Questions for people who don't like stack of doom

[ShadowWarrior]

I myself absolutely abhor 1 unit per tile rule. In fact, I abhor it so much that I prefer to put up with the hassles of stack of doom. But this doesn't mean that the problems presented by stack of doom is minor. I remembered those painful days when stack of doom drove me insane back in the civ 1-4 days.

To me, stack of doom was unbearable not because of the enemy conquered my city. The conquer and occupation of the city is okay by me as long as the city itself can be more or less preserved with minimal damage. That way, upon liberation of that city, I more or less can resume governing and managing the city as if it had never been occupied by a foreign power. But my in my game experience, the problem with stack of doom is that when cities are occupied by a foreign power, that foreign power can do serious damage to that city in a few turns. In the worst case scenario, that city may be razed to the ground. Such destruction is devastating psychologically to those of us who have spent close to 100 turns building up that city.

Perhaps then the problem might not so much be stack of doom as it is about what happened to our city when the enemy occupies it. The focus should be less on fixing stack of doom and rather be more focused on the extent that the occupier can rain destruction on the conquered cities?

Questions for anti-stack of doomers. What are they main reasons you dislike stack of doom?

 

[Naokaukodem]

To be honest, I don't dislike stack of doom. I would even tend to prefer it over 1UPT, which is kind an extreme rough opposite rule.

If I can see a problem with SOD, it's the rules of battle. In Civ4 : "ok, I can get elephants quickly, that would be an 8 strenght unit to oppose to enemy catapults, but there is no bonus from terrain", the last part being a greater deal that it can appear at first glance. There's also, always in Civ4, the "will my catapult damage the enemy stack enough ?" It's something hard to tell when you do not have enough experience, and I mean, a lot of experience. Also the key problem : "I want to attack this stack, so I want to go toward it", BUT : if you do so, you might be short on movement points, and the enemy stack might take advantage if it can attack first, which wasn't the purpose of the move.

All I see here is apparent simple rules, but too complicated at the end. I grant 1UPT to be simple in any case once acquired some basic knowledge of the combat system, which is basically : the difference of the strenghts has not to be proportional to the strenght itself in order to have the advantage, and this knowledge is even futile when you have a simple unit-to-unit battle preview.

Stack of doom has been scrapped because of the complexity it brought I'm sure. At least in its Civ4 version. I don't remember how bombardments worked in 3, and in 1 & 2 your entire stack would be destroyed if you were unlucky (especially in multiplayer I guess, because I never have had this issue in solo)

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I myself absolutely abhor 1 unit per tile rule. In fact, I abhor it so much that I prefer to put up with the hassles of stack of doom. But this doesn't mean that the problems presented by stack of doom is minor. I remembered those painful days when stack of doom drove me insane back in the civ 1-4 days.

To me, stack of doom was unbearable not because of the enemy conquered my city. The conquer and occupation of the city is okay by me as long as the city itself can be more or less preserved with minimal damage. That way, upon liberation of that city, I more or less can resume governing and managing the city as if it had never been occupied by a foreign power. But my in my game experience, the problem with stack of doom is that when cities are occupied by a foreign power, that foreign power can do serious damage to that city in a few turns. In the worst case scenario, that city may be razed to the ground. Such destruction is devastating psychologically to those of us who have spent close to 100 turns building up that city.

Perhaps then the problem might not so much be stack of doom as it is about what happened to our city when the enemy occupies it. The focus should be less on fixing stack of doom and rather be more focused on the extent that the occupier can rain destruction on the conquered cities?

I am so confused you're talking about two completely different things.

 

[Zegangani]

I second HorseshoeHermit, SoD doesn't have much to do with what happens to a City once it's occupied. I haven't played Civ IV myself but I guess what happens is just due to how AI behaves at conquest, and/or how Civ IV occupation works in general (I have no idea how it works tbf).

But to anwer OP's Question:
It's not that I dislike it per se, since it has many advantages/upsides that Civ6's 1UPT hasn't, but this latter, on the whole, although they both have their downsides, has way more to offer than SoD.
The main Issue I have with SoD is SoD. I don't want +10(0) Units Stacks, even if it's easier to manage them and AI would be better at handling them. I'd rather have limited Stacks of no more than 3 (unlocked through civics), or a max of 5 if it contains Units of different classes. But just different Unit Classes per Tile (UCPT) would be perfect for me, since that would add more tactical/strategical depth and would also relieve the AI as well as the Player.

