Splitting the Stack of Doom.. GOOD OR BAD?

[Che Guava]

Again, I thought that the problems with the SoD was less about numbers and more about diversity. All things being equal, big armies win battles! THere's no getting around that and I think putting impediments to 'more is better' strategy would just be unrealistic. What would be realistic, however, is having a large army with a variety of troops fulfilling many different roles on the battlefield, instead of 2 million men carrying swords ruling the world. WIth a more complex battle system (what with promotions and specific advantages of specific units against others), I would think that an invbading army would want to have a diverse fighting force to meet whatever the enemy has to throw at them. Having a huge stack of on type of unit just wouldn't cut it anymore!

 

[Robi D]

I don't think that the SoD is completely unrealistic, but its also not competely faithful to real life either. I agree with artillary causing damage to multiple units as has been mentioned to be included in civ4 as a way of curtailing its powers. I think the big problem lies in the fact civ is a turn based game and not real time, because it doesn't account for situations where you might have a group of units in a crossfire situation. In real life a army smaller in numbers can beat a larger army by out positioning it and attack from both flanks, it one of the most basic and fundamental tactics of combat

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

The real problem with SOD is that they don't require any form of support. They may run around unopposed every ware and don't have to think of supporting themselves, fighting at full health/strength at any time. Though, they might not heal in enemy territory.

If we had to secure a supply line from a supply source SOD tactic might not be so effective anymore whether it has to be diverse or not.

 

[Commander Bello]

The real problem with SOD is that they don't require any form of support. They may run around unopposed every ware and don't have to think of supporting themselves, fighting at full health/strength at any time. Though, they might not heal in enemy territory.

If we had to secure a supply line from a supply source SOD tactic might not be so effective anymore whether it has to be diverse or not.

This wouldn't limit the strenght of the SOD, as a single unit would suffer the same problem.
The answer only can be a unit cap per tile.

 

[frekk]

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.

Not really accurate though. German troops sieging Leningrad in ww2 were much better supplied than the defenders (who were dying in their thousands from starvation and had very low reserves of ammunition and other supplies). Similarly, American troops in the West, advancing across France and Germany, were far better supplied than their German counterparts, as were the Soviets attacking Berlin.

 

[frekk]

All things being equal, big armies win battles! THere's no getting around that

Well, if they bunch up TOO much, they lose the advantage of positioning and would be destroyed quite quickly IRL. Eg, if the Germans in attacking France had sent ALL their forces through the Ardennes, and did not simultaneously bring up an infantry shield across the Siegfried Line, the French and British would simply have swung round behind them into the Low Countries and cut them off. Positioning is vital - and if you've got everything in a single location, you have very little positioning (just one spot). Concentrated armies are great for offensives, but, you've got to have smaller forces scattered about to prevent a breach (IRL, that is). Another thing the SOD does not model well is that most offensives were conducted so that you attacked from as many different directions as possible, usually making 3 or 4 different drives, each spearheaded by a large force. And even then, you'd have other forces holding the line, to keep the enemy contained.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Not really accurate though. German troops sieging Leningrad in ww2 were much better supplied than the defenders (who were dying in their thousands from starvation and had very low reserves of ammunition and other supplies). Similarly, American troops in the West, advancing across France and Germany, were far better supplied than their German counterparts, as were the Soviets attacking Berlin.

I have even heard some stories that the Soviets inside Leningrad used sawdust instead of flour for their bread.

But, American troops were nearly always better supplied than the Germans, save for the Battle of the Bulge where they (the Germans) poured all their remaining reserves into one final, deparate attack.

 

[apatheist]

This wouldn't limit the strenght of the SOD, as a single unit would suffer the same problem.

It would address the issue upstream. You could assemble a super-powerful stack of death, but that would result in your supply lines being concentrated and thus vulnerable. An enemy could cripple your stack by sneaking in behind it and cutting off the supply route. To prevent that, you would want to leave a few units behind to protect your supply and also separate your stack so that there were multiple supply routes, increasing the amount of effort an enemy would have to exert to cut off your whole army.

 

[Hellfire]

Lets get back to gameplay for second because everyone wants to make the game historically accurate. If you want historical accuracy, read a history book. Playing a game means making your own history not doing it like the generals of old. It would suck if you were play napoleon and you had no choice but to play out the Battle of Waterloo historically accurate

Seriously, what do you use the SOD for? A massive attack or A massive defense. Side benefits include quelling massive civil disobedience but that's minor.

