Unit Stacking

[lanoshome]

*Deleted*

 

[RickInVA]

You really seem to struggle with this one dont you RickInVA?

Struggle isn't even in it! If this is what actually is published there is a negative percent chance that I will buy this game. Zero, and less than zero.

I really don't know why I bother. I provide a good 5-10 examples of why what I am saying reflects reality (Ancient battles were battles of stacks in small areas), and opponents just totally ignore it and say the exact oposite (No they wern't!). Or better yet use a modern war example to refute an ancient war example. They are not the same? Whoa!!!

For some reason you and others don't like stacks. I don't understand, but thats a fact. I don't like 1 unit per hex, because it is provably unrealistic, and I don't like it.

Again you are totally incorrect that I am not interested in fighting the battle. I am totally and unalterably against fighting a tactical scale battle on a strategic scale map. If Civ had said they were implementing a Total War like system where your battles from the strategic map are played out on a tactical map I would have been the biggest cheerleader this board has seen! But bastardizing the strategic map for tactical combat, and just expecting me to "ignore" fact that the battle is strung out over half of Europe?? No sir! I will not buy or play that, ever!

IMHO Civ5 will not be Civ, or anything close. IMHO again it will sell millions of units, but will not be popular with the fan base that has played the existing Civs over the years. That is my personal opinion, so you can't say I am wrong to believe it. This time 2 years from now you may be able to tell me I was incorrect, but not that it wasn't my opinion.

A final note on the Finnish Winter War. As I am sure I don't have to tell you, this was a valiant and noble struggle against a fanatic agressor. I honor your relatives and all the other Finns that fought so successfully against the Soviet hordes.

 

[Chalks]

1) No, quality is not measured in quantity, but there is something to be said for systems that have been used for decades, sucessfully, in many situations. Many posters in this thread have compared the 1 unit per hex change to one (1) game that has a similar system (Panzer General {?}) as "Proof" that it is a good system. I will stack my hundreds of games against their one game as "proof" any day. Can improvements come along? Sure. But what it seems to me is that most of the supporters of 1 unit per hex just seem to like it. I have not read anything from a supporter that in the end amounts to anything other than "I like this better". You can like it better, but at least admit that the other side has a point!

Panzer General (and other strategy games) have proved that 1upt can be good, therefore civilization 5 can be good when using this system.

That is a pretty simple evaluation of the situation.

Other concepts work too, but your argument here seems to be "because there are more people using system A then system A makes for a better game".

That does not make sense.

I have no idea how 1upt will work in practice - but from what I have heard, it will enhance strategy when compared to infinite stacks which is an improvement to the game. And that's great.

The scale issues with the game are vast, and I don't see how you can be so hyper sensitive to one issue of scale but completely ignore the others.

Less units mean that medieval battles will involve only a handful of units over just a small number of tiles. Modern era battles will involve long world war style battle lines stretching across continents.

The game has never scaled down to the small scale and it scales no worse with 1upt.

 

[RickInVA]

You are saying that there are many games that use limited stacking, and because there are more games that use limited stacking, than games that use 1upt system, it makes limited stacking a superior system in terms fun. Now, i dont really like FPS games, i think Civ games are much better. But if i would be thinking like you, then i would be wrong about Civ games being better than FPS games, because there are MUCH more FPS games out there than there are Civ games. And therefore the next Civ game should be a First Person Shooter.

This is not a good analogy. In mine I was pointing out that in hundreds and hundreds of Tactical War Games a stacking point system was used. Not in hundreds and hundreds of zoo sim games, or basket weaving games, or FPS games, but in the exact type of games that you who support 1 unit per hex say they want to emulate. Stacking point systems have been used successfully in hundreds and hundreds of Tactically based Wargames over the last 50 years if not longer. It is a tried and true system that is proven to work, and proven to work again and again.

 

[RickInVA]

Panzer General (and other strategy games) have proved that 1upt can be good, therefore civilization 5 can be good when using this system.

That is a pretty simple evaluation of the situation.

Other concepts work too, but your argument here seems to be "because there are more people using system A then system A makes for a better game".

That does not make sense.

I have no idea how 1upt will work in practice - but from what I have heard, it will enhance strategy when compared to infinite stacks which is an improvement to the game. And that's great.

The scale issues with the game are vast, and I don't see how you can be so hyper sensitive to one issue of scale but completely ignore the others.

