Limiting Exploration

[BuchiTaton]

At least in EU4 attrition turn into a lesser worry if you have a decent manpower limit and reinforcement speed. AIs usually only stack their armies massively when they are just next go into a battle, still is a meme how pretty big armies could be seen crossing whole Eurasia or shipped to America something that pretty much show the difficulty to balance supply vs attrition mechanics.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Yes, obviously that part makes sense. But if the soldiers in one area can't fit... Then surely... They just wouldn't. You know what I mean?
The game should just refuse to let you stack them rather let you stack them and have them die.
That's what doesn't make sense to me

 

[Evie]

You're assuming the soldiers *know* how many of them can fit in an area.

Contagion principles were only discovered well in the nineteenth century. And even the mechanisms of logistic and required supplies were not very well known, certainly not to the common soldier, until very recently. Arguably, they still aren't.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The concept that armies need to be fed, and usually fed from Somewhere Else is pretty old: Xerxes used his fleet to supply his army in the invasion of Greece, and as a result the army stayed pretty close to the shoreline until after Salamis when the bulk of the army and the remnants of the fleet sailed home and left the rump of the army to be cut to pieces at Plataea the following year. Very soon after, Phillip and Alexander used trains of pack animals to feed/supply the Macedonian forces, covered by a book published many decades ago called Logistics of the Macedonian Army. And, of course, one of the main purposes of the Roman roads was not so much to move troops more rapidly, but to move the pack animals (every Roman conturba, or 8-man squad, had a pack mule with it) that fed and supplied it.
Tang (and probably earlier) Dynasty Chinese armies averaged 3 - 7 men/women carrying supplies for every 1 man as a combat soldier, and even then campaigning in the wilds of central Asia/northern Mongolia resulted in some ghastly supply disasters.

All of which means a supply/attrition/limitation on armies can legitimately be implemented from at least the Classical Era and probably earlier (people haven't changed in their physical caloric requirements that much since the Paleolithic and earlier, so there's no reason to assume armies needed any less food/day/warrior at any time in the game)

It just comes down to the question:

What is the easiest, most transparent, least micromanagemental way to do it?

 

[Patine]

Yes, obviously that part makes sense. But if the soldiers in one area can't fit... Then surely... They just wouldn't. You know what I mean?

Given Civ is played on a global-scale map, this seems lika an unusual concern.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Given Civ is played on a global-scale map, this seems lika an unusual concern.

Not that they wouldn't physically fit.
Let's say they could.
But you couldn't support them (the way Evie describes)
Then why would the game let you do that instead of just forcing you not to stack that many specifically?

I'm trying to imagine something like what happens when you have no resources (out of oil for your units)

So maybe it says OVERCROWDING if you have 3 Riflemen on one tile, and then one of them takes attrition damage.

I guess it makes sense but I'm not a fan for a reason I can't pinpoint (unhelpful I know)

Maybe the first thing people would probably start saying is, why are my stacks dying if you don't want me to stack why don't you just put a limit?

 

[GeneralZIft]

Also logistics can't support 3x soldiers in one tile but they can support 3x soldiers across 3 tiles? How does that work?

 

[civac]

Throughput of roads, canals + less demand because there is more locally available on 3 tiles than on one. Probably even more important is that 3 tiles have more adjacent areas that can support troops there so the average supply distance is shorter.

 

[Patine]

Not that they wouldn't physically fit.
Let's say they could.
But you couldn't support them (the way Evie describes)
Then why would the game let you do that instead of just forcing you not to stack that many specifically?

I'm trying to imagine something like what happens when you have no resources (out of oil for your units)

Armies relying on foraging and pillaging are only a thing early in the game. Besides, it's obvious the scope of a global-scale map, and the size a single tile would be, is still underappreciated.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Armies relying on foraging and pillaging are only a thing early in the game. Besides, it's obvious the scope of a global-scale map, and the size a single tile would be, is still underappreciated.

Depending, again, on how detailed a supply/attrition/logistics system we want - and I will always vote for KISS rule in this - foraging/pillaging/"requisitioning" were still attempted right up to the early Atomic Era in Civ VI terms. The plan for the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 called for NO rations to be sent from Germany: the entire 3.4 million-man army in trhe east was to be fed by foraging. That plan collapsed as soon as they crossed the border, basically, but it shows that, if nothing else, Old Habits Die Hard.

