Stack of Doom"(calculated example)

[remconius]

I believe this deserves a thread of it's own:

A Calculated Example:

An army of 50 units (of mixed types) try to capture a town with 5 defenders and 5 artillery. Units are all veteran and thus have 4 hps each.

What will be more successful? Stack of Doom or groups of 5 units.

Stack of DOOM:

Moves into range of the town. The town artillery opens fire, each one with a chance of hitting all units in the stack. After five attacks, each unit will probably have been hit at least three times each. This leaves you a stack of 50 units with 1 hp. You lost 150 hps (75% of your force).

groups of 5
You now have 10 groups of 5 units each. You move your groups into range. The town opens fire but can now only hit 5 of your groups. You lose a maximum of 5 hps per group (1hp per unit). Maximum 25 hps. You are now at almost 90% of the original strength. Out of you're ten groups come the fast movers and hit the city (20 immortal and 10 cavalry) which should be able to over take out the 5 defenders and 5 artillery.

Conclusion....
Just 5 Artillery should be able to reduce any stack to 25% strength (=1hp units). In order to defend against small group of units you will need a much more balanced defensive force.

 

[evil_linus]

But... Where not artillery able to hit a maximum of 6?

 

[remconius]

I do remembere hearing 6 somewhere, but reading the pre-realease info on the civfanatics, it talks about all units.

 

[kitsquad]

Nice example. i believe it's stated that all units take the hit from a canon/artillery. And i guess i understand what they're doing. in civ III only the unit on top would get hit. Obviously more units should get hit. Stacks of troops kind of took the strategy away from the game and the fact that you could lose all of them really quickly so it makes you break up your forces and since the program picks the best unit for attack/defense, it also forces you to diversify your troops.

 

[warpstorm]

Since you don't know the Civ4 combat algorithm and are basing this off of a modded Civ3 scheme, your mileage may vary in Civ4.

 

[remconius]

Of course it is all speculation based on previous civ versions and pre-release information.

 

[eaglefox]

i thought the latest update said upto 6 units being damaged. so i don't know about us losing 75% of a 50 strong force.

 

[ComradeDavo]

It says 6 here....
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civilizationiv/preview_6129411.html

However, you'll definitely need to be careful about stacking your units, because the combat system, like everything else, has received a huge overhaul in Civ IV. Killer stacks, or having dozens of units in a single square, are a perfect example. "This is one of those things that we sort of overcorrected for in Civ III," Johnson explained. "In Civ I and Civ II there was this crazy rule where if you attacked a stack and it lost, the stack was entirely wiped out, and it'd be like, 'Wow, that's crazy.' So we got rid of that in Civ III, but, of course, the natural side effect of that was, 'Well, I'll just build this gigantic stack.'" To counter the killer-stack problem, Firaxis has upped the effect of siege weapons, such as cannons, catapults, and artillery, by modifying them into stack killers. "They have a collateral damage effect, [so] that when you attack a stack, you will also hurt up to six other units in the stack. So you can build stacks if you want, but the correct counter for that will be, 'OK, I'll build a bunch of catapults and cannons, and I'll attack your stack. And all your guys will be hurt, and you'll be in my territory, and you won't be able to heal, and I'll just mop you up.'"

Good move I reckon, will help take emphasis away from giant stacks and put more on tatics

 

[civzombie]

Thanks for the quote.

Hmm... so artilery only hits up to six units in a stack. More evidence that BIG stacks loaded with artilery and a mix of units will be more very powerful.

 

[joethreeblah]

Thanks for the quote.

Hmm... so artilery only hits up to six units in a stack. More evidence that BIG stacks loaded with artilery and a mix of units will be more very powerful.

It would take only 33 hits to hit each of 50 units 4 times. That's pretty good.

 

[Sullla]

Since you don't know the Civ4 combat algorithm and are basing this off of a modded Civ3 scheme, your mileage may vary in Civ4.

I agree. That example is full of assumptions that we have no way of knowing are true or not. I seriously doubt that artillery units will be an all-powerful uber unit though; I'm going to give the developers the benefit of the doubt on something THAT obvious. I don't know how people can post about balancing issues for a game that they have never played before either - that's quite an impressive feat.

 

[frekk]

Thanks for the quote.

Hmm... so artilery only hits up to six units in a stack. More evidence that BIG stacks loaded with artilery and a mix of units will be more very powerful.

Not really ... if you have 50 units you'll still be better off to disperse them into 8 or 9 tiles. Artillery too. No matter which way you slice it, if the artillery hits even just 6 units it will only take a handful of artillery pieces to cut a huge stack down to size ... and that handful of artillery will work just as well firing from multiple adjacent tiles (or more, presuming actual Artillery with range 2 is around) as it would firing from a single tile. Dealing with a dispersed force will be more difficult, though, as even though you may hit all the units in each small stack, it will require you to disperse your own artillery to do so.

I think huge stacks will be a massive liability in this system, as this new feature of artillery inherently makes all combat much riskier ... there will be more losses, and therefore I predict you'll be better off trying to minimize those losses through dispersal. A huge stack of say 100 units could be quickly wittled down and pulverized by only a quarter that number of artillery - a pretty good trade all in all, even if say one or two of the dispersed artillery tiles (say, 12 artillery) were lost. But it would be far more difficult to deal with 25 stacks of 4 units with the same amount of artillery due to the difficulty of getting it all in the right place at the right time. The problem with the big stack is that all that needs to be done to annihilate it is to coordinate a relatively small group of artillery to arrive and fire on the stack all in the same round. Whereas such coordination would be difficult in the extreme when dealing with a dispersed force, as one will probably only be able to manuever enough artillery into place to deal with a few stacks before the other side responds. Essentially, that will be the problem with the big stack: it will be possible to hit it all at once very easily.

