Unit Stacking

[CyberChrist]

Trying to get the AI to play well when it has to balance units between stacks of finite size and then use (and counter) those stacks of arbitrary size effectively is not only a significantly harder problem to solve it is also going to take one heck of a lot more processing time.
...
Personally I would rather play against a good tactical AI with 1UPT than a poorer/slower tactical AI with some arbitrary limited-UPT.

I don't see where you get the 'finite' or 'arbitrary limited' stacks from, and I can likewise spot nothing to support your claim that the AI would necessarily be either poorer or significantly slower from having to take stacked advantages into consideration as well. It would all come down the competency of the coder(s) I'd recon.


EDIT: in red

 

[Aesir Rising]

I think the order of difficulty...<snip>

You're falsely assuming Civ IV's implementation is the only stacking ruleset that can be developed. Again.

Also, "infinite stacking" is all but irrelevant and probably only serves to confuse people in the topic discussion. The only person afaik that mentioned anything about unlimited or infinite stacking was Thyrwyn, and he was using it as a straw man argument. I personally know of no games that have infinite stacking rules. Not even Civ IV, since there are soft caps in place to prevent that (unit upkeep and maintanance, for example).

1upt is hard; you have to look forward to worry about what counterattack you're exposing your unit to.

mjs0 indicates he's got some AI related and general programming experience. As he might tell you, there is nothing difficult about identifying a counter. Consider this:
There aren't that many attack types in Civ games. You could have 10000 different units, but if they're all categoried variations of Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock, it isn't much of a programming challenge.

Since you failed to even frame the programming problem accurately, I have no doubt that you have zero experience as an AI programmer, and probably little (if any) general programming experience. I am not a professional developer myself, but I at least know how to frame a development problem and lead a development project (which I have done professionally), and even if you don't think highly of my experience, consider your argument in contrast with msj0's post. Maybe you should duke it out with him to figure out whether or not 1unit/hex is more difficult (your position) or less difficult (msj0's position) compared to stacking rulesets.

No.... Well then I guess your physic to know that the guys making CIV 5 have just dropped a 1upt rule into the game without changing how the game works in any way at all.

If you had something worthwhile to say, say it plainly. I really couldn't understand your point - or even confirm whether you had a point. Where you really just trying to 'prove' I don't work for Firaxis? Well, you're correct! Good job.

 

[Ahriman]

You're falsely assuming Civ IV's implementation is the only stacking ruleset that can be developed. Again.

Then describe a different system. Once again, put up or shut up.

More to the point though, this thread was about shifting from the Civ4 sy
If your comment is "Civ4 system is weak too, here's an alternative to 1upt that would work better" then that's fine, if you can explain how.
But just saying repeatedly "1upt per tile won't be better than the Civ4 system. But oh, btw, I'm not *talking* about infinite stacking" is unhelpful.
The thread is primarily about comparing 1upt to the existing Civ4 system of stacking.

As he might tell you, there is nothing difficult about identifying a counter

Nothing hard about *identifying* a counter. Its easy to get your spearman to attack the enemy horseman rather than their axeman, or any other such variation in RPSLS, and the number of units is just number crunching. Its harder to evaluate whether its worth advancing your spearman when doing so brings it into range where it could be attacked by an enemy axeman on the enemy player's turn. The AI needs to think about *which* hex it should move its spearman onto, given the placement of other enemy units and their respective movement capability. Its possible to do this sort of thing, but its much more complicated than the Stack of Doom AI, which is very simple indeed.

Think of it like a Chess AI. A chess AI that only looked at the current situation would be terrible; it has to look ahead. To do a good 1upt AI, you have to be able to look
This didn't matter with infinite units per tile, because there was no need to look ahead, because you just moved around in big stacks.

Go play a game like Battle for Wesnoth, and see that a simplistic 1upt AI means that a clever human player can *massively* outplay the AI.
If the human can massively outplay the AI with equivalent troops (eg by only needing 2/3 as many troops to come out ahead - and preserve most of their army) then the game will tend to fail.

Since you failed to even frame the programming problem accurately

No, you just failed to understand the issue.

 

[Aesir Rising]

But just saying repeatedly "1upt per tile won't be better than the Civ4 system.

