Unit stacking

[Morningcalm]

As everyone knows, naval military units can now stack with embarked land units at sea. But you know what else I noticed? Ranged units now occasionally stack with melee units! It might have been a bug though, as I haven't been able to replicate it...a melee warrior was able to stack with a seriously wounded ranged atlatl, maybe I accidentally manipulated the turn movements so that the warrior got on there....

It's occurred to me that combat in Civ V would be more interesting if you could unlock the ability to have limited stacking (i.e. strength of ranged + melee unit will be reduced, and flank bonuses will be nastier against them)....say 1 ranged + 1 melee.....it would certainly make micromanaging the movement of units in the hills much less tedious....they seriously need a hotkey for "next military unit."

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

I've suggest unit stacking based on size units vs terrain occupancy. You can put more inf in a stack compared to inf and tanks in say a forest tile. The big problem I see is AI logic may not use this optimally but the 1upt has the same problem. There is a key for next unit, think it was the arrow key? I'm not on the game to check, but there is one for units.

The collateral damage was a great way to fix attacking on stacked units, I thought it could just use a revision, more damage on the more units stacked, forcing players to divide the stacks a bit better. Auto defense on ranged units when stacks come in range...etc

 

[Morningcalm]

Yeah, the only problem with reworking stacking to be that complex might be the AI not knowing how to use it....at all. That said, the AI does better militarily with a stacking system of some sort. I've noticed in vanilla (not sure about in G +K) that AI will cheat, occasionally having melee, and ranged units in their city.

Also, workers/Great People should be able to multi-stack on each other (but if someone attacks them, either have them both die, or have just one unit die and the attacking unit ends its turn)....

Basically, we should reduce micromanagement on the military scale, while increasing complexity....Thanks for reminding me about the collateral damage stuff. That system worked pretty well in BtS once the improved AI came out.

 

[jjkrause84]

Stacking would be an easy system to implement, I think (although, who knows if the AI could handle it....unlikely).

1) You cannot stack until maybe the Ren. era (play-testing would have to figure out when best to start....personally, I kind of like the idea that in the early eras you cannot stack).

2) At that point you can only stack 2 units. Each era, however, (or maybe every other era, since there's so many now) you get to stack one additional unit.

3) Stacks pile up their strength for a total score to use in combat. So, two musketmen will be very strong, but less flexible than a musketman and a crossbow or cannon.


Hopefully, the essential similarity between moving around small stacks and moving individual units would at least make the AI no worse than it already is sometimes.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

Stacking would be an easy system to implement, I think (although, who knows if the AI could handle it....unlikely).

1) You cannot stack until maybe the Ren. era (play-testing would have to figure out when best to start....personally, I kind of like the idea that in the early eras you cannot stack).

2) At that point you can only stack 2 units. Each era, however, (or maybe every other era, since there's so many now) you get to stack one additional unit.

3) Stacks pile up their strength for a total score to use in combat. So, two musketmen will be very strong, but less flexible than a musketman and a crossbow or cannon.


Hopefully, the essential similarity between moving around small stacks and moving individual units would at least make the AI no worse than it already is sometimes.

One wouldn't be so bad except that teching would make you a bit stronger with number three involved. Civ 3 had a cute idea that generals can make a formation, place units in that unit, think three was max and that unit would attack as a whole. Problem was generals were hard to come by since it was unlocked through combat or late game building. Perhaps to reintroduce it and increase the capacity of the general army throughout the ages or xp promotion, building them would also be able to do at the barracks. This would also work in a 1upt concept as the formation would be considered one unit when embarked.

The combat system is the main problem in Civ. I thought axis & allies had a good combat system which would work wonders in Civ as well. Both units attack defend at the same time as opposed to attack defend check than defend the counter attack check. If the unit died it still could fire its check before being removed.

 

[Rimpy]

Stacking would be an easy system to implement, I think (although, who knows if the AI could handle it....unlikely).

