Yet another shot to solving the 1UPT problem - Supply and Attrition mechanic

[ShinigamiKenji]

Now, the topic has been beaten over and over and over, though no consensus on the "Carpet of Units X Stacks of Doom" topic was reached. What I propose here is a middle ground, somewhat similar to the Corps and Armies: stacking with supply.

The Main Idea - Supply and Attrition

Simply put, I propose the ability to stack units, with a limiting factor: supply. But what would be supply?

Basically, you would be able to stack units without penalties, until you reach the supply limit for the terrain. After that amount, every additional unit would add attrition, making every unit in that stack to receive damage per turn. The damage would rise exponentially with each additional unit. For example, if the terrain limit is 3 units, then:

• 4 units would incur 5 damage per turn for every unit in the stack.
• 5 units might incur 15 damage per turn for every unit
• 6 units might incur 30 damage

Note those values are not fixed. They would depend on balancing issues.

Furthermore, every terrain type would have a different supply limit. For example, Desert and Tundra wouldn't support as many units as Grassland or Woods (as Napoleon discovered by himself).

Also, as eras advance, this limit would be improved further, allowing for more troops to be grouped together.

Stack fights

Now that we established a limit for stacking, we can think about how we could make stacks do what they are meant to do: fight.

I found a nice suggestion here, which I tried to build upon. I will copy that idea here.

First of all, in principle all units in a stack would be damaged during combat, but the amount will be different for each unit.

All units would contribute to a total attack/defense stat, and those will be used to calculate the base damage for every unit in the stack. Then damage for each unit would be increased or reduced, depending on the army composition.

For example, imagine a 4 Horsemen stack attacking a 2 Swordsmen/1 Spearman stack. The total strength of both stacks will be confronted, and every unit will receive damage. Then, every Swordsmen will receive some extra damage due to the cavalry vs. melee type advantage, but the Spearman won't. Each of the Horsemen will take a bit increased damage due to the Spearmen.

For ranged attacks, only the units with ranged attacks would count for the attacking strength. The defending stack still uses all the units' strength. That would also nerf ranged units a bit.

Civilian stacks and attrition

To prevent religious abuses, civilian stacking from the same civilization wouldn't be allowed. However, you would be able to stack civilian units from different civilizations, as long as they're not at war.

Military units would also be able to stack with civilians from other civilizations without attrition penalties, as long as they respect the civilian stacking rule (only 1 civilian per Civ in the same tile).

To further counter the religion spam, I propose religious attrition, but it would be dependent on the religious pressure on that tile (or maybe city). Under this rule, religious stacking might even be allowed, but would incur more severe attrition in the same way as armies.

You might also be able to merge builder charges up to the initial number of charges of a newly-created Builder at the time of the merge (max 3 by default, increasing with Serfdom policy, Chinese UA and Pyramids' effect).

Miscellaneous ideas

• Unique abilities, policies, wonders and techs to increase supply limit.
• Supply limit greatly increased in own territory, increased in friendly territory, and reduced in enemy terrirtory
• Different supply consumption for different types of units

Any further ideas and (construtive) criticism are welcome.

 

[TomKQT]

I think the beauty of the 1UPT is the simplicity. Your proposal sounds way too complex to me.

In my optinion, the only problem with 1UPT is that the AI is not very good in it (now). Which can be fixed without changing anything on 1UPT. But I would also go back to CivV movement system, or at least improved the CivVI one.

 

[Dicemechanic]

I've always felt Civ could do with either an attrition mechanic or a range-limit mechanic like GalCiv, so I'm well up for this!

 

[ComradeDavo]

I think the beauty of the 1UPT is the simplicity. Your proposal sounds way too complex to me.

In my optinion, the only problem with 1UPT is that the AI is not very good in it (now). Which can be fixed without changing anything on 1UPT. But I would also go back to CivV movement system, or at least improved the CivVI one.

Agreed, apart from on movement system. Just make the AI better at it is my answer.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

I have an idea along similar lines, but which is somewhat simpler. Basically, there is no theoretical limit to how many units of the same kind can be stacked in one hex. Combat between stacks is resolved in a straightforward way, each attacking unit attacks a single unit in the opposing stack, chosen at random.

The limit is provided by what can be supported by friendly cities. Each city has a supply rating (which would be determined by its population and what buildings had been constructed there, there could be a line of depot buildings similar to those built in districts which would allow for an increase in the rating as time goes on) indicating the number of units it can support and how far away they can be supported. For example, a city with a rating of 10 would be able to support up to 10 units out to a range of 10 movement points. A stack which met both qualifications would be "in supply" and would fight normally.

One which did not, however, would be considered "out of supply." Out of supply units fight at some huge disadvantage (say 50% reduced from what their combat strength would otherwise be) and lack the ability to heal. This means that any out of supply force facing even semi-substantial opposition will be whittled away very quickly. Players would then be faced with the dilemma that if they want to mass as many units as possible in stacks of doom, they risk exposing themselves to being hammered if an enemy force appears from an unexpected direction athwart their supply lines. On the other hand, if they spread out too much so as to ensure against this possibility, they risk being defeated by concentrated enemy stacks.

In practice, I think deciding where to spread out and where to mass would add an interesting layer of strategic depth to war, one which is both historically grounded and missing with 1upt. For example, in 1940 during WWII German tank forces famously massed in a stack of doom in the Ardennes forest in southern Belgium, rolling over the weak Allied opposition there to cut across the rear of the main Allied force farther north, severing their supply lines and causing their destruction except for the minority evacuated through Dunkirk. To simulate the practice of living off the land, pillaging a hex of farmland would allow a stack to be considered in supply for the turn.

