Stacks of DOOOOOOOM: A solution?

[Camikaze]

Yeah, that's my general idea, although I would rather those be implicitly covered by an exponential maintenance cost, or supply cost, than by a system such as suggested by w2w2w.

 

[trickofthehand]

I support cannibalistic stacks of doom. rofl...

I just mentioned this in another post, so not sure where you want to have the conversation lol, but if you include supply lines (which I absolutely think you should) then wouldn't combat have to be re-tooled? If not you'll simply have to resort to numerous mini-SODs across the length of the supply line.

At least I think that this is one area where improved Forts and firebases functionality would be needed.

 

[yarp72]

i really think everyone has made a big deal of this... there are 2 easy solutions to this problem. first, if you use siege units that cause collateral damage, the stack is not so powerful anymore if anytime it is attacked, every unit suffers, not just 1. not every unit in the stack will have a bonus against siege units. so most of the units will suffer greatly with 7 catapults. same goes for cannons and artillery. the second solution is staight forward, but requires skill to do. GET A TECH ADVATAGE! one you do this, your military units will be much stronger than your oponant and if you are advanced enough , any promotion your anemic can get won't be good against your type of units.. the type of advantage I'm talking about here is maybe musket vs axes, rifles vs maces, or infantry vs muskets. the other type of tech advantage you could get could include getting a more advanced siege unit for collateral damage. suppose you get cannons while your opponent has maces or weaker units. when you combine the fact that you have collateral damage and 12-15 strength based on promotions, there is no need for s stack penalty. (i usually win my games by getting a very large tech lead such as when i played with Germany on earth and captured all of Europe very early in the game by settling on copper and putting out axes while my enemies only had archers and worriors... but getting back to the point i built many many cottages and acheived 1000 science per turn by 1000AD. the gates were opened fro then once i got my ADVANCED WEAPONRY GOOD AGAINST STACKS, namely the marine and the ICBM. but you really don't need anywhere near that much science or that much of a tech edge. all you really need is maybe to get 150-200 science per turn sometime not too far into your game to get a sufficient tech lead. (my secret is expand quickly early on, get cottages after iron, procede to writing, and currency quickly, and go after guilds for other money friendly buildings, and knights. once you have the knights, you get fast units, and 11 strength each (with the 10 percent strength upgrade since im assumign you will build barracks.) well, sorry for the lengthy post and a lot of rambling, but to sum myself up, there is no need for a stack penalty.

 

[w2w2w]

i really think everyone has made a big deal of this... there are 2 easy solutions to this problem. first, if you use siege units that cause collateral damage, the stack is not so powerful anymore if anytime it is attacked, every unit suffers, not just 1. not every unit in the stack will have a bonus against siege units. so most of the units will suffer greatly with 7 catapults. same goes for cannons and artillery. the second solution is staight forward, but requires skill to do. GET A TECH ADVATAGE! one you do this, your military units will be much stronger than your oponant and if you are advanced enough , any promotion your anemic can get won't be good against your type of units.. the type of advantage I'm talking about here is maybe musket vs axes, rifles vs maces, or infantry vs muskets. the other type of tech advantage you could get could include getting a more advanced siege unit for collateral damage. suppose you get cannons while your opponent has maces or weaker units. when you combine the fact that you have collateral damage and 12-15 strength based on promotions, there is no need for s stack penalty. (i usually win my games by getting a very large tech lead such as when i played with Germany on earth and captured all of Europe very early in the game by settling on copper and putting out axes while my enemies only had archers and worriors... but getting back to the point i built many many cottages and acheived 1000 science per turn by 1000AD. the gates were opened fro then once i got my ADVANCED WEAPONRY GOOD AGAINST STACKS, namely the marine and the ICBM. but you really don't need anywhere near that much science or that much of a tech edge. all you really need is maybe to get 150-200 science per turn sometime not too far into your game to get a sufficient tech lead. (my secret is expand quickly early on, get cottages after iron, procede to writing, and currency quickly, and go after guilds for other money friendly buildings, and knights. once you have the knights, you get fast units, and 11 strength each (with the 10 percent strength upgrade since im assumign you will build barracks.) well, sorry for the lengthy post and a lot of rambling, but to sum myself up, there is no need for a stack penalty.

I thought that was the reason he started this post, that the attcking units get the advantage with collateral and defending units really get no bonus. which isnt realistic because romans fought well in shield formations but that would really unbalance the game

 

[trickofthehand]

SODs are a broken mechanic. The game boils down to just sending siege units to their death to counter a stack, or getting your stack raped by suicide siege.

 

[Camikaze]

I just mentioned this in another post, so not sure where you want to have the conversation lol, but if you include supply lines (which I absolutely think you should) then wouldn't combat have to be re-tooled? If not you'll simply have to resort to numerous mini-SODs across the length of the supply line.

Not when coupled with appropriate restrictions and penalties on stacks. I'm not proposing supply lines ceteris paribus, I'm proposing supply lines within a restructuring of combat away from stacks.

 

[trickofthehand]

A simple yes would've done I'm glad to see at least we both agree that combat needs to be re-thought.

 

[Lord OST]

Supply lines is a really important part of planning an attack. Therefor it must be added to make the game more realistic. It will then remove the Sods and make the wars more lined up as in real warfare.

 

[rysmiel]

Supply lines is a really important part of planning an attack. Therefor it must be added to make the game more realistic. It will then remove the Sods and make the wars more lined up as in real warfare.

The underlying assumption here is that a more realistic game is automatically a better game. This is not necessarily true.

