Unit Stacking

[aziantuntija]

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.

.. Ill try to explain it to you once more


I dont just think that there is going to be LESS micromanagement in 1upt, I KNOW there is going to be LESS micromanagement in 1upt.


1) In 1upt i build a unit and occupy a hex with it, if i build another one, then i can occupy another hex. You dont need to think about adding units to those particular hexes anymore, because they are now full and thats it. To FULLY occupy a one hex in 3upt, i build a unit, then i build another one but it propably should be a different unit from the first one i builded, yet i build one more unit wich propably should also be different from the once that i builded before this one, and after that, i can FULLY occupy a hex. Thats just a one hex tough..


2) If we forget the stack combat for a moment, 3upt is basicly just 1upt with much added Micromanagement. When you are at war, and you are doing some battles and loosing units, Its not fun to go trough your stacks to look for what units do you need to build next to this particular stack, so that it wouldnt be an easy target for the enemy stack just because you dont have certain kind of unit in it. Remember that cause you CAN stack units you MUST stack units so you BETTER build at least one SAM Infantry to EVERY STACK if your enemy is using lots of Gunships. Thats just MM.


3) But dont forget the stack warfare problem! Because for example something like 3upt will also bring back the frustation like when you are attacking an enemy stack that has for example one Marine and two Gunships in it, and your attacking them with your stack of two Modern Armour and one SAM Infantry. When you attack with Modern Armour, then the Gunship will defend, and when you attack with SAM Infantry, then the Marine will defend. And it doesnt get much better if your having the Marine+Gunship stack and the enemy has the Modern Armour+SAM Infantry stack. So its civ4 all over again.


And as ive allready told you once, big stack limit basicly means SODs again.


So, in something like 3upt system, there is HUGE amount of micromanagement but not that much of tactical warfare. I really dont understand why somebody would want to have something like that in a game? Firaxis certainly didnt want it so they made it 1upt, wich is good, most people here seem to like it because there are only few people here saying that its bad thing.

 

[Ahriman]

I like 1upt and all.... but your argument is bizarre. Basically you're saying 3upt would have more MM because you'd have more units per tile.

But why couldn't this mean that you control fewer tiles in total, with an equal number of units?

24 units spread across 8 tiles would be easier to manage than 24 units spread across 24 tiles.
But harder to manage than 8 units spread across 8 tiles.

 

[CyberChrist]

I dont just think that there is going to be LESS micromanagement in 1upt, I KNOW there is going to be LESS micromanagement in 1upt.
...

What you call micromanagement in your post I call a fundamental part of a strategy game.

Btw, you do realize that you are still going to have to go through the 'micromanagement' motions of replacing lost units at the front with a 1upt system, right?

...
And as ive allready told you once, big stack limit basicly means SODs again.
...

Perhaps if you tried to read some of the other posts in this (and other) thread(s) you would realize that with a few enhancements a stacked system could be made to work without the risk of the SOD problem rearing it's ugly head - and still maintain the many benefits that a stacked system offers.

 

[aziantuntija]

I like 1upt and all.... but your argument is bizarre. Basically you're saying 3upt would have more MM because you'd have more units per tile.

But why couldn't this mean that you control fewer tiles in total, with an equal number of units?

24 units spread across 8 tiles would be easier to manage than 24 units spread across 24 tiles.
But harder to manage than 8 units spread across 8 tiles.

I find it very bizarre that i allready told you why 3upt is more MM, but you just dont seem to understand so ill say it again.

"When you are at war, and you are doing some battles and loosing units, Its not fun to go trough your stacks to look for what units do you need to build next to this particular stack, so that it wouldnt be an easy target for the enemy just because you dont have certain kind of unit in it."

But why couldn't this mean that you control fewer tiles in total, with an equal number of units?

Ok lets say it does just that. But wouldnt the 3upt game just have a bit small amount of units then? If there is less units, then why not use 1upt in the first place? Why stack em? After all, stacking becomes necessary only after you would have a huge amount of units now doesnt it.

24 units spread across 8 tiles would be easier to manage than 24 units spread across 24 tiles.
But harder to manage than 8 units spread across 8 tiles.

I think we all can understand that it is true what you are saying. But, this makes me curious, where did you get the info about civ5's unit size? Or did you just throw those unit numbers from the top of your head to try prove something here? I really doubt that Firaxis is going to make the armies so big that you wouldnt be able to move them and people would be crying SoDs back with all their flaws. But thats just my opinion.