To be frankly, most of Civ's 1UPT Issues aren't necessarilly bc of 1UPT, but how 1UPT is implemented in the Game. Civ6 went the right way when introducing Corps/Armies, but they didn't follow that route far enough, I always get exceited for battle when I see AI sending some Corps/Army units to attack me (evethough it's rare). Also, the movement Rules in Civ6 and how they are implemented don't help much with 1UPT's constitutional Issues, like it's very slow to move Units + AI doesn't know how to play the terrain battle modifiers + you cannot move to a tile with a friedly/allied Unit, or through a friendly City Center. Fix all those 3 Issues and you get a much better 1UPT that the AI can handle better, improve these 3 other things on top of that and you get the best 1UPT that Civ could offer and an AI that is great at handling it:
- improved the Armies System: add to the system, make them more impactful and important (and also costly) and train the AI to use them, and when to use them.
- better/easier Unit management for the human player: this isn't tied to 1UPT, but to caring about making it easier for the Player to manage. I remember Someone suggesting an option that would allow to select a main Unit and some follow up Units that when you move the main Unit all the other Units would move behind it like Mommy Duck and its 5 little Ducks following right behind it, one after the other, except that here no little duck gets lost/left behind. Or the Ability to select multiple Units and move them together (like rallying at the same location, no matter if they cross paths or not), and even end turn on the same tile, with the caveat of not being able to start an attack if there is already a mili unit on the same tile (to not abuse this feature). There is always a solution for (nearly) everything.
- train the AI to play the Map and use tile modifiers: if the AI is better at picking from where a Unit should attack, where to defend and what's the best position to place Ranged/Siege/AA units...etc. then that alone would step Civ Warfare to the next level.

All in all, I would prefer Civ6's 1UPT over any SoD mechanic (even if more realistic), but I'm sure that if the devs just fix the fixable issues of 1UPT in Civ6, improve the Armies system and add some QoL Features (like Multi Units Movement) and also train the AI to be good at it, that would make 1UPT waaay better than it currently is. And if you change it to Different Unit Classes per Tile, all the better. Stacks of same Unit types/classes isn't necessary IMO, and it would take too much of the exciting and interesting strategy and tactics that 1UPT adds to warfare.

 

[dagriggstar]

Fundamentally, I just don't like having a lot of units on the map.

I prefer 1UPT but if I was designing civ 7 I'd be going stacks are allowed but suboptimal. Like ranged units deal equal damage to every unit in a stack for instance.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I see the link between stack of doom and cities being "messed up" by the conqueror. Just look at the name : "stack of doom". Someone said that it was called like that because you could see all of sudden a stack of enemy units near your frontiers, against which you could do nothing in time. Hence the loss of at least one city, that you couldn't prevent even playing well. I can see the analogy with "carpet of doom" where you start to see one or two enemy units at your frontiers, and then all the enemy army comes without you to be able to do much, because of increased building times compared to stack. It might also be an awkward "translation" of the expression to adapt it to 1UPT, and point out that there is no difference beetween the two concerning this issue.

*Anything* of doom is more related to geopolitics and management (aka preparation) and the awkwardness of some situations, especially in mulitplayer, (being 2v1 or even 3v1 in FFAs and spawning in the middle of a pangaea, etc.) as opposed to player wanting control and not lose any city, which is not very realistic. No matter how good you are, you may enter into situations where you can't do anything. I've tried to solve this problem by suggesting managing the whole warfare like flight or at least being able to teleport armies in one turn. (1 year in modern times, which is still kinda long) But the OP suggestion, not crippling taken cities could be done too I guess. (no buildings destructed, no population loss when recovered, maybe different in the aggressor perspective even if it shouts incoherency)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But to anwer OP's Question:
It's not that I dislike it per se, since it has many advantages/upsides that Civ6's 1UPT hasn't, but this latter, on the whole, although they both have their downsides, has way more to offer than SoD.
The main Issue I have with SoD is SoD. I don't want +10(0) Units Stacks, even if it's easier to manage them and AI would be better at handling them. I'd rather have limited Stacks of no more than 3 (unlocked through civics), or a max of 5 if it contains Units of different classes. But just different Unit Classes per Tile (UCPT) would be perfect for me, since that would add more tactical/strategical depth and would also relieve the AI as well as the Player.

