Limiting SoD
- Thread starter LouLong
- Start date
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Yes, but in 'War of the Worlds', you could ADJUST the speed of the game ONCE you had set all of your way points and the like. The important part, though, was that nothing could happen combat-wise until both parties had caught up.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
With all due respect to those advocating for caps on stack size, even if that were implemented, it would change nothing about SoD. SoDs would take up more tiles, but since combat in Civ goes one unit to one unit, nothing significant would change. Defenders would lose some ability for wounded units to be covered by healthy ones, and the fighting could be dragged out for extra turns at choke points, but he who brings more units to the party is still going to win. So why bother?
MOO3 added stack limits on fleets and it BROKE THE GAME. In MOO3, combat was fleet to fleet, all ships fighting at once, and since player could design stronger ships, he could design invincible fleets. It was a godawful mess. I don't expect Civ4 to allow for player-designed units, but imagine a 10-unit stack limit, defender with 10 units in a city and bunches more units on adjacent tiles, out of the action; attacker with three or four tiles with 10-stacks in each. Attacker overwhelms the 10-stack in the city and then razes the city and withdraws. This is supposed to be adding what, exactly? STRATEGY?
I don't think so. :shakehead
- Sirian
MOO3 added stack limits on fleets and it BROKE THE GAME. In MOO3, combat was fleet to fleet, all ships fighting at once, and since player could design stronger ships, he could design invincible fleets. It was a godawful mess. I don't expect Civ4 to allow for player-designed units, but imagine a 10-unit stack limit, defender with 10 units in a city and bunches more units on adjacent tiles, out of the action; attacker with three or four tiles with 10-stacks in each. Attacker overwhelms the 10-stack in the city and then razes the city and withdraws. This is supposed to be adding what, exactly? STRATEGY?
I don't think so. :shakehead - Sirian
Lennon
Automated Worker
Well, a stack limit would have to come with new supply and logistics rules. If you actually had to protect your flanks, as in real life, it'd become a different story. The point you make that certain stacks could be 'invincible' would be addressed through that, since your main objective would be to encircle and starve such a stack, rather than attack it head on. Tactics and strategy would become a thousand times more interesting, unfortunately everyone isn't blessed with the brain power to fathom such revolutionary ideas, like probably the AI for instance... 
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hi Sirrian,
First up, I think Lennon makes a fantastic point about how supply lines can be used as a means of reducing the exploit that you have described. After all, one of those 'adjacent stacks' could simply slip behind the enemy lines-thus cutting its supply lines and giving the attacker a major penalty to morale, AS, DS and Firepower!!! Also, though, with a simultaneous combat system, all units in ALL stacks would be both Attacker AND Defender!! To use your example as a case in point-whilst the enemy stack (which, itself, would have a cap on its numbers) is fighting the 'defending' stack in the city, in a simultaneous system it would also potentially be fighting off the two adjacent stacks which are attacking it at the same time (potentially resulting in odds of 3-1 against the invader!!) Although its true that, if the two other stacks win, they will both end up occupying the same square, they might have already suffered sufficient combined casualties to put the 'new combined' stack under the stack limit. In addition, though, as the stack limit is SOFT (which, I might add, is the only stack limit I feel would work), then being over the stack limit in the turn following victory will ONLY be a problem if they get attacked in the next turn (where they will fight at a penalty).
Another major issue, though, is how stacked combat would work. I would prefer to see the computer pairing off each unit in a stack against a single unit in the enemy stack-based on percieved victory odds. The model which Trip proposed, though, in Apolyton could also work-IMHO-without causing a problem with game balance!
