Stacking units in Civ5 and supply

[Dr. Eszterhazy]

I was very disappointed to see that Civilization V’s answer to the Stack of Doom was to eliminate stacks altogether and only allow one unit per square. I enjoy being able to create a “combined arms” stack in Civilization by mixing different units for both offense and defense.

To deal with the stack of doom, I think Civilization should have a penalty for piling an enormous army into one hex and one way to deal with this could be to require the army to be in supply. I think Civilization IV does a good job of “equipping” your army which is reflected by the hammer cost in building your units and “paying” your army which is reflected in the maintenance cost. However I think Civilization should make you “supply” your army by having to feed it. A certain number of units per hex would be able to forage and live off on the land ... for example, three units per city, two units per grassland, plains, and floodplains hex, and one unit per woods/hill wouldn’t need to tap into your food supply. Units on the attack in hexes controlled by an enemies culture would only be able to supply one unit in these hexes. Units in a swamp or desert would not be able to forage. Stacking excess units in a hex would require them to be fed from the food supplies of your cities, making working farms to create excess food just as important as working cottages and other resources. Creating a “stack of doom” would use up food supplies faster, causing your cities to stop growing or starve. Players would disperse their army during peacetime through their land and during wartime would be encouraged to advance on a broad front to avoid the supply penalties.

In addition, units unable to trace a line of supply to a city with a food surplus or stored food would lose 10% of their strength each turn and be unable to heal. Surrounding a Stack of Doom and cutting it off from its food supply would be one way of dealing with it. Pillaging farms and completely surrounding cities to starve the units stacks therein would become a part of siege warfare. In the modern era, you should have to trace a supply line to oil as well as food.

To further promote dispersion of units rather than creating stacks of doom, I think an attacking unit should get a bonus if the unit being attacked has enemy units in more than two adjacent squares. For example, if a defending unit is adjacent to enemy units in three surrounding hexes, then any unit that attacks it would get a 10% strength bonus. If there are enemy units in four adjacent hexes, the bonus could be 15%, five hexes could be 20%, six hexes 25%, etc. This would represent the difficulty of defending when surrounded or attacked from different directions and encourage players to maneuver their armies in smaller stacks to both get and prevent the attacking bonus.

 

[StormD]

Setting aside the fact that at this point the decision is done and done, so it's all wasted wishing, I'd guess a completely enveloped unit would have a greater than 25% penalty. One needs only look at the Battle of Cannae to see that even an outnumbered and out-armed army can totally massacre a larger and better-equipped army, once they have the enemy surrounded and locked down.

 

[hrman]

I was very disappointed to see that Civilization V’s answer to the Stack of Doom was to eliminate stacks altogether and only allow one unit per square. I enjoy being able to create a “combined arms” stack in Civilization by mixing different units for both offense and defense.

To deal with the stack of doom, I think Civilization should have a penalty for piling an enormous army into one hex and one way to deal with this could be to require the army to be in supply. I think Civilization IV does a good job of “equipping” your army which is reflected by the hammer cost in building your units and “paying” your army which is reflected in the maintenance cost. However I think Civilization should make you “supply” your army by having to feed it. A certain number of units per hex would be able to forage and live off on the land ... for example, three units per city, two units per grassland, plains, and floodplains hex, and one unit per woods/hill wouldn’t need to tap into your food supply. Units on the attack in hexes controlled by an enemies culture would only be able to supply one unit in these hexes. Units in a swamp or desert would not be able to forage. Stacking excess units in a hex would require them to be fed from the food supplies of your cities, making working farms to create excess food just as important as working cottages and other resources. Creating a “stack of doom” would use up food supplies faster, causing your cities to stop growing or starve. Players would disperse their army during peacetime through their land and during wartime would be encouraged to advance on a broad front to avoid the supply penalties.

In addition, units unable to trace a line of supply to a city with a food surplus or stored food would lose 10% of their strength each turn and be unable to heal. Surrounding a Stack of Doom and cutting it off from its food supply would be one way of dealing with it. Pillaging farms and completely surrounding cities to starve the units stacks therein would become a part of siege warfare. In the modern era, you should have to trace a supply line to oil as well as food.

To further promote dispersion of units rather than creating stacks of doom, I think an attacking unit should get a bonus if the unit being attacked has enemy units in more than two adjacent squares. For example, if a defending unit is adjacent to enemy units in three surrounding hexes, then any unit that attacks it would get a 10% strength bonus. If there are enemy units in four adjacent hexes, the bonus could be 15%, five hexes could be 20%, six hexes 25%, etc. This would represent the difficulty of defending when surrounded or attacked from different directions and encourage players to maneuver their armies in smaller stacks to both get and prevent the attacking bonus.

A great idea on the attacks from multiple direction suggestion. I'm a little more ambivalent on your supply suggestions - I really didn't have problem with the "Stacks of Doom". I always thought of tiles as being hundreds of miles wide, and didn't think it was a realism problem to have multiple units supported in each one. On the other hand, the idea of supply lines is probably valid - it would be a nice addition if it could be implemented without a massive layer of micromanagement being required.