I didn't write that once, much less "repeatedly". You don't read what I write - that is clear - and I'm beginning to suspect you don't read at all, because you also fail at directing the topic and trying to moderate the discussion:

this thread was about shifting from the Civ4 sy

The thread is primarily about comparing 1upt to the existing Civ4 system of stacking.

You would only need to read the top post to know that you're off the mark.

This thead is more about:

...express my concern regarding CIV V's prohibition against the stacking of military units. Although I understand the problems with the "stack of doom" and I do appreciate the one-unit-per-hex style of game play a la Panzer General, I feel it is unrealistic to allow only one military unit per hex, and I am wondering if anyone else feels similarly.

Which I do (feel similarly), though my largest criticism isn't based much on realism concerns. The top post also suggests a partial solution (stack rules).

And I suggested some examples of pre-existing games that had some detailed stacking rulesets that I thought soundly trumped any suggestion that 1 unit/hex systems were inherently more tactical in nature than a stacking ruleset. Go practice your moderation techniques before trying it out on others. Also, read. And don't misquote. And you keep asking for examples, which I offered - but now you want me to implement a ruleset. No. What I will do is provide requirements - that's what users do in a project. Developers (well, the designers) do the implementation based on requirements from the users and management.

 

[Schuesseled]

If you had something worthwhile to say, say it plainly. I really couldn't understand your point - or even confirm whether you had a point. Where you really just trying to 'prove' I don't work for Firaxis? Well, you're correct! Good job.

Okay.

You can't possibly know that the new 1upt system is going to be less tactical than stacking, so stop pretending you do.

Although you may be techinically correct that we dont know that 1upt is more tactical, we can however reasonably assume, that firaxis are going to attempt to make it so.

 

[Aesir Rising]

Ok, you're half-way there now. let's go the next step. I'm going to re-write what you wrote because you stuck in some of your own words and applied them to me. See if you agree.

Okay.

You can't possibly know that the new 1upt system is going to be less tactical than stacking in the Civ IV system, so stop pretending you do.

Although you are correct that we dont know that 1upt is more tactical than the Civ IV implementation of stacking, we can however reasonably assume, that firaxis are going to attempt to make it so.

Given the above, my concern has been:
Whatever Firaxis has in mind to attempt to make 1 unit/hex more betterer than Civ IV stacking could have been applied just as easily to some new Civ V stacking ruleset. There is no inherent gameplay advantage for 1UPT over stacking rulesets. Contrary, given the fewer variables - and with all other things being equally applied - you'd have to invoke Occam's Razor and assume stacking rulesets would provide a larger number of possible outcomes, and therefore a larger set of tactical possibilities.

You can argue that it is possible or conceivable otherwise, of course, but the math looks like it would support my position, so if had to bet money on one or the other, I'd go with, "All other things equal, a system allowing more than one unit per hex would provide greater variety of tactics than a system limited to 1 unit per hex."

Which then led me to question why they would make the change to 1UPT. The ideas that immediately cropped up for me had to do with cross-platform (console) development opportunities. Then mjs0 added something I hadn't directly considered- an easier development path regardless of platform. Neither proposal have anything to do with improving gameplay.

I'm just not as readily able to drink the kool-aid as some of you. If they're going to make a relatively major change to a long-standing system (which isn't necessarily a bad thing to do) the least they could do is explain why. Say something more than, "it is going to remove stacks and that automatically makes it good" - because that's the extent of what I'm reading in this topic.

Otherwise, I look at this change as another possible sequel screw-up in a period where a couple of recent sequel releases were controversial with their respective long-time fans (C&C4, Supreme Commander 2, for example).

 

[Ahriman]

I didn't write that once, much less "repeatedly".

You're trying too hard to avoid the simple admission that 1 unit per hex doesn't inherently impart any kind of tactical nirvana.

Its a pretty reasonable paraphrase.

Your entire argument seems to be that you don't think that 1upt will lead to more tactical combat than Civ4.

If that's not your argument... then stop complaining about us prefering 1upt to Civ4's massive stacks (which is effectively "infinite units per tile" in any reasonable interpretation of the term; there is no hardcap on units that can be present in a tile) then admit that you aree with us.