First up, I think Lennon makes a fantastic point about how supply lines can be used as a means of reducing the exploit that you have described. After all, one of those 'adjacent stacks' could simply slip behind the enemy lines-thus cutting its supply lines and giving the attacker a major penalty to morale, AS, DS and Firepower!!! Also, though, with a simultaneous combat system, all units in ALL stacks would be both Attacker AND Defender!! To use your example as a case in point-whilst the enemy stack (which, itself, would have a cap on its numbers) is fighting the 'defending' stack in the city, in a simultaneous system it would also potentially be fighting off the two adjacent stacks which are attacking it at the same time (potentially resulting in odds of 3-1 against the invader!!) Although its true that, if the two other stacks win, they will both end up occupying the same square, they might have already suffered sufficient combined casualties to put the 'new combined' stack under the stack limit. In addition, though, as the stack limit is SOFT (which, I might add, is the only stack limit I feel would work), then being over the stack limit in the turn following victory will ONLY be a problem if they get attacked in the next turn (where they will fight at a penalty).
Another major issue, though, is how stacked combat would work. I would prefer to see the computer pairing off each unit in a stack against a single unit in the enemy stack-based on percieved victory odds. The model which Trip proposed, though, in Apolyton could also work-IMHO-without causing a problem with game balance!
Sirian said:...I don't expect Civ4 to allow for player-designed units, but imagine a 10-unit stack limit, defender with 10 units in a city and bunches more units on adjacent tiles, out of the action; attacker with three or four tiles with 10-stacks in each. Attacker overwhelms the 10-stack in the city and then razes the city and withdraws. This is supposed to be adding what, exactly? STRATEGY?
This is one more reason why I am against hard stack limits. In my soft stack limits, you could have a stack of any number of units, but the defenders are chosen randomly weighted by defence factor, up to your usual army command limit.
Lennon
Automated Worker
Sirian said:
A little off topic, but come to think of it I actually feel that you shouldn't be able to raze cities as easily as you currently can. I mean, after all it should have to require a lot of money and effort to level an entire metropolis, and it isn't exactly common practice in war. It'd have to require gold or engineers or some such. Hey, I just got an idea! Maybe I should go post it in a new thread... Or has it been brought up already?
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Slightly off-topic (OK, VERY off topic, SORRY 
!!) but in line with what I was saying before about simultaneous combat. Instead of the current system (which, IIRC, is (AS-DS)/(AS+DS)?? Please correct me if I am wrong) I would rather see a simple AS-DS=chance to hit, the amount by which you succeed is then multiplied by your firepower to give the actual damage you do (minus armour, if applicable). The important point, though, is that each side's units will get a chance to have an attack at the other side (and each side's units will get a chance to defend!)
Not sure if that makes sense, but would be curious to know what you think!
!!) but in line with what I was saying before about simultaneous combat. Instead of the current system (which, IIRC, is (AS-DS)/(AS+DS)?? Please correct me if I am wrong) I would rather see a simple AS-DS=chance to hit, the amount by which you succeed is then multiplied by your firepower to give the actual damage you do (minus armour, if applicable). The important point, though, is that each side's units will get a chance to have an attack at the other side (and each side's units will get a chance to defend!)Not sure if that makes sense, but would be curious to know what you think!
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Okay, back on topic again 
! Rhialto's comment about the 'army command limit' has got me thinking about the REAL reason why SOFT stack limits are neccessary from a realism point of view! Although there is still the terrain element, the real reason is having so many units fighting as a 'COHERENT WHOLE', this is why I believe that exceeding the soft stack limits should impair attack/defense and morale-because it represents the lack of an effective 'command and control' structure for so many units.
That said, there could possibly be command and control 'units' which can effectively increase the stack limit of any given tile by, say 1-2 units!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
! Rhialto's comment about the 'army command limit' has got me thinking about the REAL reason why SOFT stack limits are neccessary from a realism point of view! Although there is still the terrain element, the real reason is having so many units fighting as a 'COHERENT WHOLE', this is why I believe that exceeding the soft stack limits should impair attack/defense and morale-because it represents the lack of an effective 'command and control' structure for so many units.That said, there could possibly be command and control 'units' which can effectively increase the stack limit of any given tile by, say 1-2 units!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Sirian illustrated a point I didn't consider. Dispersing units into two stacks of ten isn't that much more strategic than a stack of twenty. You're still in the trap of "build more to win". The stack limit might do something, but if it has any impact it will come from combining it with something else.
