Unit Stacking

[Never]

assuming the best, there will be some form of "group" based orders. this, while helpful, will still none the less get tedious (imo) given the level of micro managing needed before every fight. this meaning once they get there we would have to move units around to assure they are set up according to how we want them to attack. this means group move will more than likely 'end' a couple hexes away from target. this will then be followed by a turn, or possibly two, of arranging the troops. finally we can launch the attack but need to spend the couple turns moving each individual unit up to the 'front' to engage the enemy.

Yeah this pretty much sums why Ahriman and Aussie's 'Click 20 units whilst holding CTRL and click where you want them to go' concept is pretty ridiculous to say the least. I bet there won't be any such option and there won't be a mod for it either.

This is because you'll have to micro-manage once the units get to their location anyway. It defeats the whole point of it in the first place (reduce micro-management).

More likely will be a system whereby you can 'Group' numerous units together so that when you click one of those units, all the other units in that group will be highlighted simultaneously. Then you move over to the area you want to go to, clicking the individual tiles you want each unit to go to. It would be easy and quick to move, manage and deploy 20 or so units every turn with this method because units will still be accessible as a 'stack' - in a sense.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@ Never. What you do at the end of the movement isn't what I'd call Micromanagement-I'd call that strategic deployment. The MM is really only related to moving them in the first place-what you do with them once they get to their destination & are engaged in battle hardly fits the bill of micromanagement tedium.
Either way, I'd happily accept a little extra micromanagement in movement *if* it results in more interesting combat at the end of the day. If all you want to do is smash one stack of units into another, then by all means stick to Civ4.

Aussie.

 

[Never]

Right but what I am saying is you'll CTRL-click units at the beginning of the turn, 'move-to' the area you roughly wish for them to disperse, end turn and then at the beginning of the next turn redeploy the units on a unit-by-unit to basis so that they are strategically positioned, End Turn, and then you would attack. Basically that's three turns to deploy an offensive force.

What I am saying is rather than deploying units on a turn-by-turn basis once they are roughly in the area you wish the units to be in, wouldn't it work better if you could create a 'Group' of units that will work in tandem with each other by way of when clicking on one unit all 20 units will be visible on your screen (similar to stacking in Civ4). You then move your line-of-site to where you wish your units to be placed. Using (for example) the left-mouse-click you can deploy all 20 units to arrive at precisely where you want them to be, hex-by-hex. This will take one turn.

In a sense it's no less micro-management in the strategic sense to what you say you want (I also like the idea of 1upt for the obvious strategic benefits), it's basically more efficient. It allows the player to do the same thing only with less effort and time.

 

[Aesir Rising]

Either way, I'd happily accept a little extra micromanagement in movement *if* it results in more interesting combat at the end of the day. If all you want to do is smash one stack of units into another, then by all means stick to Civ4.

The alternative is to smash one unit into another. Is that a more satisfying experience?

I suppose they had to do this to provide some level of control for console gamers. Not as many keys on the gamepad.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

No Aesir. The alternative is to look at the individual strengths & weaknesses of your units, & use them to attack or defend as appropriate-using TACTICS rather than BRUTE FORCE. I've never played a console game in my life, but I'd find the use of real tactics/strategy far more satisfying than simply smashing one huge stack into another.

Aussie.

 

[Thyrwyn]

What Aussie said. Exactly.

 

[Ahriman]

When they are not at the front, you give them a goto order to their position at the front, and then take the assembled group.

Not a group order, but

Turn 10... give 20 different move orders to your 20 units
Turn 11-15... give Zero orders as your units execute their gotos
Turn 16.... give 20 different move orders for your assembled army to move into hostile territory

There is no time a group move order would be useful... "go to" definitely, but not "Group"

Rubbish.

Turn 10. Drag box, select 20 units, give 1 Group command, give 1 move command. Turn 11-15, give zero orders as units execute.
Turn 16. All 20 units arrive at the front together, in roughly the formation they had at the start, and at the same time (ie your faster units don't arrive more quickly).
Give 20 different move orders for forces to start to attack the enemy.

Yeah this pretty much sums why Ahriman and Aussie's 'Click 20 units whilst holding CTRL and click where you want them to go' concept is pretty ridiculous to say the least. I bet there won't be any such option and there won't be a mod for it either.

This is because you'll have to micro-manage once the units get to their location anyway. It defeats the whole point of it in the first place (reduce micro-management).

Wrong. Look at the example above. It saves MM by reducing the number orders you need to give.

Either way, I'd happily accept a little extra micromanagement in movement *if* it results in more interesting combat at the end of the day. If all you want to do is smash one stack of units into another, then by all means stick to Civ4.

