Limiting SoD

[Aussie_Lurker]

I can see where you're coming from DH_Epic, but I do think that, in this case, a balance between the 'carrot' and the 'stick' is the best way to minimize the use of 'stacks of doom'. As I have said almost since the get go, though, I not saying that SoD's should be completely impossible, just that they should be a rarity because of altered player behaviour!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

The point of stack limits is to create balance in the game. Currently SoD is too overpowered, and I think penalizing stacks would have to be high enough. Even then exploits would be found. Instead, stack limits would create the need for strategy, and fronts period. Currently all combat, even modern, is between two tiles. Certainly ancient era combat was this way, but not modern mobile wars.

 

[rysingsun]

there are some realism arguments for stack limits but what does realism have to do with civ III? civ has no logistics limitations no rail and road capacity limits and no supply lines. and what do we gain in civ by limiting the size of a SOD? most likely we end up with several mini SODs walking around right next to each other getting in each others' ways but other than that having the same deadly power.

the SOD is a modern age problem. i really cannot recall ever seeing one in the ancient age. so maybe the real problem here is that production rates are too high in the modern age. in the space of 30 turns my cities go from having 15 shields to having 70 shields. the reasons are : railroads, factories, coal plants, hospitals and war mobilization. it all comes from 5 consecutive technological advancements. besides all this we can add the draft. and then all of a sudden a fast moving game turns into a super chore.

so rather than mandating that the SOD be dispersed into several adjoining squares lets tackle the problem at its roots. lets cut the production explosion problem down to size. i for one could really live with making tanks infantry and artillery 50 percent more powerful but 100 percent more costly to build. this alone will cut the SOD size in half and speed up the endgame significantly.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

well, I see part of where you are coming from, Rysingsun. One issue is that, if units like marines, paratroopers and infantry actually had a real population cost, then the ability of nations to produce stacks of doom would be much more restricted. Even units such as tanks and artillery should have some population cost-albiet much smaller. This way, you would have a real connection between war and the economy-one which currently still does not exist!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sirian]

But Aussie! If units had a population cost, that would only compound the "snowballing effect" many times over. Nations with more territory and population would gain a whole other layer of advantage on top of what they would already enjoy. Warmongers would be unleashed like never before, because the key to a bigger army would be conquest. The more one conquers, the more he can fuel his conquering armies. The snake would swallow its own tail, taking the entire Civ franchise down the hatch with it.

- Sirian

 

[dh_epic]

At the most high visionary level for Civ 4...

There ought to be a way that 4 marines can take out 8 marines with more than mere luck (or stupidity). There ought to be a reason that you keep your guys in a stack, and a reason that you take your guys out of the stack.

Creating a limit or restriction, even linking that constraint to a real world explanation -- it doesn't give the player a reason to want to do it.

Fundamentally, I have more of a problem with "my army is bigger than yours, I win" than stacks of doom.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think there is a lot more strategy with placing several 5-10 unit stacks in the right place then moving one into someone's territory. This is about gameplay if not realism.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm concerned that "the right place" will end up being "as close as possible to having one full stack".

But yes, absolutely, it's about gameplay. I'd like to go even further and have people make choices about units that aren't attacker versus defender, but a real choice that can let a 6 person army beat a 12 person army.

 

[bkwrm79]

there are some realism arguments for stack limits but what does realism have to do with civ III? civ has no logistics limitations no rail and road capacity limits and no supply lines. and what do we gain in civ by limiting the size of a SOD? most likely we end up with several mini SODs walking around right next to each other getting in each others' ways but other than that having the same deadly power.

the SOD is a modern age problem. i really cannot recall ever seeing one in the ancient age. so maybe the real problem here is that production rates are too high in the modern age. in the space of 30 turns my cities go from having 15 shields to having 70 shields. the reasons are : railroads, factories, coal plants, hospitals and war mobilization. it all comes from 5 consecutive technological advancements. besides all this we can add the draft. and then all of a sudden a fast moving game turns into a super chore.

so rather than mandating that the SOD be dispersed into several adjoining squares lets tackle the problem at its roots. lets cut the production explosion problem down to size. i for one could really live with making tanks infantry and artillery 50 percent more powerful but 100 percent more costly to build. this alone will cut the SOD size in half and speed up the endgame significantly.

