Were "stacks of doom" really that bad?

[cman2010]

in the end I did not care for stacks of doom but they were better than 1 upt, I would settle on something like 5 units per tile.

 

[Misotu]

Yes, I must admit that was the only aspect of Civ III that really appealed to me. I don't understand why it was abandoned. One unit per tile is unbelievably tedious - especially when combined with the laughable "embarkation" frolic - but constructing an army and then watching it play out in a battle screen, Master of Orion style, is really quite neat.

 

[cman2010]

Yes, I must admit that was the only aspect of Civ III that really appealed to me. I don't understand why it was abandoned. One unit per tile is unbelievably tedious - especially when combined with the laughable "embarkation" frolic - but constructing an army and then watching it play out in a battle screen, Master of Orion style, is really quite neat.

I agree it looks way better and I like the stratigic options its just a pain moving them around it just does not fit the civ style but I have never been a fan of stacks of doom so something more is needed.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Bringing back armies would be a good idea if they are balanced and the AI knows how to handle them .
Having a limit of 3 units in an army and extend it to 5 when a Great General joins would make it worthwhile to have more generals, but there should be some restrictions for balance: significant collateral damage from ranegd units with specialized promotions, no siege units in the main army, flanking promotions for mounted units that make it more likely to specificallytake out archers in an army etc..

May sound good in theory but if the AI has already trouble with 1Upt, how is it supposed to efficiently handle armies ?

 

[learner gamer]

FWIW (and I appreciate that this may be nothing to many ), I’m fine with either 1UPT or a SoD. IMHO, both have their advantages and drawbacks, which have been well documented in this thread.

The real issue IMHO with 1UPT in Civ 5 however, is that Firaxis either (i) failed to realise or (ii) failed to rebalance Civ V to reflect, what the SoD brought to Civ 4. You see, in the absence of strategic resource constraints (eg. a horse hex only provides the ability to build x horses), CiV 4’s SoD effectively provided the gamer with a place to invest a vast reservoir of hammers: military units. In Civ 4, you could build as many military units as you liked, provided you (i) had just one of the necessary resource and (ii) could afford the maintenance.

By contrast, the introduction of 1UPT and strategic resource constraints in Civ 5 has significantly reduced the size of this reservoir – you cannot now build a vast army of certain units unless you possess sufficient strategic resources. In those cases / for those units where a resource constraint is not binding, the introduction of 1UPT has merely replaced the SoD with the so called “Carpet of Doom” (CoD), with all its attendant map congestion.

In part I believe to counter this latter possibility, (although I readily admit I that have no proof to verify this claim), Firaxis decided to aggressively ration hammer availability – in the hope that this would limit the potential for the CoD. IMHO however, this was the worst possible design choice they could have made – and much of the criticism that Firaxis have received for making this choice has been justified. All this “solution” did IMHO was to (i) lengthen all average build times, giving rise to the complaint that there is insufficient to do per turn and (ii) increase the incentive for the gamer to invest their meagre supply of hammers in military units, so that they could at least defend themselves from attack.

In short, what I believe Firaxis should have done (and the latest patch is perhaps a sign that they are moving in this direction) is to avoid rationing hammers so aggressively – and instead incentivise and / or require the gamer and the AI to invest those hammers in infrastructure. Effectively, they would be treating infrastructure as the reservoir in which the gamer would invest many of their hammers, instead of military units. Assuming this was balanced appropriately (which I understand all too well might be no easy task), I see no reason why this approach couldn’t (i) allow the tactical aspect of 1UPT to really shine (assuming of course the AI is also taught how to use 1UPT effectively) and (ii) significantly reduce if not eliminate the potential for Civ V’s much maligned CoD.

 

[eric_]

Stacks of doom didn't prevent me from playing obsessively, but it was super lame sitting there for 40 seconds watching unit after unit after unit attack unit after unit after unit.

I vastly prefer 1upt and all of the formation and mobilization choices that arise from it.

 

[Hormagaunt]

I like the idea of ZoC. I think rather than disallowing certain movements, you should give the defending party a free strike or something. Perhaps archers and ranged units can punish violations more effectively compared to the other units

Maybe something like, oh, an Attack of Opportunity as the moving unit leaves one of the hexes that the defender can possibly attack into (i.e., threatened hexes)?

If an enemy unit tries moving past my unit, it enters a hex that I can attack. Nothing happens. But as it leaves that hex, I get a free attack against it. If the hex it moved to is another threatened hex, nothing more happens until it tries to leave that hex, too. If it does so, then I get another free attack against it. This keeps happening as long as it's leaving hexes that I threaten.