 

[aziantuntija]

What you call micromanagement in your post I call a fundamental part of a strategy game.

If you love micromanagement then i belive we cant argue anymore, because that would be just stupid.

Btw, you do realize that you are still going to have to go through the 'micromanagement' motions of replacing lost units at the front with a 1upt system, right?

Well you do realize that there would be much less to micromage in 1upt cause there would be less units, and you dont have to click in stack to look what units it is holding. If 3upt would have the same amount of units as in a game that is designed to be 1upt, then you wouldnt propably have "too much" units to micromanage. But wouldnt the 3upt game just have a bit small amount of units then? If there is less units, then why not use 1upt in the first place? Why do you wanna stack em? After all, stacking becomes necessary only after you would have a huge amount of units now doesnt it.

Perhaps if you tried to read some of the other posts in this (and other) thread(s) you would realize that with a few enhancements a stacked system could be made to work without the risk of the SOD problem rearing it's ugly head - and still maintain the many benefits that a stacked system offers.

Well if you want to be helpful then maybe you can tell me these great ideas since you allready seem to know them. I really did read the most of the thread but i have not seen those things. And i for sure wont start reading it all over again from the beginning just because you think it would be good idea

 

[darkarrow56]

i honestly think civ 5 will be good simply put 1upt is a good thought and here is an example, ok i have 1 swordsman on a hex then i have 2 pike to the side and 1 archer behind my enemy has 3 swordsman 1 archer and 2 catapults my swordsman is on the center hex its my enemys turn he fires the catapults to weaken my swordsman then sends in 1 of his swordsman to finish mine, mine withdrawals but to where............ NOWHERE so hes dead do you see know if you can have multiple units per hex/tile how would the enemy die? you have to either
1. back him into a corner
2. surround him with your units
3. hope that he dies
fyw one other feature of civ5 is limited resources ex. 1 iron = 5 swordsman so you see less is better unless you change almost half of the features. i personally think 1upt a fix/ solution to the hex tiles/ high withdrawal rates simply put if the sod had say 50% withdrawal rate how would it die? stick a medic and a couple of archers you have not a stack of doom but a stack of grim reapers for a city to get obliterated upon it would be doomsday and not a very good game without that 1 simple feature
but on the reality note, constantinople had to be taken with over 10 times the men that defended it (the siege lasted from Friday, 6 April 1453 until Tuesday, 29 May 1453, 80,000 to 200,000 men sieged constantinople and was defended by 7000 soldiers) so you see in reality small but more heavily defended men can hold out against innumerable odds for some time

 

[aziantuntija]

Uhh im a bit tired of proving that 1upt is more fun than 3upt in civ5. I like it more and i really think its going to be superior when compared to the SoDs in civ4.

Lets do this instead: Prove why 3upt would be better than 1upt in civ5

After all, i dont think i really have to prove anything cause things are allready going to be 1upt, its more like you should prove why 3upt would be better.

Like i allready said before, its not like Firaxis didnt give any though to somekind of limited stacking system, cause im 100% sure they did thought about that also. I really dont belive that limited stacking was invented after they desided theres going to be 1upt in civ5

For some reason they didnt like limited stacking, its not like its my fault that they didnt like that

 

[CyberChrist]

@aziantuntija:
Since you seem determined to continue reposting your opinions and assumptions as facts in an attempt to 'prove' to us all that your perception is the only true way, then let me save you some heartache already by enlightening you that that particular crusade is one that you are extremely unlikely to win.

However, I posted some of my own suggestions for a better stacked system(I have no clue why you keep talking about 3upt btw) in some of my previous posts in this thread - and if you are truly serious about this debate then it shouldn't be a problem to locate them.

 

[MikeJep]

Let us just hope that the creators have the foresight to not hard code 1upt! I could care less about 1upt provided it can be changed in a mod.

 

[need my speed]

But that would require recoding the AI, which probably is hardcoded.

 

[CyberChrist]

But that would require recoding the AI, which probably is hardcoded.

I doubt the AI will be hardcoded as such, but rewiring AI code tends to get very complex very fast (even for seasoned coders) - so for all intents and purposes it might just as well be hardcoded (as far as switching from a 1upt system to a stacked system is concerned anyway).