I wouldn't mind this at all for Civ 7. I can see something like this:
Beginning of game- One combat unit plus support (battering ram/siege tower) per tile.
Civic Military Training around Classical Era- 2 combat units plus support unit per tile.
New Civic Pike and Shot? around Renaissance Era- 3 combat units plus a support unit per tile.
Civic around the Industrial Era- 4 combat units plus a support unit per tile.
Civic Mobilization in around Modern Era- 5 combat units plus a support unit per tile.

Movement will be based upon the slowest one available.
When in battle these units will go in order if they are available:
1. Ranged units will fire without taking any damage. Siege class units will bombard if there is a city or encampment present when attacking.
2. Cavalry class units will charge and attack. If anti-cavalry is present, then you will do less damage. Heavy calvary will be damaged less than light cavalry.
3. Infantry class units will then attack (Regular infantry units and Anti-cavalry). Regular infantry units still have an advantage over anti-cavalry but not against cavalry units.

Another thing to note is that if light cavalry and heavy cavalry are still distinguishable then to compensate for less defense, light cavalry should be more mobile and move quicker than their heavy cavalry counterparts.

Edit: Decided that the Industrial Era needed one too considering the idea of corps comes from Napoleon in that era.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Stacks are visually abhorrent. They are also not as intuitive for newer players. It's pretty simple as.
1 unit per tile is like chess. 1 unit per tile makes physical sense. Yes it can cause units to be clogged, but this actually provides geographical features more meaning.
Also the clog is not as important if you have features like paradropping.

Counter system is easier with 1 unit per tile. I think that is obvious, surely??
When you can throw together as many units as you want into one tile, of all kinds of varieties, this is just going to create unbalance and the gameplay is going to be sluggish.

How can we find a compromise? My opinion is that Civ6's Corps system is a good compromise.
Or maybe they could have certain units be transports (eg. fit Battering Rams with up to 3 warriors, the Battering Ram will move faster with more warriors)

I think the most important aspects are balance and intuitiveness.
In the new Civ games, if you look at a screen, you can get an instant sense for how big an army is from how many tiles have soldiers.
But with 1UPT, the stacks make it instantly more messy and you need more than a split second to comprehend it.
It's the little things like this.

I am very very glad that they switched to 1UPT or combined 1UPT, and I hope they never switch back to be honest.
I think stack players are living in the past honestly. This is so much neater. And so much simpler. And just better in every way.
You can't be letting your random frustrations about fitting 500 units through one gap override everything else.

Just my 2c, as always xx


EDIT: It gives defenders a slight defender's advantage too! Which is not necessarily bad! It's good design for players who pick other win conditions...

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

I dislike it for the simple fact that it was never very intuitive. Maybe that was because of my general inexperience with Civ 4 compared to Civ 5 & 6. With the latter games, it was theoretically possible for a larger army to lose to a smaller one because of bottlenecks and other terrain disadvantages. You thus had to carefully set up your sieges to hit a unit or city from many directions at once.
This was never at all possible in Civ 4, at least with my experience. Because stacks were really derivatives of Civ 4's core philosophy of "owning many cities producing many things". And where your ability to fight wars was more of a reflection of your economy size. Lots of cities > lots of units > bigger stacks > victory.

My idea would be to allow stacks within friendly territory, but then be forced to disperse them when entering enemy territory (or conversely, when an enemy is spotted within striking distance of you).

 

[localdisk51]

So, stacks of doom were bad because the AI was too good at using them, and actually made the game challenging for you? That's the messaging I'm getting.

Did playing on settler difficulty not help?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. There gotta be something inbetween. stacks are best limited but what should be maximum combat unit counts per one stack?
2. In one stack. all units must move as one, though stacks can be splitted as before and multiple units in one stack can be splitted in the same fashion as in Humankind.
3. With stacking. unit class as in Civ6 might still be valid only in the following conditions
- Technical Upgrades: Technology, civic, politics, and doctrines that increases unit parameters. For example. Spearmen and archers deal more damage with ironworking tech.
- NO Separate MGs, FlaK, and ATs. these were industrial era and beyond add ons accessible with Tech Upgrades.
4. Siege rules must also be reworked. particularly ones relating to pre-gunpowder era. since catapults, battering rams and siege towers (and maybe 'chinese Siege engines' like cloud scaling ladder) were neither pushed nor pulled from attacker's city workshops and marched along with attacking army. but instead built on site. Collossus of Rhodes was a proof as it was built by salvaging enemy helepolises for metal parts. AND this impressive siege engines were built on site in a full view of Rhodian defenders, which allowed them to prepare effective countermeasures. and not many siege gears work in open pitch battles with very few exceptions--Roman Carroballistae (and maybe Scorpion variants), which were a precursor to fieldguns in the Early Modern era.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