Less units mean that medieval battles will involve only a handful of units over just a small number of tiles. Modern era battles will involve long world war style battle lines stretching across continents.

The game has never scaled down to the small scale and it scales no worse with 1upt.

Your reply is exactally my point. You believe it will be an improvement, I believe it will be a detriment. I have considerable evidence that, even if I am not right, that I have a valid point. Supporters of 1 unit per hex have very little evidence (from what I see it amounts to: Stacks of Doom were bad, so 1 unit per hex will be great because its the extact opposite!) that it will be better. At the end of my argument all I ask is that you consider the facts and conceed that I have a point. At the end of the oposing view is generally some less or more polite variation of "Get over it!". I really don't appreciate being told to get over it. Just stating a fact: I won't get over it.

So you may ask why I take the time to post all this if I won't be buying the game. Because I love the Civ franchise and I see this as someone getting ready to drive off a cliff. Its my duty to try and stop you from driving over that cliff. If I fail, at least I have tried.

And while I will agree that just because more people do A does not necessarily mean it is better than B: 1) it may well mean it is better than B; 2) it certainly does not mean that B is automatically better than A (which seems to be your argument).

 

[aziantuntija]

RickInVA did you even read my post before you replied?

It really didnt seem like that you read what i wrote about the ancient warfare, cause youre still saying that it is going to be totally wrong, so basicly your just not listening at all what people are telling you.

Your basicly lying to everybody that ancient wars are going to have battlelines reaching across the europe, wich would propably be true ONLY IF europe was going to be something like 5 hexes wide. I dont think thats going to be the case here.

Before you ask any evidence about ancient warfare please read my previous post

 

[RickInVA]

Oh, i almost forget, the ancient battles. If limited stacking doesnt work in modern warfare, it will surely work in ancient times, doesnt it? You are so worried about the ancient battlelines spreading across the map arent you? Cause you are so worried that it might be a bit unrealistic altough we dont even know yet anything about the map sizes. Altough, IMO maps are goint to be bigger.

Have you ever played civ4? I suppose you have, then you must of been noticing that the armies tend to grow when moving away from ancient times. Basicly when playing civ4 in ancient times, you just had something like 5 military units sometimes even less than that. If you have also noticed that Firaxis has told us very clearly, that there is going to be much less units overall in civ5 than there was in civ4. Not to mension that units are being produced much slower than they were in civ4. When you combine these given facts, (also the fact that there wasnt that many units during ancient times in civ4 either) you really should understand that battlelines are most likely going to be pretty small in ancient times in Civilization V.

If this is what you are referring to, yes I read it. How much bigger do you think things are going to be? I loaded up a Civ4 Earth map, huge. Some dimentions. Italy, including Sicily 11 squares, France 17 squares, Bottom of Denmark to the Alps 4 squares, Spain 4x4, etc. So you may be right, given this utter lack of space there may be much fewer units. Perhaps as few as 1 on 1 or 2 on 2. So how does a 2 on 2 battle have that "tactical" feel? You need to have some reasonable munber of units on the field to have any need for tactics. I'd say if you don't have at least 5 units on a side, with a mix of unit types you can't have tactics. Less than that its just slugging it out, just in a line, not in 1 hex.

But to your larger question, yes, if the game will have ancient period battles stretched out over multiple hexes, on the same strategic map we do everything else on, where the hexes represent an area larger than 1 mile each, that is a game killer to me and I will not play it. Period.

 

[Chalks]

Your reply is exactally my point. You believe it will be an improvement, I believe it will be a detriment. I have considerable evidence that, even if I am not right, that I have a valid point. Supporters of 1 unit per hex have very little evidence (from what I see it amounts to: Stacks of Doom were bad, so 1 unit per hex will be great because its the extact opposite!) that it will be better. At the end of my argument all I ask is that you consider the facts and conceed that I have a point. At the end of the oposing view is generally some less or more polite variation of "Get over it!". I really don't appreciate being told to get over it. Just stating a fact: I won't get over it.

What? You have no "evidence" that infinite stacks is a better alternative to 1UPT. It's your opinion of a subjective quality. There is no measurable definition of "better" for which you can have evidence of when it comes to personal enjoyment of a mechanic.

1UPT might be good in Civ 5, and it might be bad. To take any other position without further information is irrational, and to say "I won't buy this game because of 1UPT" is a ridiculous extreme that drains all credibility from your posts.