Now lets think about this. I have a city I want to attack. You want to defend this city? Optimally, this is going to be a SOD showdown. Whoever can make the best units in the game, make the most number of them, and get them to the to the area is going to win. That always was and always will be the nature of Civ.

You can come up with a lot of gameplay rules to manage SODs, but lets face it, given the entire design of the game, SODs are probably the most fair. Why? Because all things considered when it's my SOD vs. your SOD, the bigger and better SOD wins. If you start creating tile limits, you not only create a myriad of scenarios where this could become very unfair for one side or another, but you also add a whole extra level of complexity. The game already requires a large amount of knowledge, lets not get insane!

For example, say you put a maximum of 10 units per title. Well, that makes defending a 1 square unit harder because the attacker can come at you from all sides with multiple 10 unit stacks. Yes, the scenario we are looking at would be attacking a city. So what now? Make the stacks for a city unlimited? Can't do that, as it will make it nearly impossible to take a city with a SOD on it since you can't put enough units up to the city. Make the stack of a city higher but not unlimited may help. However, stacks would be linked to tiles, and tile placement is random. In terms of gameplay you are going to end up with a lot of situations were someone is going to be treated very unfairly by the terrain tile selection, and what is going to happen? They will say it's not historically accurate. And they will be right.

Frankly, if I have to go up against a 50 unit SOD, here's what I see happening:

1) If the stack is larger than my combined armies, I'm going to die. I didn't produce enough units.
2) If the stack is equal, I'll use a few tactics, hit them with artillery and attack before they get me.
3) If the number of units is lower than mine, or the tech level of the units is low, I will crush them with my superior units that can blitz attack and shell them with artillery.

I'm not really sure I can see what's so unfair about that. SODs sound cheezy, but they aren't unfair, and I never quite got the big deal about them.

 

[frekk]

Lets get back to gameplay for second because everyone wants to make the game historically accurate. If you want historical accuracy, read a history book. Playing a game means making your own history not doing it like the generals of old. It would suck if you were play napoleon and you had no choice but to play out the Battle of Waterloo historically accurate .. (snip) .. I'm not really sure I can see what's so unfair about that. SODs sound cheezy, but they aren't unfair, and I never quite got the big deal about them.

It's not really about historical accuracy or cheesiness. It's about strategy. Where's the strategy in moving, essentially, one army around?? There isn't very much. No real maneuvering, it's just proceed to city, take, proceed to next city, take, etc etc, ad nauseum. In real warfare, many armies have been defeated simply because they were outmaneuvered (often by smaller forces) not outgunned. Classic example being the fall of France, a nation with a vast army of about 100 divisions falling because of a tiny, but mobile, little force of 5 divisions taking extreme liberties with an order to conduct a reconnaisance in force.

Just because you have a system that's a little more realistic in patterning how war actually occurs, doesn't mean that it will necessarily turn out to be a repeat of real history (imo, civ could never really do this). Plenty of wargames are FAR more accurate than civ could ever be in terms of how warfare functions, and yet are enjoyable and can lead to many non-historical outcomes.

 

[Black Flag]

Both. I think stacks of doom are great if they're on your side (of course) but the ominous 50 Tanks outside of your city is a warning that you better go get your 50 spearmen! haha But if it came down to it i'd get rid of them

 

[Commander Bello]

It would address the issue upstream. You could assemble a super-powerful stack of death, but that would result in your supply lines being concentrated and thus vulnerable. An enemy could cripple your stack by sneaking in behind it and cutting off the supply route. To prevent that, you would want to leave a few units behind to protect your supply and also separate your stack so that there were multiple supply routes, increasing the amount of effort an enemy would have to exert to cut off your whole army.

Sorry, I still cannot agree.
With the SOD, you would only have to protect ONE line of supply. This should be possible quite easily. Furthermore, the defender troops have to bypass said SOD since otherwise they just would be killed.
In turn, this already proves the SOD to have a higher penetration capability than single, isolated units.

Next: In case you would have many single units, the defender would be able to cut off many lines of supply with just one unit, making the single unit approach even more vulnerable.

SODs rule, unless there is a cap.

 

[frekk]

With the SOD, you would only have to protect ONE line of supply.

Whether its one supply line or 50 the process is the same, you need a front line. The SOD would then just be a salient in the line (which is more or less historically acceptable, as well as a little more strategic than just a single stack marching about). However, the front would probably have to be a little stronger than single units - more like small stacks - because of the rock/paper/scissor effect. With supply lines, the SOD would still be around, but it would look more like the kind of thing you saw in the Battle of the Bulge or the Kursk Salient. In effect, it would be a flying wedge in the line (eg a salient), meant to force a breach in the enemy line with overwhelming power concentrated in one spot.