Also, of course, by then the great majority of the Supply consisted of ammunition and fuel, not food or fodder (the German Army entered the USSR with about 600,000 vehicles, but also with over 700,000 horses: fodder for them was NOT a minor issue) and you could not expect to find that lying around waiting for you to come along and pick it up*.

For simplicity's sake, I suggest that at most the massive increase in supply requirements once you have modern Artillery, Tanks, and motorized vehicles could be shown by simple volume/amount/tonnage compared to the simpler times of Food Only or only food and bullets for muskets without going into the details of X tons of fuel, X tons of food, X pairs of spare boots, etc. Save the detailed production and supply chains for Anno 1800 and its ilk, leave Civ to Grand Strategy and a simple dichotomy of In Supply, Not In Supply and be satisfied with that . . .

* For an example of the kind of detail no Civ game needs, Soviet gasoline in 1941 was all 80 octane or lower: it would not burn properly in German engines without modification, so even gasoline tanks captured full of fuel were not immediately useable by German front-line units.

 

[pokiehl]

With attrition, the more abstract the better I think. The last thing I want is another unit type to micromanage.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That's probably me who is autistic but I really struggle with the idea to make of it a hard limit. That feels very "board gamey" to me, forcing the player to play in a certain way without telling him why. For the same purpose, I would rather go with a soft limit represented by attrition, meaning that after a certain threshold (maybe indeed 2 in the early game), then the extra-stacked unit starts losing HP at each turn, therefore making them useless in combat. To me it leads to the same result but in giving an easy to understand reason for the player to accept it.

I mean my idea was based off of the idea that there already is a limit in Civ 6, which are Corps and Armies, at least in terms of how many units and not what types.
What units I based off of history. For example, phalanx formations were primarily the combination of infantry and cavalry (well at least the Macedonian phalanx) which is where I got my idea from. Same with PIke and Shot combining melee (Musketmen) and Anticavalry (Pikemen).

 

[Patine]

To be honest and frank, I really don't see the big deal against stacking, and why so much contrivance, and ignoring the scope and scale of the game, and hyperbolic terms like, "stack o' doom," and such. The sentiment absolutes baffles me.

 

[Arcaian]

To be honest and frank, I really don't see the big deal against stacking, and why so much contrivance, and ignoring the scope and scale of the game, and hyperbolic terms like, "stack o' doom," and such. The sentiment absolutes baffles me.

From my perspective:

1. The tactical combat is an enjoyable part of the games to me; positioning my archers on a hill for extra range while melee units hold a chokepoint is fun, and the more you can stack the less I get to participate in that part of the game
2. The tactical combat makes the environment much more relevant in combat scenarios, and that adds an interesting dimension in choosing where to engage in fights. I enjoy the situation where you have a nice chokepoint, you build an Encampment to defend it, and choose not to expand into territory beyond it because it is substantially less defensible.
3. I grew bored of world conquests some time around Civ 4, and haven't really engaged in them since; the unstacked tactical combat makes it much more possible to hold territory with a smaller number of advanced/elite troops, which I enjoy for my personal playstyle
   • All of the above have significant issues associated with the AI being unable to use tactical combat effectively, where there is reduced need for tactical play/planning defensive locations if the AI can't attack properly, and the defensibility of cities with few units is outright broken against the less-functional AI at times. to get full enjoyment of them you absolutely need to improve the AI dramatically, or play multiplayer
4. Unstacked gameplay leads to fewer units total, and I like naming my troops, promotion trees, and feeling the impact when seeing the difference in efficacy between an elite troop and a fresh one; it is obviously possible to do this to some degree with stacking, but the more units, the more frustrating it'll be to have stuff like promotion trees with different specialisations between them.

 

[Patine]

From my perspective:

1. The tactical combat is an enjoyable part of the games to me; positioning my archers on a hill for extra range while melee units hold a chokepoint is fun, and the more you can stack the less I get to participate in that part of the game
2. The tactical combat makes the environment much more relevant in combat scenarios, and that adds an interesting dimension in choosing where to engage in fights. I enjoy the situation where you have a nice chokepoint, you build an Encampment to defend it, and choose not to expand into territory beyond it because it is substantially less defensible.
3. I grew bored of world conquests some time around Civ 4, and haven't really engaged in them since; the unstacked tactical combat makes it much more possible to hold territory with a smaller number of advanced/elite troops, which I enjoy for my personal playstyle
   • All of the above have significant issues associated with the AI being unable to use tactical combat effectively, where there is reduced need for tactical play/planning defensive locations if the AI can't attack properly, and the defensibility of cities with few units is outright broken against the less-functional AI at times. to get full enjoyment of them you absolutely need to improve the AI dramatically, or play multiplayer
4. Unstacked gameplay leads to fewer units total, and I like naming my troops, promotion trees, and feeling the impact when seeing the difference in efficacy between an elite troop and a fresh one; it is obviously possible to do this to some degree with stacking, but the more units, the more frustrating it'll be to have stuff like promotion trees with different specialisations between them.