Agreed.

 

[Schuesseled]

i have to agree with ariman here group movement is far better than single movement. It's just so much simpler, and if your argument is that less MM during the group move phase leads to more MM just before combat, so be it. MM is always gonna be required before entering combat, its tedious when it is required to simply move to a destination.

 

[Never]

I still think it's easier to micromanage before moving the units to the location, rather than looking for each unit once they are roughly in position.

Imagine grouping 20 units together into an army. This will allow you to access all 20 units directly through the UI once one of the units has been selected. You can move each unit to the hex required without looking for each individual unit, or even moving your line-of-sight. All units will all be there, ready to select and place exactly where you want from any point in the map either as a whole or individually.

This is the most logical solution and will keep the balance between units working as an army (stacking or aka grouping) and strategic 1upt. It will also be more pleasurable to be able to create groups or armies as opposed to Ahriam's concept of scroll-and-dragging every turn. Furthermore this will enable you to have two or three armies of units that will each be distinctly accessible whilst they are engaged in the same area (I'm thinking of the problems scroll-dragging will present of selecting units you don't want selected - more micromanagement).

 

[Hail]

Rubbish.

Turn 10. Drag box, select 20 units, give 1 Group command, give 1 move command. Turn 11-15, give zero orders as units execute.
Turn 16. All 20 units arrive at the front together, in roughly the formation they had at the start, and at the same time (ie your faster units don't arrive more quickly).

it's so nice that people are going to such lengths [of inventing "group movement"] to convince the MM and 1u/t skeptics that civ5 will be plain awesome.

as of now, as far as i can tell the only different between "group movement" and stack movement is the need to waste a few seconds to make a selection box


it is not so for several reasons:
1) moving a 20 unit stack is one pathfinding call, while "group moving" 20 units is around twenty pathfinding calls.

2) the issue of chokepoints and calculation of paths around blocked tiles, which [paths] may not exist! C.O. non-existence is the worst case for pathfinding. the time required to calculate a non-existent path depends on (and exponentially grows with) the number of tiles in the landmass, with the unit in question, that was cut-off.

3) the issue of retaining formation and destination tiles that are inaccessible. clearly the unit's destination must be relocated, but where to? and should other units' destinations be accordingly adjusted to retain formation?

 

[Aesir Rising]

No Aesir. The alternative is to look at the individual strengths & weaknesses of your units, & use them to attack or defend as appropriate-using TACTICS rather than BRUTE FORCE. I've never played a console game in my life, but I'd find the use of real tactics/strategy far more satisfying than simply smashing one huge stack into another.

Aussie.

What Aussie said. Exactly.

What Aussie mistakenly believes is that TACTICS are dependent upon being limited to one unit per hex. You can have a tactically enjoyable gaming experience with stacked units, right? You don't believe that the best possible tactical experience comes from 1 unit/hex limitations, do you? I would consider that to be a logical fallacy.

Either way, I'm not so quick to drink the kool-aid for this design change. All other things equal - if comparing two games that are entirely equivalent except for unit count limits per hex, I'd be more confident of a greater number of tactical and strategic options in the game that had more units per hex vs a game that set an arbitrary limit of 1 unit per hex.

And I suppose my original point in an earlier post was too obscure to be understood, so I'll say it bluntly:
1 unit / hex is a limiting factor. The only inherent benefit I'm aware to such a limitation is to provide an easier control interface for a possible console port of the game.

 

[frekk]

What Aussie mistakenly believes is that TACTICS are dependent upon being limited to one unit per hex. You can have a tactically enjoyable gaming experience with stacked units, right? You don't believe that the best possible tactical experience comes from 1 unit/hex limitations, do you? I would consider that to be a logical fallacy.

Either way, I'm not so quick to drink the kool-aid for this design change. All other things equal - if comparing two games that are entirely equivalent except for unit count limits per hex, I'd be more confident of a greater number of tactical and strategic options in the game that had more units per hex vs a game that set an arbitrary limit of 1 unit per hex.

And I suppose my original point in an earlier post was too obscure to be understood, so I'll say it bluntly:
1 unit / hex is a limiting factor. The only inherent benefit I'm aware to such a limitation is to provide an easier control interface for a possible console port of the game.

Yes, limited unit counts per tile is absolutely more tactical, because terrain and formation take on importance. With a SOD there is no formation at all, and the importance of terrain and positioning is low, relatively speaking.

It has nothing to do with "console ports" because it wouldn't be a particularly easier control interface at all. Units are controlled more individually, so if anything, it makes the interface slightly more awkward for consoles. Hexes and stack limits have an altogether different origin, which predates computer gaming altogether; the intensely complex tactical simulation games of the 1970s, such as those put out by Avalon Hill or SI. The stereotypical format of these games was hex-based with stack limits, and fans of these games have always been overrepresented in the Civ community (including none other than Sid himself).