If it is your argument, then explain why.
Saying "there's another system [which I'm not going describe] that is also more tactical than civ4 stacking" is nice, but doesn't actually provide any contradiction to our argument, which is that 1upt will be more tactical than Civ4-style-stacking.

And you keep asking for examples, which I offered

You didn't.

Offering an example requires to explain how the example is relevant. So for example, it would require you to explain how the system works, how you feel its better than the Civ4 and the 1upt systems, and how it manages to solve the problems with stacks.
Saying "ASL uses stacks" is not citing an example.
Particularly when it turns out that example has some pretty serious hardcaps.

For example, allowing 5 units per tile doesn't solve many of the core problems of stacks; by allowing the best unit to defend, you're still neutering specialization systems, because specialization purely favors the defender, and there is still no significant scope for being "over-extended" because you can throw a group of defensive units on top of a damaged unit to protect it.

What I will do is provide requirements - that's what users do in a project. Developers (well, the designers) do the implementation based on requirements from the users and management.

Saying "my requirement is that multiple units be allowed on a tile, because I like that" and nothing more is unhelpful.
If you can't demonstrate a workable, superior, alternative design, then why should anyone listen to you?

As for quoting, its a pretty standard understanding that ""'s are used for paraphrasing, while

quote

tags are used for direct quotations.

I don't think I'm paraphrasing you inaccurately at all.

 

[Aesir Rising]

Time/space limitations
* limiting the number of units which could be stacked
* Decreasing the effectiveness of units within a stack over time. An abstract model of the spread of sickness affecting deployed forces.

Cost limitations
* Unit upkeep and logistics - increase supply and re-supply costs for larger masses (stacks) of units
* Terrain features and improvements. Roads reduce the upkeep penalty?
* Territory control penalties and bonuses - higher upkeep when in enemy territory?

Stacking bonuses and penalties
The concept of unit synergy is game-specific. For example, in Squad Leader an infantry squad stacked with a squad leader unit received stat bonuses. Stacking 3 squads with that leader increased the force-multiplying aspect of that leadership bonus. In Kingmaker (a War of the Roses table-top game), units stacked with a Plantagenet unit received a combination of bonuses and penalties - the application of which forced a decision about not only what to stack, but when to stack. A nice time-based tactical facet added - and not one you can readily apply to 1UPT systems. Civ V can apply the concept of unit synergy as well. It did in Civ IV, with the idea of the great general - who could either permanently join a city or apply an XP bonus for units stacked with it. Perhaps a 3rd option is to provide an XP earning-rate bonus for any units stacked with the Great General.

Conversely, stacks of units that don't have some leader unit combined with it (or some other unit mechanic pre-requisite you can invent) might be penalized or limited in some way as to overall max units allowed in a given hex or max potential for defense or attack stats, or modified (increased) costs of upkeep.


Stacking mechanics:
* Stack of doom in Civ 2 (used as an example because it was probably the simplest to describe for illustration purposes) went something like this: A defending unit (the strongest defender in a stack) might be hard to kill off, but if it died, the whole stack died with it. This was a part-time deterrent for putting all your eggs in one basket, but was not perfect. Aside from abstraction and simplicity, I was never certain why Civ had to use stats from one unit in a stack. I've got 2.8 billion ops per second on my PC now. Use it, ffs. Perhaps combine stats from the individual units within a stack, provide modifiers, coefficients, averages or other formula to determine a more logical point of comparison between attacking and defending stacks. Think outside the Civ 2 (or Civ IV) box and stop assuming there can be only one unit used for attack or defense stats. In this way, stack composition can play a larger and more important role - offering another facet to the 'tactical' battle you are all craving.

None of these concepts carry over very well (or at all?) to a 1UPT system. You could try to shoe-horn some of the ideas and apply them horizontally across the map - which further serves to provide a Wave of Doom effect, replacing your much-hated Stack of Doom.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Sorry I haven't read the whole thread and maybe this has already been said, but according to what we know about the game, all hints about Civ5 leads me to think that maps will NECESSARILY be "larger" than in previous civs. Let me explain this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've read that cities will have a 3-tile radius instead of a 2-tile radius.

