1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Simple Suggested Change: Let me Stack in my Cities

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Bleser, Oct 12, 2010.

  1. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    Arbitrary hard caps...not a good way to implement the idea. There is a great necessity to provide limitations to stacks in your idea, lest we just return to the SOD, but arbitrary hard caps are really not the way to go. Either implement some sort of penalty system to severely nerf large stacks, or provide some sort of hard cap based on less arbitrary criteria, such as the idea outlined in this thread. :)
     
  2. Polish

    Polish Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    195
    Location:
    Avilton, MD
    You can't have it both ways boys and girls. Either you warehouse the units--essentially put them on reserve status and send the guys and gals out to work in the civilian economy and don't have to pay for them, or they stay on active status and defend your cities. The question then becomes how can you stack units in the cities and not terminally distort the entire 1UPT concept? How could you ever conquer a city with 1UPT outside if the defender was allowed to stack 4 or 5 units in the city? Can't you just see the havoc that would be wreaked on an 1 UPT attacker when the city bombards followed by 2, 3, or 4 ranged attacks with a big fat melee unit at the top for the final assault?
     
  3. zimmah

    zimmah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    57
    sure, just stack a couple of warriors in every city, and noone will ever be able to conquer you because they can only attack from 6 tiles (even less if your city has 1 or more coastal tiles near it)

    good plan!
     
  4. OTAKUjbski

    OTAKUjbski TK421

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    not at my post
    I like this idea, but I also agree letting multiple units garrison according to the current rules would re-invent the SOD.

    IMO, the solution is simple: Units garrisoned in a city cannot attack. They already increase the city strength (which in turn affects the city's bombard strength), so they don't necessarily need to attack to contribute.

    EDIT: On second thought, not allowing any units to attack may be a bit much. It would take a little bit of coding (not just a simple fix), but allowing only one attack from the city tile per turn would seem to make more sense.
     
  5. ElephantRider

    ElephantRider Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Texas
    Excellent point. Thank you.
     
  6. Bleser

    Bleser Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2002
    Messages:
    444
    Location:
    USA
    @Polish, @zimmah, @ElephantRider -

    Read the thread before posting. We already mentioned that allowing multiple ranged units in the city would obviously be completely imbalanced. It was also suggested to get rid of the city bombard if this was added. And to OTAKUjbski's point, yes, you'd probably only let one ranged unit and one melee unit attack, the rest just add city strength.

    Even with people crying out "ahh this is so stupid and imbalanced can't you seee?!?!" I think the more reasonable people reading this understand that capturing cities in the current game is far too easy and something needs to be done.

    Maybe unit stacking is not the answer - maybe it's as simple as doubling or tripling the current city strength values, which could easily be done with a mod.

    As it stands now I'm conquering Emperor-level civ cities with an "army" of four artillery and three or four random cavalry. I took Beijing last night (strength 42) in one turn - four city-promoted artillery fired away (with my great general nearby) and a lone cavalry ran in to took the city. Ridiculous. I should lose multiple units and have to bring overwhelming force to take any capital city.
     
  7. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,312
    Location:
    Sydney
    I would've thought that cities being easy to take was by design. The idea is that the combat occurs before you get to the city walls. That actual taking of the city is meant to be comparatively insignificant.
     
  8. zimmah

    zimmah Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2010
    Messages:
    57
    well in another tread i posted the suggestion that city walls should make mounted units nearly useless against cities (because what's a horse gunna do when it runs into a wall?)
    and likewise melee units should also get a big penalty when attacking a walled city (not as much as mounted units, but still a lot)

    walls should off course not have any effect on siege (since siege units are supposed to counter walls in the first place, it's easy to take a city without walls, even without siege, but to take a waled city should be much harder)

    ranged units should also not suffer too much from walls, if at all. because they can still shoot over the wall without much problems.
     
