Videogamer GDC Article

[apocalypse105]

Perhaps units can't attack when stacked?

That would still allow some turtle tactics but for your archers to actually fire they'd need space to spread out, also ending their turn apart from each other. If they want to end the next turn stacked they will not be able to fire.

That would make it more sensible already. Then there are very few reasons to stack units for non-logistic reasons. Still, I can imagine stacked cavalry on the defense, when enemies get close they move outof the stack and attack.

Another fix would be that units can't attack in the same turn they are stacked. They start the turn stacked? Can't attack the entire turn. They attack? Then they may not stack entire turn.

That would be complex but I guess it would work. If you add that all units in a stack take damage when attacked (while the attackers takes no extra damage). Then I can't think of any reason to stack for non-logistic reasons. It sounds a bit complex on paper but probably isn't ingame.

You know that reminds me of some other game I played

you could create a transport unit for modern era's in a APC

this unit can transport 2 units or 3 to the front when the units are dropped off they can't move they end there turn..

WHen the transport is destroyed you lose all the units inside

THe APC unit I could see it happen at industrial a mobiel transport unit in the industrial modern era or transport helicopters

 

[Buccaneer]

a war does not make an era, even two of them.

So it's likely that it's not actually called the 'Great War Era' (capital E), which would be weird and bad.

Especially in an alternative history game in which there could be no wars in the "Great War Era".

 

[bonafide11]

and they - should all be shot for doing so (mainly because it's artists, not academics that use post modern).

The 'Modern Era' is both a colloquial reference to 'now' and the period of time since the Medieval time. Ie, inclusive of Renaissance, Industrial, Atomic ages and 'right now'.

Though, for 'right now' it's better to say that we are in the Digital age or the Information age (depending on if anyone agreed that the Info. Age started after the Atomic Age, and when/if something changed to have it now be the Digital Age even though that got invented during the Information Age, etc and so on).

Artists use it as well, but so do academics. Trust me, I'm in academia. Everything is "postmodern this" and "postmodern that."

 

[Buccaneer]

I am not liking where this discussion on stacking is leading. Stacking a non-combat with a combat is fine; stacking one land unit on a naval vessel I guess would be fine too (not counting carriers); but stacking two (or more) combat units at the end of a turn would be a major turn-off, for me.

 

[MadDjinn]

I am not liking where this discussion on stacking is leading. Stacking a non-combat with a combat is fine; stacking one land unit on a naval vessel I guess would be fine too (not counting carriers); but stacking two (or more) combat units at the end of a turn would be a major turn-off, for me.

it's likely that this blogger misinterpreted the previously verified 'naval vessels can stack with embarked units' change.

 

[nokmirt]

@ nokmirt. Oh so did did remember correctly! I remembered that I did got a pretty good confirmation for whole new era thing but AriochIV's post got me suspicious about it (the one that I quoted) and I was just too lazy to check it out .

EDIT: So basicly the game gets lenghtened by one era! Cool!

I thought so too and was surprised by that. But it is

 

[NotSure]

A big problem that the AI has is getting through a restricted space. Units will head in the wrong direction trying to get around a bottleneck, or will spill out into the water. Both of which waste time giving the defender an advantage, and units on the water are very vulnerable. At least if you allow limited stacking, the AI can cram units through that narrow pass to take that city on a peninsula, even though they may take heavy casualties doing so.

Exactly. I've seen a lot of bad arguments for why the game shouldn't allow any kind of stacking. The argument against limited stacking was that if every unit is only half or one third of a unit, it only forces stacking to make complete units. The argument against stacking for movement only was that it would take the tactical importance of unit placement out of the game. I always thought these arguments were wrong.

If the game simply allowed free movement with penalties for units who fight while stacked then it solves some of the AI ineptitude and makes the game far less frustrating (to navigate) on Immortal and Deity. I imagine the AI will probably attack while stacked, but that should be a minor issue compared to the current inability to maneuver effectively. I'm really pleased with a lot of the changes they've made in this expansion.

 

[Camikaze]

There's also more flexibility in stacking units, though don't expect the classic "stack of doom" to return

I would assume this refers to the already announced ability to stack naval units with embarked melee units.

 

[Monthar]

City states can now be bullied by moving military units nearby, and while this causes the city state to dislike you it can yield some pretty good bits of swag.

