Proposal workshop: unit stacking ideas

[azum4roll]

What actually is the problem here?

Too many units -> reduce supply
Logistics is a slog because the battlefront is too small -> try making more battlefronts then. But that's usually an AI problem. Humans don't usually have enough supply to open more fronts.
AI produces units as fast as you can kill them -> that should be fixed somewhat next version with the AI gold purchase fix. They won't be able to produce more than 2 units from one city anymore (unless Authority/Zealotry/Spain), and the purchased one will properly have halved XP.
Units take too many hits to kill -> I personally don't think it's the case, especially in the lategame where everything has so much range.

 

[nekokon]

What actually is the problem here?

Too many units -> reduce supply
Logistics is a slog because the battlefront is too small -> try making more battlefronts then. But that's usually an AI problem. Humans don't usually have enough supply to open more fronts.
AI produces units as fast as you can kill them -> that should be fixed somewhat next version with the AI gold purchase fix. They won't be able to produce more than 2 units from one city anymore (unless Authority/Zealotry/Spain), and the purchased one will properly have halved XP.
Units take too many hits to kill -> I personally don't think it's the case, especially in the lategame where everything has so much range.

Reduce supply -> not fun for wide empire having only a handful of troops.
Can't do anything about small battlefront.
AI mass producing units and taking too long to kill are grouped, since they both mean players have to repeat the same careful actions over and over which causes burnout/feeling of slogging through the war. However we don't want to touch the current balance here since we don't want to change skirmishes balance (or there will be tons of other issue like some units can charge in one-shotting some units from offscreen despite being lower tier), only adding more AoE to address the issue at choke points. This would be the most efficient change affecting a small number of units (only bombardment capable) and almost no change to AI.

 

[Stalker0]

Humans don't usually have enough supply to open more fronts.0

When I'm warmongering that is generally not my experience in the late game. Case in point with my recent Japan DomV. I was using around 65-75 supply consistently.....I had over 120 supply easily (and in the crazy event I actually had gotten to 120 supply....I can make nigh infinite zeroes that don't cost supply)

That supply only serves to fend off war wariness....the real bottleneck is simply the production and maintenance expenses of a larger army (or frankly...the tedium). The only only time in the game supply is a real issue to me is when I play tall, that's when every ounce of supply is useful. but as a warmonger its a completely non-factor to me.

 

[epicivfreak]

How about simply allowing each type of unit to stack on a tile? Ranged+Melee+Calvary+whatever... one of each. It's been done before & it works well. Beyond that, revert to post #41.

 

[Tekamthi]

Too many units -> reduce supply

I think that is the obvious solution, generally speaking -- here we've been exploring what might be possible via some less obvious alternatives.

It's no matter though, there is some supply discussion in the other thread and here -- one way or another a good idea will emerge.

A flat supply reduction has a certain gamey quality that is seen as undesirable to some -- whereas current limit is quite high as discussed here, that gamey attribute is not felt very significantly. Once we are constantly bumping against a flat limit, it will become an issue of its own.

PD's suggested model for "armies" would effectively limit supply by consuming more of it per tile with special stronger units -- not to say it does not come with it's own set of concerns, but broadly-speaking, this is the kind of mechanism we should be seeking to limit supply, where supply combines with other game factors to motivate player choice into a better outcome, rather than forcing a flat cap

 

[azum4roll]

PD's suggested model for "armies" would effectively limit supply by consuming more of it per tile with special stronger units

No, it effectively makes supply irrelevant, as now nobody will be oversupply. The number of military units should still be capped (air units via air slots), AND each unit supply should not be too strong relative to each other at any given tech level.

If we ever make units cost 2 supply or more, they need to be actually as strong as 2 or more units.

 

[CppMaster]

If we ever make units cost 2 supply or more, they need to be actually as strong as 2 or more units.

Why? What's the problem with a unit 50% stronger that costs 100% more supply? Concentration of power may be good.

 

[azum4roll]

Why? What's the problem with a unit 50% stronger that costs 100% more supply? Concentration of power may be good.

By stronger I don't mean combat strength. It needs to be as good as if you have 2 normal units, and that's assuming you don't spend more than 2x resources on making the 2-supply unit.

 

[CppMaster]

By stronger I don't mean combat strength. It needs to be as good as if you have 2 normal units, and that's assuming you don't spend more than 2x resources on making the 2-supply unit.

Ok, and why can't it be 50% better? If it's my choice whether to merge to an army or not.

 

[Anarcomu]

Ok, and why can't it be 50% better? If it's my choice whether to merge to an army or not.

I guess if devs are implementing a system as (possibly) complex as armies, then it rather be a tool that is worth using in-game, otherwise it would have been a waste of work and time.
However it looks like you don't disagree on the base concept. We should find the right spot for implementation.

