Jayman1000
Prince
- Joined
- May 6, 2006
- Messages
- 319
Stack of doom. That is all. 1UPT is infinately better than the alternative.
Because there exists only these two extremes right? Stacks of doom vs 1UPT. Nothing in between. Right.
Stack of doom. That is all. 1UPT is infinately better than the alternative.
I agree. I simply didn't find SoD to be fun. I'd be OK with a new system similar to the Total War series on auto-resolve, but the individual cycling through units and attacking the other big stack of units is far less fun than 1upt, which allows for far more creative play during war.Stack of doom. That is all. 1UPT is infinately better than the alternative.
Why can't we dislike posts on these forums? It's the natural complement to likes, and very necessary in a case such as this.
But that's precisely the thing. The game has limited stacking. It has combined arms (corps) as well as units being able to overlap.In my OP I did: limited stacking starting at 3 and then progressing to 6 as time goes on (and those numbers are just ballparks). Units would still act as individuals. No need to form corps or anything like that.
The problem is that Civ VI only has very, very limited stacking (so limited that I'm not sure it is really helpful at all), and the game still has no stacking for units of different nations, let alone civilian units stacking with other civilians..
Having to pay maintenance is not a 'punishment'. Things cost money to maintain, and distance makes this problem worse. It is a basic reality.
Besides, eventually cities became profitable, so it wasn't an issue.
Are you genuinely arguing that you were 'punished' for going wide in Civ IV?
Tall v. wide is a debate that maybe we never needed to have. If tall is an option then it is almost inherently a better option since it requires no risk and very little effort. Why get rid of one of the four Xs?
So, here's what I'm thinking. If we have unit stacking (say growing from 3 to 6 units per tile over the course of the game) then everyone will have to build far more units to hold choke-points, garrison cities, and have enough weight to launch an attack. This will mean having a larger manufacturing base will be a huge advantage, which is good: we need incentives for players and the AI to expand. More units should also mean deadlier combat, so the human has to keep building units in war (to say nothing of the need to build garrison forces as you advance and take new cities). As it currently sits it is easy to get through the entire game and only lose a tiny handful of units. This shouldn't be the case.
Who says you can't be creative if stacking is allowed? Sure, in Civ IV you can put everything in a stack and walk over an opponent, but you can also win the war faster with less units if you are more creative. The "just put everything in a stack" strategy mentioned by critics in this thread is actually a horribly inefficient way to wage war in Civ 4.I agree. I simply didn't find SoD to be fun. I'd be OK with a new system similar to the Total War series on auto-resolve, but the individual cycling through units and attacking the other big stack of units is far less fun than 1upt, which allows for far more creative play during war.
Huh? I don't get this at all. What do you mean "managed in exactly the same way every time"? There are so many different ways you can overcome maintenance costs in Civ IV. How many cities you can afford is totally up to the meaningful decisions you make as a player. The main constraint for the rate at which you can expand is your own skill level.That's not the point. Mechanically maintenance was purely negative - it existed for no purpose other than to set the rate of expansion to the level defined by the game design, not leaving it meaningfully within the player's control. A strategy game shouldn't tell you "the correct strategy is to spam cities across the map as fast as possible, but we're setting an arbitrary constraint on the rate at which you can do that which has to be managed in exactly the same way every time". It should present strategic alternatives.
I agree. I simply didn't find SoD to be fun. I'd be OK with a new system similar to the Total War series on auto-resolve, but the individual cycling through units and attacking the other big stack of units is far less fun than 1upt, which allows for far more creative play during war.
There was nothing wrong with stack warfare.
AI cant handle ANYTHING.
Get over it, you will never have a competitive AI(in any game, not just civ), if you want a though and balanced game... GO MULTIPLAYER.
And 1UPT is the best change ever, combat is so much better.
The "who says" would be me (based on Civ3 and Civ4). I'll agree on an absolute level, but on a comparative level, I don't think it's any comparison. The number of times I've had to cycle through units to find the best matchup is exhausting and on map tactics while filling some role, don't compare at all to the maneuvering of Civ5.Who says you can't be creative if stacking is allowed? Sure, in Civ IV you can put everything in a stack and walk over an opponent, but you can also win the war faster with less units if you are more creative. The "just put everything in a stack" strategy mentioned by critics in this thread is actually a horribly inefficient way to wage war in Civ 4.
City maintenance had a flaw that was common to too many Civ IV mechanics: it wasn't a strategic choice, it was a flat penalty. Civ IV had no real 'tall vs. wide' dichotomy of the type Civ V attempted: you had to expand. You just got punished for doing so. While the series has scaled back too far on punitive mechanics, they shouldn't exist purely to punish when there are no alternative ways to manage them, as it makes the correct gameplay too binary and too obvious; 'expand or don't expand', 'manage health at point X or else'. It was really no different from Civ I-III's corruption mechanic in this regard. Civ V's much-maligned global happiness had the right idea as a mechanic that offered more varied ways to manage expansion and the game better-rewarded taller play, but it notoriously went too far in the latter direction and the former was never particularly well-executed. I haven't yet played enough Civ VI to know whether it would benefit from a way to constrain expansion, but if so it needs to adopt a different system from Civ IV.