Stacks of Doom are great!

[AFS]

I'm no fan of either of those. SOD where kinda boring and with equal situations, whoever attacks first with siege will be the winner. On the other hand, 1UPT is just slow, way too slow in comparison to move 30+ units with just one click.

If I have to choose I'm sticking with SOD because they are faster to manage and they felt pretty epic, and at least you still have the option to play with more tiles if you want (mini-stacks in this case. Sometimes they are better than just one big stack)

 

[aziantuntija]

This post is not the 'great truth' this is simply just my opinion.


It was frustrating to search and count trough my giant SoD(s). ''Does it have enough SAM infantry to survive enemy Gunships, ah I only have 6 SAM infantry in my 50+ unit SoD, lets build at least 4 more’’. I didn’t like it, IMO it was unnecessary micromanaging to just pump up units to a stack to make it bigger and to manage those stacks. Also, because I could stack units in a cities I also MUST stack units in cities to protect them properly, this also raises the overall unit count. IMO, this type of system where you just keep on pumping more and more units isnt really too strategical, altough I am 100% sure that the AI is much MUCH better at pumping hundreds of units than it is in 1upt tactical combat, but unfortunately the AI is so good at pumping out units that this actually becomes a problem, because it just makes you pump even more units and eventually you have over 400 units to manage. Although even that isnt enough in some civ4 games, typically the ones with big map and hard difficulty level. And yes you must also manage those huge stacks so that you have the best units for the job to take a city, defend a city but you also you need (suicide) siege weapons and units to defend your other units from air attack, so you cant just ignore the unit stack micromanaging.

IMO, it doesnt matter if its 1upt or infinite stacking (SoD) the only way for the AI to compete with human players is that it builds more units than the human player does. But in SoD system at higher difficulty levels, this means hundreds and hunreds of units. Managing of hundreds and hundreds of units and building competitive stacks out of them becomes so very, VERY hideous. Im not saying that it would be always fun to move rather large army in 1upt system but at LEAST 1upt has lesser units AND at least 1upt has some tactical combat in it.

IMO, if you look it purely from gaming/fun perspective, 1upt tactical combat (or some other tactical system wich is not just based on ‘bigger is always better’ -like unit spam that infinite stacking a.k.a. SoD represents) will be a much better solution for civ game. It doesnt only have less units to manage but it also adds tactical perspective to the battles.


This post was not the 'great truth' this was simply just my opinion.

 

[Ayt]

I don't think 1upt will ever work properly in a Civ game so they'll have to come up with something better. Stacks make plenty of sense from an historical perspective and from a gameplay perspective. They just need to learn from what was done with stacks in the past to improve them for Civ 6.

 

[Maktaka]

Is Carpet of Death better than Stack of Death?

Since the only way to get a Carpet of Death is by playing the game on Settler or being the AI on Immortal or Deity, while simply playing a Civ game with stacking always lead to one dimensional SoDs (heh, literally one dimension too), I'd say yes, the nonexistent-in-normal-gameplay CoD is better than the always-occurs SoD.

 

[Arsenic Steel]

Since the only way to get a Carpet of Death is by playing the game on Settler or being the AI on Immortal or Deity, while simply playing a Civ game with stacking always lead to one dimensional SoDs (heh, literally one dimension too), I'd say yes, the nonexistent-in-normal-gameplay CoD is better than the always-occurs SoD.

I would love to play against your 1 dimensional SOD. It would be a welcome break from fighting the AI that uses some depth when making a stack.

 

[CivFanaticMan]

I like stacks for 1 reason: Wars were not one sided. In Civ5 to beat the AI in a war all you have to do is beat it at its front line. The rest is city razing. In previous Civ's the AI could lose its main army but it could easily build back its army quickly. This led you to make tactical choices in wars. For instance you should shut down the AI's high production cities so it can't produce units as fast. Send a strike force there to take the city while the AI's main army is distracted with your other army. Stacks brought out tactical war, not tactical combat. Your not a commander in Civ, your a world leader.

Stacks in Civ4 were greatly improved from Civ3 and there was still more Fraxis could have done with stacks. What other fun games use stacks?: the Total War series uses stacks, although there is RTS combat when the stacks colide, the turn-based portion of the game involves the use of stacks. Paradox games use stacks (excluding HoI3 which has a tactical front system). EU3 is a great example, you have stacks of units and you send them to invade provinces.