 

[aziantuntija]

@aziantuntija:
Since you seem determined to continue reposting your opinions and assumptions as facts in an attempt to 'prove' to us all that your perception is the only true way, then let me save you some heartache already by enlightening you that that particular crusade is one that you are extremely unlikely to win.

Im extremely unlikely to be the winner here? What kind of winnings are you talking about here?

Now are you a bit serious about this one?

They sure are my opinions, but just because they are my opinions, it really doesnt automaticly mean that many of the players wouldnt agree with me about some things that i think is bad about stacking units. After all, we ARE now getting rid of those stacks arent we

I have told you what i dont like about stacks, Firaxis didnt use stacks so maybe they ALSO thought some of the same things what IM thinking that is bad about stacks. At least i really doubt that they would agree with you that stacking is a good thing. Why i doubt that? Now wouldnt that just be a bit crazy that they loved unit stacking but they just for some weird reason couldnt use them in civ5?

I really doubt that i woud be that much wrong about the bad things in stacks as you say i am. I Really doubt that.

However, I posted some of my own suggestions for a better stacked system(I have no clue why you keep talking about 3upt btw) in some of my previous posts in this thread - and if you are truly serious about this debate then it shouldn't be a problem to locate them.

I was talking about 3upt because RickInVA was saying that something like that would really be much better than 1upt. After i listed some bad things about 3upt, he dissappeared.

Im very surprised that you didnt know that CyberChrist. After all, your saying that i should start reading this thread more carefully, yet you dont know what is going on in this thread yourself

Well im not saying that it was too hard for me to actually tell you the reason why i was talking about 3upt. Speaking the truth, i really would like you also to post your ideas about "how we can stack units so that it would be fun"-thing so that i can see it.

Btw, there is a very VERY good change that ive allready read your idea but because it wasnt a good one, i have simply ignored/forgotten it.

 

[Suho1004]

Actually, if you had read RickInVA's post closely, you would know that he was not proposing a 3UpT system. He proposed a system in which units would have "stacking points," allowing earlier units to stack several in one tile, while later units would stack fewer and fewer until you were left with 1UpT. So if you could stack 10 "stacking points" in a stack and ancient units had 1 SP each, you could fit ten in a tile. If later units had 2 SP, you could fit five, and so one. It was a scaling stacking system. Calling it "3UpT" is a gross misrepresentation of it.

Just sayin', since we're being picky about people not reading the threads...

 

[aziantuntija]

Well done Suho1004, well done.


If you read the converstation we had with RickInVA, you should clearly see that we WERE talking just about limited stacking (3upt/4upt or something, pick a number) we werent really talking about his proposal of "stacking points", (wich btw isnt really different at all from limited stacking in early game). And this is what i said about that conversation in my last post: "I was talking about 3upt because RickInVA was saying that something like that would really be much better than 1upt". And thats what we really WERE talking about with RickInVA, limited stacking, i said it was bad and he said it wasnt bad.


You should propably read these posts more carefully before your going to say something "clever" about what I have said


I have played Civilization I,II, III and IV and in fall im going to play Civilization V. I really though that joining CivFanatics would be fun cause ive been "lurking" here for a long time, and that it would be fun to talk from (maybe) upcoming things in civ5, like are gunpowder units going to be ranged or not. Right now it looks like i was wrong, cause im really tired of this kind of hair splitting. (im pretty sure somebody soon quotes that comment and makes something very clever from it)

I only said that i dont like stacking and i said WHY i dont like stacking, and after that, all the sudden people are throwing this kind of **** at me about my sayings wich arent even true, like Suho1004 here. Lately the "conversation" about unit stacking and such has been more like some people just stalking my sayings and basicly just making me to repeat myself.


May i aks you Suho1004 why did you post that?

 

[CyberChrist]

...on the reality note, constantinople had to be taken with over 10 times the men that defended it (the siege lasted from Friday, 6 April 1453 until Tuesday, 29 May 1453, 80,000 to 200,000 men sieged constantinople and was defended by 7000 soldiers) so you see in reality small but more heavily defended men can hold out against innumerable odds for some time

Of course it wont be possible to recreate that particular combat either(along with countless other battles like it) with a 1upt system, since there is no way you would be able to bring that amount of attackers to the city within such a short timespan - not even if the battle was stretched over several turns, since Constantinople is located on a very narrow peninsula that I don't see being more than 1 unit wide(on a world map).

