Hail
Satan's minion
yea, my bad. i for some reason thought that p(n) is in % subtracted from base power.
Stacks of DOOOOOOOM: A solution?
- Thread starter Hans Lemurson
- Start date
King Flevance
Deity
I have always thought a hard cap is the solution to the SoD problem.
Such as:
Holding Capacity:
Each tile only have a 'holding' capacity for 12 units.
Cities size 8-15 have a holding capacity of 15 units.
Cities size 15+ have a holding capacity of 20 units.
Storage Capacity:
Units such as carriers have 'storage' capacity.
Storage capacity is not figured in on holding capacity.
Stealth Capacity:
Each tile also holds a Stealth capacity of 12.
Spies, submarines, etc. use Stealth capacity.
If capacity is full, It's acts like you are trying to walk onto a peak tile.
Such as:
Holding Capacity:
Each tile only have a 'holding' capacity for 12 units.
Cities size 8-15 have a holding capacity of 15 units.
Cities size 15+ have a holding capacity of 20 units.
Storage Capacity:
Units such as carriers have 'storage' capacity.
Storage capacity is not figured in on holding capacity.
Stealth Capacity:
Each tile also holds a Stealth capacity of 12.
Spies, submarines, etc. use Stealth capacity.
If capacity is full, It's acts like you are trying to walk onto a peak tile.
One of the problems with hard caps (leaving aside unrealistic arbitrariness for a minute) is that it results in a situation in which it is basically impossible to win unless you have the most up to date units. This may not be a bad thing, you would think, but then consider situations such as World War Two in Russia. The Soviets did not have the technological upper foot, but were still able to win through sheer weight of numbers. If there was a hard cap that would actually have an effect in diminishing stacks (meaning that it would be a relatively low cap, or it wouldn't have any effect on the game), then numerical superiority would be virtually unattainable, and so victory would be virtually unattainable unless you have the most up to date units.
Also consider the fact that if you have a large city, holding its maximum 20 units, it is outnumbered simply by two adjacent tiles being filled by the enemy; 24 units. City defence would become near impossible.
Also consider the fact that if you have a large city, holding its maximum 20 units, it is outnumbered simply by two adjacent tiles being filled by the enemy; 24 units. City defence would become near impossible.
moscaverde
Prince
I believe a much simpler way to resolve the problem is to reintroduce the zone of control system (ZOC).
I prefer the civ3 style, but even the other one would be good.
This way you can have stack if you want, but maybe its not the better idea.
I prefer the civ3 style, but even the other one would be good.
This way you can have stack if you want, but maybe its not the better idea.
Trias
Donkey with three behinds
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 594
I don't think people have as much a problem with their opponent using SoD's as that people would like other options then using a SoD themselves.
If you can use nukes against a stack of cavalry, riflemen and cannons, then you probably aren't going to have many problems anyway. SODs are simply too easy to build. And their massive impact on the game diminishes all other aspects. Civ is not a military game.
You may have a point there...
But then there is the fact that SoDs have unrealistic power, and are completely dominating the military parts of the game. Diversification wouldn't mean expansion; it would simply mean more options would be available and more variety would exist for when you inevitably went to war.
But then there is the fact that SoDs have unrealistic power, and are completely dominating the military parts of the game. Diversification wouldn't mean expansion; it would simply mean more options would be available and more variety would exist for when you inevitably went to war.
I'm amazed by the numbers people speak of. Penalty for stacks more than 3 units? That doesn't allow you to have a combined force. Hard limit of 12 units/tile?
But would it really change things? Except making it more tedious. And instead of moving all troops at the same time, you'll have to move several stacks. When your attacking a city you'll need to go through a bunch of stacks to find the right unit.
I would like to hear what options you see limiting stacks would open up.
But would it really change things? Except making it more tedious. And instead of moving all troops at the same time, you'll have to move several stacks. When your attacking a city you'll need to go through a bunch of stacks to find the right unit.
I would like to hear what options you see limiting stacks would open up.
It would allow for a diversification of military options, as opposed to the same old stack vs. stack warfare. This type of warfare accentuated the civ with the biggest stack, even if the other civ would otherwise be more powerful, which is not a realistic representation of military aspects. Basically the options it would open up would simply be that you could successfully achieve victory in a war without using stacks, which is pretty much the sole way of winning currently. So instead of having one viable option, you would have many.
Civ-warfare is much about stacks, like it is in real life. Did the US send in 300 marines to Iraq first, and then 100 tanks a week later? No they chose to bombard and then send in one big stack. Just like d-day.
Still, even though it's much about stacks it's on how you compose the stack that matters. You can go rifles+cannons, or you can go Knights and spies. You can attack from transports using marines. Cavalry supported by airships, or maybe a combination of gunships and paratroopers. You can use missiles on subs or you could just use nukes. These combinations offer different types of war.
It's also possible to take out bigger stacks. The key is initiative. Strike with cannons and mop up with rifles. Then take the survivors on the next turn. Maybe allowing blitz attack as standard would be good? That would benefit small but advanced armies.
Now, I still do see that diversification you speak of. There's not that much difference between 1 big stack and 5 small ones.
Still, even though it's much about stacks it's on how you compose the stack that matters. You can go rifles+cannons, or you can go Knights and spies. You can attack from transports using marines. Cavalry supported by airships, or maybe a combination of gunships and paratroopers. You can use missiles on subs or you could just use nukes. These combinations offer different types of war.
It's also possible to take out bigger stacks. The key is initiative. Strike with cannons and mop up with rifles. Then take the survivors on the next turn. Maybe allowing blitz attack as standard would be good? That would benefit small but advanced armies.