My biggest gripe is that non-military units cannot be stacked. It's maddeningly frustrating to have these units be blocked by another. At least allow them to end their turns on the same tile if one is just passing through - but one can't build something until the other moves along. Next turn you get the [a unit must be moved] message.

I appreciate the strategy that comes with 1UPT - but that limit is stagnant throughout the whole game. It doesn't grow or develop with your Civ.

Military buildings such as barracks/fortresses are literally designed to house soldiers. They could allow 3 units to be stationed on that one tile.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

I arrived at Civ IV after playing Axis & Allies, so perhaps that helped stacks be more intuitive to me. The overlap in stack mechanics between the two games has logic of its own and is also very rooted in odds. (Be mindful that the latter draws on WWII for its scenario and among its abstractions in no way engages the war crimes therein.)


Legibility

One of the bonuses of large stacks is a clear differentiation between offensive stacks and defensive garrisons. In Axis & Allies, this means each power must maintain a garrison before launching an offensive stack or risk losing their capital or core territory: Soviets must defend against Axis land forces. Germany must anticipate an amphibious attack in Western/Southern Europe. As long as there is a German navy, Britain must garrison the British Isles. Japan must anticipate a possible American amphibious attack. Even America has to consider the possibility of Japan attacking the West Coast. Investing in offense and defense leads to producing different unit compositions, and fronts will aim to eliminate offensive stacks or collapse them into home garrisons.

As for Civ IV, it is the norm to see the AI garrison its cities and then build a stack to launch a war. This makes stacks quite legible, as stacks of a dozen or more units are almost always hostile to some party. In Civ VI, there is no analogous way to garrison units, almost any unit could be meant for defense or offense, and it is easy to deplete the AI's army only to find little resistance in their territory. This is comically present in the AI request to move forces, as it is not legible whether the player will invade them, liberate their territory, or transit to attack another civilization.

Economy

Stacks are also fairly indicative of economic investment. In Axis & Allies, normally all economic output goes into an army that will defeat the other side and survive as well as the naval means to transport and reinforce that army. Given that economic output is tied to the map and ultimately zero-sum, the loss of a stack or even a garrison can shift the economic scales of the war very much to one side's favor. Even trading forces is a bit of an art, as odds must be considered given losses on either side are decidedly economic.

In Civ IV, the loss of a stack can be very decisive, as launching a war necessitates a deviation from research or domestic investment. Deferring those priorities makes war a big risk: the loss of an offensive stack will doubly set the player back in available forces and also research/economy. In Civ VI, 1UPT generally precludes the economic shock of losing 30 units on a single turn. For better or worse, the economic angle is skewed by what fits on the screen. At the start of the game, this is quite acute: the army the AI may rush you with requires no investment on their part.

Strategy

Another stack bonus presents as strategy in the form of dead zones. In Axis & Allies, a dead zone is where statistically there is no chance a force will survive an attack. In general, this acts as a front where a stack of doom threatens a home garrison. For example, as Germany advances on St. Petersburg, the Allies must decide whether they can survive by reinforcing or if the Soviets ought to retreat to Moscow. This dead zoning has many effects: for one, stacks tend to ward off adjacent territories, thereby securing economic output; for another, any stack must calculate whether attacking a smaller force will mean it finds itself in a dead zone. This tends to make stacks somewhat cautious. Whether you have five or fifty units, they would be better served as a garrison than falling in an enemy dead zone. Additionally, attacking below certain odds can have cascading effects on the board.

In Civ IV, the dead zone may not play the same role, but its strategic implications remain. Besieging a city only to lose 80% of the stack, leaves you open to a counterattack and does not bode well. A stack can also be tied up, such that guarding one's flanks falls to diplomacy as it is infeasible to have your stack on both offense and defense. With Civ VI's more tactical 1UPT, dead zones are normally the result of asymmetric technology rather than strategy. Given technological parity, there is no equivalent overwhelming of a hostile force. Instead, dead zones matter for units rather than armies.