 

[Takhisis]

The underlying assumption here is that a more realistic game is automatically a better game. This is not necessarily true.

Nope. A game is a game and reality is reality. The aim is to make the game both better and more realistic.

 

[rysmiel]

Nope. A game is a game and reality is reality. The aim is to make the game both better and more realistic.

no, the aim is to make the game better, and more realistic only if that makes it a better game. (If you're telling me that realism in the logistics of a D-day scaled invasion would make the game better, I do not believe you.)

 

[trickofthehand]

no, the aim is to make the game better, and more realistic only if that makes it a better game. (If you're telling me that realism in the logistics of a D-day scaled invasion would make the game better, I do not believe you.)

So I take it you're against the concept of supply lines then?

 

[Terrance888]

Maybejust hav workers make a 'Supply Line' improvement, which would be like a fort, and which can be captured by the enemy. Supply lines have to be wihin X of each other and lead to within X of your main stack.

 

[Gangor]

no, the aim is to make the game better, and more realistic only if that makes it a better game. (If you're telling me that realism in the logistics of a D-day scaled invasion would make the game better, I do not believe you.)

For me the intention with supply lines is partly to nerf the military. Civ is currently far more a war game than an empire building game as originally imagined, and having to supply your soldiers makes war that bit more difficult. This is in addition to adding another facet to war

 

[Takhisis]

no, the aim is to make the game better, and more realistic only if that makes it a better game. (If you're telling me that realism in the logistics of a D-day scaled invasion would make the game better, I do not believe you.)

If you want good games with no regard for realism, go play some Arkanoid.

 

[Kullervo]

Can I make a loosely related suggestion? (Well, why am I asking... I'll do it anyway. )

I don't think there should be a stack bonus OR detriment at all, since in real life, a combined army is slightly more effective, since the strategy is more complex, and the enemy would have to have quick reactions or about 500 different defense/attack strategies made. But giving huge stacks a bonus in the game would be kind of unfair, especially on the higher levels, where Surayvaman operates with 15 catapults/trebs, 19 swordsmen, 14 ballista elephants, 13 axemen, 9 pikemen, 8 crossbowmen... you get the idea. I actually counted. On Deity, the AI very rarely uses a main army consisting of less than about 50 different units in one stack. Making a penalty for SoD's, in my eyes, is counterintuitive, although I could be mistaken. Instead, could something a little more... unorthodox be suggested? Mounted units need 2 MP's to pass through a stack of more than... say, 6 units. That makes a sort of sense, I suppose, because a lot of soldiers can't move out of the way extremely quickly for a few batallions of cavalry coming through. Maybe I'm not being clear or something... but I think there should be a movement penalty for large stacks. Say, stacks of more than 8 units can only move two tiles on roads, as opposed to 3 (After Engineering), and maybe it would be possible to come up with something about rivers as well. After all, a 300000 man army can get a little crowded on a bridge.

Then again, it is late, it has been an exhausting day, and maybe I'm just talking out of the wrong end. But it's an idea

 

[Kullervo]

Maybejust hav workers make a 'Supply Line' improvement, which would be like a fort, and which can be captured by the enemy. Supply lines have to be wihin X of each other and lead to within X of your main stack.

In addition to my previous post:

That's a good idea, IMHO, but it should be quick to build, and it should be able to be doubled with other improvements. Otherwise a militaristic empire is kind of pointless, since a large part of it's land will be taken up with supply lines.

As for living off the land... that's a solution, say, everywhere a stack passes by has -1 for Y amount of turns, times whatever time the unit stack stayed there. On the other hand, though, that would get pretty nasty pretty fast (because all I would have to do is send an SoD to walk all over an enemy's territory, and we already have pillaging for that), and how do you cross a desert, or ice, or tundra?

I honestly think that the system that's already in place, maintenance costs and siege collateral, can't be improved drastically. Maybe a few minor changes, but let's not make the game too complicated. It's a game, after all. It's meant to entertain.

 

[Takhisis]

A combined arms army usually spreads out. If everyone is packed together with no room to maneuver, not even for an individual soldier to move, then you have Cannae.
That's why you should have some sort of penalty to represent this.

 

[Trias]

Maybejust hav workers make a 'Supply Line' improvement, which would be like a fort, and which can be captured by the enemy. Supply lines have to be wihin X of each other and lead to within X of your main stack.

I think we can make it easier still (while retaining the same effect). Simply make the unit maintenance cost dependent on the number of movement points needed to reach the nearest friendly city.

To get the idea of managing supply lines this needs to be combined with an occupation mechanic, where units can occupy a tile as an action to give you access to the tile improvements such as roads. You could then occupy roads to reduce the numbe of movement points needed to reach your cities. This however requires you to spread out your forces to occupy the route. Reducing the size of stacks.

 

[Hail]

I think there should be a movement penalty for large stacks. Say, stacks of more than 8 units can only move two tiles on roads, as opposed to 3 (After Engineering), and maybe it would be possible to come up with something about rivers as well.

i have thought about that. it will not work: a SoD will be split up to reach the outskirts of your empire and reunited, right before entering enemy territory

your suggestion just adds some MM, for those, who like to optimize

I think we can make it easier still (while retaining the same effect). Simply make the unit maintenance cost dependent on the number of movement points needed to reach the nearest friendly city.

To get the idea of managing supply lines this needs to be combined with an occupation mechanic, where units can occupy a tile as an action to give you access to the tile improvements such as roads. You could then occupy roads to reduce the numbe of movement points needed to reach your cities. This however requires you to spread out your forces to occupy the route. Reducing the size of stacks.