Splitting the Stack of Doom.. GOOD OR BAD?
- Thread starter garric
- Start date
JavalTigar
Overlord of the West
Doesn't bother me if they set as limit as long as it is rational. I personally have never used what I consider a SOD. At best maybe 2 transporst full of units making a beach landing on the same point. But I usually seperate them on different side of a city to cut off reinforcements. So keep the limit simple. No more than 3 transports full with a defender for each = 24 units as the max to occupy the same space.
vbraun
Raytracing
Even then its unrealistic to have 20 billion guys in one squre.Xen said:what about teh Mongol Horde
regardless, I've always taken the old civ system for units to represent numbers of troops anologos to a Roman cohort, whith each individual hit-point being a Century in the cohort (with multiple cohorts going into aan army, forming a full legion) so stacks of doom arnt that unrealistic, just depoend on how you veiw what makes up a unit.
so dont; the largest SOD I;ve ever seen is about 80 units; assuming that every unit stands for around 600 men, the equation is 600 x 80= 48,000= a TINY amount, considering that the invasion of Greece by the Persians is estimated to be 300,000 troops- or 500 units- far, far larger then any SOD I've ever seen.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Xen said:
Well I've always figured a modern unit to be at least a Brigade (2000-5000 personnel) if not a Division (varies, but avg. 10-20 000 personnel), just on the basis of the number of units a medium sized nation would have active during either peace or wartime (generally in the 75-200 units range, on most maps I play, at the end of the 3rd era). But even assuming Divisions, the biggest stacks would be no more than 80 or 90 Divisions - hardly unheard of. 118 Axis Divisions marched on Stalingrad in '42, in a battlezone only about 50 miles on a side. Kursk was an even larger confrontation, in an area only about 15 miles on a side.
And this isn't just confined to the modern era, either. The "million man Persian army" against the Spartans is probably an exaggeration, but it is likely still to have been in the 100-200 000 range. Numbers in this range were not at all uncommon in the ancient world (and may have been signifigantly larger in the Far East).
However ...
The problem for me isn't really the realism of the scales involved in the SOD, its the pattern of war. Where are the long fronts of the world wars? Even in WW2, fronts, although they shifted more rapidly, typified battle. And they certainly predate the 20th century. There were SODs of a sort in WW2, but they operated in relation to a front - usually either exploiting or crushing a salient in the front. Similarly, many other wars made little use of huge massed armies, although they could have. Most of the wars in North America only saw these kinds of numbers during major sieges, such as Gettysburg. And very, very rarely - the Huns and a few others being exceptions - did these levels of forces assemble in one area for more than a single battle, in any era.
your right on that, though as a counter point, the scale in civ is rather skwered; one time could represent 10 miles or a hundred on its border, depending on the size of the map, though that dosent matter to me; will the end of the S-o-D be a good thing? Likelly, and it will increase realism in general. Is the S-o-D unrealitic? Not really, but it is annoying 
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Exactly Xen, which highlights the real reason why it needs to be toned down (though not eliminated)-gameplay more than realism!!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
vbraun
Raytracing
@Xen, It all depends on how you scale it. I consider the 300,000 troops at around 30 units. Why I say its unrealistic is it doesn't feel right stacking together 20 swordsman when usually Armies are mixed up with diffrant type os units. But I guess you could also have an SoD with multipile types of units in it.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
vbraun said:
I think, if you're considering a single unit to be 10 000 troops (which seems a bit high for the early Iron Age - even a whole Legion was only 6000, and the Empire usually had only about 30 of those in active service at any one time), it can also pretty safely be assumed that the unit type is just the predominant kind of warrior in that force.
For instance, take the Roman Legion. A single kind of unit? Far from it! You had equites, velites, hastati, principes, triarii, and other unit kinds in the native auxiliaries. But if these are all separate units, then one unit is certainly alot less than 10 000 men.