That the sort of thing you're thinking?

 

[General Tso]

Stacks of doom didn't prevent me from playing obsessively, but it was super lame sitting there for 40 seconds watching unit after unit after unit attack unit after unit after unit.

I vastly prefer 1upt and all of the formation and mobilization choices that arise from it.

I agree, 1UPT is far superior. I did however have problems with 40 seconds (longer sometimes) that it took while all of the units did their thing. In all of the hours I spent playing Civ4 I only completed two or three games. In the relatively short time that I've played Civ5 I already have well over a dozen complete games. For me that tells the whole story.

 

[Nares]

In part I believe to counter this latter possibility, (although I readily admit I that have no proof to verify this claim), Firaxis decided to aggressively ration hammer availability

Unlikely.

As I've said before in this very thread, it's far more likely any attempt at re-balancing hammers was a response to their changes to city radius. I think what they were looking for was a method to minimize the impact of min-max city placement. This served their primary goal of making the game less challenging, while also showcasing their own twist on city placement (local "resource" requirements).

Assuming this was balanced appropriately (which I understand all too well might be no easy task), I see no reason why this approach couldn’t (i) allow the tactical aspect of 1UPT to really shine (assuming of course the AI is also taught how to use 1UPT effectively) and (ii) significantly reduce if not eliminate the potential for Civ V’s much maligned CoD.

Teaching the AI to use 1UPT effectively sounds like a grand goal; it also sounds like teaching the AI to use 1UPT as a human would, which is destined to fail in the foreseeable future. For example, the AI could be a more formidable opponent if it rarely/never used ranged units (pre-Artillery, perhaps). Focus the AI on what it's good at (overwhelming force), instead of forcing it to do something it's poor at (tactical combat).

As for your second point, CoD could be countered by a stronger unit maintenance system. That sounds like increasing the upkeep costs on units, but a better example is the limited strategic resource system. The current LSRS serves as a roleplay feature more so than a serious mechanic for limiting unit counts.

 

[larries]

...

As for your second point, CoD could be countered by a stronger unit maintenance system. That sounds like increasing the upkeep costs on units, but a better example is the limited strategic resource system. The current LSRS serves as a roleplay feature more so than a serious mechanic for limiting unit counts.

Similarly, SOD can also be countered by a stronger unit maintenance, limited resource system, and higher production requirement.

If goal of 1UPT is to solve SOD, then it creates a bunch of new problems (esp on incompetent AI).

If goal of 1UPT is to add tactical elements in Civilization, then the so called tactical element is very limited due to low number of hexes to maneuver your troops around and the simplicity in combat model (e.g. lack of supply lines, lack of simulatenous attack, etc).

 

[mynystry]

Well, I think the problem with SoD was that they were very tedious, and that the AI bonuses gave the possibility to the AI to build huge SoD without economic penalty. While the human player woudl struggle very much to have a decent army, specially in the early game when gold is really scarce.

I think the idea of 1upt is not so terrible, but it was very crappily implemented. the strategic feeling about 'formations' doesn't work because you have to pile units around the cities and there is not enough space. I think Civilization is not a game of managing formations but about managing armies.

1upt, yes, but armies, once you move one unit above another one they merge into an army, if you can manage to build a huge army ok, let it be, but they move together and fight together. they would need to tweak the promotions system and improve the "balttle odds" calculations, but this way you have realism and also get rid of the annoying task of moving 40 units in one turn.

i hope they fix Civ5 someday, until then I'll be playing with SoD in BTS. it needs patience, but i have no doubt Civ V needs A LOT of improvement to compete with BTS.

 

[learner gamer]

Unlikely.

As I've said before in this very thread, it's far more likely any attempt at re-balancing hammers was a response to their changes to city radius. I think what they were looking for was a method to minimize the impact of min-max city placement. This served their primary goal of making the game less challenging, while also showcasing their own twist on city placement (local "resource" requirements).

Whilst I’m sure you’re right that the changes to the city radius as well as other factors played a role (perhaps even a major one) in hammer rationing, I’ll be surprised if limiting a potential CoD played no role at all (bearing in mind that I used the phrase “in part” quite deliberately). Then again, I did say that I had no proof to support my claim and I wasn’t a Civ 5 beta tester either, so maybe you’re right.