This means that a city will spread over 36 tiles instead of 20 tiles. As such, we can consider that a tile in Civ5 will be nearly 2 times "smaller" than a tile in previous games. Or told differently, cities will be separated by a lot more tiles than in the past.

Whereas we used to need 160 tiles to build an Empire of 8 cities, we'll need 288 tiles to do the same in Civ 5.

All the other features we heard of follow exactly the same logic : the inability to stack unit, the new capacity of archers to hit distant units, and so on and so forth.

Furthermore, the idea that only 5 units could be built per ressource will necessarily require more ressources to be spread on the map. Indeed, whereas you only needed two ressources of the same kind to start exporting in Civ3 or Civ4, you'll probably need a lot more in Civ5. And more ressources is only possible if tiles are "smaller". Otherwise there would be one ressource every 2 tiles which would be ridiculous.

Am I wrong?

 

[RockingKraut]

I think if they impliment the 1upt thing like say....Advanced wars, it just might work....that would be the best model in my opinion to use....

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

* Decreasing the effectiveness of units within a stack over time. An abstract model of the spread of sickness affecting deployed forces.

* Unit upkeep and logistics - increase supply and re-supply costs for larger masses (stacks) of units

One word-KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)-the moment you start introducing abstract models for sickness & logistics, you're going to drive away your main customer base (which aren't the hard-core fans who occupy this site). This is more the province of hard core strategy games like Art of War!

* Territory control penalties and bonuses - higher upkeep when in enemy territory?

They already do this in Civ4, but that didn't prevent massive stacks of doom from appearing.

The concept of unit synergy is game-specific.

You are aware that unit synergy is going to be in Civ5-only the synergy will apply to adjacent units, rather than units in the same tile?

* Stack of doom in Civ 2 (used as an example because it was probably the simplest to describe for illustration purposes) went something like this: A defending unit (the strongest defender in a stack) might be hard to kill off, but if it died, the whole stack died with it.

This is the most awful suggestion of all-all that is bad about 1upt & stacks of doom in one neat little package. Any system which allows the *strongest* defender to automatically gravitate to the top of a stack decreases the tactics available in the game, & losing *all* of your units due to a single minor miscalculation is just plain sucky.

The reality is that, whatever the size of the stack, its going to lead to a decrease in tactics-simply because of the ability of other units in a stack to *automatically* defend a weaker/weakened unit from counter-attack. Also, lets not forget that the game designers have tried everything, except hard stack limits, to discourage players from creating stacks of doom-& it has done little to deter the stack of doom approach. My question is this then: once you accept a hard-cap on units per tile, why be more deeply opposed to a 1upt cap (which at least allows for tactical placement of your units) than a 4 or 5 unit cap (which then provides all the problems of stack combat, just on a smaller scale)? After all, its not like we're talking Squad-sized units here-or even a Regiment/Brigade. I reckon that, if anything, we're dealing with units that represent a Division or Corps (i.e. around 15,000 to 50,000 men+logistical support) Even from a realism perspective, I've no problem with only 1 such unit being allowed per tile!

Aussie.

 

[Panzeh]

Where 1upt adds strategy, is that it actually rewards versatile units, since you can't fill a stack with the right unit for every situation. If you want to attack with a unit, you must expose it, you can't hide it in a stack. Even a more limited stacking option prevents this without serious additional micromanagement.

 

[Aesir Rising]

Aussie:

1) You are telling me that you don't want any unit upkeep or maintainance, logistics or non-combative casualty/sickness abstractions because that goes against KISS principles. First, you'll need to establish that KISS is the right thing to do. (Is easier always better? Or is it just easier?). btw, the entire Civ series is a set of abstract models - did you not realize this? Why is the phrase "sickness & logistics" hanging you up? Does "cultural influence" confuse you as well? How about "food"? Or "Hammers/shields"? Or "Stone Age"? All are abstractions of what boil down to some game mechanic or other - something that has an effect on unit or game stats. In this example, I offered "logistics", "upkeep", "maintenance" and "sickness" as terms helpful to solely to suspend belief. Because if we called it what the game designer would call it ("economic sink") it wouldn't be as fun. Do you understand "abstraction"?

