Limiting SoD

[Aussie_Lurker]

I just love this. Those who argue loudest for 'Gameplay over Realism' are now the ones using Realism to justify stacks o' death.

Personally, I find stacks of death completely boring-relying on pure GRUNT over real strategy. As I said above, I split ALL of my larger stacks into smaller groupings-even W/O a stack limit.
I'm not arguing for hard stack limits, but I DEFINITELY feel that very big stacks should suffer some kind of penalty in combat, and that certain terrain types, like mountains, forests and jungles, should impose a much stricter stack limit!
Given that most of the wargames have imposed similar stack limits (on similar map scales even) I don't see why the same couldn't apply here too!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

I sympathize with your point about multiplayer, Trip. I definitely think there's enough unit movement as is.

But what you're essentially arguing is that it would take too much energy and time from the player to do anything other than bombard them with sheer numbers. That being forced to make strategic decisions about your troops would actually be worse than a game of "who can build the most".

Not to say that a stack limit should go through regardless... but some way to balance this with new techniques to simplify movement might be useful.

And I refuse to give into spatial realism arguments. Arguing that 60 units could theoretically fit into a space is no more inane than arguing that a legionaire could go halfway across the world in 4 years and thus roads should provide infinite movement. When you try to implement this kind of realism, the very foundation of the game breaks down.

 

[LouLong]

Wao ! Did not expect that much enthusiasm for or against the idea.

Basically my main point here is NOT to calculate the number of men one square could hold but change something that limits strategy drastically.

A stronger emphasis on startegy requires not much IMHO :
- limit SoD
- bonus/malus vs certain categories of units (discussed elsewhere ie : antitank bonus vs tanks but of little use vs infantry).

The use of artillery/air/ship already does a good job in Civ3 (except for its limited use for the AI).

 

[Lennon]

I'd say the biggest problem with SoDs (that's a disgusting abbreviation if I ever saw one, by the way) isn't that it is unrealistic to have that many units in one square for logistical and supply reasons. The whole point is that those issues are completely left out of Civ as we know it anyway. I don't know how much Civ4 will be revamped in general, and these issues in particular, but Civ warfare revolves around the idea of stack combat, and as long as it does I don't see how SoDs are a bigger problem than anything else connected to logistical issues. I'd love to see military units having to be deployed in a more strategically planned way than just "alright, everyone in my entire army is in the same square, so let's attack!", but right now military operations on a grander scale is really only for those of us who like to plan them and pull them off. But in fact you only do them because it's fun, it too rarely allows you to conquer your enemy quicker or easier than otherwise.

 

[rhialto]

I still think it makes no sense to impose any kind of hard stack limit to control stacks of doom. It is just unrealistic.

However, there are plenty of realistic rules that can be implemented to make stacks of doom non-viable. Civ2 style zones of control are one such example. Collateral damage is another (though perhaps not to the civ2 extent of the entire stack dying). Reduced combat potential in larger stacks, and randomly chosen defenders from the stack are yet more. You don't have to outlaw stacks of doom to make them ineffective.

 

[Lennon]

I still think it makes no sense to impose any kind of hard stack limit to control stacks of doom. It is just unrealistic.

However, there are plenty of realistic rules that can be implemented to make stacks of doom non-viable. Civ2 style zones of control are one such example. Collateral damage is another (though perhaps not to the civ2 extent of the entire stack dying). Reduced combat potential in larger stacks, and randomly chosen defenders from the stack are yet more. You don't have to outlaw stacks of doom to make them ineffective.

See this is what I'm driving at. It isn't unrealistic to have all those units in one square if we only look at the space used up, but tweaks could definitely be made to make it ineffective, as you say. Having all those units together in one square doesn't make sense from any realistically thought out point of view, but Civ-wise it's great. I'd love to see it change, and extensive rules on supply IS THE ANSWER (just to get that out one more time).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, what we SEEM to mostly agree on is that, from a PURE REALISM point of view, stack limits don't make sense-but that they ARE important from a gameplay perspective. The main issue we seem to disagree on is HARD vs SOFT stack limits.

I personally feel that the best way to go is as follows:

Have an 'Optimal Stacking Number' for each terrain type-from around 10 or 12 on Grasslands/Plains, to around 4 on Mountains. This stacking # represents not only how many units can fit into that space, but also the logistics of keeping said units properly supplied-especially in harsh terrain conditions (even though they might be quite....'spacious' !)

Give units differing 'stack numbers'-as simple as a mech unit=3, a mounted unit=2 and a foot unit=1 for stacking purposes.

Lastly, for every unit you have ABOVE the optimal stacking number, the attack/defense strength of your units drop by, say, 5%, and their morale drops by 2%. Also, your chance of being hit by bombardment attacks and/or suffering collateral damage increase by around 2%.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rhialto]

It is realistic to have a stack of doom whether you look at physical space used up, or whether you look at a small fraction of how many people can live there at a modest popultion density. The effective stack limit would be even higher if all you look at is how many people can pass through the tile.