Composition

Stack composition is also more varied than with 1UPT. In Axis & Allies, tanks, bombers, and to an extent artillery are stronger on offense, whereas infantry and fighters are stronger on defense. This variation necessitates some risky investment, with the Soviets as a good example. The Soviets must weigh how much offensive capacity they can invest in without diminishing their defense. More generally, an offensive stack can retreat into a garrison, but could be better served strafing the enemy. A garrison with just infantry and fighters can quickly lose control of core territories and face costly attempts to retake them.

In Civ IV, there are many unit counters, but suffice it to say that a stack with varied unit composition will be more robust than a stack with just one type of unit. This diminishes the ability for a stack of doom to besiege a well-composed garrison. While brute force sieges can and do happen, the trade-offs can be very large due to unit counters. This puts pressure on breakthrough units and tech advantages that make offensive wars less costly. In Civ VI, I am not sure army composition matters as much: ranged units are quite strong, anti-cavalry need to actually encounter cavalry, and many units provide asymmetric advantages. It seems more important to surround a city with units.


Overall, just sharing some thoughts on stacks and some of the trade-offs with 1UPT. Something general I have noticed is that personally I have a greater tolerance of reduced movement with stacks than with 1UPT. In Civ IV, it feels justified that a stack of doom should lumber through hostile territory. As for 1UPT, I definitely prefer Civ V to Civ VI in terms of increased mobility. For a strategic overlay like Axis & Allies or Civ IV, it makes sense that consolidation of forces comes with limited mobility. For the tactical map approach taken by 1UPT in Civ V and Civ VI, increased movement would seem necessary to allow for tactics to take place. A great modification to try if you have not already is double movement for Civ VI, which in particular aids AI cavalry. I would also gather that despite everyone's anecdotes of 1HP left, combat odds are more controlled in Civ VI than in Civ IV.


As for what happens to cities on capture, there is a pretty horrifying loss of population, but then again Civilization tends not to dwell on that. In Civ IV, you also lose all cultural buildings and city culture, which can be very frustrating in terms of rebuilding and reestablishing borders. In Civ V, there is loot and one can sell off buildings while razing. In Civ VI, city center buildings have to be repaired, and as with Civ IV razing is immediate. The idea that you can simply reassert governance seems a bit wishful... Realistically, cities changing hands in war have a very real chance of damage all the way up to being flattened.

If anything, I think Civ VI makes razing too easy. Given that it erases districts and improvements, I should think an invading force would have to put some effort into dismantling everything. It seems more a convenience so that orphan districts and improvements do not persist without a city. In all three games, I lament the trading of cities in war. Whether your own or another party's, it is sad to see beautiful cities reduced by an inability for one side or another to maintain control, though this is hardly ahistorical.

 

[Evie]

Stacks of doom make terrain and especially chokepoints irrelevant in warfare.

UPT is going to the other extreme to fix it, but chokepoints, especially well-defended ones, should be hard to take because they limit how much forces you can bring to bear, not something you can just concentrate your entire army on in a single turn. (And spare me "but a turn is a year or more". I'm talking from a strategic gameplay perspective, where the defender should have time to take actions of their own between your attacks if you send your whole army at a chokepoint, not from a dumb little piece of flavor like the calendar that no gameplay element should ever be built around).

I'd be okay with 2 or 3 upt, or 1upct (one unit per class per tile) but SODs are way beyond anything reasonable. If you want to bring large forces against a location, you need the organizational capabilities of corps and armies.

 

[Patine]

I myself absolutely abhor 1 unit per tile rule. In fact, I abhor it so much that I prefer to put up with the hassles of stack of doom. But this doesn't mean that the problems presented by stack of doom is minor. I remembered those painful days when stack of doom drove me insane back in the civ 1-4 days.

To me, stack of doom was unbearable not because of the enemy conquered my city. The conquer and occupation of the city is okay by me as long as the city itself can be more or less preserved with minimal damage. That way, upon liberation of that city, I more or less can resume governing and managing the city as if it had never been occupied by a foreign power. But my in my game experience, the problem with stack of doom is that when cities are occupied by a foreign power, that foreign power can do serious damage to that city in a few turns. In the worst case scenario, that city may be razed to the ground. Such destruction is devastating psychologically to those of us who have spent close to 100 turns building up that city.