Civ 1 and 2, in fact, did not allow for the SOD. Stacking was present, but there was a 'soft' stack limit in the sense that you only got 1 defender in a stack. If he was killed, the entire stack was forfeit. You could have 100 infantry in a stack, and a spearman comes along and kills one, and you lose the works. So, for all practical purposes, there was a stack limit of 2; one strong defender, and one strong attacker.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Every game mechanic is a "limiting factor": A strength rating is a "limiting factor"; a move rate is a "limiting factor"; hit points and healing rates are "limiting factor(s)".

"limiting factor" =/= bad

There is no tactical experience with stacks (in Civ IV) - there is a mathematical experience. There is the strategic experience of building the stack with the correct mix of units (to protect the stack). There are no tactics and only two types of units necessary during your turn: siege units to reduce the enemy stack to minimum and enough other units with which to mop up. During your opponent's turn, only only one tactical decision has any effect: the terrain in the tile in which you have left your stack - your best unit always defends.

1UpT represents an improvement in tactical opportunities: You will not only need to have the correct mix of units at the front (hey, we have a front!), but you will need to make a tactical decision as to how to deploy them. That decision will be different depending on your overall goal:

If you are on the offensive, you will need position your troops so that they are in position to exploit any holes you make in the enemy line. You will also need to protect your advancing units from counterattacks and position your troops to minimize your opponent's ability to execute those counterattacks. These decisions will have an effect during your turn (did you position your troops to take advantage of the best match-ups available) and during your opponent's turn (have you left any vulnerable troops exposed to enemy attacks).

If you are on the defensive, you will want to position your troops to take advantage of the terrain and force the enemy to fight in unfavorable terrain (put your ranged units on hills, force enemy cavalry to fight in the woods, etc...). Your front line units will have to bear the brunt of the enemy attacks, but you will also need troops with which to attack, without breaking your line (your cavalry might match up best against the opposing troops, but they are traditionally poor defenders - don't put them in front). These decisions will also have an effect during your turn and during your opponent's turn.

And I see no reason why you couldn't port stacks to a console.

Edit: oooh, Ninja'd by frekk

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey Thyrwyn & Frekk, you took the words right out of my mouth! I do love how some people can much such broadly incorrect statements without feeling a need to back it up with a shred of proof. My own personal experience is that stacks of units is entirely a NUMBERS GAME. Sure mixing the units up a bit helps, but its ultimately about who can bring the biggest number of units into the fray. This kind of "churn & burn" mentality often leads me to believe that the defenders of stacks have gravitated to Civ from so-called Real-Time "Strategy" games. This is especially true when one considers that one direction unlimited stacks can take you is towards the so-called "Turtling" strategy-a strategy well known in RTS circles, but hardly one that requires much thought. Indeed, unlimited stacks takes all the thought out of combat, which is why seasoned war-gamers hate Civ combat so much!
My personal experience of 1upt (from playing People's General) was that it does open up some amazingly tactical game-play, much like what Frekk has already described.

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

What Aussie mistakenly believes is that TACTICS are dependent upon being limited to one unit per hex. You can have a tactically enjoyable gaming experience with stacked units, right? You don't believe that the best possible tactical experience comes from 1 unit/hex limitations, do you? I would consider that to be a logical fallacy.

How is this mistaken? The tactical decisionmaking in a stack is very low. Move the stack around, attack in order of highest win probability. Small exceptions for withdraw chance and collateral damage. Very low tactics. Absolutely I believe the best tactical experience comes from 1upt, because it means that every unit you want to attack with can also be attacked (you can't use another unit to defend it), it means that terrain and chokepoints matter, and it means that you can actually chose which units you attack, rather than merely having to face the strongest defender in a stack. You don't get any of these with stacking, and these are all interesting tactical issues.
Where is the logical fallacy?

it's so nice that people are going to such lengths [of inventing "group movement"] to convince the MM and 1u/t skeptics that civ5 will be plain awesome.

as of now, as far as i can tell the only different between "group movement" and stack movement is the need to waste a few seconds to make a selection box

it is not so for several reasons:
1) moving a 20 unit stack is one pathfinding call, while "group moving" 20 units is around twenty pathfinding calls.

2) the issue of chokepoints and calculation of paths around blocked tiles, which [paths] may not exist! C.O. non-existence is the worst case for pathfinding. the time required to calculate a non-existent path depends on (and exponentially grows with) the number of tiles in the landmass, with the unit in question, that was cut-off.

