defended area" is appealing to a defender, it really isnt to an attacker. And I believe it would cause unblance in a game and turn fluid battle lines where units make all the difference to a completely different result where you and your enemy will be lining up Forts on your borders for maximum defensive advantage, and this line will simply hold with niether side breaching it unless one side IS A LOT more powerful.

So while perhaps good in theory, and sounds like it would be fun, I do not believe the end result will be so.

 

[RickInVA]

BTW, do you think an "automated" SOD would make the game more fun, because it is historically correct?

What I liked about SOD:

1) Accurately represented the concentrated combat of the world in the pre WWI era.
2) Required you to attack with considerably more units than the defender (especially if they were in a city), or be technologically very superior. It seems to me (and if I am incorrectly summarizing someone's position I apologize) that having to outnumber the defenders is undesirable to some people. Yet from my research, the military maxim that the attackers need 3 to 1 superiority to have a good chance at victory is a very old one and should be represented in the game.
3) Well represented the ability of larger and more productive civilizations to "out produce" smaller ones. Some may dislike this, but the side that can put the most forces in the field generally wins.
4) Kept the combat at a strategic level. You don't select which goods will be in the marketplace, you don't write the service for the priest in the temple, etc. Combat should be at a high level as well. Attack Rome, Defend Paris.

I honestly don't know why people didn't like SOD.

One thing I hear is a desire to move combat "out of the cities". Well, for thousands of years cities built walls. If there was not combat at the cities why did they do that? The game has a Castle improvement, again, why did nations build castles? To help defend cities or other strategic points. I would like to be able to build castles on the map too, but thats a different idea. Even in WWI and WWII countries made cities objectives and their opponents defended them. Stalingrad anyone?

A reasonable argument against small stacks is that having less than the "max" stack is undesireable. I reply that many things are undesirable, but they happen all the same. If there were 3upt and the defender does not have enough to make "full stacks" to defend his border at least he can create a delaying action with those he has. If there is a front of 5 hexes and the defender has 5 units to defend with 1 upt, or 15 with 3 upt it won't make much difference to the ultimate outcome if the attacker has 20/60 units. But 15 units could defend 5 across and 3 deep, thus slowing the attacker down more. That would seem to me to be more tactical than just having everyone "on the line".

I understand that a lot of folks are eagerly awaiting 1upt, and I have read their arguments. I agree that they are entitled to their likes/dislikes and opinions, but I don't agree with the conclusions they draw. Although some may like it, I very much doubt that the great "tactical" experience that so many are loking for will emerge, and what will be left is a system requiring much more micro-management for basically the same result.

 

[Peng Qi]

What I liked about SOD:

1) Accurately represented the concentrated combat of the world in the pre WWI era.

Because in the real world in combat, every time you ever attacked, you would only engage with a single unit, and your opponent would always send out the unit that was the exact best counter to your unit. This is why attackers always lost in real life; because they had to send wave after wave of fodder troops against their opponents before their units would have any hope of winning. Also, every attack on a city in history eventually turned into an assault, and sieges never happened.

2) Required you to attack with considerably more units than the defender (especially if they were in a city), or be technologically very superior. It seems to me (and if I am incorrectly summarizing someone's position I apologize) that having to outnumber the defenders is undesirable to some people. Yet from my research, the military maxim that the attackers need 3 to 1 superiority to have a good chance at victory is a very old one and should be represented in the game.

You're operating under the assumption that this isn't true in CiV for some reason.

3) Well represented the ability of larger and more productive civilizations to "out produce" smaller ones. Some may dislike this, but the side that can put the most forces in the field generally wins.

Again, you're assuming for no reason that this isn't true in CiV.

4) Kept the combat at a strategic level. You don't select which goods will be in the marketplace, you don't write the service for the priest in the temple, etc. Combat should be at a high level as well. Attack Rome, Defend Paris.

And you don't think that having a huge macro scale "tactical" battle is still actually being played at the macrostrategy level? It's just being abstractly represented as the tactical level in-game because the tactical level actually involves, you know, tactics, where as SoD only involves composition.

