Stack of Doom"(calculated example)

[bio_hazard]

The only thing I wonder about these small stacks is that if they contain artillery or are escorting settlers/workers, bigger may still be better, because lets say a defense can wipe out one stack per turn (out of six stacks,say), each turn it will capture some of your units to use against you in the future. One big stack might fall more quickly than all six little stacks, but you won't give the enemy any units until that whole stack is defeated.


Slightly off-topic, but do we know anything about how the AI in Civ IV will decide which units to build? In Civ III, the computer seemed to have knowledge of what was in cities even before espionage. Will it always build a balanced arsenal no matter what, or will it "cheat" and see you building a bunch of horsemen or archers and then emphasize the appropriate counter? If not, monomorphic stacks may still be pretty successful, at least early in campains, since it may take the AI a while to adapt. It would be pretty cool if the AI was responsive enough that you could 'feint' with a small force of one unit type, get it to switch production, and then have the counter to their new units ready to mop them up.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, Apatheist has brought something to my attention which I had not previously considered !! The designers have only said that siege weapons can damage up to 6 units, but they haven't revealed anything about how it will work. So, what if it is based on the number of units in a stack which determines it? i.e, if you have up to 5 units, then a maximum of 2 will recieve damage, 6-10 units will see up to 4 getting damage, and 10+ units will see up to 6 units getting damaged. This may in fact push players towards creating smaller stacks-because of the link between stack size and collateral damage.
On stack limits, I was always a supporter of soft stack limits. Namely that a stack might have a 'limit' of 8 units (and perhaps 5-6 on harsh terrain), but that you could exceed that 'cap'. Doing so, however, reduced the effectiveness of all of the units. So, if you had 10 units in an 8 stack tile, all unit's strengths might be reduced by 20% (or -2 if thats more fair). This way, combined with collateral damage, you reduce SoD's, but without creating the anomolies which Sirrian refers to (i.e. the impossible defense, or the impossible attack). Cities would have a different kind of 'stack limit', where the size of the city determines the # of units it can hold. If you exceed the limit, effectiveness if reduced and each additional unit reduces the happiness of the city's inhabitants.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[civzombie]

On small stacks you guys talk about how you are going to use them.

Just wait until you have a unit w/ three city raider upgrades. Or an artillery with three upgrades of precision. Or a support unit with two upgrades of medic. The list goes on. You are going to want to keep him in a big stack for protection. You are not going to want to put them in stacks of 2-3 and RISK watching them get picked off by an attacker that has bonus against them. You are going to want them in a big stack for protection.

I bet the ideal combo will be attacking one big stack with a few smaller support stackes for mobility + pillaging.

You will see!

 

[joethreeblah]

Actually, Apatheist has brought something to my attention which I had not previously considered !! The designers have only said that siege weapons can damage up to 6 units, but they haven't revealed anything about how it will work. So, what if it is based on the number of units in a stack which determines it? i.e, if you have up to 5 units, then a maximum of 2 will recieve damage, 6-10 units will see up to 4 getting damage, and 10+ units will see up to 6 units getting damaged. This may in fact push players towards creating smaller stacks-because of the link between stack size and collateral damage.
On stack limits, I was always a supporter of soft stack limits. Namely that a stack might have a 'limit' of 8 units (and perhaps 5-6 on harsh terrain), but that you could exceed that 'cap'. Doing so, however, reduced the effectiveness of all of the units. So, if you had 10 units in an 8 stack tile, all unit's strengths might be reduced by 20% (or -2 if thats more fair). This way, combined with collateral damage, you reduce SoD's, but without creating the anomolies which Sirrian refers to (i.e. the impossible defense, or the impossible attack). Cities would have a different kind of 'stack limit', where the size of the city determines the # of units it can hold. If you exceed the limit, effectiveness if reduced and each additional unit reduces the happiness of the city's inhabitants.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Good thinking there.

Another possibility is that there is say a 1/3 chance of damaging each unit, up to 6. If you have 6 units stacked, you might be likely to receive damage to 2 of them, but if you have 20 or 30, you're very likely to have 6 hit on each shot.