What games don't have stacks? Panzer General, chess, checkers.

Panzer General is a strategy war game, so is chess, and checkers to a degree. Total war is a war game as well, but it has empire management in it. EU3 is a perfect example: yes watching the units fight is boring, but combat is not the point of EU3. You are suposed to lead a nation, using trade, diplomacy, espionage, religion, ect. Sound familiar? Sounds like Civ. Stacks are part of Civ, and I embrace them.

 

[Maktaka]

Soooo, you're saying Civ 4's combat was boring, but that's good because it makes the rest of the game look better in comparison?

 

[Celevin]

I like stacks for 1 reason: Wars were not one sided. In Civ5 to beat the AI in a war all you have to do is beat it at its front line. The rest is city razing. In previous Civ's the AI could lose its main army but it could easily build back its army quickly. This led you to make tactical choices in wars. For instance you should shut down the AI's high production cities so it can't produce units as fast. Send a strike force there to take the city while the AI's main army is distracted with your other army. Stacks brought out tactical war, not tactical combat. Your not a commander in Civ, your a world leader.

That is not a problem with 1upt. That is a problem with build time.

Civ4 wars were over in one turn. If they weren't, it was just a clean-up afterwards. The AI put all its units in one giant stack and let itself be mowed down by collateral damage. There is no defending war in Civ4, it was terrible all around. Civ4's strength was in building.

(Yes, I'm talking about high difficulties like Immortal and Deity).

 

[Arsenic Steel]

Soooo, you're saying Civ 4's combat was boring, but that's good because it makes the rest of the game look better in comparison?

The recent threads have been talking about stacks of death and none of CivFanaticMan's posts imply or use any word that can be construed to mean 'boring' as his description of the CivIV SOD.

His post was very much the opposite of what you are trying to imply. He said he liked SOD for one reason, he mentioned 'fun' games that have stacks, and for a game on the level of civ that combat was ancillary to what empire building is about.

 

[Islet]

That is not a problem with 1upt. That is a problem with build time.

Combat doesn't exist in a vacuum. The implications of 1UPT is more than simply just 1 unit on a tile, Sullla talked it in his review. The choice to make the map 1UPT meant production times had to be lengthened.

Civ4 wars were over in one turn. If they weren't, it was just a clean-up afterwards.

Assuming that you are on the same continent, I believe? Even so, the inevitable loss of some of your units due to SoD would mean you wouldn't be able to push as deep as you like into enemy territory in a non-stop blitz.

Civ V, once the line is broken, its flat tank country all the way to Washington. No meaningful resistance afterward, simply because of long build times.

The AI put all its units in one giant stack and let itself be mowed down by collateral damage.

I have yet to see this happening. Even on lower difficulties that I play, the AI has multiple unit stacks shifting about. Maybe my experience with the AI differs from yours.

There is no defending war in Civ4, it was terrible all around. Civ4's strength was in building.

Wait till your army is overseas invading and your neighbor decides to invade you. Suddenly, you'll be trying to put together a coherent force to resist invasion.

 

[Aristos]

yeah... stacks are boring. I have so much fun with the new Carpets of Doom!

 

[tylor]

Since the only way to get a Carpet of Death is by playing the game on Settler or being the AI on Immortal or Deity, while simply playing a Civ game with stacking always lead to one dimensional SoDs (heh, literally one dimension too), I'd say yes, the nonexistent-in-normal-gameplay CoD is better than the always-occurs SoD.

I played Civ4 mostly on Noble, and never actually seen a SoD bigger than maybe 30 units. On higher levels when AI have huge discounts on upkeep AND promotion of obsolete units - yes, there were humongous SoD. But that's a problem of poor AI programming, not stacking mechanics in itself.

 

[Celevin]

Combat doesn't exist in a vacuum. The implications of 1UPT is more than simply just 1 unit on a tile, Sullla talked it in his review. The choice to make the map 1UPT meant production times had to be lengthened.

I read his article, and disagree with him on that point. You can put more units on the map than what we're seeing and the game will also still be fine. It would also be nice to be able to lose a unit and not think "well gee, this siege is over". Units right now don't die in a well played game, and if they do, they hurt way too much to replace. Decrease unit/building build times, and increase damage across the board, and we'll see a much better game.

Civ V, once the line is broken, its flat tank country all the way to Washington. No meaningful resistance afterward, simply because of long build times.

