Were "stacks of doom" really that bad?

[jjkrause84]

I should state that my post above was meant to read "I have no problem with the premise behind embarkation...."

It was late at night.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I sure hope that's hyperbole.

No it is just a short and concise summing up of the well documented destruction to the series releasing CivG has caused.

I'm not against 1UPT in the right context, in a tactical wargame where you've pretty much a set force situation it is perfect. But Civ is not a tactical wargame it is a strategic empire building game, 1UPT is completely wrong for the type of game, as evidenced by 5.

 

[Some guy]

And what evidence is that?

 

[NukeEm]

To OP. I've played every Civ. Stacks of Doom, was not a fun mechanic for me. I didn't enjoy the feel of it. It felt very artificial. With 1upt hex, while it isn't perfect, at least choke points matter now. Troop position matters now. War is more than just smashing on group of units into another... Staks of Doom reminds me WAY too much of Risk. For me, in my opinion, stacks were simply not fun.

 

[larries]

And what evidence is that?

Major evidence is in number of tiles in the world. When you have only 3 tiles between major cities, there is not much tactical combat to talk about.

Another is the simplistic combat system. There is no multiple units attacking together. There is no supply line to worry about. Flanking means there is another friendly unit next to your enemy -- even though your friendly unit may just be standing there? Replenishment is abstracted with unit healing (sitting anywhere?). No need to worry about combat loss because your experience will not go away unless the whole unit is defeated?

The game is so abstract that land units can move over sea.

 

[Iranon]

Another is the fragility of the system: huge stacks are much less problematic than a carpet of units covering the world.
Pacing production to make things move at all in the early game, not bog down in the late game and enable a familiar selection of city improvements is enough of a challenge.

Making it feel balanced and natural while keeping a familiar pace of research and unit movement isn't in the cards. To balance the requirements, it would have been necessary to start from scratch with few compromises to make the game feel like previous titles.
Don't want to abandon the legacy? Then choose more robust mechanics that don't force you to twist everything to the breaking point!

 

[eric_]

...familiar selection of city improvements...
...keeping a familiar pace of research...
...make the game feel like previous titles...

What's so important about things being familiar? If I wanted familiar, I'd play a game I burned out on long ago.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

And what evidence is that?

The game is evidence enough.

 

[eric_]

The game is evidence enough.

That's like saying the sun is evidence enough that the sun comprises hydrogen.

No one is providing evidence that 1upt doesn't work in ciV, they're just describing why they don't like it, or stating it as some self-evident truth.

Personally, I think it makes things *far* more interesting than SoDs ever did. So, for me, it works great in this type of game!

 

[Thormodr]

That's like saying the sun is evidence enough that the sun comprises hydrogen.

No one is providing evidence that 1upt doesn't work in ciV, they're just describing why they don't like it, or stating it as some self-evident truth.

Personally, I think it makes things *far* more interesting than SoDs ever did. So, for me, it works great in this type of game!

An incompetent AI that has no clue at all how to handle 1UPT is *far* more interesting to you?

To each his/her own I guess.

At least with SODs, the AI was semi competent.

There won't be a quick fix either, if ever.

 

[eric_]

An incompetent AI that has no clue at all how to handle 1UPT

The AI certainly botches formations from time to time, but that's by no means the rule in my experience. Well, maybe at launch, but not really since the first patch and certainly not since the March patch. Just last night the AI brought a perfectly-formed group of units up against a fairly well-defended city and took it. Besides, it makes deployment of *my* troops immeasurably more interesting, which counts for a lot when I'm wasting time playing a game .

At least with SODs, the AI was semi competent.

Er, how much competence is required to move a single item hither and yon? None. The two AIs are incomparable in this regard, imo.

 

[larries]

That's like saying the sun is evidence enough that the sun comprises hydrogen.

No one is providing evidence that 1upt doesn't work in ciV, they're just describing why they don't like it, or stating it as some self-evident truth.

Personally, I think it makes things *far* more interesting than SoDs ever did. So, for me, it works great in this type of game!

I have already told you some evidence, but you simply ignore it.

When cities are 3-4 tiles apart from each other, what kind of tactical elements do you expect?

When units are moving 2-4 tiles a turn, what kind of tactical elements do you expect?

When each turn is years, what kind of tactical elements do you see?

Putting range units behind melee units so the range units do not get killed does not make the game any more 'tactical'. Its not much different than in Civ4, where you don't just charge your horsemen into enemy territory because it moves faster than your pikemen.

Thinking how to move your army because each tile can have only 1 unit is not really tactical. Combat in Civ5 is not much different than in Civ4. You move your army from one city to another. You protect your vulnerable units. You retreat when your unit is damaged (so it heals to full without any cost to you...).

etc etc

 

[eric_]

Nothing about your post evidences an inherent incompatibility between 1upt and the civilization series. It just highlights your inability (thus far?) to find and exploit tactical opportunities in the game. I find plenty of them arising from terrain bonuses, formations, etc. It's possible to set up a real front now, protect your flanks, etc., etc., etc. It just takes a modicum of imagination and tactical thinking. The implications even reach down to the war strategy level, as a couple of small, mobile groups are truly viable for empire defense due to tactical possibilities.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Nothing about your post evidences an inherent incompatibility between 1upt and the civilization series. It just highlights your inability (or lack of desire?) to find and exploit tactical opportunities in the game. I find plenty of them arising from terrain bonuses, formations, etc. It's possible to set up a real front now, protect your flanks, etc., etc., etc. It just takes a modicum of imagination and tactical thinking. The implications even reach down to the war strategy level, as a couple of small, mobile groups are truly viable for empire defense due to tactical possibilities.

