Why stack of Doom was never a problem... patches were optional...

[King of Prussia]

Corps/Armies in Civ 6 were pretty strong. They gave you more oomph per tile, and if you merged units with different promotions, it kept them. Depending on what is happening, it could be better to have more units than a few strong units.

Verse the AI a few strong units was better most of the time but this also goes into how the AI handles its economy. Ai wasnt that good at improving tiles, growing cities, or filling them out. It didnt have the production to build stuff late game. It didnt have the growth to work more tiles or build more districts. Once you killed their armies off, they were never able to rebuild them. This got worse and worse as you progressed. The pacing of the game impacted this too. The issues mentioned are why air combat was so rare. They didnt have the district slots, production, and resources to build them. No free units to upgrade into either. Pillaging really killed the AI as they never repaired effectively. Hopefully the changes to building, improving, and managing cities can help make the AI more competitive. With it being more streamlined, it should be a lot easier to tweak and improve their behavior.

 

[Krikkit1]

I most often felt that the corp/army mechanic in VI achieved the ostensible goal of reducing the number of units on the map as things began to feel overcrowded, and created a use for the industrial boost to production.

I wonder how VII will handle unit costs to ensure that battles don’t get too crowded once commanders are unpacked. If unit costs climb dramatically with eras, and with units from past eras are automatically upgrading, will stockpiling a bunch of antiquity units be dramatically more cost effective than building units in modern? This could contribute more than in VI to player snowballing, since players typically have high kill/death.

You can also reduce unit number by increasing maintenance costs... and that way it doesn't matter when they were built.

I mean if a Modern Era Cavalry unit costs 20 gold to maintain (40 if outside of friendly territory awhile in a war)
Then it won't matter if you've been super happy Charlemagne and stockpiling them the last two ages... you're not flooding the tiles with tanks.

 

[aelf]

You can also reduce unit number by increasing maintenance costs... and that way it doesn't matter when they were built.

I mean if a Modern Era Cavalry unit costs 20 gold to maintain (40 if outside of friendly territory awhile in a war)
Then it won't matter if you've been super happy Charlemagne and stockpiling them the last two ages... you're not flooding the tiles with tanks.

This is the case in Civ6, isn't it? I believe they wouldn't depart from it.

 

[brick623]

Stacks of Doom made the AI a challenge. You actually feared the AI in Civs 3 and 4 which forced you to pay attention to diplomacy. This in turn made you think a lot more deeply about choosing who to attack. That being said, Stacks are a bit tedious, especially when you have 100+ units. And kamikaze catapults was a bit silly

1Upt could work better, imo I dont think it adds much more than what that orc-general said in LOTR "pikes in front, archers behind". It would be better if there were A LOT more small tiles (for movement, not yields) and fewer chokepoints, like a typical Age of Wonder 4 map. The other thing I'd tweak is movement penalties which are far too harsh in Civ6. It's honestly just tedious and frustrating. The fact that the AI is utterly inept at offensive ops means that you can sit comfortably in Civ6.

Civ7 looks like it's trying to solve that, I think they're really trying hard to move away from the Stacks vs 1UPT issue.

 

[Brutus2]

Stacks were the worst. Aside from deciding the composition of the stack, there was no strategy to combat and no involvement from the player. When one stack attacked another, the game just crunches some numbers at then tells you who won. It felt like playing the slot machines. You pull the handle and wait for the machine to tell you if you won or lost with no interaction, no choices to be made, no strategy or tactics to consider, just wait for the machine to tell you if you win. It's so boring.

1 unit per tile was a vast improvement but did obviously have it's own issues. I had hoped Civ 7 would go for something similar to games like Heroes of Might and Magic where you would have a stack of units for the purpose of moving around the map but when you enter combat, units would move to a hex battle map to play out the battle strategically. The commander pack/unpack feature is a step in that direction and might even be better, I just wish we could place the units when we unpack.

 

[aelf]

Stacks were the worst. Aside from deciding the composition of the stack, there was no strategy to combat and no involvement from the player. When one stack attacked another, the game just crunches some numbers at then tells you who won. It felt like playing the slot machines. You pull the handle and wait for the machine to tell you if you won or lost with no interaction, no choices to be made, no strategy or tactics to consider, just wait for the machine to tell you if you win.

You're totally mistaken on this, as has been explained in this thread a few times.

 

[Gorbles]

Stacks of Doom made the AI a challenge.

People like to use the word "artificial" a lot. I disagree with its use generally, but whatever is meant by the underlying meaning seems to apply here. If (infinite) stacks are required to make the AI look competent, then it's not the AI being competent - it's the ability to trivialise map traversal by stacking units on a select few tiles.

The carpet of doom (as its sometimes called) is the opposite end of the spectrum. Most people's preferences seem to sit somewhere between SoD and CiV-style 1UPT.

I liked what VI tried to attempt with Corps and Armies, but after a certain point (especially with production - not science - being king), it became a way of tossing out a stronger version of the base unit. I like the feel of Army Commanders in VII more, but need to see how much convenience they bring vs. clicks added to micro.

 

[Gotrilliten]

OP didn't enjoy Civ 5 Combat because he wasn't playing with the right settings.

You gotta get the Super Powers Mod where you can use 2 of each type of unit per tile and have more units to choose from. Only way to play Civ 5.

 

[brick623]

People like to use the word "artificial" a lot. I disagree with its use generally, but whatever is meant by the underlying meaning seems to apply here. If (infinite) stacks are required to make the AI look competent, then it's not the AI being competent - it's the ability to trivialise map traversal by stacking units on a select few tiles.