But it's all sort of irrelevant with the proposed civ4 system. Stacking 20 swordsmen together would be foolish with the rock-paper-scissor model, because the enemy would just slaughter them with whatever's good against swordsmen. The tendency, whether stacks are small or large, will be to try to achieve a balanced mix of units.
frekk said:
Exactly. I agree with you. Warfare in the game is in some ways too fast. You don't have these fronts where you go back and forth for an extended period, like the ebb and flow in the Balkans over many centuries. You don't have extended fronts that see action all along it, with breakthroughs that must be consolidated, contained, reversed, etc. I'm not sure that Civ has the right scale for it, but that won't keep me from wishing.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
I don't know about whether it has the right scale for anything of the detail you or I might like to see, but I certainly think it has the ability to give some reason to creating a linear frontline. There are alot of different mechanics which could be invoked to encourage this, such as assigning penalties to units which cannot trace a route back to their own cities without passing through an enemy unit or a ZOC. This way you would want to arrange forces along a line so he couldn't run around behind them (though you might still concentrate forces at some points to try and achieve/prevent breaches). It would be great if you could breach his lines, because you could cut them off, but conversely you would want to make sure you kept the breach open or he would decapitate your salient. More or less the central problem of front-wars.
Jorgen_CAB
Warlord
Yes, it would be great if there was a way to introduce both supply and logistics, together with slower combat where not all units gets slaughtered completely but rather might retreat and recuperate and continue the fight another day.
Though, during most of human ancient history and the Dark Age, losses on the loosing side would be so high after a battle that the army would seize to exist. Now during later ages military doctrine and technology made it easier to use a fighting retreat. Both artillery and mines in modern armies have made fighting retreat a viable option for strategic victory in many cases.
You should be able to give units the option of using fighting retreat in all battles if you wish to after unlocking it with a technology. That way a smaller force could stall an entire stack of doom for some time, enough time for your more scattered forces to encircle it and cut it of from its supply lines. Now the Civ engine is not a war game so that is not possible, but it could be done.
The scale of units I think would depend in what age we are playing and what size of map and the scenario. A giant European medieval map, one unit would perhaps be several hundred men. A Large WW2 map each unit would be at least a division of 10-15.000 men, so it will vary, also from unit to unit. A Cavalry unit would probably have less numbers than an infantry unit, not to mention an artillery unit.
Though, during most of human ancient history and the Dark Age, losses on the loosing side would be so high after a battle that the army would seize to exist. Now during later ages military doctrine and technology made it easier to use a fighting retreat. Both artillery and mines in modern armies have made fighting retreat a viable option for strategic victory in many cases.
You should be able to give units the option of using fighting retreat in all battles if you wish to after unlocking it with a technology. That way a smaller force could stall an entire stack of doom for some time, enough time for your more scattered forces to encircle it and cut it of from its supply lines. Now the Civ engine is not a war game so that is not possible, but it could be done.
The scale of units I think would depend in what age we are playing and what size of map and the scenario. A giant European medieval map, one unit would perhaps be several hundred men. A Large WW2 map each unit would be at least a division of 10-15.000 men, so it will vary, also from unit to unit. A Cavalry unit would probably have less numbers than an infantry unit, not to mention an artillery unit.
SonicX
Emperor
To make a system that acts like logistics is actually quite easy. They could f.i. make the units' strength (not hp) weaken in relation to the time they've been in a foreign country and the distance they are from the capital.
This way, logistics or troop morale can both be simulated in a pretty accurate way and larger empires will have more problems conquering a smaller country far away away so the slower ones aren't screwed in advance.
This way, logistics or troop morale can both be simulated in a pretty accurate way and larger empires will have more problems conquering a smaller country far away away so the slower ones aren't screwed in advance.
Raggamuffin
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 244
I've always looked at SoD as something very unrealistic. Killing only one unit at a time? What? IRL if one were to attack of course there would be collateral damage. I greatly welcome these new additions to counter the SoD.
Roland Johansen
Deity
What if your units would fight twice as poorly if they were surrounded by enemy units(combat values halved). That would surely defeat the tactic of stacks of doom, because it is very easy to surround a stack of doom (surround defined as having units on opposite ends of the enemy units, not completely enveloping the enemy units).