Furthermore, the defender troops have to bypass said SOD since otherwise they just would be killed.

That would be the idea - breach the line at a weak point, and decapitate the salient from supply. What you'd usually have is SOD vs SOD, both backed up by a front of weaker stacks, and both struggling to put pressure on a weak spot and drive through it (without compromising the integrity of their own line).

In turn, this already proves the SOD to have a higher penetration capability than single, isolated units.

Unless the SOD is all made up of fast units - inadvisable under the rock/paper/scissor system - no, because it can only move at the speed of the slowest unit (unless it splits up). You wouldn't exploit a breach with a SOD, you'd fan out with fast units, cut supply behind his lines, and smash his unsupplied and encircled front with the slower units from the salient/SOD.

In case you would have many single units, the defender would be able to cut off many lines of supply with just one unit, making the single unit approach even more vulnerable.

Not really, because they would be arranged in a front. He'd have to get behind it first. With just a SOD, and no front, this would be rather easy - and in effect, cutting the SOD's one supply line would be exactly equivalent to cutting many smaller supply lines, since the aim is to achieve a higher number of unsupplied units (not a higher number of cut routes - thats just a means to the end).

Also you can't think of it as "single unit or SOD" with nothing in between. It is hardly so. You can have small stacks, and you can also have small stacks mixed with a SOD.

 

[apatheist]

It's not really about historical accuracy or cheesiness. It's about strategy. Where's the strategy in moving, essentially, one army around?? There isn't very much. No real maneuvering, it's just proceed to city, take, proceed to next city, take, etc etc, ad nauseum.

I agree. Aiming at the unstoppable Stack of Death is trying to treat the symptom, though, not the underlying cause. That's why I think supply lines are good and why per-tile caps are bad. The former is about making you manage more strategic factors and thus creating more options, while the latter is about closing off options and forcing the player to choose something second best because of an arbitrary and rigid game rule.

Sorry, I still cannot agree.
With the SOD, you would only have to protect ONE line of supply. This should be possible quite easily. Furthermore, the defender troops have to bypass said SOD since otherwise they just would be killed.
In turn, this already proves the SOD to have a higher penetration capability than single, isolated units.

Next: In case you would have many single units, the defender would be able to cut off many lines of supply with just one unit, making the single unit approach even more vulnerable.

It depends on how supply lines are implemented. I think they should be automatically routed by the shortest path to the nearest friendly city at the start of the turn. To block them, you place units in the way. You have to occupy the ground. A single unit would be insufficient unless it was a 1 tile isthmus. To keep your lines from getting blocked, then, you'd also have to occupy the ground and protect it against attackers. Infrastructure would make a difference in determining the length of supply lines. Not only would I want to keep the line between my forces and my cities clear, I'd also want that to be roads or rail. Having gaps in my back lines would allow the enemy to slip a pillaging unit through. Yes, I could fight it off or rebuild it, but not before some damage was done, and it would require a greater dedication of resources. I couldn't have a 1-dimensional line of forces advancing because a single breakthrough could lead to catastrophe as enemy units tore up the roads and thus lengthened supply lines, even if they weren't blocking them.

 

[frekk]

I agree. Aiming at the unstoppable Stack of Death is trying to treat the symptom, though, not the underlying cause. That's why I think supply lines are good and why per-tile caps are bad. The former is about making you manage more strategic factors and thus creating more options, while the latter is about closing off options and forcing the player to choose something second best because of an arbitrary and rigid game rule.

That's what I think too. I don't like tile caps at all. What should be done is to model the real reasons why, in war, armies tried to maintain front lines and didn't run their main force out ahead of the line TOO far.

 

[garric]

Let me put it this way: an SoD isn't fun. It's overpowered. Say you have a 100 unit army, and the attacker has a 100 unit army. You put your army around your borders and cities so you can stop the attack where ever it comes from. So, your opponent makes a 100 unit stack, while you have 100 units spread out through your land (how it's realistic.). No matter what you do, his SoD will totally OWN you. It's simple really, he can attack anywhere he wants and win. Say he attacks one of your border cities: Since you had only 5 units defending it, you get owned. Your next step would be to take all of your remaining units and get them to the closest city to the SoD as fast as you can, so you can actually have a chance at defeating the 100 unit army. Well, you probably won't make it there in time, and just because he has a larger concentration he will just keep moving to your capital not worrying about 2-3 units that he finds on the way. If you want to make your OWN SoD to defend, that won't work.. your opponent will just attack another city where your SoD isn't located.. and then he has the advantage of defending from a city. This "trick" is used by all top players to beat the A.Is.

