1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The ''carpet of doom'' and similar issues.

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Baron2, Jan 5, 2011.

  1. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    That sound I just heard was the goalposts being moved to Alpha Centauri.

    Look, there is a fundamental mistake in the assertion of the OP: that no stacking *on the scale represented by the Civ map* represents reality in some way. It absolutely does not. Stacks are far more historically accurate. Bottlenecks are relevant at an utterly different scale - a tactical one. I can fit a lot of troops in England; I should be able to freely move around England. What happens in a battle is a different thing. I see things like Thermopylae invoked, with no realization that they could be simulated *better* in the Civ 4 model than the Civ 5 one!

    Then the fallback position was that it was fun, and I'm telling you that a lot of us don't find the mechanical hassles associated with no stacking as being fun at all.

    I'm also not seeing an apples and apples comparison: If I have a lot more pieces in Civ 5 than my opponent I'm going to win unless I'm incompetent; this is not different from Civ 4. It's just a lot more tedious to build and move my units around. I win Civ 5 much more easily than Civ 4 and earlier largely because the tactical AI handles the mechanics so much more poorly. I suspect that this is a difference between us: I only do single player, I understand that you're a MP gamer. Those would be very different experiences, and that could account for our perspectives.

    And, finally, I was noting that the game lacks basic mechanics common to true tactical wargames - like opportunity fire (attacking troops get fired on when crossing open spaces) or mutual support (destroyers can intercept ships attacking convoys). So the tactical gameplay is also quite cramped even in a MP environment.
     
  2. Luckystrike77

    Luckystrike77 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2007
    Messages:
    549
    Location:
    Kingdom of Norway
    ? So destroyers cant protect convoys anymore, or intercept ships attacking convoys? That's rubbish. They just arent guaranteed to have a chance fighting the attacker, if they are placed badly or are too few in numbers to locate the attacker again etc. Much more realistic if it is realism you want. In this case realism is more fun too, at least to me. Ships are never stacked upon one another, there is always a chance to slip trough and attack weaker parts of a navy, like subs did in the atlantic. It doesen't seem like we are playing the same game.
     
  3. Baron2

    Baron2 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    115
    Excuse me, but you seem to assume that bottlenecks did not happen in real battles...

    ...while in fact, divisions blocking each other with their supplies train was quite a common circumstances in warfare.

    To take an example, of course tanks can operate off roads. Their supplies trucks can't. In real life, trying to use two tanks divisions in the same area would result into huge trafic jams for the supply line. (1)

    During the 1870 war against the Prussian, the initial French war effort was to send troops to Metz and Strasbourg. The French Army was rather small (200 000 soldiers ?) : yet deploying it using only an handful of railroads resulted in terrible trafic jams, despite commendable efforts from the French engineers to sort out railroad schedules.

    In fact, from 1870 to 1945, war plans completely revolved about avoiding trafic jams and carpet of death, IE by raising, gearing and sending to the front units in the most fluid way possible. War plans were at core incredibly detailed schedules for moving troops and supplies with overtaxed railroads.

    The whole invasion of Belgium (which btw was the downfall of the Germans, as attacking Belgium made sure British Commonwealth intervention...and they knew the risk) was related to this : it would have been impossible to deploy enough divisions to flank the French Army without slowing the operations because of the said ''trafic jams''....

    (1)There are obviously possibility of supply by airdrops or halftracks vehicles. Those methods are far less efficiient than just a tanker truck however.
     
  4. aatami

    aatami Kuruth Urfarah, kuruth!

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    741
    Location:
    Finland
    And besides, if were going to the very extremes here, I wouldn't think that billions upon billions of soldiers would fit in one small city, let alone fight with billions upon billions of their enemies. If were going to look at 1upt in a radical extreme angle, why not infinite stacking as well?
     
  5. Trias

    Trias Donkey with three behinds

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    594
    That is an odd point, considering that civ has no well defined game scale. Different mechanics work on different scales in civ, that is somewhat essential to the gameconcept.
     
  6. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    There is a name for this logical mistake: it's called the fallacy of the excluded middle. People disagree about the effects of a minimum wage on employment, for example, but a 1000$/hour minimum wage doesn't have the same effect as a 7$/hour one.

    Take any Earth map and any major historical battle would fit in a hex. Civ 5 doesn't deal with actual logistics; stringing an army across the whole of Europe, or spilling out of the Amazon jungle, violates any sensible way of defining immersion. The Civ 4 model is unconditionally *better* at reproducing battles like Thermopylae than the Civ 5 model is. So I don't see the immersion argument, nor do I see the realism argument. Nor do I see any engagement with the substantive points regarding the clunky mechanics (babysitting movement because of poor pathing caused by stacking limits.)

    I don't see any benefit in my continuing this discussion: it's apparent that the distinction between things which are appropriate on a strategic and tactical sense is simply not connecting.
     
  7. aatami

    aatami Kuruth Urfarah, kuruth!

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    741
    Location:
    Finland
    Also, people are complaining about the size of the world map... That has nothing to do (or at least nothing significant to do) with 1upt or the ciV core. If you want to complain about it, complain that they made the map too small.
     
  8. Chronicles

    Chronicles Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Messages:
    45
    I would just like to point out that this discussion has some merit when it comes to gameplay, but not when it comes to historical accuracy. There is not one civilization game that's even remotely close to reality. Europa Universalis 3 is one of the best games which simulates actual history and still is far from reality.
     
  9. aatami

    aatami Kuruth Urfarah, kuruth!

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2010
    Messages:
    741
    Location:
    Finland
    So true, so true.
     