And if you manage to justify the application of KISS in this instance, you still cannot reject the game mechanic of maintenance and upkeep, logistics, disease or whatever you want to call any of that - because I'm pretty sure that with or without KISS principles applied, you're going to see that mechanic in some form(s) in Civ V. The reason you are gauranteed to see the mechanic is that regardless of whatever label you assign to it (I used logistics, sickness, upkeep, etc.) it is the same thing - an application of a resource sink of some kind. I'm pretty sure Civ 5 is going to have some sort of upkeep mechanic - and if you don't want one of those money sinks to be called "an abstraction of sickness" then call it whatever suits your KISS principle - I don't care what it is called.

2) Try adjusting the costs/penalties. You really needed me to say that - you couldn't come up with that yourself?

3) You confirm what I've been saying for a while now - there's little (if anything) you can apply to a 1UPT system that you couldn't apply to a stacking ruleset. Thanks for the confirmation, even if you were just trying real hard to reject all of my points line by line just to do so.

4) That awful suggestion wasn't a suggestion. It was an introductory description of what Civ II did. Read the paragraph. Not just the sentence you quote and then take out of context. No, really, read it.

The reality is that you still insist on assuming that all stacking rulesets must require the defense of the entire stack be based upon one unit. I keep offering suggestions - and examples of other games - where this isn't the case. Why do you feel a stacking ruleset must require, "the ability of other units in a stack to *automatically* defend a weaker/weakened unit from counter-attack"? If that is what you hate most- then I can't fathom your die-hard infatuation with 1UPT - where you can *only* defend with one unit. What is the tactical decision there? tile placement? Yikes. Let's revisit this discussion when the game releases. Let me know how awesome 1UPT is. Also, let me know why whatever changed in the combat rules couldn't be applied to a stacking mechanic.

 

[CyberChrist]

One word-KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid)-the moment you start introducing abstract models for sickness & logistics, you're going to drive away your main customer base

This is only true if you FORCE all players to handle every aspect of the available complex options. A layered advisor control system could easily accomodate noob, casual and hardcore gamer alike.

Advisors would by default be set to automatically handle the more complex options with a default set of rules as well as offering popup warnings and suggestions, these rules/popus could then be tweaked by those wanting to have more detailed control or altogether turned off by those wanting total control over all complex aspects at all times.

Any system which allows the *strongest* defender to automatically gravitate to the top of a stack decreases the tactics available in the game ...
...
The reality is that, whatever the size of the stack, its going to lead to a decrease in tactics-simply because of the ability of other units in a stack to *automatically* defend a weaker/weakened unit from counter-attack.

I completely disagree. There is no tactical aspect being lost by allowing stacks as there is nothing that can't be done with a 1upt system that can't also be done with a stacked system. However, the opposite is not true.

The perceived problem of endless automatic new defenders stepping forward to meet the next attackers is only a symptom - not the actual disease. The actual disease being that stacks have been able to contain virtually unlimited amount of units up until now - this is what needs fixing ... and not the automatic function that the best available defender steps forward to meet the next attacker(which is in fact very much a tactical maneuver in itself - albeit an automatic one).

Also, lets not forget that the game designers have tried everything, except hard stack limits, to discourage players from creating stacks of doom-& it has done little to deter the stack of doom approach.

Nonsense, of course they haven't tried everything - far from it. If they had then I am sure they would have come up with a far better system and we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

[RickInVA]

I have just read this entire thread in one sitting, and in addition to some interesting reading my eyes really hurt!

I am another of those that has played every computer Civ since number 1. I do not like the RTS genre at all, rather despise it in fact. I do like the Total War series. So, disclosure aside, I do not, at all, like the 1 unit idea. I have several reasons why, and although I am sure they will not make one bit of difference to anyone there would be no need for a forum if I wasn’t supposed to spout it out anyway!

1) Unless the resource/unit restrictions are ultra severe I foresee that this will result in more units on the map, certainly not less. Why? Because you will now be rewarded for having the conventional “double line” of units along your boarder. How else will you stop an invasion and protect your country? Think of Avalon Hill’s Third Reich. What do you end up with in France? You end up with a map covered with counters. Yep, they are “out of the city” and covering the map so much you can’t see anything else!