Now, I still do see that diversification you speak of. There's not that much difference between 1 big stack and 5 small ones.
Th point is that D-Day, for example, was not one big stack. It was spread across the entire coast. In Civ, you would simply have one invasion point, as opposed to numerous invasion points in reality, that realistically combine to create a successful mission.
It's more realistic, and allows for greater diversity in your options, which allows for more variety in the game, which is good for gameplay.
But that is not the major contention with SoDs. I don't want SoDs to be completely eliminated from the game. I want them to be weakened so that other options are viable against SoDs, and so that it actually makes sense in some circumstances to not use a stack. Stacks are way to powerful currently to allow this.
But that is not the major contention with SoDs. I don't want SoDs to be completely eliminated from the game. I want them to be weakened so that other options are viable against SoDs, and so that it actually makes sense in some circumstances to not use a stack. Stacks are way to powerful currently to allow this.
Be more specific. What options are you speaking of? What would be possible with stacks-limits?
I see the power of initative and collateral damage, but that is actually something that works against stacks since collateral damage is more powerful when attacking stacks.
I see the power of initative and collateral damage, but that is actually something that works against stacks since collateral damage is more powerful when attacking stacks.
moscaverde
Prince
With less units per stack the strategy of using units to block territory would be possible.
King Flevance
Deity
Actually I have seen some games do this hard cap and it works rather well. You can still use power in numbers. For instance, in the final example you gave, you would most likely have your 20 units in the city along with X stack(s) of 12 units roaming the outer 8 tiles in a defensive positions. So then with 1 extra stack you now outnumber them 32 to 24. In games that do this, you will quickly learn to guard a tile with more units than can fit on the tile itself.
Windsor said:
This game could stand to use some tedium in warfare. Warfare is WAY too streamlined. What getting rid of SoD's would do is offer variety through tactics. This is not a very tactical game, thus it is not a military game. The only real "tactics involved are shoddy at best. (i.e. As spoken before about rilfes/cannons vs. cavalry/airship vs. paratroopers/gunships.)
What do you wanna build your SoD out of is your "tactic". Or you could say that your "tactic" is to hit target A first, then B, etc. These are more generalized plans though than tactics.
I honestly think that opening up a cap on tiles will teach the AI how to war more efficiently for one thing. But on the grande scale it would open up the ability to add more tactical options to the game. For instance specializing against a particular type of warfare is suddenly much more beneficial if you are only allowed 12 units on a tile. Which 12 units do you use if you are facing knights, muskets, and maces primarily? Your stack best suited for knight and musket warfare (Probably pikes/knights) could run into knights and crossbows (anti-melee stack.) Also, where is your artillery going to go? In a stack by itself? 2 in a stack? 4? How would you choose to guard it knowing that is the first stack your enemy will want to destroy. You will most likely surround your artillery with 12 unit stacks.
It allows the defender and the attacker the ability to outmanuever their opponent. Pick the weakspot and exploit it. As most people will probably still run "stacks" but it will be a "stack" spread over 5 or 6 tiles. Of which you can pick where to hit the stack.
Stacks that have an exploitable weakness.
From this, it could branch off into more depth in warfare. But currently there is no "weak spot" in a stack due to the fact the best defender of your entire ARMY always defends.
The damage done by collateral damage only increases up to the point where there are five units in a stack. After that, it effectively decreases.
More options would be what moscaverde said, for starters, and the ability to be more precise with your strategy. So instead of just plonking a stack down and moving it around, you would have various paths for achieving your strategy. There are multiple permutations that come out of this, meaning more options and variety in war.
There are simply too many problems with hard caps that exponential penalties can deal with much better. Besides, I'm opposed to hard caps because it completely cuts out the option of using stacks. You still should be allowed to use stacks, but it should be less advantageous to do so. There's no point in opening up more military options if in the process of doing so, you are cutting others out.
You can have less of a focus on military whilst still allowing more variety in it. In Civ4, military matters take up pretty much all the game. Everything is essentially focused towards your military. You can reduce this, hence creating a game with a wider scope, and still allow for more options when you do decide to engage in warfare, which still needs to be a part of the game, albeit a reduced part.
bob rulz
Prince
I personally have no problem with the Stack of Doom. I don't see why it's such an issue. The only idea that I would be okay with is if there was some sort of hard limit on how many units you could have in a stack (say...15 or 20, nothing excessively limiting). There's not very many times that that would be an issue but I'd still rather just leave the Stack of Doom as it is. I personally am a fan.
Perhaps more emphasis could be placed on defending borders?
Perhaps more emphasis could be placed on defending borders?
20 units in a stack does not strike you as excessively limiting ? Really ?
I really do not like the notion of stack limits, but if someone had asked me to suggest a "not excessively limiting" value i would have said a hundred.
Hans Lemurson
Prince
Oh, hey, my thread got resurrected.
A stack is a self-protecting army immune to serious damage from all but a force of equivalent size. When you must collect your entire army into one tile in order for it to effectively fight another, then you basicly eliminate the element of "maneuver" from warfare. That is why we have a problem with SODs.
Of course a huge stack represents having invested a lot in military buildup, but there is then only one way to use it: a Stack of Doom.
A stack is a self-protecting army immune to serious damage from all but a force of equivalent size. When you must collect your entire army into one tile in order for it to effectively fight another, then you basicly eliminate the element of "maneuver" from warfare. That is why we have a problem with SODs.
Of course a huge stack represents having invested a lot in military buildup, but there is then only one way to use it: a Stack of Doom.
