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

What would you prefer in Civ7?

  • Stack of Doom (unlimited stacking)

    Votes: 6 13.6%
  • Carpet of Doom (one unit per tile)

    Votes: 9 20.5%
  • Something in between (limited stacking)

    Votes: 29 65.9%

  • Total voters
    44
CTP had stacks of up to 9 units. So melee up front, ranged behind. (combined arms)
That was/is my fav.

Of course, a stack of 9 fusion tanks, or the robotic walkers... :D

NO stacks for the stupid Leviathan tho.

(now imagine a stack of 9 GDR... heh)

1upt is... meh.
 
I like how it is, just one unit per tile.
Maybe some priest can go in the same tile of a tank. But is it, I don't like the idea to have a thousand units of war in a same tile.
 
I don't like the idea to have a thousand units of war in a same tile.

I feel like there should be a middle ground. It should not be either 1 unit per tile or a huge stack of doom of like 1000 units. Obviously, a huge stack of like 1000 units is extreme. I don't think anyone wants that. But I feel like 1 upt swung all the way to the other extreme. Why not just put a cap of say 10 units per tile or 5 units per tile? Personally, I think the game should allow stacks of up to 4 units. I don't think stacks of 4 units would be game breaking or extreme, do you?

In my opinion, the problem with civ4 stacks of doom was not that units could stack, the problem was that there was no mechanism to prevent large stacks. So, players could just keep making the stacks bigger and bigger. If you allow stacks but have an effective mechanism to prevent large stacks, I think that would work well.
 
I very much dont like this poll and thread's paradigm that the only possibilities we have is the idea of stacking in three flavours. You cna have Ford in any color you want, as long as it's black.

There is a ton of explored and unexplored ways to handle warfare in the game as abstract as Civilization. We can take inspirations from everything; from grand strategy games, tactical combat games, team RPG games, puzzle games, board games, tabletop games, or abstractions of warfare yet unknown.

Check Victoria 3 (unreleased so we'll see how works in practice) dev diaries about warfare to see how revolutionary and wall breaking it is for 20 year old set of game franchises that has always operated within "click army unit to move into a province" paradigm.

There could be awesome and emotional war system with no physical units anywhere at all, as far as I am concerned. You open war view and see flows of frontlines moving like sea waves across lands, and you shape their dynamics. 1upt is unsatisfying, infinite stacking was also unsatisfying, and limited stacking could just end up as a bastard child of both (or be amazing, who knows) so why not just go very creative.
 
Last edited:
There is a ton of explored and unexplored ways to handle warfare in the game as abstract as Civilization. We can take inspirations from everything; from grand strategy games, tactical combat games, team RPG games, puzzle games, board games, tabletop games, or abstractions of warfare yet unknown.

Check Victoria 3 (unreleased so we'll see how works in practice) dev diaries about warfare to see how revolutionary and wall breaking it is for 20 year old set of game franchises that has always operated within "click army unit to move into a province" paradigm.

This is a great point that even the unit stacking question might be in need of rethinking on the combat level.

From playing a mix of Civilization V and VI I may even suggest we look at different combat forms: siege, open battle, expeditions, amphibious assault... For example. Siege in VI alone often comes down to a handful of situations (sad to discuss amidst current events). Most of the time, it is a case of overwhelming and asymmetric power. Why then drag out the defense? When technology and forces are more balanced, siege can be contested and even a worthwhile fight, but this occurs less often in-game.

It is clear that Amplitude came up with at least two cases (siege/open battle) for Humankind, all the while answering their own stacking question, and I am curious how consideration of these combat forms has informed development of Civilization.

On a side note, you have given me good reason to revisit the dev diaries. Thanks!
 
I very much dont like this poll and thread's paradigm that the only possibilities we have is the idea of stacking in three flavours. You cna have Ford in any color you want, as long as it's black.

There is a ton of explored and unexplored ways to handle warfare in the game as abstract as Civilization. We can take inspirations from everything; from grand strategy games, tactical combat games, team RPG games, puzzle games, board games, tabletop games, or abstractions of warfare yet unknown.

Check Victoria 3 (unreleased so we'll see how works in practice) dev diaries about warfare to see how revolutionary and wall breaking it is for 20 year old set of game franchises that has always operated within "click army unit to move into a province" paradigm.