2) Supporters of 1 unit seem pretty universal in wanting more tactical combat. Personally I want less tactical combat. I know that is just a “what I want vs. what you want” statement, but more than that Civ has never been a tactical combat game. Why start now? What is the advantage? I would even prefer if they had found a way (perhaps like culture) to simulate combat entirely. A system where you built military units and they went into a pool, off map, and when at war would exert “pressure” against the military of the other Civ. Why would I like that? Because Civ is (to me) at its core a game pitting Civilizations against each other, not a military game or simulation.

3) Given #2 you may be surprised that I like the Stack of Doom. Like many other posters I feel it represents better the “hands off” of a President than the almost miniatures based combat that is coming. Is it not very tactical, you bet! Again you want more tactical, I want less.

4) In addition to Civ I play and have played a lot of wargames. I have most Avalon Hill and Victory Games titles in my library. From that perspective I foresee that it will be very hard to defend anything. How will you be able to defend your cities when you can only defend with 1 unit and can be attacked by multiple? Will cities simply be changing hands each turn? I know we have not seen the real thing yet, but… (and see 5 and 5a)

5) Among the supporters of 1 unit there seems to be a dislike of the fact (and yes it is true) that in all other Civs a country that can out produce another has a great advantage. I’m not an expert in the history of warfare, but isn’t that generally the case? Unless there is a real disparity in technology won’t the side that can out produce win in the end? Certainly there is a “will to fight” or “superior tactics” argument to be made, but assuming these factors are equal who can provide a number (not just 1 or 2) of examples of where the similar lower producing country won? I am pretty sure that in most cases the country that can deliver the most resources to the field of battle wins in the end.

5a) Assuming you don’t like that, how is the new system going to change that? If there is this great limit of units that some speak of, and the larger Civ can field 20 units and the smaller can only field 10, how is the smaller supposed to have any better chance with 1 unit than with the old system? At least with the old system the smaller Civ could stack up a chokepoint, or stack up in the city the bigger Civ was trying to take. If you are looking for more parity amongst Civs of different size I don’t see how 1 unit is going to help with that, to the contrary I would think.

6) While many supporters of 1 unit don’t mind the seeming inconsistency of the hex scale, or say that “you can’t complain about the hex scale without complaining about the movement scale”, I respectfully disagree. The hex scale should be the hex scale. If it is 100 miles or 10 miles, or 1 mile, Archers should not be able to shoot 2 hexes! Oh you say, its just a game! Does that mean that we have to have unlimited Liberty Hall? If so why stop at 2 hexes? If Archers can shoot 2, why shouldn’t Cannon shoot 5, and Artillery 20? If you want a tactical game, have a tactical game, not a mish-mash.

6a) I also disagree with the movement rates. Even given the large scale they should be higher. I can accept that in the earlier times movement is not just limited by how far a unit could literally walk or ride or sail but the need to be able to support them and keep Command, Control and Communications with it and that those considerations are abstracted in slow movement. By the modern age though those considerations no longer keep pace with the slow movement of the units. IMHO Also to some posters’ points, when the game includes multiple scenarios where the map is the Earth I think it is fair to say that the scale of the map is intended to represent the whole planet, and one the size of Earth. I really don’t see what argument can be presented to refute that (but I am sure someone will! )

7) So, in conclusion, my personal opinion is that 1 unit is bad. I don’t like it specifically because it looks to add more tactical combat to a game that I am not looking for tactical combat in. I believe that in many cases this system will make the situations some complain about with SoD worse. I think it will add, especially to the end game, a vast amount of tedium and turn-by-turn micromanagement (while we don’t have the system yet that is what I believe will happen). In fact other than nicer looking graphics I am sorry to say that I have not read or heard of even one new feature (at least that comes to me at the moment) that I like about Civ5. As I have always been such a fan of the game that disappoints and saddens me. Unless it turns out that the implementation is so much different than what seems to be coming I doubt I will purchase Civ5, a statement I can hardly believe I would ever be saying.

8) Not intending to offend it almost seems to me that many of the supporters of 1 unit would really prefer Civ as a RTS. Or am I missing something? What kind of game are you really looking for?

9) I know I am not going to change minds, but if I have seriously misrepresented someone's point I would like to hear what was intended.