The carpet of doom (as its sometimes called) is the opposite end of the spectrum. Most people's preferences seem to sit somewhere between SoD and CiV-style 1UPT.

I liked what VI tried to attempt with Corps and Armies, but after a certain point (especially with production - not science - being king), it became a way of tossing out a stronger version of the base unit. I like the feel of Army Commanders in VII more, but need to see how much convenience they bring vs. clicks added to micro.

I agree it is not ideal at all and the best solution is a different way like limited stacking which Civ6 did at least attempt to some degree. But if you give me a choice between Stacks or 1UPT, I choose the one that the AI is capable of using. Both systems are equally boring in isolation, stacking for obvious reasons, and 1UPT logistics are a chore. Melee up front, Ranged/Cannons behind.

I was playing a game this week on Emperor level Civ 6, the AI launched an amphibious invasion against me with three of its best Corps without naval escorts, nor artillery to take cities when they landed, just to be promptly sent to Davey Jones locker by the Royal Navy. We were on the same continent.

 

[Brutus2]

You're totally mistaken on this, as has been explained in this thread a few times.

Um, no. I have read the entire thread and the only thing I see is you arguing with every person that tells you SoD sucked. If you read my post I did acknowledge that deciding what units to put in your stack was a strategic decision on the players part. However, the order the individual units fought each other was predetermined and the player had no choice in that. Even if you want to argue that deciding what stack to attack with first is a strategic decision ok, maybe but there is no doubt that a battle played out in 1upt will have more strategy and more player decisions than one stack vs another stack. In the end, this is a matter of opinion. You are entitled to love it and I am allowed to hate it but

A system that is easier for the AI is a double edged sword. Sure it makes the AI more feared and dangerous but it also makes things simpler and IMO more boring for the player.

I'm sure we can both agree that we love civ and hope civ 7 will be the best yet! All the best to you!

 

[aelf]

Um, no. I have read the entire thread and the only thing I see is you arguing with every person that tells you SoD sucked. If you read my post I did acknowledge that deciding what units to put in your stack was a strategic decision on the players part. However, the order the individual units fought each other was predetermined and the player had no choice in that. Even if you want to argue that deciding what stack to attack with first is a strategic decision ok, maybe but there is no doubt that a battle played out in 1upt will have more strategy and more player decisions than one stack vs another stack. In the end, this is a matter of opinion. You are entitled to love it and I am allowed to hate it but

A system that is easier for the AI is a double edged sword. Sure it makes the AI more feared and dangerous but it also makes things simpler and IMO more boring for the player.

I'm sure we can both agree that we love civ and hope civ 7 will be the best yet! All the best to you!

Why did you select the whole stack to attack then? You could attack with individual units (like with 1UPT!) so you can determine the order of attack you want. Plus you could split up a stack, maneuver them, maybe use a faster moving stack to execute a blitzkrieg. You don't need to have only one stack that you bash against another stack as a whole. I genuinely don't understand why people would hate a system because they use it in a way that the system never forced them to

It's demonstrably false that SoDs eliminate strategy. And that's not an opinion. If you say you dislike SoDs and prefer unit management with 1UPT, that's an opinion, and that's fair enough.

 

[gdr_willter]

Why did you select the whole stack to attack then? You could attack with individual units (like with 1UPT!) so you can determine the order of attack you want. Plus you could split up a stack, maneuver them, maybe use a faster moving stack to execute a blitzkrieg. You don't need to have only one stack that you bash against another stack as a whole. I genuinely don't understand why people would hate a system because they use it in a way that the system never forced them to

It's demonstrably false that SoDs eliminate strategy. And that's not an opinion. If you say you dislike SoDs and prefer unit management with 1UPT, that's an opinion, and that's fair enough.

Wow, micro management.

 

[aelf]

1UPT involves micromanagement too, especially when moving units that now block each other. Pick your poison.

 

[gdr_willter]

1UPT involves micromanagement too, especially when moving units that now block each other. Pick your poison.

It's just fun to see the statements like "1UPT is worse than SoD because of micro management" and "SoD has strategy when you do some micro management" at the same time.

 

[aelf]

It's just fun to see the statements like "1UPT is worse than SoD because of micro management"

Who said this?

 

[gdr_willter]

Who said this?

Oh well, if it was not a point about it, why hate 1UPT?

 

[fantsu]

Civ focusing mobile gaming its no wonder 1UPT stays. No casual players want depth or strategy in wars in these games. No TOE-points or building custom units, its easier just to pick from few choices and quickly dispatch AI units and be done with it.

I think its also a wise decision. There are plenty of complex wargames around, while easy-to-jump-in 4X games are a rarity. Stellaris and Civ are pretty much the only option for those who want to try out this genre? And 4X always needs more fans, so it wont die like RTS.

 

[aelf]

Oh well, if it was not a point about it, why hate 1UPT?

I don't get where you got that impression. I don't prefer it over SoDs, but that's leagues apart from 'hating' it. And I'm just correcting people's misunderstanding of how SoDs worked.

You might want to read before you comment.

 

[Gorbles]

Civ focusing mobile gaming its no wonder 1UPT stays.

Speaking of correcting misunderstandings, this one's a doozy.

Was CiV even available on mobile devices?

 

[fantsu]

Speaking of correcting misunderstandings, this one's a doozy.

Was CiV even available on mobile devices?

6 was on Switch.
edit: five was basically evolution of Civ:Rev