Proposal workshop: unit stacking ideas

[ma_kuh]

Tech/policy-gating the ability has the advantage of keeping the AI from forming them in the early game. This is an advantage because it means the logic for when to form them can be simpler. Also without it, the early game fighting will change, possibly significantly, compared to the current play. I see it breaking down one of two ways:

1. Converting to armies is a meaningful strategic choice, where you sacrifice flanking and healing rate for power concentration, at a drawback. In this situation, the AI will need to evaluate more about the situation to decide if that's worthwhile, complicating the system.
2. Converting to armies is always better (outside of niches like battlefield vision or ZOC projection). In this situation, AI is greatly simplified, the difference between 1 spear or 1 double-spear means you could basically just make all spears cost x2 with double stats and be in the same place.

If the gate is at Classical, I agree it's barely a gate at all and not worth the hassle, but the goal was to affect late-game unit sprawl, not change up how melee units function in general. Just something to consider.

---

Limiting armies to just the one unit line feels like the obvious first step. When testing a hypothesis, it's important to minimize variables, and adding armies to everything goes against that in a big way. Also on this topic, consider the goals of this change: late-game unit sprawl. Ranged units (and even mounted/armored units) do not have the same problems as infantry, specifically the ability to get into position to achieve their goal. So they don't need this solution. The ability to have Civ UCs/policies/etc. enable armies of other lines feels like something worth reserving, as well.

---

I can respect the hesitation that 200 HP seems like a lot, but I think the flanking and healing losses are already making it seem like armies are kind of a trap until every land tile is full. Blitz has always been a double-edged sword on melee units, and I think here it'll be no different. It doesn't warrant the HP penalty.

Spoiler I'm going to do a quick comparison :

Assumed situation: 2 spears fortifying against an infinite series of spears attacking in.
Incoming damage per turn: 25 (fortified bonus)
Healing per turn: 10
T1: 100 > 75
T2: 75 > 85 > 60
T3: 60 > 70 > 45
T4: 45 > 55 > 20
T5: 20 > 30 > 5
T6: 5 > 15 > DEAD
[Repeat for spear #2]
So two spears hold a choke for 12 turns.

If these spears were an army:
T1: 200 > 175
T2: 175 > 185 > 160
T3: 160 > 170 > 145
T4: 145 > 155 > 120
T5: 120 > 130 > 105
T6: 105 > 115 > 90
T7: 90 > 100 > 75
T8: 75 > 85 > 60
T9: 60 > 70 > 45 (DEAD if HP=150)
T10: 45 > 55 > 20
T11: 20 > 30 > 5
T12: 5 > 15 > DEAD

If we reduce the HP by 50, the units hold the point for 25% fewer turns.

 

[Stalker0]

While 200 hp sounds like a lot, consider that we are proposing heal at normal rate for one unit, so the hp total will recover at half the rate it would if these were separate units. It's possible that in-play these will fight quite often at less than full HP, we may only see them full during the initial encounters of a war.

It sounds like a lot....because its a lot

What it would mean is that a few melee armies could wreck the initial line without fear of dying (which is the number 1 reason melee units don't attack, they can't take the counterattack from the ranged units). Giving me double the HP would completely change the paradigm.

Your not wrong it would take them longer to heal, but I still think its just way too much. Even +50 would often mean that impact, but at least its not guarranteed.

Something to also keep in mind. When people think blitz, remember they are used to seeing that on the drill line. So these units aren't actually "that good" on the open field. Now imagine a shock III overrun unit with blitz....that's a wrecking ball.


My general take on this, I think its a cool idea....and I think it means humans will not be able to beat the AI (assuming the AI actually uses these things). The AI could make all of its units an army and still have units to spare on high levels. Now imagine an army of 30 guys on your front line all with +50 hp and blitz double attack smashing your forces. Only the human has an absolutely baller of a defensive chokepoint, they aren't going to be able to hold against that

 

[pineappledan]

What it would mean is that a few melee armies could wreck the initial line without fear of dying (which is the number 1 reason melee units don't attack, they can't take the counterattack from the ranged units). Giving me double the HP would completely change the paradigm.

Actually this is selling me on the full 100HP again.

You're saying the initial clash would be more dynamic and people would dump more raw HP into the first strike and then heal slower after it. So that means that armies will exhaust themselves faster, which means faster, less grindy wars.

Yes please.

Now imagine an army of 30 guys on your front line all with +50 hp and blitz double attack smashing your forces.

That's the current production, maintenance, and supply equivalent of fending off 60 units now. And you're saying the AI is going to smash them into me harder and faster, rather than grinding me down with a doom carpet of 60(!) units. That sounds like a mercy; put me out of my misery if they are capable of fielding all of that meat onto a single front. If I'm going to lose I would rather lose in 10 turns than 30 turns.

