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

[Eddie Verdde]

This has always been a polarizing issue of civilization and I think it would be interesting to assess quantitatively how the community feels about it.

Personally, I don't like one unit per tile. At Firaxis they say that their mantra is "make life epic" and I cannot imagine nothing more epic than assembling a stack of a dozen units, including melee, mounted, ranged and siege weapons and transport them to another continent escorted by a few war ships to conquer an enemy city with access to a much desired luxury resource. I remember with nostalgia when, in Civ3, I would even bring along 2 or 3 workers to build a fortress fast to protect my stack imediately after making landfall and gain a foothold on the other continent.

The "1 UPT" rule doesn't allow this, so I would like to see stacking again in Civ7. Not only it would allow you to move an army of many units in a simple and straightforward fashion, but also would probably be easier for the AI to wage war against the human player and turn the game more challenging and interesting.

 

[Bactrian]

I chose "something in between," but my real answer is "anything but one-unit-per-tile."

 

[criZp]

After I played hearts of iron I realized that 1upt vs stacking is a mistaken discussion, the issue was never the stacking but the force concentration that can follow from stacking, when every unit in the stack can attack in the same direction in the same turn.

In HoI4 there's unlimited stacking, but mechanics of "combat width" and "supply" limit the offense/defense you can get out of a stack, so there's a point where adding extra units don't increase combat power. Civ could easily do the same by letting only one unit in a stack heal, and only allow one attack out of a tile no matter how many units are stacked in the tile (or allow one attack from the tile into each of the six directions, so up to six attacks total).

 

[Bactrian]

After I played hearts of iron I realized that 1upt vs stacking is a mistaken discussion, the issue was never the stacking but the force concentration that can follow from stacking, when every unit in the stack can attack in the same direction in the same turn.

In HoI4 there's unlimited stacking, but mechanics of "combat width" and "supply" limit the offense/defense you can get out of a stack, so there's a point where adding extra units don't increase combat power. Civ could easily do the same by letting only one unit in a stack heal, and only allow one attack out of a tile no matter how many units are stacked in the tile (or allow one attack from the tile into each of the six directions, so up to six attacks total).

That's a great option, but one unlikely to be implemented in Civ I believe. To me concepts like combat width and supply limits are really opaque even for experienced players. More realistic for the franchise, I think, is a limit on stacking that can be progressively raised over the course of the game via new technologies, policies, buildings, and/or generals.

 

[Eddie Verdde]

In HoI4 there's unlimited stacking, but mechanics of "combat width" and "supply" limit the offense/defense you can get out of a stack, so there's a point where adding extra units don't increase combat power.

Well, in Civ4 when a stack attacked another stack, the defender would automaticaly be the strongest/healthiest unit in the stack, rotating even during the same turn, so in a way that puts a limit on the power that you get from a stack of units attacking in the same direction - stacks cancel each other out.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Miss the option "something in between OF DOOM"

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I chose THIRD choice (Army systems similiar to Call to Power, Humankind, Heroes of Might and Magic series, and Total War series.) and with separate combat scenes (HK's combat scene is quite 'too vast to me'

 

[Zaarin]

Whatever takes the least attention/micromanagement from me and whatever involves absolutely no tactical combat. Tactical combat doesn't even make sense on Civ's scale (in time or in space).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Whatever takes the least attention/micromanagement from me and whatever involves absolutely no tactical combat. Tactical combat doesn't even make sense on Civ's scale (in time or in space).

Much as I love tactical combat in its proper place (Full Disclosure: I've spent the past 6 years researching and now with a partner writing a massive book on tactical combat in front of Moscow in October 1941 - so I've put my time where my mouth is, so to speak), I've come to the same conclusion: Civ is not its proper place: it's just too much of a stretch for a Grand Strategy 4X Game.
On the other hand, Stack of Doom or 1UPT re both complete Cop Outs: the one reduces all the tactical complexity to, basically, a single die-roll, while the latter is grossly out of scale both physically on the map and temporally in game turns - any system that takes 200 years to resolve a single battle with 1 Unit on a side in the Ancient Era is simply insulting.

So: Combat System for Civ VII
Is my set of solutions, which I won't repeat in detail here. Suffice to say we can let the computer do all the tactical calculations and combinations and all the gamer should have to do is build and field an army and say how he wants to fight with that army. It's up to the army general, who is usually at least 1 - 2 levels below the Immortal God King Gamer, to make the rest of the decisions . . .

Oh, and @Gedemon , I haven't forgot about adding the various calculation factors from the Dupuy studies, but I have committed myself to doing the footnotes for a dozen chapters and finishing the translation of a book on the air war over Moscow and so everything gaming is taking a backseat at the moment.

 

[Gedemon]

In the "between" category there are also adapted rules.

For example 1UPT works a lot better in Old World than in Civ because there is a lot more space on the map for units to move, combined with higher movement points. The game's also a bit shorter meaning you'll end it before you'll really feel the need of a proper interface to move large armies around.

 

[AsH2]

Whatever takes the least attention/micromanagement from me and whatever involves absolutely no tactical combat. Tactical combat doesn't even make sense on Civ's scale (in time or in space).

Civ's scale in time and space doesn't make sense.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ's scale in time and space doesn't make sense.

True, but I reserve the right to justify my dislike of tactical combat. But I agree, building times are absurd (without even referencing wonders), travel takes forever, and the map scale is baffling.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

True, but I reserve the right to justify my dislike of tactical combat. But I agree, building times are absurd (without even referencing wonders), travel takes forever, and the map scale is baffling.