 

[aziantuntija]

So you may be right, given this utter lack of space there may be much fewer units. Perhaps as few as 1 on 1 or 2 on 2. So how does a 2 on 2 battle have that "tactical" feel? You need to have some reasonable munber of units on the field to have any need for tactics. I'd say if you don't have at least 5 units on a side, with a mix of unit types you can't have tactics. Less than that its just slugging it out, just in a line, not in 1 hex.

Well how does a stack vs stack have that tactical feel? How about 2 stacks vs 2 stacks? Whats the tactic in there?

Id say there is always less tactics in stack combat cause the best defence unit always defences against the attacker. And that is A FACT.

If there would be situation where archer and spearman would be against horsemen and spearman. Tell me wich type of system would make you think tactically the most, infinite stacking, limited stacking or 1upt. By the way, you can choose either one of the unit combinations and i just threw some units there, i didnt really think them over

in infinite stacking you would just stack em and charge/defend, in limited stacking you would just stack em and charge/defend, in 1upt you would have to think a bit more how to position your units cause you cant stack them.

It really doesnt become anything else even if we add some troops to this example, the 1upt just becomes more tactical, stacks arent going to change. Well if we keep on adding troops to the example, the limited stacking eventually becomes 2 stacks and that basicly means that now you must occupy 2 hexes instead of 1! And then we have x2 times the fun of SoDs! WOW! If you think that it is good thing that you will eventually have to occupy 2 hexes instead of just 1 hex, then why not go 1upt in the first place? Limited stacking basicly just adds numbers of armies when compared to the 1upt now dont they? More armies means more micromagent. And if you really think about it, doesnt it annoy you even just a little bit that the stack always gets to choose the best opponent for your attacker?

 

[lanoshome]

There often seems to be a negative spin put on these discussions so quickly, and I'm confused as to what people hope to gain from conversations they themselves deem to be speculative and opinionated. My speculative opinion about this is that we might all benefit more from sharing ideas without so much tit-for-tat argument...
Instead of talking to each other like political enemies or heated philosophical debaters, couldn't we all just, uh... get along? If someone says "I love stacking and here's why" they won't listen if you say "no, you're wrong," but they might if you say "that's interesting, I love 1upt and here's why," that way you can share ideas without needing to be "right," and the information in this forum can be more informative and interesting to all the users of this site who are reading through in order to learn more about the new features of ciV, and hear a variety of opinions (but not arguments) from the community.
Do I sound argumentative? Is that hypocritical? I guess I'm not saying you can't argue, I just hope you're getting something out of it; if you're not getting anything out of it, I hope you'll realize there's no need to argue!

 

[RickInVA]

I know I am not getting anything out of it!

To Chalk's point, my evidence is not and never has been that stacking is anything other than historical reality. That is the way battles were fought, both in size and space. You have to get granular to a 1 hex = less than 1 mile level for any ancient battle to become tactical. It may be this or it may be that, but it is the way battles were fought. I would just like someone on the 1 unit per hex side to admit that provable fact. That you still want 1 unit per hex is something I already know.

To aziantuntija, I think the most tactical is hexes with a stacking limit. Why, because you have to get down to such a low level of scale for anything else to be realistic. At even 1 mile per hex do you really think the archers are staying 1 mile behind the spearmen? No, the melee unit protecting the Archers would only be 100's of feet away, so unless your scale is that small 1 unit per hex offers no actual resembalance to reality, reality being IMHO a basic necessity for good tactical simulation. I know you don't agree. But at least admit that the archers wouldn't be a mile behind the spearmen and participating in the battle!

What frustrates me is that I can see and admit that there could be problems with the Stacks of Doom. I personally like them, but I can understand why some people don't. Unfortunatly I don't seem to get the same respect back. Posters will neither admit nor refute that stacks of units is, based on the map scale, realistic for battles before 1800/1900, they just ignore what I say that they don't agree with, and again and again say that 1 unit per hex is more tactical. Not only do I not agree with that, but even if I did, I (and I am sure I am not alone) do not want a more tactical game. I would like a less tactical game. That is what I like about the Stacks of Doom, I don't have to worry about tactics. When I want tactics I play a tactical based and scaled wargame like The Longest Day or Squad Leader, not Civ. So you are trying to convince me to drink the hemlock tea by telling me its poison. Guess what, I won't drink.