Teaching the AI to use 1UPT effectively sounds like a grand goal; it also sounds like teaching the AI to use 1UPT as a human would, which is destined to fail in the foreseeable future. For example, the AI could be a more formidable opponent if it rarely/never used ranged units (pre-Artillery, perhaps). Focus the AI on what it's good at (overwhelming force), instead of forcing it to do something it's poor at (tactical combat).

On this one, I’m afraid we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’m sorry but I see no reason why the AI can’t (i) continue to use some degree of overwhelming (or brute) force when operating militarily and (ii) be programmed to use the tactical features of combat that Firaxis have incorporated into Civ 5. I simply don’t see them as mutually exclusive concepts – although I readily accept that improving the AI may well be no small task.

FWIW, my comment reflected situations in both my games that I’ve played since returning to Civ 5 following the last patch, that illustrated all too clearly to me that the AI still needs improvement. And judging by this thread here on the 2k forums (which is just one of many that I could have quoted):

http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?106198-AI-tactical-genius

which discusses a deity level India DoWing Rome, only to then send a Great Scientist into range of Rome's units (albeit supported by a wounded infantryman) , I’m not the only one noticing that the AI’s inability to deploy its units properly is handicapping, perhaps potentially even more than offsetting, it’s ability to use brute force to win when warring.

As for your second point, CoD could be countered by a stronger unit maintenance system. That sounds like increasing the upkeep costs on units, but a better example is the limited strategic resource system. The current LSRS serves as a roleplay feature more so than a serious mechanic for limiting unit counts.

I'm not sure why you’re talking about maintenance here because I never mentioned it as a solution to the CoD. Whilst raising unit maintenance is undoubtedly a solution to the CoD, I mentioned building infrastructure as an alternative (or maybe even joint) solution because this offers the advantage IMHO that building infrastructure would potentially give the gamer more to do / more choices to make during a turn. By contrast, raising maintenance costs potentially serves to reduce the number of actions and decisions the gamer can take and make respectively in a turn.

 

[razor436]

In response to OP,

My memories of Civ 2 are vague, but I have the feeling I was looking for change in combat. Then, came Alpha Centauri and it blew me away. My most memorable moment form that game was when the "I love nature" woman moved a bunch of worms into my border and gifting them to me (we were allies).

I think the reason I welcomed the Alpha Centauri upgrade to many-units-per-tile was the freedom of movement it provided for my troops. As I recall, in Civ 2, regardless how many movement points a unit had, if a unit was in your movement path, it blocked you. Civ 5 alleviated that by letting you pass through friendly units as long as you ended in a vacant tile.

I have to admit that by the time Civ 4 arrived, I began to dislike the new combat system as stack-of-doom syndrome settled on us. Rather than spreading out my units over the battlefield, I grouped them into the same square because I knew that the best defender would defend the rest of the stack. Also, stacking many troops in your cities could make it difficult for AI players to siege them.

Now that they implemented the 1upt system in Civ5, I'm loving it. Now I spread out my units over the terrain. I am carefully picking my targets over a broad area instead of attacking "the stack" in 1 tile. I can now confidently say I am fighting my battles on fronts. I can create a blockade along my border.

Sure there are some aspects of combat that I would change, but about 1upt specifically?

I hear some players express their dislike for the new embarkation system, describing it as too cumbersome. But IMHO, the pros outweigh the cons.

• How often have you watched in Civ 4 overseas enemies drop off troops on your continent, only to see them get stuck there after making peace because they had no transport to take them away. You'll probably say something like "At least the overseas AI attacked me!"
• But seriously now, with the new system, no need to build transports, just move the units into the ocean: much easier for an AI to understand.
• The most important benefit though is the 1upt on ocean squares. That means your entire army is spread out across the ocean, vulnerable. No longer can you protect transports by hiding them within a stack of battleships. Now you must have a navy maintain a perimeter around your ground troops as they are moved across oceans. Unfortunately the AI is not aware of this vulnerability and does nothing about it (for himself or against you), especially since the AI never has an adequate navy. But again, that is an AI problem.

The only drawback, which I have never encountered mind you, is that theoretically with a too large army, military units would clog up the terrain. To prevent this, maintenance costs become a headache and units are relatively slow to produce compared to previous games.

Another potential drawback to some players is that army sizes are comparatively low to civ 4. It's necessary though to prevent the above problem. The ones to suffer most from small armies/slow production are the AIs. Because they do not preserve their units well, and miscalculate how many units they need for city siege, they often suicide units on cities and they cannot replace those units quickly enough. But like I always say, that's an AI problem, now with the 1upt system itself.