Surrounding an enemy is also a tactic that has been used from the ancient age till the modern age, but is not covered at all by the various civ games. I admit that surrounding an enemy in the ancient age was in reality on a far smaller scale than a civ tile, but given the limitations of the game to simulate history it is the best that can be done (reality in civ: ancient age units can only move one tile in 50 years).
Oh, and I agree with the people who say that stacks of units should fight as groups and not individual units (has been accomplished in many games before civ IV).
Surrounding an enemy is also a tactic that has been used from the ancient age till the modern age, but is not covered at all by the various civ games. I admit that surrounding an enemy in the ancient age was in reality on a far smaller scale than a civ tile, but given the limitations of the game to simulate history it is the best that can be done (reality in civ: ancient age units can only move one tile in 50 years).
Oh, and I agree with the people who say that stacks of units should fight as groups and not individual units (has been accomplished in many games before civ IV).
1 tile is supposed to be a square mile, so could 300,000 troops fit in one tile? I don't know.
The largest SoD I've seen is 120 spearmen. Bamspeedy's seen 250 plus on a tile, but probably would have faced more had it not been for the unit limit.
Aussie_Lurker said:
boulgerdash. realism breeds good gameplay, and any one who wants to put gameplay before realism because they think they mututally exclusive dosent have a good grasp on history. (it is only rarelly when a "gameplay" concept shoudl trump a real world precendent; such as the discussion on units not healing in the other subpforum; too anal a veiw me thinks, better to just let the units recover thie rlosses as usual)
Che Guava
The Juicy Revolutionary
Maybe I missed something in the discussion, but I thought that the problem with the sod had little to do with the number of troops, and more to do with the diversity. Marching 100 000 swordsman into battle seems like a bad idea in real life, when your opponent may have archers, horsemen catapults and pikemen, giving him a wider breadth of strategy on the battlefield....I'm hoping that the changes made in civ4 will actually suppor the idea of diverse armies, as they seem to be promising
EDIT: Oops! Just saw your post from the 17th, frekk! My appologies for not aknowledging it!
EDIT: Oops! Just saw your post from the 17th, frekk! My appologies for not aknowledging it!
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
Interesting remarks in this thread, yet most of them miss the most interesting point:
What is going to happen with the tactics of SOD's, after artillery type units do collateral damage?
I fear that this was just the wrong decision to limit the use of SOD's.
Why?
In the previous releases, we faced already a cap for artillery efficiency, though it was just "1". Nevertheless, there were SOD's (most times of more unit types, if done properly) and they have proved to be very efficient.
Now, with the cap being raised to "6", this won't make the SOD needless, yet it triggers it to have to be much larger.
As far as I see it, the SOD will become even more important and the most decisive tactical element in Civ4 land combat.
As artillery type units may damage up to 6 units in a stack, I will have to have at least 7 units to remain with one damaged (and so on, of course).
In consequence, this will lead us to concentrate our troops on both sides, making for SOD's being needed for both, the attacker and the defender.
The only way to get rid of this would be a unit cap per tile (let's assume 10 units/tile), and in turn allowing the artillery only to damage on unit per shot.
What is going to happen with the tactics of SOD's, after artillery type units do collateral damage?
I fear that this was just the wrong decision to limit the use of SOD's.
Why?
In the previous releases, we faced already a cap for artillery efficiency, though it was just "1". Nevertheless, there were SOD's (most times of more unit types, if done properly) and they have proved to be very efficient.
Now, with the cap being raised to "6", this won't make the SOD needless, yet it triggers it to have to be much larger.
As far as I see it, the SOD will become even more important and the most decisive tactical element in Civ4 land combat.
As artillery type units may damage up to 6 units in a stack, I will have to have at least 7 units to remain with one damaged (and so on, of course).
In consequence, this will lead us to concentrate our troops on both sides, making for SOD's being needed for both, the attacker and the defender.
The only way to get rid of this would be a unit cap per tile (let's assume 10 units/tile), and in turn allowing the artillery only to damage on unit per shot.
Similar threads
- Poll