But enough. I have offered considerable information that stacks are more historically accurate for 90% of game time than 1 unit per hex. No one cares. I have offered a reasonable option that would reduce stacking as the game evolved to address the concerns of SoD dislikers. No one cares. In have shown that the map scale necessary to support 1 unit per hex is much smaller than any likely game scale. No one cares. That is fine, you don't have to care. Enjoy your 1 unit per hex game, I'm sure you will. But if one unit per hex, along with no tech trading, no religions, no culture, limited units from strategic resources and all the other changes that I feel are negatives turn the game into a pale shadow of its former glory, at least consider that there were some of us that said so.

P.S. If 2 years from now I am proven to be incorrect I will have no problem saying so.

 

[Suho1004]

What frustrates me is that I can see and admit that there could be problems with the Stacks of Doom. I personally like them, but I can understand why some people don't. Unfortunatly I don't seem to get the same respect back.

For what it's worth, I hear you, and I think you do have a point. My opinion is a little different, but I can see where you're coming from. I just usually don't get involved in threads like these, being a fairly peaceful individual who prefers to avoid confrontation. [Hmm. Let me amend that: it's not so much that I avoid confrontation, I just try to choose my battles wisely.]



I hear you completely on the subject of having a full tactical battle on a strategic map. That has always niggled at me a little--but just a little. Where you and I differ, though, is that I don't really care so much about which system represents historical reality as long as it's fun to play. That may make me different from some people here, but there you have it. As far as I'm concerned, if the 1UpT system proves fun to play, I will get over the tactical/strategical disparity. But it may very well prove to be a tiny thorn in my side in the beginning, and if it doesn't end up being fun, I will probably never get over the disparity.

I can say, though, that I am looking forward to seeing what Civ5 is going to bring to the table. The designers have their own ideas and opinions, but I doubt they are looking at any single aspect of gameplay (such as 1UpT) without considering how it will mesh with other aspects of gameplay. I think part of the problem with these threads is that people are pulling 1UpT out of context and making it a live-or-die issue. But we may find that, in the context of the game, it ends up working fine. Or not. Who knows? But I'm going to think positively until I'm proven wrong.

Just my two bits. Didn't want you to think that no one understood you.

 

[Chalks]

I know I am not getting anything out of it!

To Chalk's point, my evidence is not and never has been that stacking is anything other than historical reality. That is the way battles were fought, both in size and space. You have to get granular to a 1 hex = less than 1 mile level for any ancient battle to become tactical. It may be this or it may be that, but it is the way battles were fought. I would just like someone on the 1 unit per hex side to admit that provable fact. That you still want 1 unit per hex is something I already know.

It's not that this isn't true, but that the unit representation is abstract enough to mean that in this era that is what hexes represent during battles.

If two medieval armies meet on the border between France and Germany, taking up 8 hexes between them, it's an abstraction of a battle taking place over a very small area. Even though on the map they appear to take up a good quarter of France's total area, that doesn't matter. There are two armies at approximately their location on what ever terrain fighting each other.

Abstractions like this are only going to cause problems if you have a whole load of distinct battles in the medieval era happening all around the same area because there wouldn't be enough room - but fortunately this is going to be prevented by low total unit counts.

Once we move onto the modern era, units and battles end up representing larger and larger areas, so coast to coast battle lines become both possible and realistic.

 

[Suho1004]

Just thought I'd add a little addendum here. I've been thinking about it, and I think one reason why the issue of scale never bothered me is that I rarely, if ever, play on Earth maps. I almost always play on randomly generated maps, and very rarely play Earth-based scenarios. So the scale issue doesn't bother me as much as if, say, my medieval army took up the entirety of Denmark.

 

[Thyrwyn]

To Chalk's point, my evidence is not and never has been that stacking is anything other than historical reality. That is the way battles were fought, both in size and space. You have to get granular to a 1 hex = less than 1 mile level for any ancient battle to become tactical. It may be this or it may be that, but it is the way battles were fought. I would just like someone on the 1 unit per hex side to admit that provable fact.

I will concede that your contention is half true: given the "scale" of each tile, it is historically correct to say that multiple units (in civ terms) would have occupied each tile - but that has nothing to do with how battles were fought.

Battles were fought by maneuvering and positioning said units to achieve the most advantageous match-ups possible. The combat system in Civ IV minimized the importance of that aspect of how battles were fought.

 

[aziantuntija]

Im going to say this YET again RickInVA: There is no possible way that stacking people up on top of each other in the battlefield, is going to be realistic in any possible way, IF the scale is small enough.

Altough, if the scale is NOT small enough, then 1upt is NOT going to be more realistic than limited stacking. Ill give you that.