Regarding logistics, can you explain how the Troops at Stalingrad, Kursk, D-Day, Thermopylae, etc, were undersupplied? Because that is how you are justifying your limits on stacking. Logistics-wise, within the reaches of any modern nation, it is entirely practical to support a stack of doom, as I demonstrated in an earlier post. Perhaps any terrain-based limit wuld be over-ridden if the tile is developed (representing population-based infrastructure that can be commandeered)?

I think zones of control was the single biggest loss from civ2 to civ3. Nothing else worked more to encourage wide fronts and outmaneouvering tactics. Perhaps a system so that all units ignore zoc generated by enemies more than 1 era behind?

 

[Lennon]

Logistics-wise, within the reaches of any modern nation, it is entirely practical to support a stack of doom, as I demonstrated in an earlier post.

Well, that entirely depends on what a SoD is, after all. We cannot truly tell how many square metres a tile on a large map is, or how many people 60 units consist of. The thing is that in Civ, your regular SoD would make up more or less your entire invasion force. What puzzles me is that you appear to agree that that is wrong too, so I'm kinda struggling here trying to fathom whose side you're on...

An example: Do you honestly believe that Germany in June of 1941 would have been able to easily supply its Russia-bound invasion force and co-ordinate an efficient attack if ALL their 5.5 million men would have been stationed just outside say Lublin? (I obviously don't take the need to protect your flanks into account here, as it isn't the point I'm trying to make)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Also, my problem with SoD's, from a gameplay perspective, is that they really play into the whole 'snowballing' effect. That is, the civ with the most land=civ with the most cities=civ with most units=stack of doom which can easily capture the cities of smaller civs-thus giving it more cities=more units=more victories and so on and so forth!!!
A soft stack limitation, OTOH, plays on the idea of 'bigger is not neccessarily better', and allows for a little bit more balance between smaller and larger civs!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I sympathize with your point about multiplayer, Trip. I definitely think there's enough unit movement as is.

But what you're essentially arguing is that it would take too much energy and time from the player to do anything other than bombard them with sheer numbers. That being forced to make strategic decisions about your troops would actually be worse than a game of "who can build the most".

Not to say that a stack limit should go through regardless... but some way to balance this with new techniques to simplify movement might be useful.

It doesn't really work out that way... like I said, it becomes a battle of who can click fastest. Rather than strategic building and use of troops carrying the day, it's the guy who's played WarCraft the most. Which isn't what Civ is about.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, Trip, now I don't understand what you're getting at?! This is a TURN-BASED-STRATEGY game. How can it come down to the person who can 'click the fastest'?? Unless you are playing that pseudo-RTS system from Play the World, of course!! The best bet, IMHO, is to simply keep your units UNDER the stack limit as much as possible (as I already do in Civ3). Also, as the limits wouldn't be HARD, a player with an excellent stack (i.e., with a good mixture of bombardment, offensive and defensive units etc) is going to prevail over the player with the weak stack containing mostly one unit type-EVEN if the former is slightly overstacked for the tile he/she is in!

For example, LETS just say you have a stack of 8 units, in a tile which can support an optimal number of 6. This means that the units in the stack are all fighting at 10% normal efficiency. Now, lets say that this stack is made up of 3 offensive units (AS=10/DS=4 in civ3 terms) 3 Defensive units (DS=8/AS=5 in Civ3 terms) and 2 Bombardment units with a Bombardment strength of 8) This gives the stack (using your system, Trip) an Attack strength of, say, 42; a Defense Strength of, say, 39; and a bombardment strength of 16 (unless these last units remain seperate?!) Anyway, even with the 10% penalty, this stack is still operating at AS=38 and DS 35 (and, perhaps, Bombardment Strength=14) Now, lets say this stack comes across a stack of only 5 units-all of which are Offensive units (AS=10, DS=4)-now he has a AS=50, but only a DS of 20, which means that he will probably get successfuly hit TWICE for every hit he manages to dish out. Of course, if MY mass combat system were used, then three of the units from the latters' stack will be fighting two opponents, meaning that any combat penalty suffered by the first player, for overstacking, will be overcome by the penalty suffered by those units of the second player that are fighting 2 to 1 (not to mention the new hole that the two bombardment units are going to rip for player 2 EACH TURN !). Hope that makes sense!! My point, ultimately, is that even with stack limits, it will most often be about the composition of the stack, rather than how much is in it. Its only where two equally matched stacks come together that overstacking will have the greatest impact overall!