 

[usadefcon1]

Actually this is selling me on the full 100HP again.

100HP would be a HUGE buff to Civs that have UUs on the infantry line.

 

[ma_kuh]

I really like the pro/con list this is laying out, actually!

Two individual units	An Army	Comments
Double count for flanking	Low-health CS penalty stacks up slower	Synergy between Shock and spread out units, as compared the innate advantages of centralized power.
Can flank with each other	Doubles effectiveness in tight corridors	The big trade-off.
Can approach with 1 movement and attack twice	Can approach with 1 movement and attack once	Guerrilla/vanguard tactics are emphasized with a loose formation.
Terrain is at a premium: fewer units will have defensive terrain, and fewer open slots to attack from	Better use of defensive terrain modifiers (army in a fort, for example)	Point defense is emphasized with an army formation.
Heal at twice the rate when damage is shared	Don't die unless "both" units die	More hit-n-run versus point control comparisons.

And keep in mind, it's not just a +100 HP buff to melee, you are literally sacrificing 100 HP for 100 HP, it's 1:1. In fact with the bonus HP promo you'd be coming out slightly behind.

 

[Tekamthi]

for the merging logic, may want to consider restricting army formation so that it must include one "new" level unit -- human can figure this stuff out no prob but if its just any 2 units from the same line, there's chance the AI will throw away good promos (assuming we're just keeping promos from the high lvl unit as was suggested a few posts back). Also suits AI playstyle over human's who tend to build more new units anyway

 

[usadefcon1]

for the merging logic, may want to consider restricting army formation so that it must include one "new" level unit -- human can figure this stuff out no prob but if its just any 2 units from the same line, there's chance the AI will throw away good promos (assuming we're just keeping promos from the high lvl unit as was suggested a few posts back). Also suits AI playstyle over human's who tend to build more new units anyway

Why don't you just merge the XP and give credit for duplicate promotions.

 

[azum4roll]

Tech/policy-gating the ability has the advantage of keeping the AI from forming them in the early game. This is an advantage because it means the logic for when to form them can be simpler. Also without it, the early game fighting will change, possibly significantly, compared to the current play. I see it breaking down one of two ways:

1. Converting to armies is a meaningful strategic choice, where you sacrifice flanking and healing rate for power concentration, at a drawback. In this situation, the AI will need to evaluate more about the situation to decide if that's worthwhile, complicating the system.
2. Converting to armies is always better (outside of niches like battlefield vision or ZOC projection). In this situation, AI is greatly simplified, the difference between 1 spear or 1 double-spear means you could basically just make all spears cost x2 with double stats and be in the same place.

If the gate is at Classical, I agree it's barely a gate at all and not worth the hassle, but the goal was to affect late-game unit sprawl, not change up how melee units function in general. Just something to consider.

---

Limiting armies to just the one unit line feels like the obvious first step. When testing a hypothesis, it's important to minimize variables, and adding armies to everything goes against that in a big way. Also on this topic, consider the goals of this change: late-game unit sprawl. Ranged units (and even mounted/armored units) do not have the same problems as infantry, specifically the ability to get into position to achieve their goal. So they don't need this solution. The ability to have Civ UCs/policies/etc. enable armies of other lines feels like something worth reserving, as well.

---

I can respect the hesitation that 200 HP seems like a lot, but I think the flanking and healing losses are already making it seem like armies are kind of a trap until every land tile is full. Blitz has always been a double-edged sword on melee units, and I think here it'll be no different. It doesn't warrant the HP penalty.

Spoiler I'm going to do a quick comparison :

Assumed situation: 2 spears fortifying against an infinite series of spears attacking in.
Incoming damage per turn: 25 (fortified bonus)
Healing per turn: 10
T1: 100 > 75
T2: 75 > 85 > 60
T3: 60 > 70 > 45
T4: 45 > 55 > 20
T5: 20 > 30 > 5
T6: 5 > 15 > DEAD
[Repeat for spear #2]
So two spears hold a choke for 12 turns.

If these spears were an army:
T1: 200 > 175
T2: 175 > 185 > 160
T3: 160 > 170 > 145
T4: 145 > 155 > 120
T5: 120 > 130 > 105
T6: 105 > 115 > 90
T7: 90 > 100 > 75
T8: 75 > 85 > 60
T9: 60 > 70 > 45 (DEAD if HP=150)
T10: 45 > 55 > 20
T11: 20 > 30 > 5
T12: 5 > 15 > DEAD

If we reduce the HP by 50, the units hold the point for 25% fewer turns.

They don't take 25 damage per turn. CS is weakened at lower HP and it's very significant on the army (up to -67%!)