One thing I hear is a desire to move combat "out of the cities". Well, for thousands of years cities built walls. If there was not combat at the cities why did they do that? The game has a Castle improvement, again, why did nations build castles? To help defend cities or other strategic points. I would like to be able to build castles on the map too, but thats a different idea. Even in WWI and WWII countries made cities objectives and their opponents defended them. Stalingrad anyone?

For someone who claims to have studied history, you certainly don't seem to know a lot about military history. Name as many famous city assaults as you can other than Constantinople that occurred before World War I. Now name as many field battles as you can that occurred before WWI. I'd be willing to bet that the second list was much, much, much, much longer. That's because city assaults were incredibly rare. The walls of cities were built so that the city would need to be laid siege to. The reason it was important to force one's opponent into a siege was to buy time until your nation could levy armies and meet the enemy in the field.

A reasonable argument against small stacks is that having less than the "max" stack is undesireable. I reply that many things are undesirable, but they happen all the same. If there were 3upt and the defender does not have enough to make "full stacks" to defend his border at least he can create a delaying action with those he has. If there is a front of 5 hexes and the defender has 5 units to defend with 1 upt, or 15 with 3 upt it won't make much difference to the ultimate outcome if the attacker has 20/60 units. But 15 units could defend 5 across and 3 deep, thus slowing the attacker down more. That would seem to me to be more tactical than just having everyone "on the line".

What "delaying action?" In Civ games, when you lose a fight, you lose the tile. This may have changed, but if it hasn't there's no way you could ever "delay" an opponent who had 3UPT with 1UPT armies; you'd just die.

 

[RickInVA]

Peng Qi,

I was saying what I liked about the Civ 4 way of doing things and that change is not always an improvement. I don't see what you hoped to accomplish by trying to rebut my likes and dislikes, but I'm happy to reply.

#1 In the end it is a game and there will be some lack of reality in all things. Still, how will 1upt be better? Everything I have read (obviously incomplete as the game is not out) indicates that units move one at a time. Adding this to the few combat screen shots leads me to believe that you will still have to attack one unit at a time, so what is the difference? I will admit to one difference, ranged units will have an additional impact in 1upt the way it seems it will be implemented. This same advantage could have been implimented with SOD by making ranged units be able to make a ranged attack that didn't put them at risk. I would have prefered that myself.

#2 No, I am not. Did I say that "as different from Civ V..."? No I did not. It is true that some posters have suggested by their arguments that they dislike not being able to have a reasonably likely victory 1 to 1, hence my comments. As the game is not out neither you nor I know what the combat will ultimately look like, therefore I restricted myself to pointing out what I liked about the current system.

#3 See #2 above.

#4 I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I'm saying that it fits the strategic level of the game to move a big stack to "Attack Rome" or to "Defend Paris" in a way that I enjoy. To further discuss your tactical view...I think you would agree that tactics requires a couple of elements to be "tactics". 1) That you have a reasonable number (and generally variety) of units. One vs. one combat is not tactics, would you agree? 2) Likewise fighting in a confined space is less likely to have tactics play a large role. To have a tactical battle requires numbers and space. While I may be wrong, what I read about Civ 5 makes me feel that neither of these items will generally be the case. I read constantly that there will be considerably fewer units. All the screenshots show areas maybe 5 hexes wide as combat corridors. These two do not easily combine into tactics as much as attrition and ye olde slugfest.

#5 Again, Civ is a game. For much of it a turn represents many years. Sufficiently long for the city "attack" to represent the laying of the siege and the combat with the relieving force. You also leave out one of the largest reasons that attackers laid siege to cities, which was to draw out the opposing army so that they could defeat it in battle. Given the scale of a Civ tile a city "assult" could represent all this and more. Supporters of the 1upt envisioned for Civ 5 expect me to have no trouble accepting that the strategic and the tactical map are the same thing. That having my Roman Legions spread out across Europe only "represents" the tactical situation, not that they are really all over the place. Yet those same people with their "willing suspension of disbelief" regarding areas of thousands of miles are bound and determined that "attacking a city" represents nothing but units assulting the walls with scaling ladders and siege towers! No "suspension of disbelief" allowed there that it could only "represent" something else.