Perhaps then the problem might not so much be stack of doom as it is about what happened to our city when the enemy occupies it. The focus should be less on fixing stack of doom and rather be more focused on the extent that the occupier can rain destruction on the conquered cities?

Questions for anti-stack of doomers. What are they main reasons you dislike stack of doom?

Having not actually played Civ4 and Civ5 (but played the other four iterations) in Civ2 (my personal favourite), it doesn't have the same mechanic, and the term, "Stack of Doom," or SOD, is unheard of in the parlance of the Civ2 community. In Civ2, units can stack up to the moon, like in this SOD system, but each unit attacks once, and attacks one unit in the opposing stack. In the base game, there was the issue that the whole stack was wiped out if a single defender in the stack was destroyed, unless they were on a fortress or city space, but a simple mod made about 15 years ago that is one of the most commonly used ones across the board for Civ2 treats all stacks as though they were on a fortress for the purposes of avoiding one hit stack kills, while fortresses, themselves, still gave their normal +50% defense bonus, and role in determining if a unit is in a fortress within three tiles of a friendly city for purposes of them being, "defensive," for happiness effects under a Democracy form of Government.

 

[Arcaian]

Stacks of doom make terrain and especially chokepoints irrelevant in warfare.

UPT is going to the other extreme to fix it, but chokepoints, especially well-defended ones, should be hard to take because they limit how much forces you can bring to bear, not something you can just concentrate your entire army on in a single turn. (And spare me "but a turn is a year or more". I'm talking from a strategic gameplay perspective, where the defender should have time to take actions of their own between your attacks if you send your whole army at a chokepoint, not from a dumb little piece of flavor like the calendar that no gameplay element should ever be built around).

I'd be okay with 2 or 3 upt, or 1upct (one unit per class per tile) but SODs are way beyond anything reasonable. If you want to bring large forces against a location, you need the organizational capabilities of corps and armies.

This is basically what it comes down to for me as well - I enjoy the tactical nature of limited/no stacking. Infinite stacking may be more strategic - it certainly is in terms of how well the AI can use it - but I get a lot of enjoyment out of using a worse army more tactically than the enemy to hold off their forces. I'd be happy if they experimented with limited stacking so long as it maintains that enjoyment, and I definitely think that unit movement outside of battle zones requires some work. But I've enjoyed conflict in Civ 5/6 a great deal more than Civ 1/3/4 (never played much of Civ 2), and it's because of 1UPT instead of stacks of doom.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The problem with 1UPT in Civ6 is it also comes with very low movement allowances and ranged units with multi hex range

The former makes simply moving your army an agonizing exercise of frustration as you have to solve a sliding tile puzzle every time you move a unit. This also makes ranged units OP as they can shoot the awkwardly shuffling units to pieces.

Thing is, this is a design problem that was solved 40 or more years ago.

Civ6 is basically an SPI/Avalon Hill hex wargame on computer. Those games swiftly iterated to three or so unit’s per hex stacking, and 3 to 4 move points for foot units and 6 or 7 move points for cavalry/armoree units for a reason, and I think this would work well for Civ.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Those games swiftly iterated to three or so unit’s per hex stacking, and 3 to 4 move points for foot units and 6 or 7 move points for cavalry/armoree units for a reason, and I think this would work well for Civ.

I don't know about the games you mention, but that would be horrible in Civ because of the fog of war. It is already real with Gran Colombia having 7+ cavalry moves. Horribly frustrating in multiplayer.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I don't know about the games you mention, but that would be horrible in Civ because of the fog of war. It is already real with Gran Colombia having 7+ cavalry moves. Horribly frustrating in multiplayer.

I’m sure the Russians were frustrated by barbarossa and the French by Case Yellow but that is what Happens when you don’t deploy your army propery

 

[Naokaukodem]

I’m sure the Russians were frustrated by barbarossa and the French by Case Yellow but that is what Happens when you don’t deploy your army propery

I've mentionned (in this very thread) that geopolitics isn't the strong point of Civ, especially in multiplayer. No matter what, if you are stacked by several opponents at the same time or see a cavalry unit going out from nowhere pillaging your stuff, going backwards, being hitted and recovering after being hitted, all that in the same turn, it can feel stupid.