I think your multiple attack direction bonus alone would solve any gameplay problems causes by SOD's - especially if the bonuses were even higher. I'd propose 10% for two hexes, 15% for three, but I'd argue there should be additional bonuses for attacks from non-adjoining hexagon sides - an attack from two directions next to each other is difficult for a unit to repulse, but being attacked from front and behind is devastating. The adjustment for a surrounded unit or units should probably be closer to 50%. The exact numbers are debateable and would need to be playtested, but I think the idea could work and would be a major improvement.

Unfortunately, none of this matters as Firaxis seems to be going in a whole different direction with CIV5.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually the adjustment for a surrounded unit should depend on the strength of the surrounding units.

So

a unit is surrounded by
1 Horseman str 4
1 Archer Str 3
1 Warrior Str 2

The Archer gets a bonus of (4+2)*30%=1.8 when attacking the surrounded unit.
(30% purely sample, balanceable)

 

[MethanalCHO]

I was very disappointed to see that Civilization V’s answer to the Stack of Doom was to eliminate stacks altogether and only allow one unit per square. I enjoy being able to create a “combined arms” stack in Civilization by mixing different units for both offense and defense.

To deal with the stack of doom, I think Civilization should have a penalty for piling an enormous army into one hex and one way to deal with this could be to require the army to be in supply. I think Civilization IV does a good job of “equipping” your army which is reflected by the hammer cost in building your units and “paying” your army which is reflected in the maintenance cost. However I think Civilization should make you “supply” your army by having to feed it. A certain number of units per hex would be able to forage and live off on the land ... for example, three units per city, two units per grassland, plains, and floodplains hex, and one unit per woods/hill wouldn’t need to tap into your food supply. Units on the attack in hexes controlled by an enemies culture would only be able to supply one unit in these hexes. Units in a swamp or desert would not be able to forage. Stacking excess units in a hex would require them to be fed from the food supplies of your cities, making working farms to create excess food just as important as working cottages and other resources. Creating a “stack of doom” would use up food supplies faster, causing your cities to stop growing or starve. Players would disperse their army during peacetime through their land and during wartime would be encouraged to advance on a broad front to avoid the supply penalties.

In addition, units unable to trace a line of supply to a city with a food surplus or stored food would lose 10% of their strength each turn and be unable to heal. Surrounding a Stack of Doom and cutting it off from its food supply would be one way of dealing with it. Pillaging farms and completely surrounding cities to starve the units stacks therein would become a part of siege warfare. In the modern era, you should have to trace a supply line to oil as well as food.

To further promote dispersion of units rather than creating stacks of doom, I think an attacking unit should get a bonus if the unit being attacked has enemy units in more than two adjacent squares. For example, if a defending unit is adjacent to enemy units in three surrounding hexes, then any unit that attacks it would get a 10% strength bonus. If there are enemy units in four adjacent hexes, the bonus could be 15%, five hexes could be 20%, six hexes 25%, etc. This would represent the difficulty of defending when surrounded or attacked from different directions and encourage players to maneuver their armies in smaller stacks to both get and prevent the attacking bonus.

The idea of using food to maintain an army, I believe, is a much better idea than eliminating the entire concept of multiple units on a tile. Since the game is coming out little more than a half-year away, such a feature may have to wait for an expansion pack, or more probably, Civ6. But the idea of automatic food and resource consumption by units is a very good one.

Here is how the system should work:

We will begin in the case of the humble Warrior. Every square, as is known, produces food. For every unit on the space, one food is taken from it to support the unit on the space. If the hex is within a city radius, the city loses 1 food for every unit on that space, for the food is going to the unit. When the unit(s) move, full production is restored to the square.

If, however, there are more units than food on the space, they will automatically each require 1-3 food from the nearest friendly city to sustain themselves. If their numbers are too high, then cities will be stagnated in growth or starved to death.

In the case of units that do require resources (such as the Axeman), they automatically consume the resource needed from the nearest friendly city for support. If a unit cannot get needed food/resources, then it is automatically disbanded and you get nothing.

Your system seems good, can't wait to see it!

 

[Gamemaster77]

This should be under the ideas ans suggestions forum in a thread for civ6, since they are obviously not changing it at this point.

 

[Takeda]

I like the change to 1 military unit per hex. The problem with unit stacking in previous civ games is that civ has always had a rock-paper-scissors approach to warfare. By stacking your units you would be certain that the best defense was always present to meet their appropriate attacker.

This change forces the player to arrange their units intelligently and plan ahead for any potential engagement. CiV will also focus on much smaller armies overall, so the lack of stacking wont lead to undue micromanagement tedium. Capping unit numbers by the availability of strategic resources was a long overdue change IMHO

 

[Gliese 581]

Actually they've modeled the new system after Panzer General. If that game is not all about combined arms then I don't know any that is.
Oh and it has supply too.

 

[tom2050]

In the case of units that do require resources (such as the Axeman), they automatically consume the resource needed from the nearest friendly city for support. If a unit cannot get needed food/resources, then it is automatically disbanded and you get nothing.