But Civ games are strategic, not tactical scale games. An, "archer on a hill," is not a relevance on a global scale. And I hink only a minority of players outright eschew conquest victories entirely.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I think they're both. That's what makes them good. There's the strategy of "where do I place my army" "which part is the weakest to conquest" "who is the most likely to invade"

Then there's the tactical aspect of, using Hills, Mountains, Rivers to your advantage.
And like the other poster says, there is some enjoyment to be had from troop placement (archers behind warriors etc.) that would be lost with stacks.

Which is why for better or worse the game is like this

 

[Patine]

I think they're both. That's what makes them good. There's the strategy of "where do I place my army" "which part is the weakest to conquest" "who is the most likely to invade"

Then there's the tactical aspect of, using Hills, Mountains, Rivers to your advantage.
And like the other poster says, there is some enjoyment to be had from troop placement (archers behind warriors etc.) that would be lost with stacks.

Which is why for better or worse the game is like this

Strategic and tactical, especialy in regards to a strategy game is, a matter of scope and scale. Axis & Allies, Supremacy, Ultamatum, games about either Theatre of WW2, the whole of the Napoleonic Wars, Roman Empire-wide conflicts, the whole American Civil War, etc., as well as global 4X games - like definitely Civ. Games are stategic scope and scale. Ones about smaller wars, or even just battles, are tactical in scope and scale. Thus, Civ, as a strategic-scale game on a global map, makes many reasons 1UPT or strict stacking rules, and, "archer on the hill," dynamics inexplicable.

As Cat Stevens sang, "Oh, baby, baby, it's a wide world."

 

[BuchiTaton]

Again, one issue is that many people here is still thinking in the false dichotomy of CIV4-like "Stacks of Doom" vs CIV6-like "Carpets of Doom" when a system of "Composite Armies" formed by a customizable set of units units, formations and stands could mix the positive elements of both previous models.

In these model you could still set an army made of a high number of archers and swordmen with shields, put them in and strategic highground tile with a box formation, volley and hold ground stand. Of maybe you can add some calvary for an anti-siege strike ability of a fake withdrawl luring ability.

 

[Evie]

Frankly, I care less what scale the game is in than whether the game makes for interesting gameplay.

To that purpose, I find stacking all your units on one tile (and worse, having to grind down a massive stack of all the AI's unit on one tile) far less interesting than a war of maneuver fought at a tactical scale, so personally I vastly prefer a limit to unit stacking. These are my personal preferences, having gone through the tedium of grinding away opponent stacks in III-IV where it was a common problem.

UPT can certainly be called an over-correction, but I feel strongly enough about the mass-stacks to feel Stack of Doom is an entirely appropriate and deserved name (and to roll my eyes and laugh at anyone who tell me I'm being hyperbolic). I won't stop using it, and I won't play a game that bring them back.

There is, however, much space for compromise between UPT and SOD.

 

[Patine]

Frankly, I care less what scale the game is in than whether the game makes for interesting gameplay.

To that purpose, I find stacking all your units on one tile (and worse, having to grind down a massive stack of all the AI's unit on one tile) far less interesting than a war of maneuver fought at a tactical scale, so personally I vastly prefer a limit to unit stacking. These are my personal preferences, having gone through the tedium of grinding away opponent stacks in III-IV where it was a common problem.

UPT can certainly be called an over-correction, but I feel strongly enough about the mass-stacks to feel Stack of Doom is an entirely appropriate and deserved name (and to roll my eyes and laugh at anyone who tell me it's exaggerated hyperbole). I won't stop using it, and I won't play a game that bring them back.

There is, however, much space for compromise between UPT and SOD.

I don't believe I even said UNLIMITED stacking, ever, just ones that take the scope of the game into account, which most of the proposals here do not. And, the, "army-and-corps," system is not nearrly a universal system of organization for very large armies, and is actually relatively recent.