 

[Thyrwyn]

On a related note, I only just noticed how Thrywyn in post 162 started talking about infinite or unlimited stacks. Something I never proposed or espoused, but he attributes that to me. None of the games I've played in the past had unlimited stack rules, so we should try really hard to drop that straw man, folks. None of the games I've played has unlimited or infinite stacks. Even if there was no hard limit, there was some form of soft limit (like unit upkeep costs increasing geometrically as you increase the number of units in a tile).

Ooh. Rhetorical gymnastics. Cool.

Perhaps I misunderstood your comments in posts 63 and 151 (emphasis mine):

63: I just assumed removing features/mechanics such as this is to pave the way for the console port, both from a resource utilization perspective as well as from a UI design perspective.

and

151: 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.

The "this" to which you were referring in post 63 was the change from stacking as it was in Civ IV to as it will be in Civ V. That is also the "design change" to which you refer in post 151.

Later, you claim that every game you have played (which we should presume, includes Civ IV) has some kind of stacking limit. You use the words "hard" and "soft" to describe these limits. Talk about straw men: if you are insisting that Civ IV has a stacking limit, can you please tell us the actual, numerical value of that limit?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

8) Not intending to offend it almost seems to me that many of the supporters of 1 unit would really prefer Civ as a RTS. Or am I missing something? What kind of game are you really looking for?

I've been playing Civ since it first came out & I most certainly don't want an RTS style game-which is why I hate Stack combat so much. The fact that you're actually rewarded for churning out-& stacking together-as many units as possible makes the stack system far too close to the Churn & Burn approach so beloved of the RTS crowd. Similarly, the ability to stack units within your city-without penalty-encourages another approach beloved of RTS players-turtling.
We know that resource limits & maintenance costs will probably have the effect of making fewer units a better option overall.

4) In addition to Civ I play and have played a lot of wargames. I have most Avalon Hill and Victory Games titles in my library. From that perspective I foresee that it will be very hard to defend anything. How will you be able to defend your cities when you can only defend with 1 unit and can be attacked by multiple? Will cities simply be changing hands each turn? I know we have not seen the real thing yet, but

We already have reliable information that cities will be able to defend themselves-& attack-& that 1 or more units can be absorbed into a city to increase its attack & defense potential.

5) Among the supporters of 1 unit there seems to be a dislike of the fact (and yes it is true) that in all other Civs a country that can out produce another has a great advantage. I’m not an expert in the history of warfare, but isn’t that generally the case? Unless there is a real disparity in technology won’t the side that can out produce win in the end? Certainly there is a “will to fight” or “superior tactics” argument to be made, but assuming these factors are equal who can provide a number (not just 1 or 2) of examples of where the similar lower producing country won? I am pretty sure that in most cases the country that can deliver the most resources to the field of battle wins in the end.

5a) Assuming you don’t like that, how is the new system going to change that? If there is this great limit of units that some speak of, and the larger Civ can field 20 units and the smaller can only field 10, how is the smaller supposed to have any better chance with 1 unit than with the old system? At least with the old system the smaller Civ could stack up a chokepoint, or stack up in the city the bigger Civ was trying to take. If you are looking for more parity amongst Civs of different size I don’t see how 1 unit is going to help with that, to the contrary I would think.

Historically, there are loads of examples where better tactics &/or exploitation of the terrain allowed for smaller armies to win the battle. With stacks, though, these advantages become increasingly diluted. You say "place a stack in a choke-point"? Well how much easier will it be to *create* choke-points if you haven't got a tightly condensed stack that can just "go-around" units that are in there way? In a 1upt system, the total number of units matter less than how a player arranges their units & deploys them against an enemy. In stack systems, it almost always comes down to who has the biggest stack. i.e. its a counter to the Bigger=Better system that dominated earlier versions of civ!

So, respectfully, I don't think you've provided a good argument for why 1upt will somehow be inherently bad-once you get past all of the fallacious claims, then all you've got left is an argument for your own personal preference (which is fine). However, might I suggest, then, that you'd be better sticking with Civ4 or-if you also hate City Maintenance system of Civ4 (because it replaced the "infinitely better" corruption system ) then might I suggest you go back to Civ2 or Civ3 instead?

Aussie.

 

[Aesir Rising]

Perhaps I misunderstood

You did. That is, you did misunderstand.