Good idea with the cost increase, I may try modding that.

I also think the cost differential between Infantry and the various armored/mechanized units needs to be higher, and making them all more expensive would make it easier to play with that.

 

[Kayak]

Well, one thing that would make me stop using SODs would be letting artillery have a damage effect on all, or many, of the units in the square that it bombards. Same for Bombers. That way grouping your units is just asking for mass damage.
I also like the cost idea to limit unit production.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ah, but Sirrian, units would STILL carry a financial cost-with said cost being tied more into the degree of advancement of the unit being built. Also, in harming the economy, lost population would also hurt your science output as well. Though it all might sound like 'snowballing' what it in fact does is forces players into very difficult strategic decisions. For instance, do they war for more territory-and the potential future economc and science gains that brings-at a huge short-term cost to their civilian economy and scientific development (not to mention happiness), or do they focus on building their economy and science in order to win an economc and scientific victory? Also, do they focus on using their large population to create large numbers of lower tech units (like North Korea or China), or do they build up their economic and scientific strength in order to build fewer, more expensive, yet much more advanced units?
If anything, my suggestion, when taken holistically, will actually help to REDUCE the current snowballing effect-NOT increase it!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

At the most high visionary level for Civ 4...

There ought to be a way that 4 marines can take out 8 marines with more than mere luck (or stupidity). There ought to be a reason that you keep your guys in a stack, and a reason that you take your guys out of the stack.

But fundamentally, that is exactly how it works. In real-world wargames (wargames performed by militaries, not by gamers), the general assumption is that the kill ratio is:

number of men x number of men x tech modifer : number of men x number of men x tech modifer

It actually becomes number of men cubed in a three dimensional theatre of operations, but that doesn't apply to any Earthly combat yet. In artificial linear situations, such as fencing and kendo, it is a simple number of men factor.

In other words, a realistic simulation would make those 8 marines lose just one of their number against 4 marines. This of course assumes that everything falls within applicale command and control limits.

The way for a smaller force to win is either by disrupting communications, and hence command limits, or finding some way to limit the field of battle, so the battlefield becomes more one-dimensional and less two-dimensional (Thermopylae).

 

[Kayak]

@rhialto. Exactly you said it right.
Instead the system needs to made so that lesser numbers of superior units would prevail (in one turn) over larger numbers of inferior units. 4 tanks vs 8 riflemen perhapse. 4 tanks vs 8 muskemen definately.

 

[dh_epic]

Even though those assertions are realistic, they're certainly bad for gameplay. With two people being technologically equal, the bigger army wins.

Exploiting geography is one important thing. But a simple "attack from mountains" doesn't exactly feel like a rich gameplay strategy to master.

Exploiting communications, supplies, even morale... those are interesting ideas.

 

[Kayak]

Even though those assertions are realistic, they're certainly bad for gameplay. With two people being technologically equal, the bigger army wins.

Exploiting geography is one important thing. But a simple "attack from mountains" doesn't exactly feel like a rich gameplay strategy to master.

Exploiting communications, supplies, even morale... those are interesting ideas.