FACE IT GUYS THE SOD IS A CHEAP TACTIC AND OVERPOWERED, not to mention UNREALISTIC historically and rationally. It makes all other strategies obsolete. I can't believe I'm seeing people defending it!!

 

[frekk]

Found a little site people might be interested in, with animations to show how military advances work:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/launch_ani_campaign_maps.shtml

As you can see, advances are not made by a single huge force but by an entire front line, which pushes forward little 'fingers' (salients) - which you may think of as SODs - through the opposing front, but maintains as well a front line, which it advances as the opposing front collapses and retreats in order to recover from the breaches. As it does so, the advancing front catches up to the salients, reconstitutes and consolidates itself, and repeats the process all over again. Attacks are always pressed through the 'fingers' or 'bulges' (salients) in the line, similarly counterattacks are generally attempts to cut these 'fingers' off from the front, or cut a front in two. The only time IRL you get a civ-style SOD (ie one that is all concentrated in a single location) is when the supply line is just a beachhead, ie an amphibious assault - and as soon as it begins advancing, it spreads a front out around it.

 

[knorman]

Especially Dunkirk is relevant when speaking about CIV.

 

[Hellfire]

FACE IT GUYS THE SOD IS A CHEAP TACTIC AND OVERPOWERED, not to mention UNREALISTIC historically and rationally. It makes all other strategies obsolete. I can't believe I'm seeing people defending it!!

There's more to Civ than combat. That's what's so great about it. What's also great about it is that if you don't like the SOD, don't use it.

This is why I keep saying that this needs to be about game play, it's because everyone has this preconception of how they want the game to play. The problem with the supply lines and tile caps rules is that they impose an unfair limit on a human for no reason other than the fact that you don't like this tactic. The tactic is ingrained into civ since civ1! It's a fundamental part of the function of the game. My feeling is that to fix this one would have to make Civ a completely different game.

Civ is about building a civilization. You have to make it bigger, better, fast, and be intelligent about your choices. My personal opinion is that if you can build a bigger and better stack than someone else, you win. Frankly, that IS historically accurate. If you have better weapons and more troops, you very often win the battle. If you are equally matched in equipment and training, it comes down pretty much to the skill of the commanders.

Beyond that, it was up to the leaders to make sure they got as many frickin troops to the front line as they could, period. Sounds historically accurate to me.

Sorry if I sound angry but garric you are taking this way too personally and you are one step away from getting rude. My personally feeling in the way civ works is that if I have twice as many units as someone else on an open level field, I should win an overall battle. On the high end, the SOD is simply an expansion of that rule.

 

[Roland Johansen]

There's more to Civ than combat. That's what's so great about it. What's also great about it is that if you don't like the SOD, don't use it.

This is why I keep saying that this needs to be about game play, it's because everyone has this preconception of how they want the game to play. The problem with the supply lines and tile caps rules is that they impose an unfair limit on a human for no reason other than the fact that you don't like this tactic. The tactic is ingrained into civ since civ1! It's a fundamental part of the function of the game. My feeling is that to fix this one would have to make Civ a completely different game.

Not to insult you or something like that but Civ1 and Civ2 were absolutely not about SOD's. In Civ1 and Civ2 a whole stack of units would be destroyed when one unit would be destroyed. So moving a lot of units over open terrain was rather risky. (you could use stacks of units in combination with forts but there were better, uglier tricks to defeat the enemy by placing bombers above your stacks of units, but that's a different discussion)

By the way, the argument "it has always been this way" will not convince any of your opponents, so why use it?

I agree that there is more to Civ than combat, so combat should not be too detailed. On the other hand, I do think it is possible to add elements to Civ combat that make it more fun, more realistic and still easy to understand. My earlier suggestion was to give combat penalties to troops that are surrounded. Easy to understand, easy to implement, good gameplay as it involves a little bit of tactics to try and surround your opponent, and historically justified.

Surrounding troops is linked to the supply lines ideas that are presented in this thread as one of the main reasons to surround troops historicaly was to cut their supply lines. I think surrounding is easier to grasp as a game element but that is maybe only my personal opinion. It will counter stacks of doom as they can be surrounded easily and then suffer a combat penalty that makes them easy to destroy. A front line can't be surrounded as long as it is not breached and is thus a lot safer way of fighting.