 

[frekk]

On small stacks you guys talk about how you are going to use them.

Just wait until you have a unit w/ three city raider upgrades. Or an artillery with three upgrades of precision. Or a support unit with two upgrades of medic. The list goes on. You are going to want to keep him in a big stack for protection. You are not going to want to put them in stacks of 2-3 and RISK watching them get picked off by an attacker that has bonus against them. You are going to want them in a big stack for protection.

I bet the ideal combo will be attacking one big stack with a few smaller support stackes for mobility + pillaging.

You will see!

Nah ... putting them up front at all is inviting to lose them. You'll have them in rear stacks, and send them in at specific points where they're needed, or where they can exploit a deficiency in the other player's positioning of forces. Forward stacks will be units with less experience, cannon fodder basically. It will be too risky to put anything good forward because trying to play defensively will just get you killed. Send in the cannon fodder, wear him down, then move in with the elites and crush ... that's what I predict will be a typical strategy. The business of war will involve necessary sacrifices and I imagine the key will be being prepared to make sacrifices and playing aggressively.

I don't foresee stacks of 2-3 ... stacks will be bigger than that, just not 100 units or anything. Probably stacks of half a dozen or a dozen units, that sort of thing. The enemy hits your vanguard with his elite stuff, hopefully, and then you bear down on him with the best units which you've kept in a second wave. If you advance a big stack it will just be wiped out by artillery and convergence. By advancing a smaller vanguard and using dispersed forces, you force him to use his initiative on your forward wave, and then you've seized the initiative in the next round to hit his (weakened) forces with your second wave. Putting the big stack forward just puts *all* the initiative in his court, whereby he can tailor his attack to suit. Think of it like this: getting blasted by artillery in civ4 is going to be alot like getting hit by a nuke in civ3. The obvious solution is dispersal because he can't be everywhere with his artillery all at once.

I don't expect much of this to be apparent against the AI, but in multiplay it will certainly come out. Just like people playing against the AI continued to space cities like they were playing civ2, but the people with multiplayer experience or those who had studied the strategy hints started packing cities closer because it works better. You can get by against the AI without doing it, but it is still more efficient, and you need to do it to win vs experienced human players.

 

[civzombie]

"Just like people playing against the AI continued to space cities like they were playing civ2"

Heh, closely placed cities was not a civ3 multiplayer invention....

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Civ:The_Basics#Infinite_City_Sprawl

 

[Sirian]

each turn it will capture some of your units to use against you in the future. One big stack might fall more quickly than all six little stacks, but you won't give the enemy any units until that whole stack is defeated.

What if artillery can no longer be captured?

I thought I read somewhere that they will fight like normal units? Did I misread that? (Normal units don't get captured.)


A lot of what I've read in this thread takes for granted that Artillery will bombard at no risk to itself, but what if it doesn't? What if it gets a ranged attack freebie at the start like someone said about archers, and then it "melees" or whatever they call it? (What if it sucks at melee?)

What if the units die instead of being captured? What if they don't always, but have a chance to die? What if the chance to capture is as low as 10%?

What if the artillery works like Civ3 cavalry, with a CHANCE to withdraw if losing, but if the chance fails then the unit can be killed during its attack?

I mean, seriously guys, what if Artillery is like Cruise Missiles? You use it, it wounds a stack, but it dies in the fight? It might still be uber if done the wrong way, but the presumption that artillery can, with impunity, fire safely on all approaching units doesn't add up. (Normal units don't work that way!)


If people are actually testing the game, and PLAYING it, I'd think one of the first things to be noticed is if there is an uber unit, of any type. If the game comes out and Artillery is the only unit needed once it hits the board, well, some people should probably lose their jobs over that. Seriously.

I'd be more concerned about subtle stuff, the kind of thing that doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, but only occurs when several different minor issues overlap to create a monster.

Even then, what can be done? We wait for the game, then we play it, then we post tons of messages to the forum about it. Sounds like a good plan to me.


- Sirian