 

[civzombie]

I think you guys are going to be suprized when you see this combat system in work.

Don't forget to consider the affect the r/p/s system which is a MAJOR CHANGE. Unlike Civ3, there are no longer best defensive units. You need a mixture of units all in a pile to make sure that the best defender always steps forward to meet the attacker. For example, if you have archers that are vulnerable to cavalry you need to keep formation units with the archers. Likewise, if you have cavalry that are vulnerable to formation units, you will need to keep other formation units with your cavalry.

The result is that you are generally going to want to have combined forces stacks of all types of units guarantee that the appropriate defender will be available to meet a certain attacker. So these stacks might need a minimum of 3-6 units. Stacks of only 1-2 units are going to be picked off if your opponent uses the r/p/s system to his advantage.

If you are going to have a bunch of groups of 3-6, why not stack them together in a big group? If collateral damage is CAPPED at affecting six units (note that without the proper bonus it will affect LESS THAN 6), then those groups of 3-6 will commonly (particularly in the non-modern time periods) take THE SAME DAMAGE a huge stack of 50+. If they are going to commonly take the same damage, why not keep all units in a big stack thereby ensuring that the best defender will always be available to step forward to meet a particular attacker.


I assume many of you here played WARLORDS. In that game having a varied stack as large as possible ensured that you had all the proper bonuses no mater who you fought. It will be like that, you will want the "cover bonus" unit in your stack in case archers attack, you will want the "formation bonus" unit available in case a cavalry attacks, etc, etc.

 

[civzombie]

"Not really ... if you have 50 units you'll still be better off to disperse them into 8 or 9 tiles. Artillery too. No matter which way you slice it, if the artillery hits even just 6 units it will only take a handful of artillery pieces to cut a huge stack down to size ..."

Agreed, but only if you KNOW you are going to face ONLY artillery.

 

[Brain]

If you are going to have a bunch of groups of 3-6, why not stack them together in a big group? If collateral damage is CAPPED at affecting six units (note that without the proper bonus it will affect LESS THAN 6), then those groups of 3-6 will commonly (particularly in the non-modern time periods) take THE SAME DAMAGE a huge stack of 50+.

No it doesn't. EACH HIT can hit up to six units, but different hits don't necessarily hit the same units. All units could eventually get hit at one point or another. In Civ3 each hit could only hit one unit at a time. Do you see how much more powerful artillery is?

I think huge stacks will be a massive liability in this system, as this new feature of artillery inherently makes all combat much riskier ... there will be more losses, and therefore I predict you'll be better off trying to minimize those losses through dispersal.

By extension of this, I think war itself will have to be avoided until necessary. A VERY welcome change for all the builders such as myself.

 

[civzombie]

"No it doesn't. EACH HIT can hit up to six units, but different hits don't necessarily hit the same units. All units could eventually get hit at one point or another. In Civ3 each hit could only hit one unit at a time. Do you see how much more powerful artillery is?"

Right. An artilery can fire once per round and hit one unit plus a maximum of six other units in the stack through collateral damage. So, the best case is that an artilery could hit 7 units per turn when facing a stack of 7 or more.

But most of the time the artilery won't hit 7 units b/c it won't have the barrage I-III bonus traits. Most of the time an artilery will probably only hits 1-3 extra units for a total of 2-4 hits. Check out the barrage traits under the prerelease information.

 

[warpstorm]

By extension of this, I think war itself will have to be avoided until necessary. A VERY welcome change for all the builders such as myself.

But for warmongers like myself, war is necessary shortly after meeting someone weaker than me.

 

[civzombie]

"By extension of this, I think war itself will have to be avoided until necessary. A VERY welcome change for all the builders such as myself."

The changes from civ2 to civ3 definetly caused war to be more expensive (taking over cities requires more units).

Perhaps we will see more of the same w/ civ4.

 

[Brain]

But for warmongers like myself, war is necessary shortly after meeting someone weaker than me.

I hope that even warmongers will have to switch from a "kill them all" philosophy to geopolitical manovering. I also enjoy warmongering sometimes, but it shouldn't be the only viable way to win at higher levels.

 

[frekk]

Brain - if anything, this system will be much heavier on warmongering, judging by statements made about the combat system. The "big stack" is actually a very simplified and not terribly involved model for warfare. What appears to be happening is a more realistic model which will involve distributed and dispersed forces fighting along much wider fronts. This is another reason big stacks will no longer be effective, because it will leave the flanks exposed - each city will need a variety of units to be adequately protected, and further, a large variety of units will have to be held in reserve (since very large garrisons at borders would be counterproductive). This means that the number of units available for a big stack will be smaller - *unless* one advances across a wide front, which simultaneously serves the job of protecting the border. I expect to see the big stack tactic replaced with the big front tactic, where attackers advance small stacks made up of a wide variety of units all across a long front, requiring the defender to match that variety along the length of his border.

I still see the big stack happening in the early eras of the game though, because there will be less unit variety at this time and certainly less artillery and less effective artillery. That's ok, as large field armies concentrating all the force available were more typical of warfare up until the modern era. But once the modern era arrives and particularly once modern artillery is developed, attacking along a wide front will be crucial.