Also I am not sure what I said that you found offensive enough to say that "you certainly don't seem to know a lot about military history". You may well be a professor of Ancient Military History (which I am not) but still, such ad hominum attacks don't serve much useful purpose in a discussion, do they?

#6 It seems to me that if I, the defender, can throw enough units in the way of the attacker such that he cannot get to my cities for a few extra turns that I have conducted a successful delaying action. If I have more units I can do this better.

Perhaps you would like to let me know why you like 1upt and how it more properly models combat of all eras? If you could present arguments that don't focus on the more "tactical" nature of it, but on how it is superior in other ways I would be happy to read it.

 

[tom2050]

IMO, limited stacks brings more 'tactics and strategy' to the table over 1upt if done correctly.

Limited Stacks being limited to:
*only significantly different units can be in the same tile.

Significantly different units would be:
Ranged unit, Melee, Mounted, etc... (just an example here, it could be anything they choose)

Therefore, with this in mind, a stack with only 1 type of unit is not 'missing out'. The 1upt strategies of flanking and ranged would all still work, but more strategies could come into play. Ranged units may not be wanted up in the front lines because they are vulnerable. Not always a good strategy, but possible. Mounted units up front won't get the flank bonus, but it's possible (in case the line is broken, they can rush through).

I don't see in any way how having limited stacks could possibly not be better than 1upt... but only if done correctly. And I suppose that is the real debate right there. Limited stacks would also be a good way to 'test the waters' with the idea before plunging into something that is a major change from how civ has always been.

Cities can be kept the same way... only 1 unit can help out a city. Units would still be brought out of cities to defend their territory. No big change here.

 

[Schuesseled]

What "delaying action?" In Civ games, when you lose a fight, you lose the tile. This may have changed, but if it hasn't there's no way you could ever "delay" an opponent who had 3UPT with 1UPT armies; you'd just die.

Well if the combat took multiple attacks it might delay it a little. Although if they die in one attack then yes, same amount of time to kill and move forward than to just move.

 

[Schuesseled]

Peng Qi,

I was saying what I liked about the Civ 4 way of doing things and that change is not always an improvement. I don't see what you hoped to accomplish by trying to rebut my likes and dislikes, but I'm happy to reply.

#1 In the end it is a game and there will be some lack of reality in all things. Still, how will 1upt be better? Everything I have read (obviously incomplete as the game is not out) indicates that units move one at a time. Adding this to the few combat screen shots leads me to believe that you will still have to attack one unit at a time, so what is the difference? I will admit to one difference, ranged units will have an additional impact in 1upt the way it seems it will be implemented. This same advantage could have been implimented with SOD by making ranged units be able to make a ranged attack that didn't put them at risk. I would have prefered that myself.

#2 No, I am not. Did I say that "as different from Civ V..."? No I did not. It is true that some posters have suggested by their arguments that they dislike not being able to have a reasonably likely victory 1 to 1, hence my comments. As the game is not out neither you nor I know what the combat will ultimately look like, therefore I restricted myself to pointing out what I liked about the current system.

#3 See #2 above.

#4 I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. I'm saying that it fits the strategic level of the game to move a big stack to "Attack Rome" or to "Defend Paris" in a way that I enjoy. To further discuss your tactical view...I think you would agree that tactics requires a couple of elements to be "tactics". 1) That you have a reasonable number (and generally variety) of units. One vs. one combat is not tactics, would you agree? 2) Likewise fighting in a confined space is less likely to have tactics play a large role. To have a tactical battle requires numbers and space. While I may be wrong, what I read about Civ 5 makes me feel that neither of these items will generally be the case. I read constantly that there will be considerably fewer units. All the screenshots show areas maybe 5 hexes wide as combat corridors. These two do not easily combine into tactics as much as attrition and ye olde slugfest.