Not really, post-patch. This is much more common in Civ4 as after the *HUGE STACK OF EVERY UNIT IN THE EMPIRE* is defeated in one round, the only thing stopping you is city defense %. The AI was dumb enough to put all the eggs into one basket even on Deity. Honestly, I'd prefer the Civ5 AI of archer martyrs than go back to that.

Assuming that you are on the same continent, I believe? Even so, the inevitable loss of some of your units due to SoD would mean you wouldn't be able to push as deep as you like into enemy territory in a non-stop blitz.

Wait till your army is overseas invading and your neighbor decides to invade you. Suddenly, you'll be trying to put together a coherent force to resist invasion.

Not in Civ4 BTS. The AI was incapable of running a decent naval war. Can we leave naval wars out of this entirely? The AI sucks at them in both Civ4 and Civ5. I've never been impressed by it.

If I want to navally invade an AI in Civ4, it's the exact same thing as the same continent except less chance of a repercussion, and less need of land bombardments. I land on a hill/forest next to a city, the AI stupidly attacks me and loses, then turtles in the city and loses its remaining units. No fun at all.

I have yet to see this happening. Even on lower difficulties that I play, the AI has multiple unit stacks shifting about. Maybe my experience with the AI differs from yours.

It's the strategies used and less about difficulty. Just mosey on next to an AI city next to a hill and watch what happens. I played on Prince when I started and saw this all the time, then moved to Immortal/Deity and saw this all the time.

I've seen much better out of the Civ5 AI than the Civ4 AI. The difference is in Civ5 there is more choices that the player and AI have to better their situation, but the AI doesn't use them nearly as well as the player does. Once they actually make the AI half decent, then 1upt will shine as the better mechanic. Until then I think we have to suffer.

 

[NukeEm]

SoD didn't do it for me. I didn't like stacking units to win... It didn't feel like a war... your whole army in one square.. and I hated how siege worked as well. In Civ5, I spend more time in war. Figuring out things like logistics, and how to take a city and move troops. I have to consider movement and swapping troops. Placing units that heal in the right locations. Forming small armies at choke points and have ranged units support those chokes. I like the building and I like the 1upt. I understand that some players like the combat of stacked units.. and maybe there is a happy medium. But I find myself having a lot more fun with 1upt.

The game has flaws, that is for sure... but for me, how war works currently isn't one of them. (To note. I separate the mechanic 1upt from the AI. To me, they are separate things so I don't blame 1upt for the failing AI, I blame the designers.)

 

[Bad Brett]

The problem was that units were too cheap in the modern era. You could easily produce a Tank in three turns, and that made late game battles very tedious. This could have been fixed by doubling the production costs. In the early game, SoD's are rarely a problem.

 

[aziantuntija]

The problem was that units were too cheap in the modern era. You could easily produce a Tank in three turns, and that made late game battles very tedious. This could have been fixed by doubling the production costs. In the early game, SoD's are rarely a problem.

Question: Do you or anyone else see ''the best defender always defends'' -thing as problem in SoD's?

 

[Bad Brett]

Question: Do you or anyone else see ''the best defender always defends'' -thing as problem in SoD's?

Yes, because I was the one (maybe there were others before me, I don't know) who suggested that the attacker should pick the weakest defender instead.

That way you could move your units together and store them in a single tile, but it would not be a good idea to put the entire stack outside an enemy city.

My point is that problems should be solved with innovative solutions, not restrictions (as in Civ V).

 

[Tee Kay]

My point is that problems should be solved with innovative solutions, not restrictions (as in Civ V).

A really good solution, IMHO, would be allowing some ranged units and/or mounted units to be able to target a certain unit in a stack, similar to "stealth attack" in Civ3 Conquest.

 

[Babri]

1. They were boring.
2. They were unrealistic.
3. They were unbalanced.
5. They required almost no strategy.
5. They made battles feel incomplete, and simplistic.

This.

 

[Tee Kay]

1. They were not boring. I like building lots of units and gigantic battles!
2. I'm sorry, they were not unrealistic. What's unrealistic about being able to concentrate force in one particular area? That's pretty realistic, if you ask me. (and conversely, what's realistic about 1UPT?)
3. How exactly were they unbalanced? And why can't they be fixed?
4. Wrong. you need to know which units to stack, and how to counter enemy's stacks.
5. That's a matter of personal taste. Personally, I like big armies and strategic (as opposed to tactical) combat.