Why can't military units from two civs at peace, stack?

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Like some of the other posters here, I've experienced problems moving with allied units or through allied territory because they can't share tiles.
I know they won't walk back 1UPT, but the game's combat isn't well suited for 1UPT for a few reasons, totally fixable reasons but just identifying them here.
Combat isn't lethal enough.
Units are too tanky from Civ5 at least and if Firaxis wants to speed up the game and get rid of traffic jams, they need to make units be one-shot or two-shot.
Like a Swordsman catching an Archer on a Grassland tile should do about 75% damage, and if they're defending on a hill, 45%. You've got an Archer and it's sitting on a Hill, but you still got caught in an attack, deal with it.
Combat isn't supposed to safe.
And I don't want to see a return to the BNW turtling range meta.

So far, from the examples in the Quick Look videos, you see units inflicting a lot of damage to one another so in the case of allies blocking your path in a war, maybe the meatgrinder will thin out the line so a player can get through.

 

[elitetroops]

But then there needs to be a new system for what occurs when civ C declares war on civ A (or B or both). Can civ C capture both units sharing a tile? Can they choose to capture civ A's unit and leave civ B's alone? Or are stacked units immune to bring captured?

As long as civ C only declares on one of them, it shouldn't be a problem. A and B units remained stacked, if C kills the unit of civ A and moves onto the tile, civ B's unit remains untouched. But there is indeed a problem if C is at war with both. If A and B can stack their units while being at peace with each other, this could especially be exploited in multiplayer when several players could gang up and attack with stacks of units.

 

[m15a]

As long as civ C only declares on one of them, it shouldn't be a problem. A and B units remained stacked, if C kills the unit of civ A and moves onto the tile, civ B's unit remains untouched. But there is indeed a problem if C is at war with both. If A and B can stack their units while being at peace with each other, this could especially be exploited in multiplayer when several players could gang up and attack with stacks of units.

Actually, I got mixed up and thought this thread was about civilian units stacking, but this one is about military units exclusively... So, yeah, some of my examples are mixed up. Oops.

But, yes, the scenario where civ C is at war with both A and B is even worse with military units if they're allowed to stack. Not only does it allow ganging up with stacks (which will be used all the time even if just one of the civs is a human player), but there is still the question of how civ C can attack a stack of units. Probably the best option would be to let the attacker choose the target, but that's still a whole new UI system implemented just for this special case.

Maybe making all these special systems to allow for unit stacking would be worth it for some players, but it's not without tradeoffs.

 

[BrokenBokken]

If you let two different civs stack, people are going to say, well why can't I stack with my own? And then you'll tumble back to stacks of doom.

 

[Mort_Q]

Agreed.

Making some sort of work around for moving through an area, like swapping hexes with allies as long as there are no enemy units in range could work, but how would permissions work?

 

[lindsay40k]

Leave aside the argument about whether or not the game engine is capable of stacking units. Imagine the multiplayer exploits if three or four allied siege units could sit under a decent allied line unit. It'd be a horrific force multiplier. Even two on one would be a walkover. I'm not a fan of 1UPT but this wouldn't be a fix I'd like to see.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

I've said it before and I'll say it again that the number of units in a tile should depend on the type of tile.

Mountainous terrain, desert and tundra should restrict stacking due to how harsh the terrain is (lacking food, water and shelter). Grasslands and plains would have less restrictions.

You'd still keep strategic bottlenecks, but there would be an additional dimension to the game.

Won't be happening anytime soon!

 

[BrokenBokken]

I've said it before and I'll say it again that the number of units in a tile should depend on the type of tile.

Mountainous terrain, desert and tundra should restrict stacking due to how harsh the terrain is (lacking food, water and shelter). Grasslands and plains would have less restrictions.

You'd still keep strategic bottlenecks, but there would be an additional dimension to the game.

Won't be happening anytime soon!

Yes, it's always a good idea to make a game as unapproachable to new players as possible.

 

[nzcamel]

I raised this in the Builder Blocks Apostle thread but thought it would go off topic. Why can't military units from multiple civs at peace stack? It seems a limited exception for 1upt could be made for that. It just seems ridiculous that you can't move through allied territory b/c they have too many military units.

Even without 1upt, I THINK all prior civs did not allow this to happen (am I wrong). Even under a non-1upt system I don't understand why they wouldn't allow this. If war is declared, then the pieces can all go back to home territory or whatever.

I'm with you on this. It's another reason I'm not fond of 1UPT; though I'll accept that some of the changes VI is intoducing should help...

In II you couldn't share a tile, but I think in III you could. In IV you def could sit on the same tile as foreign units that you weren't at war with.