There could be awesome and emotional war system with no physical units anywhere at all, as far as I am concerned. You open war view and see flows of frontlines moving like sea waves across lands, and you shape their dynamics. 1upt is unsatisfying, infinite stacking was also unsatisfying, and limited stacking could just end up as a bastard child of both (or be amazing, who knows) so why not just go very creative.

Very creative thinking, but very unlikely that Civilization would move away from this part of its core formula... it would be like deciding that Science isn't going to be in Civ7.
 
Very creative thinking, but very unlikely that Civilization would move away from this part of its core formula... it would be like deciding that Science isn't going to be in Civ7.

If Civilization doesn't move away from the parts of its 'core formula' that result in mediocre games, then there won't be a Civ VIII, and I won't bother buying Civ VII.

According to the old formula, 1/3 of the game needs to be New and 1/3 Revised. Combat needs to be at least Revised, and I would argue that something New needs to at least be explored for it.
 
If Civilization doesn't move away from the parts of its 'core formula' that result in mediocre games, then there won't be a Civ VIII, and I won't bother buying Civ VII.

According to the old formula, 1/3 of the game needs to be New and 1/3 Revised. Combat needs to be at least Revised, and I would argue that something New needs to at least be explored for it.
I agree Civ 7 need to be different from Civ 6 to have a reason to do a new game, but I don't know what can be changed. Since the game is already very good. If I was a developer I would choice doing more expansions packs to civ 6 intead to do everything again in Civ 7.

One substancial change that can have in Civ 7 is be a mythological game, they already introduce some heroes in Civ 6. They can go further on that matter and it will be a very different game
 
I don't mind changes to the combat, but I'm definitely not expecting some weird flowing lines or anything... it's literally fine as it is give or take, they can do some mechanical changes, or add I don't know, some more "sauce" to it, but it doesn't need a complete overhaul...
 
What this game needs is a limited/infinite stacking with auto-resolve. The game will decide if you've put enough archers for you in the stack, enough knights, in order to counter the opposite army. Easy to tell, very hard to implement.

There could be generals with preferred type of units, like archers or knights.

So it would be semi-predictable, with experience (as long as I'm opposed to the need to have experience in order to play well, or at least not too much) you might guess what is the optimal composition of your army vs. another one (pretty tough yet), so if you go to war and lose it would be kind of a semi-gamble, like it is in reality. To be honest that would be a perfect-reality combat system. Fun ? I think we can manage to make it fun. (like collapses could be fun)
 
Obviously the debate between stack and carpet supporters is a matter of the scale each considers he's playing on. And the reason why there's such a sense of scale in the first place all comes from the very idea that everything in the game, including unit location, relies on one-size tiles, therefore fixing every aspect of gameplay at the very same and unique scale.

At first impression, tiles feel at the core of the very concept of Civilization to the point we cannot emancipate from it. But is it really the case? Thinking about it in depth, I've grown the idea the game could become entirely gridless:
  • All objects (units, cities, ressources...) could be located according to decimalized X and Y coordinates rather than one-scale integers.
  • All units would have their own max distance travelled per turn, and could go anywhere within that limit at each turn, in full 360° directions. That max distance wouldn't necessarily be "1" or "2" but could become more refined.
  • Cities areas of influence and cultural borders would grow in circles (being pottentially limited by mountains, rivers and oceans).
  • Worked parcels (farms, mines...) would be generated around the city within its radius.
  • Even the terrain in itself (grassland, plains, hills, mountains, forests...) doesn't necessarily need to be determined as hexagons or squares, you can simply consider that the terrain worked in a specific parcel is the one that represents the majority of it.
The big advantage of going gridless is that it would make units movements a lot more natural. They would follow actual roads, actual rivers. And obviously, it would allow to play at different scales: a wider scale for strategical aspects and a narrower scale when combat would be involved, all simply in zooming in or out with your mouse roll.

It wouldn't be a problem to make the world map spherical any longer. The whole environment would become incredibly more natural, increasing both realism and the feeling of freedom for the player.
 