Some of the soft limit stuff (e.g.: splash damage) does more by itself, and would have a better impact with some of the hard limit stuff. You have me convinced.
Some of the soft limit stuff (e.g.: splash damage) does more by itself, and would have a better impact with some of the hard limit stuff. You have me convinced.
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
I played way too much Risk as a kid before finding better strategy board games like Axis and Allies, Fortress America, and Avalon Hill games. My friends and I imposed a cap on number of armies per territory in Risk, and in the end all this managed to do was to drag the game out a little longer.
Having been there and done that, I know that it only matters at choke points, where defenders can pile up defenders behind the choke and reinforce for as long as their reinforcements hold out. I learned a lot about free for all "diplomacy" playing those Risk games, as well. The real outcomes were decided by who backstabbed who or who allied with who. It was so silly and ridiculous, from a "strategy" point of view, that I shall not play another game of Risk for as long as I live.
There really isn't much to be done about SoD. It's a fact of life in an empire game. Better to embrace it than to fight it. Master of Orion has its AI gather its fleet into SoDs and only attack where it calculates decent odds. I think we need an AI that can cope with SoD strategy, rather than trying (and failing) to defy the laws of mathematics.
- Sirian
Having been there and done that, I know that it only matters at choke points, where defenders can pile up defenders behind the choke and reinforce for as long as their reinforcements hold out. I learned a lot about free for all "diplomacy" playing those Risk games, as well. The real outcomes were decided by who backstabbed who or who allied with who. It was so silly and ridiculous, from a "strategy" point of view, that I shall not play another game of Risk for as long as I live.
There really isn't much to be done about SoD. It's a fact of life in an empire game. Better to embrace it than to fight it. Master of Orion has its AI gather its fleet into SoDs and only attack where it calculates decent odds. I think we need an AI that can cope with SoD strategy, rather than trying (and failing) to defy the laws of mathematics.
- Sirian
Aussie_Lurker said:Okay, back on topic again
That said, there could possibly be command and control 'units' which can effectively increase the stack limit of any given tile by, say 1-2 units!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Glad someone caught my command limit comment. When one stack attacks another, it should NOT be all units in each tile fighting each other. That makes the operational battle level no more thoughtful than having individual units slugging it out.
Instead...
Each civ has a command limit. This represents the number of units that will simultaneously attack or defend in any given battle. It starts low, but gradually rises as various command and control-related techs (eg leadeship, military tradition, radio, semaphore, warrior code, combined arms) are discovered. Certain wonders, and great leaders may also increase this command limit.
When the attacker attacks, he must choose which units from his stack will be involved in the assault. Subject to movement point/blitz rule limitations, he may then attack again, possibly against the same tile if all the defenders have not been wiped out.
The defender also gets a number of units equal to the command limit, but these are chosen randomly (weighted by defence factor), rather than chosen by the player/controlling AI. If the defending stack is large enough, it may take several attacks to wipe out all the defence forces.
If an entire defending battle force is wiped out (ie all the units sent forward under the command limit), the survivors of the attacking force then get a single round worth of attacks against the defenders in the stack, with no chance of retaliation. Treat this as a rate of fire 1 attack using the attack factor as a bombard factor.
Lennon
Automated Worker
Command limit is indeed a very good idea! It could be governed by your current production and resources in such a way that it'd be units automatically produced and used as HQs! And if you have your maximum number of HQs, they are 'reinforced' and if all your HQs are full strength, it all goes into your treasury. Um, all that probably needs work, I just came up with it now.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Sirian, not to get too off topic, but THANK YOU for speaking out against Risk. The strategy is simple. Either have a lot of allies from personal history going into the game, or abstain from a drawn out conflict as long as possible. It's pretty damn boring, but masquerades as a strategy game.
To shift things back on topic, I somehow can't help but feel like Civ has some of Risk's poor attributes. Not enough to spoil the game, but enough to suggest that Civ can do better. Really just the "power in numbers" thing -- the fact that there ought to be more to winning a war than who can pump out the most troops at the highest technology.