But why develop tactical exploits when there is no incentive to do so. AI war strategy at the moment is:
1) Move siege in first, we don't want to get any unwarranted advantage from bombarding.
2) When siege is dead, move units directly up to city and mill around until bombarded to death.
3) When near water embark especially if surrounded by highly promoted enemy naval units.

At least with 4 you would often have at least one serious fight per invasion on your hands and the AI could give you a real scare by invading themselves. Now you just declare let their units all suicide in your territory then walk into unportected land, rinse and repeat as needed.

 

[eric_]

At least with 4 you would often have at least one serious fight per invasion

Really? You mean where you'd throw a stack against a stack and sit there for 5 minutes while they autobattled one by one? That's not a serious fight, that's a bathroom break.

Now you just declare let their units all suicide in your territory then walk into unportected land, rinse and repeat as needed.

This just isn't my experience anymore (since March patch, or really even the previous one), unless I'm going for domination and I significantly outnumber the AI.

Of course, if I use tactics well, I can significantly wear down a numerically superior AI army, which can make the difference between being overrun and merely losing one or two border cities.

 

[Iranon]

What's so important about things being familiar? If I wanted familiar, I'd play a game I burned out on long ago.

I didn't say familiarity was important. If someone is absolutely determined to make a Civ game with 1upt, they should have sacrificed continuity and made a game that's designed from the ground up to make 1upt work (challenging on this scale and scope... but perhaps doable. This would, among other things, require a sophisticated new AI instead of reusing routines made for a completely different game.) and toss anything that doesn't fit in in favour of things that do.
Otherwise the result is a broken empire builder with a broken Panzer General tacked on.

If they consider familiarity important and want to keep what's been good about previous titles intact, they shouldn't implement a combat system that's at odds with everything that's been appealing about the series.

Of course, if you just care about short-term profits it may make sense to create a broken empire builder close enough to past games to cash in on the franchise name, with a broken Panzer General tacked on. Then market it as the best of both worlds and sell oodles of DLC.

 

[Thormodr]

I didn't say familiarity was important. If someone is absolutely determined to make a Civ game with 1upt, they should have sacrificed continuity and made a game that's designed from the ground up to make 1upt work (challenging on this scale and scope... but perhaps doable. This would, among other things, require a sophisticated new AI instead of reusing routines made for a completely different game.) and toss anything that doesn't fit in in favour of things that do.
Otherwise the result is a broken empire builder with a broken Panzer General tacked on.

If they consider familiarity important and want to keep what's been good about previous titles intact, they shouldn't implement a combat system that's at odds with everything that's been appealing about the series.

Of course, if you just care about short-term profits it may make sense to create a broken empire builder close enough to past games to cash in on the franchise name, with a broken Panzer General tacked on. Then market it as the best of both worlds and sell oodles of DLC.

You've summed it up pretty well. It's like a ketchup and ice cream sandwich.

 

[eric_]

Ah, gotcha, I see your point Iranon, although I disagree that it's broken in either regard, and especially disagree that 1upt is at odds with everything appealing about the series. In fact, I think it's more in line with the series than SoD. It ultimately allows for a lot more strategic depth, as you're not relegated to building as large an army as possible in order to avoid being overrun. This adds a lot of flexibility at various levels that play into overall strategy (type of military and how it is used, which in turn affects general production decisions, the importance of diplomacy, etc.). And, strategic depth is what it's all about.

In that respect, I find it to be far more challenging and interesting than cIV.

To me, a lot of the stuff they did away with was clutter, especially corporations and, to a lesser extent, religion. Espionage I liked OK, particularly during peaceful builder games, and sometimes it was fun to precede an invasion with a round of improvement and/or city sabotage, but it's not something I tended to rely on very much. Mostly I just set the slider high enough to keep me at parity or above with the other civs and that was it. Not really a whole lot to think about there.

 

[cman2010]

The AI certainly botches formations from time to time, but that's by no means the rule in my experience. Well, maybe at launch, but not really since the first patch and certainly not since the March patch. Just last night the AI brought a perfectly-formed group of units up against a fairly well-defended city and took it. Besides, it makes deployment of *my* troops immeasurably more interesting, which counts for a lot when I'm wasting time playing a game .



Er, how much competence is required to move a single item hither and yon? None. The two AIs are incomparable in this regard, imo.

you lost a city to the ai in civ 5 thats nothing to bragabout no wounder you think 1upt is great.

 

[cman2010]

Major evidence is in number of tiles in the world. When you have only 3 tiles between major cities, there is not much tactical combat to talk about.

Another is the simplistic combat system. There is no multiple units attacking together. There is no supply line to worry about. Flanking means there is another friendly unit next to your enemy -- even though your friendly unit may just be standing there? Replenishment is abstracted with unit healing (sitting anywhere?). No need to worry about combat loss because your experience will not go away unless the whole unit is defeated?

The game is so abstract that land units can move over sea.

I agree with this as I have stated I like the idea behind 1upt but it just wont work in civ 5 even if the ai was better you would still run into problems like this.