3) the issue of retaining formation and destination tiles that are inaccessible. clearly the unit's destination must be relocated, but where to? and should other units' destinations be accordingly adjusted to retain formation?

You seem to be missing the point entirely. This latest discussion isn't about 1upt vs stacks (though I agree with Frekk and Thywyn here).

Its about, given 1upt, what is the best UI to have.

You can't have "stack movement" in a 1upt system, but you can still have some kind of group movement UI to reduce MM. Yes, there will be congestion issues and more pathfinding calls and formation issues.... but so what?

These are intrinsic to a 1upt system, but they're worth it in order to gain the tactical level decisionmaking.
And congestion is a feature, not a bug. There is a logical design goal in limiting the amount of power you can bring to bear at any one small space. It reduces the slippery slope advantage from having a larger army.

Given that we will have 1upt, it makes sense to have some kind of group movement system to ease the MM burden. MMing units individually up to the front is boring tedious user action that should be minimized. Microing individual units at the frontlines, deciding which tiles they move onto and which units they attack is micromanagement, but its fun/interesting/tactical micromanagement. A feature, not a cost.

 

[Aesir Rising]

Hey Thyrwyn & Frekk, you took the words right out of my mouth! I do love how some people can much such broadly incorrect statements without feeling a need to back it up with a shred of proof. My own personal experience is that stacks of units is entirely a NUMBERS GAME.

Aussie, Thyrwyn, Frekk - each of you are basing your opinion on a false assumption. Please try to follow:

Is your entire wargaming experience based on Civ games? Ever play Advanced Squad Leader or pretty much any other table-top game from the original Avalon Hill before they imploded? If you did, you would understand that there is no design rule that says a stack of units is inherently more or less abstracted, nor is there any design rule that says a stack of units must be less tactical. If you base your opinion on what amounts to circular reasoning, such as written here:

The tactical decisionmaking in a stack is very low. Move the stack around, attack in order of highest win probability. Small exceptions for withdraw chance and collateral damage.

Then of course I can understand your view. But why would you assume that stacked combat must be as shallow as what you describe. Think outside the box, ffs.

 

[Ahriman]

But why would you assume that stacked combat must be as shallow as what you describe.

Because this is how it has worked in Civ.

Think outside the box, ffs.

Then describe an implementatble alternative system of stacks that involves real tactical decisionmaking.

Don't just assert that there is one. Stacks, as implemented in Civ3 and Civ4, have almost no tactical decisionmaking.

I never played ASL, but from the little of it that I understand, I don't recall it involving stack systems.

Tabletop games that I have seen almost never involve a stack system; 1upt types are much more common in tabletop games.

Other games I've seen where you can stack still provide strong incentives to split up because of:
i) area of effect damage weapons
ii) need to actually defend spread-out resources/land

Or they have very large "tiles", like regions on Medieval Total War 1.

The fundamental problem of stacks *as implemented in Civ* are:
a) "Best unit defends" makes specialization massively favor the defender and removes ability of attacker to target weaknesses
b) No significant check on ability to concentrate force on a small space means biggest army rolls over anything else
c) Relatively little importance of terrain, no room for choke-points
d) Injured/damaged units aren't vulnerable because they can be protected by stack guards

 

[AlpsStranger]

The alternative is to smash one unit into another. Is that a more satisfying experience?

I suppose they had to do this to provide some level of control for console gamers. Not as many keys on the gamepad.

Console gamers? That's the best you can do? Show me where Civ V is coming out for a console. I am so sick of this hand-in-pants dick stroking PC snobbery. Consoles have *nothing whatsoever* to do with 1upT.

 

[Aesir Rising]

Console gamers? That's the best you can do? Show me where Civ V is coming out for a console. I am so sick of this hand-in-pants dick stroking PC snobbery. Consoles have *nothing whatsoever* to do with 1upT.

The trend is for simplified UI elements based on cross-platform development supported by MS, in the form of XNA, DirectX, and GfWL logo progams requirements. My statements aren't based on dick-stroking. They're based on what you see in game development today.

Didn't you see the Civ 5 video interview where one of the Firaxis folks doing the interview described what they learned from UI design based on their experience with developing for the console (revolutions)?

It's not dick-stroking PC snobbery when you underscore the hardware and software limitations facing developers today when they need to plan for the low-end capabilities of what amounts to a 5 or 6 year old PC that happens to be sold under the name Xbox 360.

So while they haven't yet announced a console port, what do you think the odds are that there will be one - and that such a project impacts the PC design?