1) You cannot stack until maybe the Ren. era (play-testing would have to figure out when best to start....personally, I kind of like the idea that in the early eras you cannot stack).

2) At that point you can only stack 2 units. Each era, however, (or maybe every other era, since there's so many now) you get to stack one additional unit.

I'm not sure if you have ever played" Civilization: The Board Game" (which is actually a lot of fun), but they have a system like that. At the start, you can only stack two units, but as you research technologies, you gain the ability to stack more units, up to 6 if I recall correctly. I thought that was a pretty neat system.

Another option for the video game that I've thought would be cool is to allow stacking of units but with a massive defense penalty, like 80% or something. I really like 1UPT for actual combat, but it's a pain to work around when moving large armies. So I wish you can stack units when you need to move them, but then you need to spread them out to 1UPT before you enter battle to avoid the penalty.

 

[Morningcalm]

All of these ideas are excellent options Firaxis should consider. Making combat epic, complex and interesting as opposed to a simple micromanagement game would be a welcome change. That said, I think the naval combat in Civ V is now much more fun thanks to G + K.

Maybe land combat stacking could go up by tech levels, and as in Civ IV, someone attacking that stack attacks the stronger corresponding unit)

 

[BobDole]

1UPT is one of the hallmarks of the game. It isn't changing.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

It's already changing slowly back to allow stack units. But in any event Civ 6 has it, I won't be buying it.

 

[Morningcalm]

Agreed. Civ 6 should DEFINITELY have more flexibility with stacking. 1 UPT was a nice idea, but poorly executed. Partly because units that are behind other units now can't move past them.

 

[Ex.plode]

1UPT is one of the hallmarks of the game. It isn't changing.

This.


Stacks of Doom make for terrible gameplay with 0 strategy. Whoever has the bigger stack of units wins, whereas now you actually need to think about your movements and tactics instead of running around with SoD's

 

[Rimpy]

Stacks of Doom make for terrible gameplay with 0 strategy. Whoever has the bigger stack of units wins, whereas now you actually need to think about your movements and tactics instead of running around with SoD's

I completely agree. I love the game with 1UPT for combat and I wouldn't want to them to change it. But I really wish they would make an exception for movement though. It's so tedious to move an army across a continent or a sea. That's why I think a very high defense/combat penalty for stacked units would be the best of both worlds.

 

[jjkrause84]

I'm not sure if you have ever played" Civilization: The Board Game" (which is actually a lot of fun), but they have a system like that. At the start, you can only stack two units, but as you research technologies, you gain the ability to stack more units, up to 6 if I recall correctly. I thought that was a pretty neat system.

Another option for the video game that I've thought would be cool is to allow stacking of units but with a massive defense penalty, like 80% or something. I really like 1UPT for actual combat, but it's a pain to work around when moving large armies. So I wish you can stack units when you need to move them, but then you need to spread them out to 1UPT before you enter battle to avoid the penalty.

I have, actually, played Civ the board game.....I found it to play like 'over-complicated Go Fish'. I really didn't like it....way too much to chance (as a group we normally play Diplomacy...much better!).

 

[jjkrause84]

This.


Stacks of Doom make for terrible gameplay with 0 strategy. Whoever has the bigger stack of units wins, whereas now you actually need to think about your movements and tactics instead of running around with SoD's

How did you make the leap from, 'there should be some, ilmited stacking' to 'Stacks of Doom are terrible and have no strategy'!

Aside from the fact that you mistake tactics for strategy, the current system is only nominally better....there are still serious and gaping holes that could be improved. Civ 5 has a very serious force > space problem (and in any case....having more units STILL pretty much means you're gonna win....).

 

[Harthhal]

i played a game with england yesterday I had a great admiral (Lord Nelson of all people ^_^), a ship of the line and an embarked unit all in the same tile. I was thought it was a bug with the "civilian" admiral, and civilian worker in the same tile until a great merchant i had enter the same tile after the worker had left.

 

[Esoteric Arcane]

I usually had 15 units in a stack at a time, 3 were calvary so they tend to leave that stack during a war, pretty much used to pillage and scout, imo they didnt do that great in civ 4.