  10. TheNiceOne

    TheNiceOne Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Messages:
    1,372
    Location:
    Norway
    True. One could just as well ask why one tile can only have farms or mines, but not both. Given how huge one tile is, if one try to fit them in the real world, it gets completely unrealistic that you cannot have all kind of terrain improvements on the same tile :crazyeye:

    So while it in one sense would be more realistic to allow lots of units and lots of different terrain improvements on the same tile, they both would take away the concept of interesting and difficult choices. Just as you have to make an interesting and difficult choice (hopefully) about which terrain improvement to add, you must make an interesting and difficult choice about which unit to place where, instead of just putting them all in the same stack.
     
  11. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Location:
    Riverdale, MD
    Totally agree. It's *much* more viable to employ a strategy involving a small, defensive army while focusing heavily on non-expansionist empire growth. Good unit placement can force bottlenecks and lead to the decimation of an attacking army that heavily outnumbers defensive forces. With stacks, such a thing simply was not possible. You either could match your opponent's stack, or the game was over.
     
  12. polypheus

    polypheus Prince

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    372
    How does what you say support the statement that 1 upt improves both the strategical and tactical challenges.??? With 1UPT when the AI has to send its units one by one while you can attack them piecemeal and therefore defend with 1/10 of the attacking units but this hardly improves the strategical and tactical "challenges". It just means that the AI is even easier to defeat.

    Now I do agree that SoD was tedious but that doesn't mean 1UPT was the answer either. A improved Call to Power or Moo or similar system would have been much better.
     
  13. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,395
    Location:
    Toronto
    :agree:

    This is the key. When I heard 1upt, I immediately thought they would scale the map to roughly 4X the size (double each the width and height). Plus, if you do something to ensure cities are spaced out, that makes sense. So right now, each city is roughly 3 or 4 tiles away from another one. If you double the map and create incentives to space cities out so that they're roughly 5-6 tiles away from each other, then 1upt makes perfect sense.

    As it is now, the civ game map doesn't make sense from a world map perspective. But let's say you played a standard sized map of the british isles - you'd start to realize that it starts to look a lot more realistic in terms of strategy and scale.
     
  14. polypheus

    polypheus Prince

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    372
    To play on any world-sized type map with lots of Civs though, as is what I do in Civ4 would need massive, impractically huge, maps.
     
  15. pi-r8

    pi-r8 Luddite

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,508
    Location:
    Babylon
    Sometimes I wonder if the entire point of the civ V combat system is just to recreate that one battle, because of some stupid movie. Most battles aren't like that at all- if you outnumber the opponent, that should be a huge advantage.
     
  16. polypheus

    polypheus Prince

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    372
    I agree. It seems bizarre to base Civ combat just for one battle when the vast majority of history was not about Battle of Thermopylae type battles. Also the 1UPT system really distorts combat by making most battles resemble "Battle of Thermopylae" type affairs as the enemy AI marches his large CoD one by one against your meat grinder "tactics".
     
  17. Baron2

    Baron2 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    115
    Why people consider the Thermopylaes as an example of warfare is beyond me.

    Holding the ennemy for three days in an incredibly strong position is not very good. Three days does not make a very good holding action. Not even considering the (likely) possibility of being flanked does not showcase very good generalship.

    As for the casualties...Even if we believe the (ridiculous) claim of 20 000 casualties for the Persians (casualties coming from quite expendable units), 20 000 casualties for an Empire is a far lighter casualty ratio than 300 super-elite soldiers from a single city (1) (This excluding the fact that the Lacedemonian unit was also wiped out) While Sparta suffered terrible demographic woes in the meantime, remember than the capture of
    120 Spartans at Sphacteria was sufficient to push Sparta to negotiate with Athenas...

    (1)Spartan population is hard to determine, as Lacedemonian and Spartan are used without much concern in ancient sources, while meaning two very different things. The syssitois made by Lycurge point to around 4500 citizens, and those numbers declined. So, we are speaking about 4000, 3000 even citizens all in all. 300 dead means World War one casualties rates IN ONE BATTLE.
     
  18. markantony

    markantony Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    205
    In Civ4, I had a stack with catapults, archers, spearmen and axemen. When attacking, I used the catapults, then the archers to soften the enemy, then attacked with the axement, leaving the spearmen to defend the missle and artillery troops.

    In Civ5 I do the same thing, except I have to spend more time micromanaging them and its easier to win as the AI cannot handle 1upt.
     
  19. eric_

    eric_ Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,725
    Location:
    Riverdale, MD
    Because strategically, due to 1upt, you can choose to build a small army and focus heavily on building because tactically, it is plausible to actually make good use of defensive positions.

    I suppose the word "challenges" is a little confusing here, though. I guess I took it to mean options, based on context.

    That would depend by how much you outnumber them, the types of troops involved, and for sure on the terrain being held/attacked.

    In ciV, in my experience, if you mismanage your troops on defense (don't pick terrain or maneuver well) or are vastly outnumbered or out-teched, you will ultimately lose. It was a bit of an exaggeration when I said "heavily outnumbered." For sure, 6 units won't hold up long to 20. Also, there is still risk involved. If you have a small army and lose one troop in a key defensive position, it can mean you're in big trouble.
     
  20. Martock

    Martock Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2003
    Messages:
    254
    Location:
    South Carolina, USA
    While I really do enjoy the 1UPT, I'd just like to be able to 'STORE' my units in cities and forts when I'm not at war. I'm all for only 1UPT when fighting but the map as it is, is just a mess with units and it makes for a total nightmare when trying to move about, even with simple workers. I hope they'll (meaning Dev's or modders) will use the system that's in place for Air units and allow us to stash all units in cities and forts. I'm beginning to think many of the crashes and lockups that players are experiencing is coming from the maps having difficulty rendering not only terrain and improvements but also animated units. Tucking them away in a city or fort might reduce that.
     

Share This Page