Last edited:
Obviously the debate between stack and carpet supporters is a matter of the scale each considers he's playing on. And the reason why there's such a sense of scale in the first place all comes from the very idea that everything in the game, including unit location, relies on one-size tiles, therefore fixing every aspect of gameplay at the very same and unique scale.

At first impression, tiles feel at the core of the very concept of Civilization to the point we cannot emancipate from it. But after a second tought, is it really the case? After thinking about it in depth, I've grown the idea the game could become entirely gridless:
  • All objects (units, cities, ressources...) could be located according to decimalized X and Y coordinates rather than one-scale integers.
  • All units would have their own max distance travelled per turn, and could go anywhere within that limit at each turn, in full 360° directions. That max distance wouldn't necessarily be "1" or "2" but could become more refined.
  • Cities areas of influence and cultural borders would grow in circles (being pottentially limited by mountains, rivers and oceans).
  • Worked parcels (farms, mines...) would be generated around the city within its radius.
  • Even the terrain in itself (grassland, plains, hills, mountains, forests...) doesn't necessarily need to be determined as hexagons or squares, you can simply consider that the terrain worked in a specific parcel is the one that represents the majority of it.
The big advantage of going gridless is that it would make units movements a lot more natural. They would follow actual roads, actual rivers. And obviously, it would allow to play at different scales: a wider scale for strategical aspects and a narrower scale when combat would be involved, all simply in zooming in or out with your mouse roll.

It wouldn't be a problem to make the world map spherical any longer. The whole environment would become incredibly more natural, increasing both realism and the feeling of freedom for the player.

That sounds so needlessly complicated. How would terrain bonuses work? How would you explain this to new players? How is it even Civ without a grid?

Games like this need some kind of rigid ruleset and board to be understandable and balanced.
 
That sounds so needlessly complicated. How would terrain bonuses work? How would you explain this to new players? How is it even Civ without a grid?
Pretty simple, if a bonus is located within a worked parcel, then we can exploit it pretty much the same way as now. The only difference is that tiles are generated from a city when it's being founded and not based on a predetermined global grid.

What makes you think it would be complicated?

Games like this need some kind of rigid ruleset and board to be understandable and balanced.
I agree. As a matter of fact, from a gameplay point of view, I don't see any difference. You still move units in pointing out their destination, city production is still distributed in different tiles that you can develop in building farms or mines. Of course it needs a total overhaul on the way it's being coded (as always I hope when they make a new civ game), but it doesn't make things any more complicated for the player.

I would ask the question the other way around: what good does it bring to restrict unit movements only to specific tiles?
 
Last edited:
Obviously the debate between stack and carpet supporters is a matter of the scale each considers he's playing on. And the reason why there's such a sense of scale in the first place all comes from the very idea that everything in the game, including unit location, relies on one-size tiles, therefore fixing every aspect of gameplay at the very same and unique scale.

At first impression, tiles feel at the core of the very concept of Civilization to the point we cannot emancipate from it. But after a second tought, is it really the case? After thinking about it in depth, I've grown the idea the game could become entirely gridless:
  • All objects (units, cities, ressources...) could be located according to decimalized X and Y coordinates rather than one-scale integers.
  • All units would have their own max distance travelled per turn, and could go anywhere within that limit at each turn, in full 360° directions. That max distance wouldn't necessarily be "1" or "2" but could become more refined.
  • Cities areas of influence and cultural borders would grow in circles (being pottentially limited by mountains, rivers and oceans).
  • Worked parcels (farms, mines...) would be generated around the city within its radius.
  • Even the terrain in itself (grassland, plains, hills, mountains, forests...) doesn't necessarily need to be determined as hexagons or squares, you can simply consider that the terrain worked in a specific parcel is the one that represents the majority of it.
The big advantage of going gridless is that it would make units movements a lot more natural. They would follow actual roads, actual rivers. And obviously, it would allow to play at different scales: a wider scale for strategical aspects and a narrower scale when combat would be involved, all simply in zooming in or out with your mouse roll.

It wouldn't be a problem to make the world map spherical any longer. The whole environment would become incredibly more natural, increasing both realism and the feeling of freedom for the player.