I wonder if this means you get some sort of bonus resources, like the jewelry from Merchant CSs, even when you're not their ally. If so, it sounds like you'd only keep that bonus as long as your units were in their borders. The downside, of course, is you'll likely piss them off enough that they declare war on you once you hit the max hatred possible. Another possibility is maybe they'll give out a quest to the other civs to help remove your units from their lands.

 

[NotSure]

I would assume this refers to the already announced ability to stack naval units with embarked melee units.

Ahhh, you just rained on my parade. That's probably right.

 

[Buccaneer]

Ahhh, you just rained on my parade. That's probably right.

I'm NotSure (haha, I crack myself up) but I think you and I have opposing viewpoints.

 

[NotSure]

I'm NotSure (haha, I crack myself up) but I think you and I have opposing viewpoints.

We probably do. I know I'm in the minority about limited stacking. When I see a unit on every tile and it's difficult for even a human to maneuver his units I just have to believe there's a better way.

 

[CYZ]

@CYZ adding that amount of rules would certainly not help the AI, nor does it make the gameplay more enjoyable for that matter. Quite the opposite I would say.

It isn't as complex as I made it seem. It's basicly this: unit may stack but may not be stacked or attack in the same turn. It could be very natural ingame.

I think it would greatly help the AI move through chokepoints, which will greatly increase their offensive capability. As long as the AI knows not to stack units in a not-safe (enemies near) situation there really isn't a problem.

 

[Buccaneer]

We probably do. I know I'm in the minority about limited stacking. When I see a unit on every tile and it's difficult for even a human to maneuver his units I just have to believe there's a better way.

You must not have spent decades playing those old traditional wargames (board or PC). Regimental unit counters can run into the thousands. Civ5 is much easier and more fun than those painful days.

 

[aziantuntija]

It's basicly this: unit may stack but may not be stacked or attack in the same turn.

Theres the problem. If you make a rule that you may either stack or attack, then that is going to create more problems for the AI. I mean that would essentially be the same thing as 1upt, but just with yet another added possibility for the AI to screw things up, by –allowing- something *if* something. Adding rules and possibilities does not help the AI, vice versa, that’s also the reason why im essentially against any kind of limited stacking whatsoever in a civ game.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, just make a thread or something about this thing and see what kind of answers do you get for your idea.

 

[CYZ]

Theres the problem. If you make a rule that you may either stack or attack, then that is going to create more problems for the AI. I mean that would essentially be the same thing as 1upt, but just with yet another added possibility for the AI to screw things up, by –allowing- something *if* something. Adding rules and possibilities does not help the AI, vice versa, that’s also why im essentially against any kind of limited stacking whatsoever in a civ game.

But you don’t have to take my word for it, just make a thread or something and see what kind of answers do you get for your idea.

Meh, too many threads about 1UPT already. You're not really giving any arguments though. I suppose we will see if they meant only the naval and embarked stacking or if they also made changes for land units.

 

[aziantuntija]

Meh

Well ok then.

You're not really giving any arguments though.

Well actually I did give you an argument, a very good one if you ask from me, now you just need to find it from my text.

I suppose we will see if they meant only the naval and embarked stacking or if they also made changes for land units.

Oh im 110% sure they meant just the embarked + naval stacking, so dont get your hopes up on this one .

 

[CYZ]

Well actually I did give you an argument, a very good one if you ask from me, now you just need to find it from my text..

More rules=bad for AI?

That's more of an statement. There's a clear advantage for chokepoints at least (which is often cripling the AI at the moment). As long as the AI can understand chokepoints are the only good situations to use stacking and that they should never stack with enemies (or potential enemies) nearby, I don't see the problem. The last part would be easy to mod into the AI, the first part maybe not so easy.

 

[Monthar]

Yes, it's possible the limited stacking only refers to the naval changes. However, they might have had to increase the units per plot to 2 to get the naval stacking to work without having to rewrite a lot of code in the engine. Therefore, it's also possible this does include land units.

 

[Josephias]

Off-topicking, but since part of the thread is dedicated to managing stacks I would like to suggest this idea (don't know if it will work for CiV, tough): stacked units to increase maintenance exponentially -->so, one-unit stack maintenance is 1, 2-unit stack maintenance is 3 (1+2), 3-unit stack mainenance is 6... and so on.

It will only take for the AI to calculate the "monetary" value of losing units against keeping them protected in a stack. I think it could cope with this well (at least, after some tweaking), and will allow for flexibility at a certain cost.