EDIT: Of course, ANOTHER way to encourage stack limits-without forcing players into it-is if you have a 'visibility' stat. In this case, units would ADD their visibility stat together, this making it VERY hard for a 'stack of death' to remain hidden at medium ranges. A small stack, OTOH, would be much less visible to the enemy, thus making the chance of an ambush all the more likely-granting the smaller opponent a chance to 'even the odds' as it were prior to the start of combat in earnest!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Virtually all MP games are played in simultaneous turn mode. Criticize if you will, but that's how Civ is played in an MP environment. Pure turn-based play is very very rare in MP games because of how long games take - even with simultaneous turns you rarely reach even the Industrial Era after 4 hours of playing.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

That may be true, Trip, but even so it doesn't make my 'soft stacking' model a question of who can click the fastest. As you should be able to see from the example I presented, it is as much the composition of the stack, as the stack size, which shall determine ultimate victory. For instance, a stack of 6 Elite units on a plains, facing off against 15 units of veteran status, is going to be at a somewhat lesser disadvantage in my model than under the current system. This is because, even though the latter stack has around a 2 to 1 advantage in HP, they will be fighting at a 25% penalty to their AS and DS-which could prove critical-especially if they are offensive heavy, and defense light!! My big point is that, done right, there is NO REASON why stack limits should be make or break-in MP or SP games.

Here is another example, though, of where stack limits can come in handy. Imagine a stack of 6 Elite Units (Bowmen, Swordsmen and spearmen) hiding in a Forest tile. Due to their relatively small size (and active hiding) they are very difficult to spot by enemy units. Now, along comes a HUGE stack of 12 enemy units-primarily regular horsemen/knights-making a HELL of a racket . This latter stack unwittingly ends up in the square of the smaller stack, where it is set-upon in an ambush. So, now the sheer numbers of the mega-stack are not nearly as advantageous as they would normally be, as the small stack of units will get a suprise attack on them-having a high chance of causing major injuries AND possibly even forcing their retreat (ambushes would create a lot of 'morale damage') In addition, though, the mixed nature of the smaller stack (and its elite composition) means that it will stand a much better chance of fending off any future counterattack, especially given that the larger stack will be fighting at a -30% penalty to its AS and DS!!!
So, now you can see how stack limits will all help in increasing strategic and tactical play and NOT simply relying on either sheer numbers OR who can click the fastest!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Jon Shafer]

You sure do enjoy using those exclamation points.

The point of a stack limit is just that - be it hard or soft, the idea is to make players use multiple stacks. That is, using more stacks is better than using fewer stacks. Denying that fact is obviously foolhardy. And by the very nature of it, that will hurt MP games, since they rely so heavily on single-stack combat. Look at it any way you like, but that's the reality of it. The only way to solve that is to radically alter how units are managed.

I like the idea of limiting the size of stacks... As more men were put under arms, fronts developed simply because you could not mass all of your troops into a single point. Even if you were able to, the enemy would have enough to stall your uber-army while burning your home.

The problem is I don't see how it can be reconciled with MP, which, like it or not, appears to be a major component of Civ 4.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well the major question, Trip, is can the Turnless mode in some way be broken up into a discrete 'Simultaneous Movement' and 'Simultaneous Combat' Phases?? This way, even one assigns and moves their stacks, sets their waypoints etc and, once done (and only after everyone has clicked 'done', all the movement is conducted. Then, whilst moving is occuring, you have until the timer counts down to deal with domestic issues like city build queues and building infrastructure/terrain improvements. Then, when the timer runs out, and all movement is concluded, all 'enemy' units which end up in the same square have a chance to 'slug it out'. Once all combat is conducted, the timer starts again for your diplomatic tasks. Then it all begins again. It is still technically turnless, as everthing occurs simultaneously. It just doesn't give any greater advantages to the person who can 'click the fastest' . Of course, as I said previously, even if you have been unable to adjust your stack size, a soft limit would mean that it is NOT the end of the world for you.
Another issue, of course, might be an adjustable timer, a much simplified interface to make stack adjustment as EASY as possible (with as few clicks as possible) and/or make stack limits optional in turnless mode games!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[dh_epic]

Trip is unfortunately right. The dilemma, to me, in a "simultaneous" MP game is either you go with the standard "who can build the most wins" like now, or you outlaw SoD and it shifts gears slightly to "who can click the fastest wins".

All things considered, though, I'd probably choose "who can click the fastest" over "who can build the most" any day of the week.

And I'll start justifying the realism of stack limits when other people care to explain to me why it takes 20 years for a warrior to move across an 80 mile tile.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

But doesn't my suggestion offer a MIDDLE ROAD for 'simultaneous' MP games. It will still be 'simultaneous' in so much as everyone makes their moves and decisions AT the same time, its just that the actual results of said moves/decisions won't be enacted until EVERYONE has indicated they are ready to continue to the next phase.
Oh and, just so you know, a system very similar to what I proposed exists in the game 'War of the World'!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Guagle]

IIRC in "war of the world" turns were quick as you had few units at the same time. Unfortunately this is not the case in Civ.

Just imagine ordering say 100 units then having to wait for those 100 units to move. How long would this take? This system works well only the number of units\cities\ or what have you is limited.

 

[Zeekater]

Just imagine ordering say 100 units then having to wait for those 100 units to move. How long would this take?

'Bout 60 minutes.
Trust me when I say I know what I'm talking about