I believe you misunderstood on purpose - as in you are being purposely ignorant.

PM me if you really need explanation.

Also, let me know where I say I am for unlimited stacks or infinite stacks (whichever term you prefer, I use them interchangeably). Because that is the gist of the response you are replying to. You set up a straw man and I caught you. That's your fault - not mine.

 

[Thyrwyn]

I would argue that you are intentionally misunderstanding "unlimited stacking". The discussion has centered around the stacking in Civ IV (unlimited) vs stacking in Civ V (1UpT).

I have already provided evidence which shows you arguing against the change from Civ IV stacking to stacking in Civ V. Civ IV has unlimited stacking. Ergo, your arguments supported unlimited stacking.

If you claim that stacking in Civ IV is not unlimited, please provide the specific numerical value of that limit.

Do I believe that there is a practical limit to how many units would ever occupy a single stack in a given game of Civ IV? Absolutely. Is there a programming limit to how many units can occupy a given tile in Civ IV? I don't know that anyone has ever looked, but I would assume that there is. But there is no "hard" limit. If there is a "soft" limit, it is too high to impact this discussion.

Civ IV will never tell you: "I am sorry, that stack is full".

I am merely having a discussion here. If I have upset you, I apologize.

 

[RickInVA]

Historically, there are loads of examples where better tactics &/or exploitation of the terrain allowed for smaller armies to win the battle. With stacks, though, these advantages become increasingly diluted. You say "place a stack in a choke-point"? Well how much easier will it be to *create* choke-points if you haven't got a tightly condensed stack that can just "go-around" units that are in there way? In a 1upt system, the total number of units matter less than how a player arranges their units & deploys them against an enemy. In stack systems, it almost always comes down to who has the biggest stack. i.e. its a counter to the Bigger=Better system that dominated earlier versions of civ!

So, respectfully, I don't think you've provided a good argument for why 1upt will somehow be inherently bad-once you get past all of the fallacious claims, then all you've got left is an argument for your own personal preference (which is fine). However, might I suggest, then, that you'd be better sticking with Civ4 or-if you also hate City Maintenance system of Civ4 (because it replaced the "infinitely better" corruption system ) then might I suggest you go back to Civ2 or Civ3 instead?

Aussie.

If there are "loads of examples" I would be obliged for you to supply some. I say there are not "loads of examples" (and said so in my original post) so if you want to contradict me, at least 1 or 2 examples would be good. As I said in my post, I (can't speak for you) am not talking about a "battle", but a war, a long term multi-year conflict between nations or peoples. Can you find a given battle that meets that criteria? Sure, but a battle is not a war. As an example someone else used, in the American Civil War the south won many battles, but lost the war. If you have examples of Wars that meet the criteria, I would be pleased to hear of them.

As for your statement that "In a 1upt system, the total number of units matter less than how a player arranges their units & deploys them against an enemy" I'm really mystified how you expect that to work. From my experience I would expect that if you have 10 units and I have 20 I will use 10 of my units to "pin" yours, and my other 10 will go on their merry way to attack your cities. If our common border has 30 hexes to it your 10 units cannot stop my 20 from entering your land and doing what they will, while I can put 10 units to stop your 10. Create a choke-point out of that if you can. If the units themselves are equal the only way 10 can stop 20 is if the 20 cannot simply move around the 10. Unless you are always playing an Archipelligo that will frequently not be the case.

As to your last statement I am not sure what I have said to merrit your obvious derision, but I must say I resent it. Despite your saying "respectfully", what followed was certainly not respectful. Would you care to illuminate me on my "fallacious claims"? Since that is basically calling me a liar I would hope you could back that up with something specific. In fact I like Civ4 just fine thanks, and I'm not sure where you get off assuming the things I would like or not like. Also you seem to have fallen victim to that notion that if someone doesn't like a feature of a given game, Civ5 or any other, that they basically should just "shut up and go away". I am not sure who you think made you the arbiter of who should stay and who should go, or who can speak and who cannot, but I assure you that whoever you think gave you that power, does not in fact have it to give, and that I, or any other person, shall present my thoughts in an open forum as I see fit. I don't see how my post intended to insult you, so I don't see why you feel the need in yours to insult me.