And under certain war-oriented governments, the unit would not be disbanded, but city populations would suffer and lose citizens (or w/e they are calling them now).

------------

Civ 5 was inspired by Panzer General... doesn't mean it's going to resemble it. Civ is not a designed wargame, PG is. Rest assured that the way Civ is as a game, it will not be some complex tactical wargame.

It will still have a somewhat simplistic strategic war model (not simplistic in the sense of design, but easy to grasp, like they all have been), with depth being primarily in how effectively you manage your forces in the field, as well as think about concepts of protecting your lands, supporting damaged units, etc (all they have mentioned).

 

[Dr. Eszterhazy]

The idea of using food to maintain an army, I believe, is a much better idea than eliminating the entire concept of multiple units on a tile. Since the game is coming out little more than a half-year away, such a feature may have to wait for an expansion pack, or more probably, Civ6. But the idea of automatic food and resource consumption by units is a very good one.

Here is how the system should work:

We will begin in the case of the humble Warrior. Every square, as is known, produces food. For every unit on the space, one food is taken from it to support the unit on the space. If the hex is within a city radius, the city loses 1 food for every unit on that space, for the food is going to the unit. When the unit(s) move, full production is restored to the square.

If, however, there are more units than food on the space, they will automatically each require 1-3 food from the nearest friendly city to sustain themselves. If their numbers are too high, then cities will be stagnated in growth or starved to death.

In the case of units that do require resources (such as the Axeman), they automatically consume the resource needed from the nearest friendly city for support. If a unit cannot get needed food/resources, then it is automatically disbanded and you get nothing.

Your system seems good, can't wait to see it!

I like this idea better, so long as it doesn’t apply to foreign units that are entering your land under an open border agreement. Those units should have to draw food supplies from their own cities rather than forage in your land. Enemy units could still forage in your land ... not only would they deny you the ability to work the square that they are in, they could use the food value of that hex to feed a corresponding number of units.

Implementing something like this could model how an army marches on its stomach. Planning your march route into enemy lands would become more important than just a direct line to the nearest city or sticking to forests and swamps. The player could decide to take a shortcut and send his invading units across a desert or swamp and use up his civilization’s food stores, or plan a route through the enemy’s farms in order to keep his army fed. You could scorch the earth in front of an advancing enemy by pillaging your own farms and deny the enemy the ability to forage in your land.

Scouts and explorers would not need to be “fed,” so the player would be better off sending these units off into the desert (which produces no food) to explore than another unit. I’m not sure whether workers should have to draw on food supplies.

 

[)Zarathustra(]

The great thing is that finally there will be some positionnal tactics and army deployement in civ, means "some" micromanagement in battles. Previous version were all about putting your 50 stacked units on mountains on hills, that was really annoying.

 

[Dr. Eszterhazy]

The great thing is that finally there will be some positionnal tactics and army deployement in civ, means "some" micromanagement in battles. Previous version were all about putting your 50 stacked units on mountains on hills, that was really annoying.

Then I wish they had implemented a stacking limit based on terrain, other than one unit per square.

 

[JoeHollywood]

There's nothing that says you won't be able to do "combined arms" type units. Just that you can't have more than one unit per hex.

There could be a heavy infantry type unit that's the equivalent of a maceman or axeman with bonus vs melee, a spearman type unit with bonus vs mounted units, and a mixed infantry or some such unit with modest bonus vs both.

I'm sure the guys programming this are working with it a great deal, this sort of reminds me of the conversations when civ4 came out about the "new catapults" and collateral damage and whatnot ( which was also an attempt to eliminate the SoD tactic )

 

[Dr. Eszterhazy]

I’m sorry if this is addressed in another forum topic, but how do you advance through your own lines if you can only stack one unit per hex? For example, lets say you have your frontier defense unit beautifully entrenched and fortified on a hill on your border but you want to send your army of invading units (apparently one at a time) through that hex? Does the frontier unit have to move out of the way?

 

[Takeda]

I’m sorry if this is addressed in another forum topic, but how do you advance through your own lines if you can only stack one unit per hex? For example, lets say you have your frontier defense unit beautifully entrenched and fortified on a hill on your border but you want to send your army of invading units (apparently one at a time) through that hex? Does the frontier unit have to move out of the way?

there will be a "unit swap" mechanic. Which basically means that two units in adjacent tiles can switch positions automatically, presumably for the cost of 1 movement point each.

You should also keep in mind that your "army" will no longer consist of 50 units, but instead most fighting forces(can't call em stacks anymore) will likely consist of about 6-8 units. Units that you'll stick with alot longer and will require alot more individual attention. Apparently a defeated unit isn't automatically destroyed anymore, but it will take time and resources to bring the unit back up to full strength. Successive defeats will eventually destroy the unit, however.

 

[)Zarathustra(]

Then I wish they had implemented a stacking limit based on terrain, other than one unit per square.

Not necessarly; it will be good to have to spread your army cleverly, to put some units behind, organize clever flanks, use forest / mountains cleverly etc etc...

 

[Gliese 581]

They could let you move through your own units similar to in PG. If a basic units has 2 movement points it could advance through and past a unit to a hex beyond it.