#5 Again, Civ is a game. For much of it a turn represents many years. Sufficiently long for the city "attack" to represent the laying of the siege and the combat with the relieving force. You also leave out one of the largest reasons that attackers laid siege to cities, which was to draw out the opposing army so that they could defeat it in battle. Given the scale of a Civ tile a city "assult" could represent all this and more. Supporters of the 1upt envisioned for Civ 5 expect me to have no trouble accepting that the strategic and the tactical map are the same thing. That having my Roman Legions spread out across Europe only "represents" the tactical situation, not that they are really all over the place. Yet those same people with their "willing suspension of disbelief" regarding areas of thousands of miles are bound and determined that "attacking a city" represents nothing but units assulting the walls with scaling ladders and siege towers! No "suspension of disbelief" allowed there that it could only "represent" something else.

Also I am not sure what I said that you found offensive enough to say that "you certainly don't seem to know a lot about military history". You may well be a professor of Ancient Military History (which I am not) but still, such ad hominum attacks don't serve much useful purpose in a discussion, do they?

#6 It seems to me that if I, the defender, can throw enough units in the way of the attacker such that he cannot get to my cities for a few extra turns that I have conducted a successful delaying action. If I have more units I can do this better.

Perhaps you would like to let me know why you like 1upt and how it more properly models combat of all eras? If you could present arguments that don't focus on the more "tactical" nature of it, but on how it is superior in other ways I would be happy to read it.

I can give you an example of how 1upt works better as a combat model.

Yes armies are condensed, (but tiles don't have to be considered as very far apart), but they also are large and a line of troops can stretch out accross multiple terrains. The archers on the hills at the left, the swordsman stretching out accross those plains, the pikeman take up defnsive position on the grassland in front of the trebuchets, a few elite longswordsman flood into the forest to flank the enemy, further flanking is done on the other side of battle by a battalion of knights on the verge of desert in the west.

^ Can a SoD system provide taht sort of realism, no it cannot, in SoD, they all are on one type of terrain.

 

[dpdlc]

If you look at operational level games they handle multiple units per tile very simply. Its always the top unit in the stack that defends and gets hit.

In Civ IV you always have to fight the best counter and wear every unit down before, being able to kill units. Having units in a stack is very defensive being able to have a combined arms defense.

In a 1upt stack game its obvious that the top unit always gets hit. In previous games it has always been the best defender taking the hit. If you want to have a 2-3 upt you will need to make it so that the top unit always takes the hit, allowing for attrition.

 

[Dunkah]

@Dunkah, while I do not disagree that the idea of stacks can be fun or strategic, limited stacks do offer a problem that has been raised before. Which is that if 2UpT is the limit, then anything less than 2 units on a tile is not a "full unit". This is a valid arguement against limited stacking that does not exist really with Unlimited i.e Stacks of Doom. So basically the argument is having for example 4UpT does not add anything to game play as it is still 1UpT but each unit only compromises .25 of a unit. So having 3 units in 4UpT is just like having a damaged 1 unit.

Though the idea's of Forts where you can stack more than one unit to make a "hard defended area" is appealing to a defender, it really isnt to an attacker. And I believe it would cause unblance in a game and turn fluid battle lines where units make all the difference to a completely different result where you and your enemy will be lining up Forts on your borders for maximum defensive advantage, and this line will simply hold with niether side breaching it unless one side IS A LOT more powerful.

So while perhaps good in theory, and sounds like it would be fun, I do not believe the end result will be so.

OK I get the fact that you could represent a 4upt with 3 units as a 1upt at 75%. But that is not the point. I am not talking about having one super archer, or one super swordsman I’m talking about an entity like armies in CivIII that are formed and sent out to smash through a line. It’s a deliberate consolidation of forces above and beyond the normal rules. It’s the ability to mix and match units within this entity to form a true combined arms approach to whatever obstacle you are going after.

Lining your borders with forts is currently an option. Why doesn’t anyone use it? Because you can’t have that many forts on your border and still have a viable economy in those cities because too many of your tiles are not being farmed. Also manning all those forts would be difficult with limited forces. Also if you have a blitzkrieg entity that could contain 3 – 4 units it would be able to smash through at least one of the forts opening a hole in the lines forcing the defender to abandon the line to stop the enemy from infiltrating into your lands.