At the risk of sounding wishy washy, I'll agree with that too, and pose an honest question. Given that this game simulates reality to some degree. At what point do you think that game play should win over reality. At what point should it be impossible for, a swordsman say, to win over a more advanced unit? I have personaly have trouble envisioning then winning vs riflemen for example. Next at what point should overwhelming odds be just that, overwhelming odds? 1:4, 1:10, 1:15? I'm interested in your thoughts and your rational.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think if units evolved more gradually then having ancient Swordsmen lose against riflemen(not musketeers, in MTW arquebusiers lost all the time to swordsmen) would not be such a bad thing. That means units an era down do not stand a chance, but units a few techs down do.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, with simultaneous combat (plug, plug !) the best chance that the 4 marines would have would be to 'ambush' the larger stack. With only 4 units in their stack, they would have a good chance of remaining unseen until the 8 unit stack was in the same square. This suprise attack would essentially give the smaller stack a free attack, followed by a decreasing attack bonus over the next few turns. Though it would not guarantee the smaller stack a victory, it would give them a reasonably good chance of 'evening the odds'. Also, the current 'command and control' limit (ie, stack limit) of the larger stack would effect the kind of penalty, if any, the larger stack would fight at
The 4 marines vs the 8 marines is, though, a fairly poor example, as we have two homogeneous stacks, which would essentially make it more of a 'numbers' game. If, OTOH, the smaller stack were comprised of a decent mix of units, then it would stand a much better of winning against the larger, homogeneous stack!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

The only civ style game I know that featured simultaneous movement was Birth of teh Federation. Perhaps it is just me, but I felt that combat was the weakest aspect of that game, albeit in a generally weak game. When I move my men onto an enemy unit to attack, I want to know that he wil be there for me to hit.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well thats odd, Rhialto, because I felt that combat (and espionage) were the BEST bits of Birth of the Federation. All they needed was a better trade, resource and diplomacy system and it would have been nearly PERFECT!
What I am looking for is a little more....uncertainty within the combat system. Sometimes you plan the big strike, only to find that your opponent has gotten a whiff of you and denied you a target. Other times, you successfully manage to catch your opponent off guard, on several fronts, by moving several small stacks through appropriate terrain to avoid detection! On yet another occasion, your opponent sees you, but cannot 'organise' himself quickly enough to mount a counterattack, or to move your target out of your path in time!! An important part of a 'simultaneous move' system, of course, would be a system of 'semi-random' turns-i.e. instead of every civ having its turn in the same order, your nation size and number of units would in part determine the order in which you act, with the smaller civs most frequently getting the advantage (as their nation is less, shall we say, CUMBERSOME??)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

When do you trump realism? There are a couple things that come to mind:

Too random: If a gameplay effect is too random, like a football game where a player can suddenly get injured for no reason, the player gets frustrated and the game is no longer about skill. Of course, if there's a random dice roll when the player attempts a death defying move and the player gets injured, that's a bit more acceptable... so long as the death defying move is known as such.

Too small: Imagine an RPG about killing dragons that also forces you to eat, go to the washroom, fold your clothes... or else. Not to say that remembering to go to the washroom is a bad game mechanism, but that it doesn't fit with the scope of killing dragons. Details are important, but they ought to reinforce the scope and focus of the game, instead of distracting from it.

Too repetitive: A repetitive action, like holding elections every three minutes, is annoying. But this doesn't mean it has to be eliminated. It can be automated and simulated. It can be elongated, so you have an election every half hour of real time. Or, in the case of Civ 1-3, it can be abstracted: Democracy has generally more happy people, and your empire is still generally continuous.

Too unbalancing: Imagine a game where you can choose between a sword or a gun. In the name of realism, the gun is way more effectively and beats the sword 95% of the time. The game quickly becomes gun versus gun, and nobody ever picks the sword. You should either remove the sword, or give people a new reason or incentive to pick the sword. It might not be realistic, but maybe the game would be better if the sword could block bullets. Or maybe the gun should be heavy and slow you down.

But, to me, this isn't a question of realism. Smaller armies have beaten larger armies, and technologically inferior armies have defeated technologically superior armies. It's a question of tactics. Tactics are very realistic.

Luck is not the issue. Making the game more random so smaller armies beat larger armies more often, and spearmen beat tanks more often does inherently make the gameplay better. If you made it so someone who was really brilliant with their spearman could beat someone who was really sloppy with their tank, that might actually be a good game. The key is being able to point to superior skill, not superior luck.