So in conclusion, no I do not miss stacks of doom. If they ever return they'll doom us all.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

So in conclusion, no I do not miss stacks of doom. If they ever return they'll doom us all.

While in fact 1UPT has probably killed Civ as a strategy game, if not as a game franchise.

 

[jjkrause84]

I have no idea with the premise behind embarkation (that units could build their own boats, presumably)....but you can't casually whip up a vessel that will take you ACROSS THE OCEAN. It really cheapens intra-continental warfare, in my opinion.

 

[SpearMan153]

I have no idea with the premise behind embarkation (that units could build their own boats, presumably)....but you can't casually whip up a vessel that will take you ACROSS THE OCEAN. It really cheapens intra-continental warfare, in my opinion.

how about army comadeers civilian boats for transport?

 

[squadbroken]

While in fact 1UPT has probably killed Civ as a strategy game, if not as a game franchise.

I sure hope that's hyperbole.

I have no idea with the premise behind embarkation (that units could build their own boats, presumably)....but you can't casually whip up a vessel that will take you ACROSS THE OCEAN. It really cheapens intra-continental warfare, in my opinion.

No, the idea isn't that they build their own boats, the idea is that they are abstracted. Same reason you don't have to worry about manpower or supply lines or any number of things that are realistic yet don't exist in any civ game.

 

[larries]

...
I hear some players express their dislike for the new embarkation system, describing it as too cumbersome. But IMHO, the pros outweigh the cons.

• How often have you watched in Civ 4 overseas enemies drop off troops on your continent, only to see them get stuck there after making peace because they had no transport to take them away. You'll probably say something like "At least the overseas AI attacked me!"
• But seriously now, with the new system, no need to build transports, just move the units into the ocean: much easier for an AI to understand.
• The most important benefit though is the 1upt on ocean squares. That means your entire army is spread out across the ocean, vulnerable. No longer can you protect transports by hiding them within a stack of battleships. Now you must have a navy maintain a perimeter around your ground troops as they are moved across oceans. Unfortunately the AI is not aware of this vulnerability and does nothing about it (for himself or against you), especially since the AI never has an adequate navy. But again, that is an AI problem.

...
Another potential drawback to some players is that army sizes are comparatively low to civ 4. It's necessary though to prevent the above problem. The ones to suffer most from small armies/slow production are the AIs. Because they do not preserve their units well, and miscalculate how many units they need for city siege, they often suicide units on cities and they cannot replace those units quickly enough. But like I always say, that's an AI problem, now with the 1upt system itself.

So in conclusion, no I do not miss stacks of doom. If they ever return they'll doom us all.

As you have mentioned in two different paragraphs, the AI does not know how to perform well in 1UPT design. Combat in Civ5 against AI is so much easier than in Civ4 that it almost feels like cheating/exploiting to have AI attack you so it loses most of its unit then you can streamroll AI cities...

There are many ways to fix SOD. In Civ5, I am building much less units than in Civ4. Partially because of 1UPT and incompetent AI. Partially because of Civ5 design (I can have only so many swordman before I run out of irons; cities themselves are good defenders; number of cities is lower in Civ5 before running into empire unhappiness).

Many of Civ5 design makes it much harder to create 40 combat units in the first place.

[Edit: remove comments about embarkment -- thought it was still talking about 1UPT]

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

I passed on all the older civs because of stacking.

It's billed as a strategy game. If I can't beat a superior force through intelligent management of my army, then I don't see the point of having military units. If the 'game' just involves pumping out superior numbers that statistically lead to a win, military might as well be a numeric resource like gold.

What you want is a tactical game. Strategy is all about getting to the party with as much as you can afford, tactics are about fighting with the army you have / are assigned. Obviously Civ games are strategy games in that you build your own armies.

I also think you are missing some of the fun by insisting on tactical supremacy over the AI (something that Civ5 seems to guarantee unfortunately). It can be very interesting trying to win a war where it is very difficult to win a battle. The Roman campaign against Hannibal was interesting both strategically and tactically, as was Washington's campaign against the British in the Revolutionary War.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

I sure hope that's hyperbole.

Seems to be true unfortunately.

No, the idea isn't that they build their own boats, the idea is that they are abstracted. Same reason you don't have to worry about manpower or supply lines or any number of things that are realistic yet don't exist in any civ game.

The reason was because 1upt can't handle unit transports of course, it wasn't to simplify the game.