Stacks of DOOOOOOOM: A solution?

[moscaverde]

Yes, this could be done using forts with ZOC.

 

[rysmiel]

Heh, perhaps this is my fondness for Civ III over Civ IV bleeding through. I realize that in Civ IV you're required to have a lot more units because you have to have a lot more variety. So yes, in that case, 15-20 would be limiting. But I mean, you could have another stack of 15-20 units in the square next to it so I don't think that would be excessively limiting.

I'm mostly a Civ 3 player too, and a 20-unit stack would seem way limiting to me after, the time of upgrading from Knights to Cavalry at very latest.

 

[bob rulz]

I'm mostly a Civ 3 player too, and a 20-unit stack would seem way limiting to me after, the time of upgrading from Knights to Cavalry at very latest.

I don't advocate having any sort of hard limit on the Stack of Doom so just pretend like I didn't say anything about it at all, LOL.

 

[Hans Lemurson]

Thinking back on my multiplayer experiences, I remembered an additional pro to the usage of large stacks: They are much easier to manage.

Another thing is that artillery units had to be nerfed in BtS because of their incredible collateral-damage ability; players would sometimes use armies consisting solely of catapults which would be able to wipe out any stack. So perhaps large stacks of units are not so terribly bad after all, but I still personally feel that it would be a lot cooler if you had to split up your forces and do maneuvers and whatnot. Maybe take a page out of history and have the availability of collateral damage greatly increase with technology, forcing modern armies to spread out much more than ancient armies.

What effect would ranged bombardment have on the usage of stacks?

 

[Hail]

Thinking back on my multiplayer experiences, I remembered an additional pro to the usage of large stacks: They are much easier to manage.

agree. the point of this thread is to nerf enormous stacks, not to eliminate stacks altogether

Maybe take a page out of history and have the availability of collateral damage greatly increase with technology, forcing modern armies to spread out much more than ancient armies.

can be accomplished by adding an "accuracy" parameter to the bombardment thingy, and have it increase with technology

 

[rysmiel]

agree. the point of this thread is to nerf enormous stacks, not to eliminate stacks altogether

How are we scaling "nerf" here ?

I mean, do we need a mechanism that makes enormous stacks inherently less workable once they are put together, or would a mechanism that made them much more expensive to put together but still possible such that players were practically limited to fewer of them suffice ?

can be accomplished by adding an "accuracy" parameter to the bombardment thingy, and have it increase with technology

I'm all for this; though by the time one gets cruise missiles, that accuracy parameter should be essentially 100%.

 

[Hail]

How are we scaling "nerf" here ?

 

[rysmiel]

I don't have a perfect solution to evangelise here, by any means, was just wondering what sort of scale people see it as a problem at in the first place.

I have a preference, all other things being equal, for solutions that can be implemented with minor changes to existing mechanisms over ones that involve complex shifts or new mechanisms, given that there appears to be a wide perception that there's only so much complexity one can have in Civ and that it's less than I would like, and that i'd favour keeping the added complexity for Qualitatively New Cool Stuff; so I very much favour things that make SODs arise less naturally as an emergent property of other rules than anything so SOD-specific as a units-per-tile cap.

 

[Terrance888]

Here you go: When a unit attacks from a stack with more than 10-30 units, and there are artillary in that stack. The Artillary can cause collateral damage as well as aiding the defender.

Say 1 attack my artillary to a stack of 20 Inf and 5 Artillary, with CR1, so it has 19.8. Their inf have 25% fort bonus, so they have a .26 bonus. So 20 inf/5 art*1.26 is the chance that ARtillary will counter strike along WITH the infantry, causing defencave collateral dmg.

Of course, another system might work better.

Finally, Ranged archer units, and Mgunners should be able to use 'Covering Fire' like the ARtillary, a chance when units from their stack are attacking. They have a str ratio chance of stopping an enemy dmg round. So if 2 macemen duked it out, and my Longbowmen activated the ability, it has 1/4 chance of canceling their macemen's 50% dmg strke on our macemen. For more balanced stacks.

 

[jst666]

Here you go: When a unit attacks from a stack with more than 10-30 units, and there are artillary in that stack. The Artillary can cause collateral damage as well as aiding the defender.

I do like the idea of defenders arty giving counter-collateral-fire, perhaps just one shot and very small damage.

 

[Hans Lemurson]

These are interesting ideas for an altered combat system, but wouldn't defensive bombardment increase the effectiveness of large stacks?

Collateral damage from attacks in one form or another is the simplest way to make a large group of units more vulnerable, and so increasing its availability is a step towards the goal of dispersing armed forces.

Rymisiel's idea of increased supply-costs for larger stacks also bears looking into, as it will have a more subtle effect without upsetting the current combat balance.

 

[Camikaze]

wouldn't defensive bombardment increase the effectiveness of large stacks?

Possibly. There are factors with defensive bombardment that would both hinder stacks, and help them (relatively speaking). If you can bombard a large stack outside your city, then you are advantaged because you hit more of the enemy. But if it's a small stack, you are also advantaged because each unit will be damaged more. So I think it would be fair to say that these two may cancel each other out, so there mightn't actually be any net result in favour of or against stacks.

 

[Hail]

Possibly. There are factors with defensive bombardment that would both hinder stacks, and help them (relatively speaking). If you can bombard a large stack outside your city, then you are advantaged because you hit more of the enemy. But if it's a small stack, you are also advantaged because each unit will be damaged more. So I think it would be fair to say that these two may cancel each other out, so there mightn't actually be any net result in favour of or against stacks.

smaller stacks should take less "space" and therefore be harder(less likely) to hit

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, that is where, IMO, the idea of collateral damage as a proportion of a stack, rather than as a flat number (5 as it is at the moment, IIRC) works well.

 

[trickofthehand]

this calls for a review of the current combat system more than a review of an exponential penalty, which would seem perfectly fitting.

This.

 

[w2w2w]

I've come up with an idea that IMHO I think also adds a little realism to the game.

See my 'Unit Food Maintenance?' thread...

I was actually once thinking about and started making ideas.

1. you can get food when you are in city
2.eat of the land (WWII)
3. quarter troops
4.canabalism
5.(default; what is in game without mods) pay for food

and I would explain ship traits but thats going way off topic,

but any way the problem is that in the end I thought about exactly why wouldnt they put this in the game. "You can get food while you are in the city" a trait for defenders, if you had the spirtual leader trait it wouldnt be a bother, so you survive an onslaught then you switch immediatly to canabalism and attack and so on.

sooner or later the leader trait is being used as a military trait and thats exactly what we need; superior military-Asoka

 

[trickofthehand]

I believe all of those are already represented by the maintenance cost behind units. Food comes from gold bought by the royal treasury which comes from taxes. There's no need for additional maintenance for units.

This is yet another aspect that needs absolutely no development. The system, in this case, works.

Although the thought of an entire cannibalistic army is hilarious and scary at the same time.

 

[w2w2w]

^^ lol

 

[Camikaze]

A supply system would be good, although it would only strengthen stacks (because you need less routes with fewer destinations) unless there was a higher unit maintenance cost for having more units on the one tile.

 

[Gangor]

A supply system would be good, although it would only strengthen stacks (because you need less routes with fewer destinations) unless there was a higher unit maintenance cost for having more units on the one tile.

So make small stacks able to live off the land (scavenging etc) and large stacks suffer sickness. Nerfs stacks quite nicely and fits with history too.