 

[Suho1004]

May i aks you Suho1004 why did you post that?

First of all, please relax. No one is out to burn you at the stake, whatever you might think.

Why I posted that is because RickInVA, whether here or elsewhere, has since elaborated on his ideas for stacking. I thought that this is what you were referring to.

Again, I have nothing against you personally, and I thought the smiley I used would show that I was just being a little cheeky for fun, not trying to put you down. However, after reading through your interactions with people in this thread, I get the impression that you are taking things too seriously and getting very defensive, so I'll stop posting. I gain nothing from it, and I don't really have any desire to antagonize anyone.

 

[aziantuntija]

First of all, please relax. No one is out to burn you at the stake, whatever you might think.

You SHOULD propably understand that those kind of posts that you made is NOT going to help this thread no matter what.

Why I posted that is because RickInVA, whether here or elsewhere, has since elaborated on his ideas for stacking. I thought that this is what you were referring to.

I think it is very obvious what you tried to accomplish with your post, but it clearly didnt work cause you didnt do a very good job of understanding what is written <---(and theres the smiley, see )

Again, I have nothing against you personally

If this is the case....

..Then..

However, after reading through your interactions with people in this thread, I get the impression that you are taking things too seriously and getting very defensive, so I'll stop posting.

....Try NOT to end your posts with this kinds of statements about others. I belive that this is a CivFanatics and not a some site where your making assumptions about other peoples personalities. Or is CivFanatics only meant for certain kind of personalities?


I really hope this stops now Suho1004

 

[Suho1004]

Look, I'm not trying to get on your nerves, I'm really not. But I have been reading this thread, and I made that statement based on the posts you've made here. I presume to know nothing about you or your personality. And where do you get the idea that I am in any way trying to limit the types of personalities that use the CivFanatics site (what does that even mean?).

And the smiley (maybe it's just me, but a lot of people just call "emoticons" in general "smileys")... really? It's supposed to mean I was being a little mischievous, and it was all in good fun. That was my intention. That's what I've always used that particular smiley (or emoticon) for, and I've never had a problem with it.

Perhaps this is not what you intend, but when I read your posts, I get the feeling that you are talking down to me, as if I am some misbehaving child. You tell me that I do not understand what I write. You tell me what I should and should not do. And you expect this sort of treatment to have a positive effect on me? Or are you deliberately trying to antagonize me? I'm not making assumptions here, I really want to know.

So I will join you in saying: I really hope this stops now aziantuntjia, before we get this thread closed for devolving into bickering. I really don't have anything against you, even though it seems to me that you think otherwise. I'd be glad to work things out via PM if you'd like. To avoid derailing the thread, I won't reply further here, but I will reply to anything you would like to talk about via PM, if you wish.

 

[aziantuntija]

Well, if you say that your not really trying to get to anybodys nerve, im going to belive you..


..Its just that it isnt really funny when you know that someone really tried hard to find some **** from past posts just to get to you. Even tough there isnt nothing there to find, its still pretty annoying to know that somebody really went trough all that trouble just that he can say something like "I went trough your old posts and saw that you are a whiner" or something like that. It really isnt funny at all as you can propably understand, especially cause stating that somebody is for example a whiner, its basicly just his opinion.


Im done with this thing

 

[Oishi]

May I interrupt your pointless discussion?

Wouldn't it be better if they just put a unit count or HP in units? For example, a spearman unit will only have 1000 men and a fleet of galley will have 10 ships. Then you will have the option to combine similar units in a single tile and conversely, you will also have the option to divide the unit by 1000 and by 10, respectively. It might sound TW-ish, but it's the only idea boggling my mind ever since they announced a one-unit-per-stack rule.

Or they could just make this rule optional, like an X-box in civ4 if you want a wrapped world or blazing timer, etc.

EDIT:
- probably a 100,000 men limit per tile. (based on the productivity of the tile and tech level of the nation, meaning neutral tiles will host less men than your colored tiles)
- maintenance cost of a unit based on how far away it is from your border. (we should see a long trail of supply wagons ^^)
- loss of morale when the supply chain's disrupted. (no food, no activity)
- commander system (the more talented, less damage taken or more damage inflicted)

That is all.