We could even go further (well I think you mentionned it but I want to underline it) : the game could look like a randomly generated open world RPG where you can move your units from a close view. Obviously, the graphics would be awesome and need a powerful computer to run, with trees balancing to the wind, rivers flowing, animals running, birds singing, etc. and on top of that, everything that you constructed : cities, buildings, road, farms, plantations, windmills, etc. The marvelous thing about that is of course immersion, but on top of that everything would be on scale, it would be really beautiful to look at and could even rub shoulders with RPG, in appearance at least ; strategically, there would still be a strategic view obviously, and the battles happening realistically with formations and orders would be more natural than in a separate screen like it has been in Call To Power I've being told, and they would become a thing naturally. And if everything in on scale, no need to determine arbitrarily anymore what is where and by which rules.

The only problem I can see with such kind of things is the time flow and huge spaces involved.
 
We could even go further (well I think you mentionned it but I want to underline it) : the game could look like a randomly generated open world RPG where you can move your units from a close view. Obviously, the graphics would be awesome and need a powerful computer to run, with trees balancing to the wind, rivers flowing, animals running, birds singing, etc. and on top of that, everything that you constructed : cities, buildings, road, farms, plantations, windmills, etc. The marvelous thing about that is of course immersion, but on top of that everything would be on scale, it would be really beautiful to look at and could even rub shoulders with RPG, in appearance at least ; strategically, there would still be a strategic view obviously, and the battles happening realistically with formations and orders would be more natural than in a separate screen like it has been in Call To Power I've being told, and they would become a thing naturally. And if everything in on scale, no need to determine arbitrarily anymore what is where and by which rules.

The only problem I can see with such kind of things is the time flow and huge spaces involved.

I would prefer if civ7 did not require a supercomputer to run. I think 4X strategy games benefit when they can run on average computers. IMO, the focus should not be on graphics but on game mechanics. When the game requires a powerful computer and you start getting lag or long wait times between turns, it takes me out of the game.
 
I would prefer if civ7 did not require a supercomputer to run
I agree with you, if Civ 6 don't run well in my old notebook, I just imagine how civ7 don't will work also
untill today I'm stacked in civ 5.
 
Ok so here is my attempt at a weird but civ - fitting combat system

- You don't physically move any units on the map on hex by hex basis
- You don't recruit invidual units of archers etc etc but you instead design army templates consisting of proportions and formations of unit such as archers etc.
- Then you recruit whole armies, you may pool production of several cities, you set a rally point where a new army is being organized, and instead of 0 - > suddenly 100 armies appear in gradual increments like 0 - > 25 - > 50 - > 75 - > 100% of the intended size. So its not all or nothing affair, you may fight with partially ready armies.
- You can also recruit mercenaries.
- There is a minimum and maximum amount of units an army can have. Minimum size is to prevent small trash stacks cluttering the map and suiciding AI forces, maximum size simulates logistical constraits on field army size (especially before 20th century).
- Armies need gold but also manpower, food, guns, fuel to continue operations: each army either has limited amount of those resources it carries, or lives from plunder, or has logistic line connecting it to some basis of supplies. Cut those sources and army slowly withers.
- Each army has its experience and small skill tree, and a general assigned who has his own small skill tree, traits, loyalty etc. Armies can rebel btw.
- You dont move armies on hex by hex basis. Instead, they all have a set radius of hexes they cover. You move armies by choosing their next area and type of operations.
- If two hostile armies end up in the same operation area and neither retreats, they fight a battle.
- Possible operations are just controlling chosen area, ransacking a chosen area, sieging or garrisoning a chosen city, and guerilla.
- You don't operate the battle itself, mostly. Its more of something between Disciples and paradox games, where the way you organize your armies in various ways, campaign strategy and particular terrain are most decisive. Your armies, units and generals have special formations and abilities though, which you can activate as the battle begins to counter enemy tactics. So, to sum up, you have lots of ways to think during ways.
- As technicslly each battle is a campaign over big area, I Wonder if they shoukdnt sometimes last few turns and allow reinforcements, IT would make them more exciting...
- There are no joint land and naval battles until modern age, as it is stupid idea of 1upt
- Airforce counts as resource providing "special abilities" to activate just before the battle, so you can make air reconaissance, bombing attempt, bombers interception etc.
- Ransacking operation is when you pillage given enemy area, but your army gets undisciplined and locals angry, so if you are suddenly attacked it may get ugly. Risk and reward
- Guerilla is a special type of operation, Possible only in defense. Your army covers a given area but not as a cohesive unit that fights battles, instead it becomes sort of "ghost" army which deals gradual damage to enemy armies in given area and blocks supply lines. It sometimes may allow underdog defender to win wars, especially in right terrain. But it has its risks - enemy may have armies specialized in anti guerilla, or it may be too slow method when compared with regular defense as enemy ravages your country, and it takes time for army to reemerge from guerilla and reform into regular army. So guerilla has its bonuses and drawbacks.

