Poll: Stack of Doom, Carpet of Doom or something in between?

[bene_legionary]

The only problems with free movement I can think of are unit movement points and turns. Stellaris can work something like this because it has a half real time mode. Civ doesn't have this benefit. Otherwise, the idea is not so far from Stellaris. I've thought about Stellaris with the galaxy view being a planet's surface instead, I think it would work quite well. Regions are the systems, resources are the planets, etc. You don't need a supercomputer to run Stellaris.

On the other hand, this sounds a lot like Age of Empires ...

 

[Marla_Singer]

The only problems with free movement I can think of are unit movement points and turns. Stellaris can work something like this because it has a half real time mode. Civ doesn't have this benefit. Otherwise, the idea is not so far from Stellaris. I've thought about Stellaris with the galaxy view being a planet's surface instead, I think it would work quite well. Regions are the systems, resources are the planets, etc. You don't need a supercomputer to run Stellaris.

On the other hand, this sounds a lot like Age of Empires ...

Age of Empires is real-time based and we certainly don't want that in Civilization as it should remain the grand strategy game it's always been, therefore it should remain turn-based. Real time games always end up as races about doing things quicker than your opponents. That's not what Civilization should be about.

The key which makes us addicted to a Civ game is the whole "just one more turn" feeling inciting you to continue playing. And that should be preserved more than anything else. Furthermore, the game is about starting out of nothing in neolithic and slowly growing your Empire during dozens of hours, continuing developping untill the space race.

So the strategy aspect should remain the very core of the gameplay. I would actually think that it's not to us to determine the good tactic to be used in combat. We should build the units, eventually group them into armies, and then the game would automatically adapt the optimal formation accordingly (infantry in the front, archer or artillery in the back, cavalry on the sides for flank attack etc.). You only take the decision to attack or you prepare your unit for defences, but you shouldn't intervene in how the combat would be going on. War is only one aspect of the game, you need to develop a sustainable economy, expand your ressources, keep good relationships in your diplomacy, research for new technologies, develop a culture. So it's important that the game doesn't get lost into excessive micro-management.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Ok for fun, I decided to try to come up with a list of all possible types of military systems:

A. Systems with units

These are systems that have a physical unit on the map that the player can click on and move.

1. One unit per hex (aka 1upt)

• One unit per hex (absolute).

As stated, only one unit would be allowed per hex at the same time, no exceptions.

• One unit per hex (only for military units)

The one unit per hex rule would only apply to military units so civilians units could still coexist with a military unit on the same hex.

2. Multiple units per hex ( aka stacks)

• Multiple military units per hex with cap (aka limited stacks)

Players could stack military units on the same hex and move them as one. But there would be a cap on the number of military units in the stack. This cap could be hard or soft.

• Multiple units per hex with no cap (aka unlimited stacks)

Same as above except there would be no cap on the size of the stack.

3. Armies per hex
Army units on the map would represent a combination of different classic units. So an army unit could be 2 archers, 1 swordsman, 1 horseman and 2 catapults.

• One army unit per hex

The game would only allow one army unit per hex. Similar to 1upt except the unit would represent a combo of military types instead of one single type. This system would be a way of “doing stacks” in a 1upt way.

• Multiple army units per hex with cap

Similar to “stacks” but with armies instead of single classical units. There would be a cap of how many army units can exist in the same hex at the same time.

• Multiple army units per hex with no cap

Similar to “unlimited stacks” except with armies instead of single classical units.

4. One unit per region
Maps would be divided into regions instead of hexes, like a map in Risk or Europa Universalis.

• One unit per region (absolute)

Same as 1upt except with regions instead of hexes. Players could move units from one region to an adjacent region.

• One unit per region (only for military units)

Same as 1upt with civilian stacks except with regions instead of hexes.

5. Multiple units per region

• Multiple units per region with cap

Same as “limited stacks” but with regions instead of hexes.

• Multiple units per region with no cap

Same as “unlimited stacks” but with regions instead of hexes.

6. Armies per region
Basically combining the idea of army units and regions.

• One army unit per region

Similar to 1 upt but with army units in regions. So only one army unit is allowed per region at the same time.

• Multiple armies per region with cap

Same as "limited stacks" but with army units in regions. You could have multiple army units in the same region but there would be cap on how many army units per region.

• Multiple armies per region with no cap

Same as "unlimited stacks" but with army units in regions. You could have unlimited number of army units in the same region.

B. Systems with no units
These are systems that do not have physical units on the map. Instead, military is typical represented by a number that the player can allocate around to a region or hex.

1. Military strength per hex
Each hex would have a number representing the military strength in that hex. You could initiate combat by clicking on a hex with your military strength and clicking on an adjacent enemy hex. Hexes would change ownership based on differences in military strength. Military strength number would NOT represent the number of soldiers but would take into account other factors to represent the total combat strength of however many soldiers you have in that area.

2. Military strength per region
Each hex would have a number representing the military strength in that region. It would be the same as above except using regions instead of hexes. See Age of History II.