 

[CppMaster]

I guess if devs are implementing a system as (possibly) complex as armies, then it rather be a tool that is worth using in-game, otherwise it would have been a waste of work and time.
However it looks like you don't disagree on the base concept. We should find the right spot for implementation.

Yeah, I meant that we don't need to limit ourselves only to 100% more power, where for example 80% more power might be more balanced, because a concentration of power in tile is also valuable.

 

[nekokon]

Would be way too much work to teach the AI to use it effectively, even if the technicality of merging units were solved (which I don't think is very easy).
Even at the same number (50% for example) the new armies would already be super strong in player's hand with promotion stacking, while also making the AI weaker with less meat shield/stalling power (compared to 2 units, due to the fact they're more likely to be in defensive position). Going up more or down more won't change this dynamic.

 

[Stalker0]

By stronger I don't mean combat strength. It needs to be as good as if you have 2 normal units, and that's assuming you don't spend more than 2x resources on making the 2-supply unit.

I don't agree. In civ 5 concentration of power is much more important. Having an army that has 60 units when I can only get 15 onto the specific theater of battle is not helpful. If I could get 15 "super units" that cost the supply and resources of 30....in many cases that would absolutely be worth it, even if those 15 don't have the raw power of 30.

 

[Heinz_Guderian]

I don't agree. In civ 5 concentration of power is much more important. Having an army that has 60 units when I can only get 15 onto the specific theater of battle is not helpful. If I could get 15 "super units" that cost the supply and resources of 30....in many cases that would absolutely be worth it, even if those 15 don't have the raw power of 30.

Arent you making his point though? If you say it would be worth it to have 15 strong units, that is saying it is "as good as if you have 30 normal units" which was what azum4roll said

 

[Tekamthi]

I agree the army will have to be sufficiently valuable that it always is advantageous to create an army over keeping regular units separately, primarily to simplify AI decision-making. But there is also a thematic aspect: when combining two of anything it should feel like player ends up with two in one value afterwards, for example each unit has 100hp representing it's personnel and equipment, if we end up with only 150hp unit, the thematically-minded player will be left wondering "well where did that 50 hp worth of people and weapons actually GO?"

If the result ends up with other abilities, perhaps extra hp healed every turn, maybe thematic player finds an answer there, ie well they keeping more reserves and support personnel to facilitate faster healing, that's where the 50 hp worth of stuff went.

I'm admittedly only luke warm about the concept overall, but if it were left up to me to implement armies I'd probably give them a straight sum of hp (ie 200hp), two attacks per turn, maybe 1.1x or 1.2x the combat strength, and some additional small situational bonuses like extra CS vs fortified units etc. For xp it strikes me as best to just sum the xp amounts and wipe out all previously selected promotions, let them choose again from level 1 based on resulting XP amount. This would raise question of how to handle UU promotions retained from upgrade, not sure there tbh

 

[CppMaster]

probably give them a straight sum of hp (ie 200hp), two attacks per turn, maybe 1.1x or 1.2x the combat strength, and some additional small situational bonuses like extra CS vs fortified units etc.

That seems very OP!
In comparison, in Civ 6 combined units are about 25% stronger and have 75% higher maintenance cost, but usually it's still worth it.

 

[Tekamthi]

That seems very OP!

Possibly, but I had 2 attacks per turn from these 2 units, and 200hp before the merge -- these are the important attributes from player point of view

If too powerful I'd maybe reduce CS back to 1x original unit values and ease up on the situational abilities -- the extra strength can come from 2x attacks and extra hp -- if we have a bunch of guys with swords, do their attacks carry more strength when they swing if they're packed closely together? No, just the amount of sword swings increase.

The 2 attacks per turn seems a minimum requirement in the way I view this concept -- if I'm taking 2 attacks per turn and merging them into only one, I will keep units unmerged most of the time

 

[ma_kuh]

Remove Blitz from the warrior/spear line.
Armies gain +100 hp and Blitz.
Armies keep the promotions/XP of the higher level unit, but cost x2 to upgrade in the future.
(Maybe combine the HP, double attack, and upgrade premium in a single new promotion?)
Limit to warrior/spear lines.
Unlock Armies with a tech (so no free Blitz in ancient).

Is that it?

 

[pineappledan]

Remove Blitz from the warrior/spear line.
Armies gain +100 hp and Blitz.
Armies keep the promotions/XP of the higher level unit, but cost x2 to upgrade in the future.
Limit to warrior/spear lines.
Unlock Armies with a tech (so no free Blitz in ancient).

Is that it?

This, and make the army unit cost extra supply and maintenance.

I see no particular reason to block army formation early. Space isn’t at a premium early game, you are basically giving up the flexibility to have more vision/occupy more space, and you’re foregoing a flanking bonus if you stack units. The benefits of stacking only start to appear in mid game, once armies and cities get more crowded.

 

[CppMaster]

And why only land melee unmounted?