And so on.
Minimum micromanagement, a lot of strategic depth and choices, climactic epic battles, simulation of guerilla warfare for once, much more historical, logistics, skill trees etc.
 
Ok so here is my attempt at a weird but civ - fitting combat system

- You don't physically move any units on the map on hex by hex basis
- You don't recruit invidual units of archers etc etc but you instead design army templates consisting of proportions and formations of unit such as archers etc.
- Then you recruit whole armies, you may pool production of several cities, you set a rally point where a new army is being organized, and instead of 0 - > suddenly 100 armies appear in gradual increments like 0 - > 25 - > 50 - > 75 - > 100% of the intended size. So its not all or nothing affair, you may fight with partially ready armies.
- You can also recruit mercenaries.
- There is a minimum and maximum amount of units an army can have. Minimum size is to prevent small trash stacks cluttering the map and suiciding AI forces, maximum size simulates logistical constraits on field army size (especially before 20th century).
- Armies need gold but also manpower, food, guns, fuel to continue operations: each army either has limited amount of those resources it carries, or lives from plunder, or has logistic line connecting it to some basis of supplies. Cut those sources and army slowly withers.
- Each army has its experience and small skill tree, and a general assigned who has his own small skill tree, traits, loyalty etc. Armies can rebel btw.
- You dont move armies on hex by hex basis. Instead, they all have a set radius of hexes they cover. You move armies by choosing their next area and type of operations.
- If two hostile armies end up in the same operation area and neither retreats, they fight a battle.
- Possible operations are just controlling chosen area, ransacking a chosen area, sieging or garrisoning a chosen city, and guerilla.
- You don't operate the battle itself, mostly. Its more of something between Disciples and paradox games, where the way you organize your armies in various ways, campaign strategy and particular terrain are most decisive. Your armies, units and generals have special formations and abilities though, which you can activate as the battle begins to counter enemy tactics. So, to sum up, you have lots of ways to think during ways.
- As technicslly each battle is a campaign over big area, I Wonder if they shoukdnt sometimes last few turns and allow reinforcements, IT would make them more exciting...
- There are no joint land and naval battles until modern age, as it is stupid idea of 1upt
- Airforce counts as resource providing "special abilities" to activate just before the battle, so you can make air reconaissance, bombing attempt, bombers interception etc.
- Ransacking operation is when you pillage given enemy area, but your army gets undisciplined and locals angry, so if you are suddenly attacked it may get ugly. Risk and reward
- Guerilla is a special type of operation, Possible only in defense. Your army covers a given area but not as a cohesive unit that fights battles, instead it becomes sort of "ghost" army which deals gradual damage to enemy armies in given area and blocks supply lines. It sometimes may allow underdog defender to win wars, especially in right terrain. But it has its risks - enemy may have armies specialized in anti guerilla, or it may be too slow method when compared with regular defense as enemy ravages your country, and it takes time for army to reemerge from guerilla and reform into regular army. So guerilla has its bonuses and drawbacks.

And so on.
Minimum micromanagement, a lot of strategic depth and choices, climactic epic battles, simulation of guerilla warfare for once, much more historical, logistics, skill trees etc.

That is a very cool idea. I had a similar idea of designing "armies" and deploying whole armies instead of units. But you've fleshed it out way more. I really like it.

I think your idea would work great with regions instead of hexes. Armies could be recruited in regions and move from one region to an adjacent region.
 
Who talked about a supercomputer ? Just buy a new one. (well, it would work back in the past and hopefully in the future too)

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.
 
Top Bottom