Defending units was easier, movement was not troubling, could even stack with an ally to help defend his city. All this is lost because of 1upt. Even hex tile made it harder to move units since two spaces have been lost from the tile you could move too. But there are people who prefer it because they enjoy the nestalgia of hex over square. But it was a needless change.

I dont play on multiplayer, since a lot of people who do, just go and conquest, in it to win it, if i wanted that id go play RON or Empire Earth RTS, a two hour game vs a game that takes days. So it might be different in MP, but single player it just hinders a gamers strategy over easier tactics. I also agree that Stack of Doom (SOD) wasnt a great thing either, but 1upt or SOD the guy with the better tactics would win unless an overwelming force is endless, which is true in almost any game, aka zerg rush (star craft)

 

[Ex.plode]

I completely agree. I love the game with 1UPT for combat and I wouldn't want to them to change it. But I really wish they would make an exception for movement though. It's so tedious to move an army across a continent or a sea. That's why I think a very high defense/combat penalty for stacked units would be the best of both worlds.

I could deal with something like this, being able to stack two units on one tile (with a defensive penalty of some sort) for movement purposes

 

[Barghaest]

Actually, I'd really like the ability to move civilian units through (or stack them with) friendly military units... trying to get my workers/GPs past a CS ally who's clogging units all over the place is a pain.

They could do away with 1UPT entirely for civilian units and I wouldn't complain a bit, but I rather like the strategy of it with military units (although I think cities should be an exception... they should allow 2 military units to stack in cities just so you don't have to vacate a garrison to purchase a unit).

 

[duckstab]

How did you make the leap from, 'there should be some, ilmited stacking' to 'Stacks of Doom are terrible and have no strategy'!

Aside from the fact that you mistake tactics for strategy, the current system is only nominally better....there are still serious and gaping holes that could be improved. Civ 5 has a very serious force > space problem (and in any case....having more units STILL pretty much means you're gonna win....).

The problem, I've always believed, is that Civ5 places tactics on a strategic-level map. I'd like to see Civ6 bring back arbitrarily-sized stacks for movement purposes. When combat is initiated you move to a zoomed-in tactical map where you have to deploy your units on one end of the battlefield, 1UPT.

In addition to solving the continent-spanning traffic jam issues, this would allow the designers to blow the tactical game wide open. The tactical map could be generated to show finer terrain details, you could throw in random elements like weather and darkness, and decisive battles could be resolved in the scope of a single strategic-level turn. Units themselves could have a lot of more interesting capabilities and promotions available.

 

[Morningcalm]

I think 2 UPT would work, and yes, having a bit more lenience for movement would be good.

Another thing that I find annoying is that, unlike in Civ IV, the movement paths of the units generally are:
a) not accurate (the units miss shortcuts).
b) if another unit is on their destination, they ask for orders again...if you're making a long journey, then expect to be hassled as the screen keeps bumping you back to your unit...

This could all be fixed by 2 UPT.

Actually, I'd really like the ability to move civilian units through (or stack them with) friendly military units... trying to get my workers/GPs past a CS ally who's clogging units all over the place is a pain.

They could do away with 1UPT entirely for civilian units and I wouldn't complain a bit, but I rather like the strategy of it with military units (although I think cities should be an exception... they should allow 2 military units to stack in cities just so you don't have to vacate a garrison to purchase a unit).

Hm, not sure about 1 UPT for military units, but we can agree to disagree. As some posters pointed out, having 2 UPT would help movement a lot. Civilians definitely need to be allowed to stack. I also miss Civ IV's nice stacking UI. Sure, it wasn't pretty looking, but it wasn't as frustrating (i.e. you could use hotkeys to select specific units on each stack).

Agreed about the garrison. Maybe the 2nd troop shouldn't add to the strength of the city (for balance reasons) so as to encourage people not to just stronghold 2 units in a city for free maintenance (via that Tradition policy on the right).