But guess what? Gameplay > realism.



1upt vs SSoD (Small Stack of Doom, limited stacking) in gameplay



You should really understand that for example 3upt (or any other stack limit bigger than 1) WOULD NOT just be an tactical option, it would be A TACTICAL MUST, because now IF YOU ARE HAVING just 1 unit inside a hex, it is going to be ran over by enemys 3upt SSoD. So basicly, 3 units in hex are NOT 3 units in a hex at all, it is a one (1) full unit and anything less than 3 units in a hex (1 or 2 units in a hex) is an incomplete unit wich will be ran over by enemys full unit SSoD wich is goint to be 3upt or 4upt or whatever you might want it to be. In 3upt civ game, you wouldnt even be moving your three different units one at a time, you would select all the 3 units that are occupying that tile, and move them all at once. So basicly, you would be ALWAYS treating them like being 1upt! And i really mean ALWAYS cause you CANT break your full 3upt SSoD unit in a combat cause it will just be picked up by a enemy SSoD.

The only thing that 3upt brings to 1upt gameplay is MICROMANAGENT! After all, you dont wanna put 3 Modern Armours in the same hex cause then enemy can easily run them over with 3 Gunships, you would always have to manage what units you are having in your SSoDs, so 3upt, 4upt or whatever, would just be a micromanagemental hell compared to 1upt where you DONT have that kind of MM problem.

The bigger the SSoD gets, lets say 8upt, it will just get more closer to the infinite SoDs in civ4, wich are horrible. Also, to occupy more hexes effectively, you need more units (9 units to occupy 3 hexes when 3upt), this encourages unit spam wich also increases micromagent.

There is no question that Firaxis didnt tought at all of using limited stacking in civ5, but as everyone can understand, that is just simply a bad idea for the gameplay.

What Firaxis wanted from civ5 combat:

1) They wanted to add some tactical things to civ5 battle system cause throwing a unit from your stack against enemy stacks best defender, is just brainless smashing.

2) They also wanted to decrease unit spam.


Limited stacking is not going to remove those 2 problems. Altough it might be better than infinite stacking, at least in the unit spam perspective, but the ongoing micromanagement of your SSoDs for good unit balance, would be just absolutely horrible.

Conclusion: 1upt is better in terms of gameplay


Long story short, i really think people would hate the micromanagement in limited stacking

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

1UPT combat is simply more fun.

Also I'm sure the devs have thought about what to do for Earth maps.

 

[Matjillam]

Man, I really can't wait having some modern warfare with huge battle lines across the map! Freaking awesome!

When you learn about warfare for example WWII, you learn about long front lines, defensive lines (Germany had like 3-4 defensive lines across the Italian peninsuala), which they used for retreats when the Allies pushed them.

I really support 1upt. Allthough I idmit it favours modern warfare with battles lines, I will just imagine that battles take place in a small area for the ancient/medieval battle lines (which hopefully won't be as big as the modern ones). Also, SoD's was really, really awefull in many ways, especially in modern eras.

Damn, It's gonna be an amazing game!

 

[CyberChrist]

Just thought I'd add a little addendum here. I've been thinking about it, and I think one reason why the issue of scale never bothered me is that I rarely, if ever, play on Earth maps. I almost always play on randomly generated maps, and very rarely play Earth-based scenarios. So the scale issue doesn't bother me as much as if, say, my medieval army took up the entirety of Denmark.

Random generated or not - then the maps are still meant to represent the span of an entire world (hence the arctic poles and east to west wrapping). So unless you are imagining that you are playing on a 'world' the size of Pluto then the scale still applies.

 

[CyberChrist]

...3upt (or any other stack limit bigger than 1) WOULD NOT just be an tactical option, it would be A TACTICAL MUST, because now IF YOU ARE HAVING just 1 unit inside a hex, it is going to be ran over by enemys 3upt SSoD. So basicly, 3 units in hex are NOT 3 units in a hex at all, it is a one (1) full unit and anything less than 3 units in a hex (1 or 2 units in a hex) is an incomplete unit wich will be ran over by enemys full unit SSoD wich is goint to be 3upt or 4upt or whatever you might want it to be.
...

Do you really think that there will be any less MUST HAVE factor with a 1upt? The MUST HAVE units will just be in adjecent tiles instead of on the same tile.


Also, I find that you base your 'conclusions' on far too many unfounded assumptions about what other people in general think, feel and agree with you about.