3. Military strength per city
Each city would have a military strength number. You could shift military strength from one city to another or shift military strength numbers from a city to an adjacent enemy city to initiate combat. Cities would be like star systems where military strength would “jump” from one city to another. This system would work for maps that have no hexes or regions at all. Instead cities could only be built on "settlement locations" on the map.

4. Military strength per battle front
In this system, there would be battle fronts on the map along the borders. Players would allocate military strength to a battle front. When at war, the attacker could pick a front and the direction they want to push in and fronts would shift forward or backwards based on the difference in military strengths of the two sides. This would be a unique system that would favor fluid shifting of fronts on a map.

 

[bene_legionary]

it should remain turn-based

Yeah, I agree. But I would love a new like Stellaris, not Age of Empires (I don't like AoE that much, actually). Only that it's theme is on Earth instead. Not a game in the Civ franchise.

 

[aieeegrunt]

One unit of each class per hex. Raise the move allowance by one. Ranged units can only shoot one hex till you have missile tech

This gets rid of both Sliding Tile Agony and worrying about LOS without descending into Micro Hell. It also allows for actual combined arms

Oh, and you only get the pre-battle “odds screen” if you have a recon unit in the stack of the attacking unit(s). Holy crap I might actually build more than one scout

 

[Naokaukodem]

I am not talking about a literal supercomputer. But why should civ7 require top of the line specs just to run half-decently? 4X games don't need fancy ultra realistic graphics.

It depends on if you want to make immersion a new thing, the kind that would justify another iteration you know...
By the way, Old World is unplayable on my configuration, while Civ6 is very correct.
So it doesn't even depend on graphics. But it would still be cool if they would be, you know, kind of realistic. I don't say it's the only possibility of evolution of the franchise though.

But it's definitely not because it's a 4X that it couldn't evolve in that way...

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It depends on if you want to make immersion a new thing, the kind that would justify another iteration you know...
By the way, Old World is unplayable on my configuration, while Civ6 is very correct.
So it doesn't even depend on graphics. But it would still be cool if they would be, you know, kind of realistic. I don't say it's the only possibility of evolution of the franchise though.

But it's definitely not because it's a 4X that it couldn't evolve in that way...

I am not against some nice graphics. But your previous post seem to say that you wanted civ to be like an open world RPG. I took that to mean a fully immersive 3D world where you can enter individual buildings and talk to people. You also mentioned leaves blowing in the wind etc... I just don't think civ needs to be THAT immersive. Civ is a strategy game. It's a "big picture" kind of game about building an empire, what armies to build, what wonders to build, what diplomacy to do. I don't think you need to feel like you are living inside a real town where you can walk in the grass, visit the bar and talk to the mayor. In fact, I would go further and argue that level of immersion would be distract from the strategy because it would be harder to do the strategy part if you are zooming in and visiting the inside of your buildings and watching people live in your town.

 

[Naokaukodem]

a fully immersive 3D world where you can enter individual buildings and talk to people.

Obviously not. I meant you can move units and then be LIKE in an open world RPG, but that's all. As to the environments flavor, it's already in Civ. (wind, birds singing, etc.) (or has already been)

 

[GeneralZIft]

I would ask the question the other way around: what good does it bring to restrict unit movements only to specific tiles?

What are you talking about? Of course, restricting unit movements is intended for the user experience.

A grid is easy to understand in a game with many many moving parts like Civilization.
It is not an RTS, for it to have no grid at all.

Since Civilization moves on Turns, it NEEDS a grid such that the units have a set amount of movement they can move in one turn.
Otherwise, moving units would become this arduous process involving diagonals and float numbers rather than the simplistic tile experience that makes sense for 4X games.

Don't know what the obsession is for people to want to change everything... some stuff is fine as it is.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Since Civilization moves on Turns, it NEEDS a grid such that the units have a set amount of movement they can move in one turn.
Otherwise, moving units would become this arduous process involving diagonals and float numbers rather than the simplistic tile experience that makes sense for 4X games.

Civ should definitely remain turn-based (see my post above), however a grid isn't necessarily needed to restrict distances in a turn-based game. It's true the current grid system makes things easy to apprehend and that this is an important aspect that needs to be kept. Now where we disagree obviously is that I think there could be solutions to keep things simple and easy without necessarily being restricted to a grid.

Maybe you're right and I'm wrong, that would require a proof of concept to figure out.

Don't know what the obsession is for people to want to change everything... some stuff is fine as it is.

The point of this thread was about stack vs carpet, and this problem is caused by the existence of a grid in the first place. Hence my post about exploring non-grid solutions.

Another way to see the problem is that beyond "stack or doom" or "carpet of doom", the problem may be about spamming units in general. In such a case, even getting rid of the grid wouldn't be the solution. This being said, personally I like when things are growing to on an epic scale so that aspect never really repulsed me. I'm a Civ4 player who never minded infinite stacks and actually abandonned playing civ5 because of 1upt.