  9. ElephantRider

    ElephantRider Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    90
    Location:
    Texas
    I did read the thread. Most answers are to stack units in a city somehow and/or change the strength of cities or whatever. I do not disagree that taking cities is rather too easy. But I think it's just because the AI doesn't properly defend the city. I still think that if the AI would place units around the city in defensive positions and use ranged units properly, the battle would occur before you were actually attacking the city. I don't think anything needs to be done to city strength or anything like that, at least not yet. The city defenses should be able to hold just long enough to maybe bring in reinforcements. If the AI has a defensive army around the city, you battle that army before you can attack the city. When that battle is over, you should be able to enter the city without a great deal of hassle, as you've already defeated the defending army. I say the answer is to correct the AI before changing anything about city defense. Get the AI to actually fight defensively when it needs to, and then look at changing city defenses after. The defense should only last long enough for a close unit to come up as reinforcement.

    This is why cities are easy to take right now. There is no real defensive effort from the AI. Basically you roll up there, take out a unit or two, or bypass them altogether while you bombard the city. And then you're done. Proper defense of a city would cause you to engage the units defending the city and an actual battle would occur before the city. After that battle, it really shouldn't take that much longer to take the city.

    What I see now is an AI that is not worried about losing a city. You don't have to pay that much attention to their defensive units. So the city is easy to take. If units were actually set up defensively, you would have to fight those units, or your units would take heavy losses. If the focus becomes fighting units instead of bombarding a city, then you will have a battle and not just a bombardment. Anything that only focuses on city strength and city defenses takes away from a battle and focuses just on city bombardment. It doesn't address the fact that the AI still doesn't protect the city. So the city may become harder to take, requiring more bombardment, but you will never have a battle. You will only have to bombard more. I would like to have a battle where you lose units to enemy units rather than lose units to city defenses.

    As it is right now, there is no real battle. War is just bombarding cities and maybe taking out a few random units that are out in the middle of nowhere. The only way that changes, and the only way you have a battle, is for the AI to play defense. Anything else only makes for more bombardment. War would still be exactly the same as it is now, it would just take longer to do what you're doing now. So really, there would be no real difference except the time it takes to do it. If you want more than that, it has to be the AI that changes.

    This is the essence of 1upt. Having real battles. The only way to have real battles is to have 1upt. Even Civ IV, with SoD was still basically city bombardment. You rolled a stack up against the enemy city which had a stack in it. Granted the units were fighting units, but it was still basically bombarding the city, not really a battle. The only way to make it work, is to address the AI first.

    Camikaze sums the point up well.

    Then there's this.

    Did they have an opposing army? If they have no army, a city should be easy to take. There is no defensive force. Which means the AI is not making units. And in Civ V, 7 or 8 units is a pretty big force. The other side of that too, is if you attack a peaceful Civ, and they have no army, they should be easy to conquer. If you attack a Civ that has an army, they should not be easy to conquer. Even if you attack a Civ that is not peaceful, if it has no army it should be easy to conquer. Even if the AI has an army, and none of them are around that city, it should be easy to conquer. The only way you should lose multiple units attacking a city is if the city is well defended by other units. All the faults and easiness of taking cities, still comes down to the AI not defending cities. In the case you mentioned, if there were 2 artillery, 2 other units, a great general on the other side, and they were fortified in a defensive position, you would have had exactly what you ask for. Losing multiple units and having to bring an overwhelming force to take a capital city. It sounds like you had an overwhelming force anyway :) It should not be hard to take an undefended city with 8 units, half of which are artillery.

    I'm not saying you don't bring up good criticisms. The taking of Beijing is a very good point. They are issues that need addressed. But at the AI level. The bottom line is still, AI. The AI does not defend their cities. Increased city strength and defense, will do nothing to change this. Allowing some form of stacking in cities will do nothing to change this. The only way it changes is through the AI. And even then, some Civs should still be easy to take just because they are peaceful and do not make an army. Of course, that could be tweaked with alliances and defensive pacts that actually worked.
     
  10. poncratias

    poncratias Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    336

    this.
     

Share This Page