To shift things back on topic, I somehow can't help but feel like Civ has some of Risk's poor attributes. Not enough to spoil the game, but enough to suggest that Civ can do better. Really just the "power in numbers" thing -- the fact that there ought to be more to winning a war than who can pump out the most troops at the highest technology.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Hey guys (DH and Sirrian), are you talking original RISK or the updated version? If the former, then I will agree with you in SPADES!!! However, though I have yet to play it, I get the sense that the newer risk games ARE much more strategy oriented! Correct me if I am wrong, though 
!
Anyway, back to SoD's. DH_Epic made the point of two adjacent stacks of 10 being as bad as one stack of 20-well, that depends on whether you have 'supply lines'. If yes, than two stacks of 10, in enemy territory, will be much more vulnerable to broken supply lines than a single stack of ten. Essentially, a player could theoretically have long lines of stacks in the form of a front, but an enemy player can craftily outflank this frontline and start disrupting supply lines and supply points-to very detrimental effect!!
As for the player within his own territory, well he doesn't suffer so much from supply line problems, but he could suffer from a siege effect, which would hurt his stacks almost as much as the player with units in foreign territory!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
!Anyway, back to SoD's. DH_Epic made the point of two adjacent stacks of 10 being as bad as one stack of 20-well, that depends on whether you have 'supply lines'. If yes, than two stacks of 10, in enemy territory, will be much more vulnerable to broken supply lines than a single stack of ten. Essentially, a player could theoretically have long lines of stacks in the form of a front, but an enemy player can craftily outflank this frontline and start disrupting supply lines and supply points-to very detrimental effect!!
As for the player within his own territory, well he doesn't suffer so much from supply line problems, but he could suffer from a siege effect, which would hurt his stacks almost as much as the player with units in foreign territory!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
dh_epic said:
SoDs and lack of real Civ/Civ II style Zones of Control make tactics and strategy very difficult. Combine that with an omniscient but stupid AI... gah.
There is a real problem.
Also, they should do something so Horsemen can't repeatedly attack and kill full-health Legions without taking any damage.
Lennon
Automated Worker
bkwrm79 said:
I heard that the whole spearman-beats-tank thing will be solved, which should address your issue as well.
If there was a stack limit of 10 then it will open a new tactical aspect. Since every tile borders 8 others that means the maximum no of units that may attack one tile is 8*10=80 units, while you only can defend with 10 units. This could be bad, but it also means that if you`re surrounded, you`re screwed. Thus it will be much more important to have a frontline which reduces the no of enemy units able to attack you. Likewise will every tile around a city be important to defend, not just the city itself. Paratroopers and airborne inf may attack from behind the frontline if you don`t have a rearguard.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Yeah, somehow the SoD does very little by itself. Combined with other stuff, it can make a bigger impact -- but even without an SoD, the other stuff (like supply lines) changes up strategy significantly.
To tell you the truth, maybe more units with more bonuses/penalties versus other units might make the game more strategic. I know Paper Rock Scissors isn't exactly the most strategic game, but it sure beats the game of "who has more hands"?
Other than that, the idea of setting unit formations would add strategy, but to me also adds tons of micromanagement. E.g.: you can set your spearmen in a V, a line, or a scatter -- but this gets into the paper rock scissors thing again. (V beats scatter, scatter beats line, line beats V)
Somehow supply lines seem like a lot of micromanagement, especially when they simplified unit maintainence in Civ 3. I'd hardly believe that they'd go back. Anyone care to explain this one?
To tell you the truth, maybe more units with more bonuses/penalties versus other units might make the game more strategic. I know Paper Rock Scissors isn't exactly the most strategic game, but it sure beats the game of "who has more hands"?
Other than that, the idea of setting unit formations would add strategy, but to me also adds tons of micromanagement. E.g.: you can set your spearmen in a V, a line, or a scatter -- but this gets into the paper rock scissors thing again. (V beats scatter, scatter beats line, line beats V)
Somehow supply lines seem like a lot of micromanagement, especially when they simplified unit maintainence in Civ 3. I'd hardly believe that they'd go back. Anyone care to explain this one?