You really need to bring your A game next time. Getting your panties in a bunch because someone else doesn't like seeing current game design - in particular, UI elements - being restricted based on out-dated console hardware and software limitations is no excuse for your ignorance. If you want more detail about why console development has a large potential to limit PC development, visit Gas Powered Games' forum and ask why they had to design Supreme Commander 2 to run on a 256mb RAM target - the 360. While your at it, let me know why you think there won't be some console form of Civ V. Maybe it gets called Civ: Evolution, but I doubt even you can justify a completely separate development project for it, when Microsoft does everything it can to give developers the tools to simultaneously target their xbox and games for Windows.

Getting back to stacks... really, is on one else concerned about a continent such as Europe on an Earth map being overly-crowded if you've got 10 or 12 units or so on the map? Civ was always an abstract strat game to me. Not sure how the smaller number of units are going to play, but I'm concerned. I'm not convinced otherwise from what the firaxes videos/interviews are telling.

I never played ASL, but from the little of it that I understand, I don't recall it involving stack systems.

Tabletop games that I have seen almost never involve a stack system; 1upt types are much more common in tabletop games.

ASL stacked. If you never played it, why would even try to suggest I was wrong on that point? Anyway, machine gun units, infantry squads, squad leader units (as hinted by the name of the game), and even vehicles could stack on a hex, representing 40m diameters, iirc. You couldn't stack more than X vehicles on a hex, and there were restrictions based on terrain type or buildings. But ASL was offered as "proof" since I think it was you crying for "proof" of a game that is arguably one of the most complex, detailed, rich - whatever adjective you want - tactical level strategy game created. And it had stacking rules. Unlike Civ V - which is more abstract high-level strategy, and now limited to a lesser Number of units covering a given region - but (some) folks appear very willing to accept at face value that 1 unit / stack mechanics are going to translate well to this game. P.S. I can't think of a table-top wargame or strat game that didn't have some form of unit stacking within a single hex (or more rarely, square). Our experiences differ and that is probably why we don't see eye-to-eye. I don't automatically assume 1 unit/hex is going to magically make the game more "tactical" - whatever that means.

 

[AlpsStranger]

The trend is for simplified UI elements based on cross-platform development supported by MS, in the form of XNA, DirectX, and GfWL logo progams requirements. My statements aren't based on dick-stroking. They're based on what you see in game development today.

I am a console gamer myself(alongside the PC, of course) and find consoleish things less off putting than most other PC gamers I know. I actually find it interesting what they manage to accomplish with fairly low-end standardized hardware and clever design. Many console games are quite fun and there is the rare one with some significant depth to boot.

Didn't you see the Civ 5 video interview where one of the Firaxis folks doing the interview described what they learned from UI design based on their experience with developing for the console (revolutions)?

I confess that I either missed or forgot this, but I seriously doubt the UI in Civ 5 will be as bare-bones as Revolution's. I also agree that Revolution was a fairly bad game, but it wasn't due to technical limitations. The things that made Revolution awful were mostly poor game design. A Civ game could be made that ran on the same hardware, and was no more complex, but much more fun.

So while they haven't yet announced a console port, what do you think the odds are that there will be one - and that such a project impacts the PC design?

I find it unlikely, but I guess it isn't impossible.

Getting back to stacks... really, is on one else concerned about a continent such as Europe on an Earth map being overly-crowded if you've got 10 or 12 units or so on the map? Civ was always an abstract strat game to me. Not sure how the smaller number of units are going to play, but I'm concerned. I'm not convinced otherwise from what the firaxes videos/interviews are telling.

I honestly hope that the continents are saturated with fixed lines. I'd like to see smaller nations be able to have a real chance at a late-game comeback, and it is *possible*(but not guaranteed by any means) that the effective hard cap on military units will do just that. That will remain to be seen.

It is my contention that 1upT is not born of memory limitations or any other technical concern. The stacks in Civ 3/4 are awful, easily the worst part of the entire experience. It is a testament to my love of the *other* elements of Civ 4 that I play at all. If console gaming had somehow failed at the release of the Dreamcast I am pretty sure we'd still be seeing 1upT.

I apologize for the tone of my comment but I stand by the substance. My aggravation is mostly due to the "chicken little" tone the PC gaming scene has taken on of late. I really wish it didn't seem like PC gamers did nothing but complain. We live in a PC gaming age where I can choose between Civ 4, Mount and Blade, Sword of the Stars, World of Warcraft, Counterstrike, Starcraft 2, Company of Heroes, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, Dwarf Fortress and many others. PC gaming *still* has more must-play titles for those interested in well polished gameplay. This is, by and large, a pretty nice era in PC gaming. I always feel like people are too busy in a deep mourning for 1998 to realize it.