Not to defend Civ VI's map and time scales in any way, but their problems with scaling are not unique in gaming.
I once had a senior designer at Games Workshop point out that the 'dirty little secret' in their insanely popular Warhammer 40K miniatures game rules was that an armored infantryman in a science-fiction powered armored suit could not run from one end of a tank to the other in a single game-turn. Since their standard game was 6 turns, that meant that a battle involving infantry platoons and companies with armor and artillery and air support took less than 20 seconds.
Or not.
In fact, and very much like Civ VI's 'turns', each turn took however long it took: 3 seconds for the armored infantryman, 2 hours for an orbital air support ship to respond, 20 years for a Civ VI ancient Slinger to shoot a Barbarian Spearman once, and up to a century to build a single Caravel . . .[/QUOTE]

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ So how should productions reworked so unit training timeframe will become more realistic.

 

[AsH2]

^ So how should productions reworked so unit training timeframe will become more realistic.

I think it's already been "said" in https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ideas-for-the-perfect-4x-historical-game.654805/

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I would prefer limited stacks or 1 army per tile. Stacks would make it easier to move armies. A big problem with 1upt is that it can be laborious to move units to the front because you have to move units individually and make sure that units don't block each other. And I don't think stacks need to be huge. If you could just stack 3-5 military units in civ6, it would really help moving units around. Also, stacking would represent armies better. Considering the scale of the map, a hex should be able to support several units together. So I think it would make sense that you could stack a few units in the same hex. And armies have existed for thousands of years. For example, a Roman legion was 6,000 men, with both heavy infantry, light infantry and cavalry. A Roman legion was a mini army with different unit types. So surely, we should be able to stack say 3 units in the same hex, like 1 swordsman, 1 archer and 1 horseman. That should not be too much to ask.

Obviously, you do want to prevent players from spamming insanely big stacks or spamming lots of small stacks everywhere. But I think there are ways to prevent that with smart caps.For example, you could put a hard cap on the number of units per stack which could be raised through civics. I think starting with a cap of 3 units per stacks in the early game and eventually going up to 5 units per stack in the latter game would be fine. Alternatively, you could do a soft cap where players could add as many units as they can afford but bigger stacks would move slower, have higher maintenance and would suffer more collateral damage or suffer combat penalties (harder to coordinate so many units into an effective fighting force). You could also have a cap on the number of stacks allowed, call it "command points", to prevent players from spamming lots of stacks. Command points could also be raised with civics. Maybe you get 1-2 command points in the early game, rising to 5-6 in the late game. Alternatively, you could do a soft cap for stacks too, allowing players to have as many stacks as they want but having big maintenance costs for each stack. Another system could be to let the player buy general units. You could only do stacks greater than 2 units with a general unit. So you could stack 2 units together but if you wanted a bigger stack, you would need a general unit first. And general units would have a maintenance cost. This would put a limit on the player just spamming lots of big stacks everywhere. This would be different from great generals which would be like a super general unit and allow bigger stacks and give bigger bonuses.

I do think that stacks should have both advantages and disadvantages that players would need to consider. The advantages of stacks would be easier to move units around and overall higher combat strength. The disadvantage of stacks would be higher maintenance costs, slower movement, and possible collateral damage. Basically, stacks would be like a "super unit". It packs a bigger punch but costs more and is slower.

I also like the idea of stacks fighting as one and combat happening in several rounds, ranged attack first cavalry attack second and then melee attack last. The board game Risk: Medieval Europe has a nice system where all siege weapons attack first, then all archers attack second, then all cavalry attack, then all units including your footmen attack. It works really well to encourage players to have balanced armies because if you just have a lot of footmen and the enemy has some archers and cavalry, then the enemy will get some free attacks on you before you even get a chance to attack. You might still win if you outnumber the enemy but you might suffer more losses.

 

[seasnake]

And attrition: the larger the stack, the larger the attrition during movement unless you have support units that can live of the territory or supply lines. Larger stacks should move slower but have a sphere of influence up to two tiles around, if anything comes into that sphere it starts a combat.

Air units should be reworked entirely.

 

[Wolffleet]

This has been said before when these types of threads emerge but Arstahd's unit stacking mod adds an in-between option that imo is fantastic. Ai performs a lot better and combat feels less cramped.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2601447875

 

[General_Sahib]

After I played hearts of iron I realized that 1upt vs stacking is a mistaken discussion, the issue was never the stacking but the force concentration that can follow from stacking, when every unit in the stack can attack in the same direction in the same turn.

In HoI4 there's unlimited stacking, but mechanics of "combat width" and "supply" limit the offense/defense you can get out of a stack, so there's a point where adding extra units don't increase combat power. Civ could easily do the same by letting only one unit in a stack heal, and only allow one attack out of a tile no matter how many units are stacked in the tile (or allow one attack from the tile into each of the six directions, so up to six attacks total).

Imho civ6 already does most of what you are asking for if you move units as a formation. The only remaining difference is the point of origin of the multiple attacks being from a single tile or multiple tiles.

 

[General_Sahib]

lso, stacking would represent armies better. Considering the scale of the map, a hex should be able to support several units together. So I think it would make sense that you could stack a few units in the same hex. And armies have existed for thousands of years. For example, a Roman legion was 6,000 men, with both heavy infantry, light infantry and cavalry. A Roman legion was a mini army with different unit types. So surely, we should be able to stack say 3 units in the same hex, like 1 swordsman, 1 archer and 1 horseman.

But stacking would cause precisely the opposite of the tactical nuances that you seem to desire from hex based warfare. How can you focus cavalry against enemy archers if the bowman hides in a stack? This stacking is actually not how ancient wars were fought and battles tipped one way or the other. A casual glance at YouTube historical channels confirms the same rock /paper/scissors mechanics utilised in Civ in its 1UPT iterations. To me, carpets seem more "realistic" and intuitive than stacks.