 

[nekokon]

I take it everybody prefer the more flashy and costly solution with lots of extra work both technically and balance-wise and nobody wants the simpler easier to implement/test/change solution then.

 

[Anarcomu]

Why don't you just merge the XP and give credit for duplicate promotions.

Out of the question. This makes new army units start with double XP, since they accumulate XP from two new units. Capping through any calculation based on potential starting XP is just a hassle.

Also I see a potential problem with giving blitz to armies : they will rarely benefit from it in rough terrain, since they consume all their movement points when attacking once ; and they will gain double XP from double attack in other cases.
I'd propose something like a +50/+100% increased damage dealt and taken when attacking, and maybe also defending against melee.

 

[Anarcomu]

I take it everybody prefer the more flashy and costly solution with lots of extra work both technically and balance-wise and nobody wants the simpler easier to implement/test/change solution then.

I take everybody sees more flaws in the solutions you propose rather than the one that are brought here.
If you really think your solution is best, maybe modmod could be a good way of finding out which solution is best.
There might be someone here willing to do it for you if you can't do it yourself, btw.

 

[usadefcon1]

Out of the question. This makes new army units start with double XP, since they accumulate XP from two new units. Capping through any calculation based on potential starting XP is just a hassle.

Obviously it's tough to think about this stuff without actually playtesting it, but in my head I think XP is more fun than HP.

I'd rather see +50 HP units with interesting promotions than +100 HP vanilla units.

 

[nekokon]

I take everybody sees more flaws in the solutions you propose rather than the one that are brought here.
If you really think your solution is best, maybe modmod could be a good way of finding out which solution is best.
There might be someone here willing to do it for you if you can't do it yourself, btw.

I don't see ppl talking about its flaw or about it at all, only discussion about the grander idea. Personally I do think it's an easier task to implement and test out, but without other's opinions (or interest) it's hard to see the drawback myself.

 

[Stalker0]

That's the current production, maintenance, and supply equivalent of fending off 60 units now. And you're saying the AI is going to smash them into me harder and faster, rather than grinding me down with a doom carpet of 60(!) units. That sounds like a mercy; put me out of my misery if they are capable of fielding all of that meat onto a single front. If I'm going to lose I would rather lose in 10 turns than 30 turns.

The point was that high diff players can fend off 60 regular units from the AI, but I don't know if I they could fend 30 super units that can actually and kill their units. So its not that we are shifting from "kill me slow to kill me fast" its "before I would hold" to "now I just die"

 

[azum4roll]

Unit carpet isn't hard to fend off. It requires a small battlefront (choke point), takes a very long time and is tedious. Eventually the AI just stops building buildings and economically falls behind, since unit cost ramps up and they aren't getting any yields from successful warring.

A superunit squad will just plow through your choke points, UNLESS you also fortify them with superunits, which will require you to have an even smaller battlefront. Overall no changes to war duration and tedium, just a reduction of maximum battlefront size for the humans to hold off an invasion.

 

[pineappledan]

I think the assessment that having one 200HP unit would mean more aggression and a "spendthrift" attitude towards HP on the initial attack would actually reduce the grind. Even if you are correct, simply reducing the size of a front sounds desirable.

 

[Tekamthi]

A superunit squad will just plow through your choke points, UNLESS you also fortify them with superunits, which will require you to have an even smaller battlefront. Overall no changes to war duration and tedium, just a reduction of maximum battlefront size for the humans to hold off an invasion.

I was wondering about this as well, but I think maybe an efficient rotation of the right mix of single units in defensive terrain with fort & road etc., could probably manage

 

[azum4roll]

I think the assessment that having one 200HP unit would mean more aggression and a "spendthrift" attitude towards HP on the initial attack would actually reduce the grind. Even if you are correct, simply reducing the size of a front sounds desirable.

A smaller front means a longer war. It's only not longer in this case because the superunit counts as 2 units of supply and 2 units of production.

 

[CppMaster]

I take it everybody prefer the more flashy and costly solution with lots of extra work both technically and balance-wise and nobody wants the simpler easier to implement/test/change solution then.

Both can be proposed, so don't worry. You can also start a separate threat.

 

[CppMaster]

Assumed situation: 2 spears fortifying against an infinite series of spears attacking in.
Incoming damage per turn: 25 (fortified bonus)
Healing per turn: 10
T1: 100 > 75
T2: 75 > 85 > 60
T3: 60 > 70 > 45
T4: 45 > 55 > 20
T5: 20 > 30 > 5
T6: 5 > 15 > DEAD
[Repeat for spear #2]
So two spears hold a choke for 12 turns.

That's a bad assumption, because usually 2 units can be attacked with more units, because they cover more ground. Unless it's a very specific situation where you have a passage of 1 tile and mountains on sides, but then it's just that... A very specific situation, which shouldn't be generalized.