 

[Ryika]

@Feris Bueller: I recommend not stacking your whole text onto a single hex and instead using a 1-Paragraph-Per-Hex method, because your post is terrible to read with that formatting.

Agreed, apart from on movement system. Just make the AI better at it is my answer.

This, and introduce reasonable limitations to lower the amount of units you can realistically field to make the endgame less of a drag (and use Corps + Armies as an expensive method to exceed that limitation of strength).

 

[Victoria]

I recommend not stacking your whole text onto a single hex and instead using a 1-Paragraph-Per-Hex method

lol, get the stacker to 1 UPT.

With the discovery that corps and armies are stronger than thought and have a wonderful simplicity about them and can stack supporting units its a dead cause.if we can just get the right programmer on the job. I think most people are of that mindspace. I did see a month ago a good army idea with supply and a little more stacking but in reality its a middle of the road solution... sometimes they are best but the simplicity of mechanics with 1UPT is good, we just need less simplicity across the keyboard.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

@Feris Bueller: I recommend not stacking your whole text onto a single hex and instead using a 1-Paragraph-Per-Hex method, because your post is terrible to read with that formatting.

A good idea, I've reformatted the post.

lol, get the stacker to 1 UPT.

With the discovery that corps and armies are stronger than thought and have a wonderful simplicity about them and can stack supporting units its a dead cause.if we can just get the right programmer on the job. I think most people are of that mindspace. I did see a month ago a good army idea with supply and a little more stacking but in reality its a middle of the road solution... sometimes they are best but the simplicity of mechanics with 1UPT is good, we just need less simplicity across the keyboard.

Are the mechanics of what I'm proposing really all that complex? In terms of stacking, it would essentially be the corps/army system, just with more allowed in a single hex with the units at the same strength as before (and separable if need be). The supply rating for each city would be just one more statistic to track, like its population, and the depot buildings would be just another series of structures to construct, like the many which already exist for the various districts.

 

[Victoria]

Are the mechanics of what I'm proposing really all that complex?

One is not intending to be rude when one asks the question why bother?

An Army is that, an army with all the bits needed in it. Its 3 star rating we now appreciate makes it much much stronger than a single unit.
They have in essence just made them mini stacks of doom in a simple form we can easily relate to. without the pain of saying I have 3 spearmen and two archers and they have 2 spear men and three archers, who wins. In fact having the archers separate makes it more fun.

Supply is a different point completely. a new mechanic. Now I am all for supply in a good old fashioned war-game and I guess they could make this more into that by adding supply. Will it make this game more than what it already is?... I think it wold be something that adds limits on peoples current freedom of movement many may not appreciate.
One also believes there is room for getting oneself in a pickle with it and having ones army decimated through stupidity.

The issue is with the AI not working well as it is let alone adding supply. So my suggestion is to shelve the poser until we have a working model to add to. It has merits sure but issues also.

 

[Victoria]

I have always said that if people want to get back to stacks of doom for reality they are in fantasy land. It was not realistic.

Armies normally (always exceptions like the crazy Swiss) fought and broke on morale more than damage. The whole army would not be damaged, some bit would be heavily damaged (not decimated just damaged enough to say no more) and then the whole army including large swathes that have not fought would just retire/retreat/rout.

The big differences were the morale of the troops and the general and his tactics... and yes sometimes supply does matter.

Now that we know the combat formula better that +5 the great general gives and the +1 movement for logistics makes a noticeable difference and combined with a +/- 25% they have got it fairly right in my view.

Well apart from clubmen and horsemen and troop boats at sea.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

One is not intending to be rude when one asks the question why bother?

An Army is that, an army with all the bits needed in it. Its 3 star rating we now appreciate makes it much much stronger than a single unit.
They have in essence just made them mini stacks of doom in a simple form we can easily relate to. without the pain of saying I have 3 spearmen and two archers and they have 2 spear men and three archers, who wins. In fact having the archers separate makes it more fun.

Supply is a different point completely. a new mechanic. Now I am all for supply in a good old fashioned war-game and I guess they could make this more into that by adding supply. Will it make this game more than what it already is?... I think it wold be something that adds limits on peoples current freedom of movement many may not appreciate.
One also believes there is room for getting oneself in a pickle with it and having ones army decimated through stupidity.

The issue is with the AI not working well as it is let alone adding supply. So my suggestion is to shelve the poser until we have a working model to add to. It has merits sure but issues also.

I don't like armies and corps being unable to be separated after their formation. It's a completely artificial limitation that I can't see any good reason for.

Capping what can be stacked in a single hex at three normal units, (which is what the current army unit is) strikes me as another artificial limitation. If someone has the logistical capacity to concentrate to a high degree and they feel it is to their advantage, IMO they should be able to.

If you'll notice, my post said "there is no theoretical limit to how many units of the same kind can be stacked." Archers and spearmen are not in the same category and would not be able to stack together under my proposal.

I agree that the supply mechanic would be limiting, but I see this as a positive rather than a negative. Without trying to downplay the role played by the bad AI, I think the lack of logistical constraints is one of the big reasons war and domination victories are so easy. An army being decimated through lack of attention to supply has occurred with some regularity in history, such as during Napoleon's and Hitler's invasions of Russia.

I fully agree the AI needs to be improved.

I have always said that if people want to get back to stacks of doom for reality they are in fantasy land. It was not realistic.

Armies normally (always exceptions like the crazy Swiss) fought and broke on morale more than damage. The whole army would not be damaged, some bit would be heavily damaged (not decimated just damaged enough to say no more) and then the whole army including large swathes that have not fought would just retire/retreat/rout.

The big differences were the morale of the troops and the general and his tactics... and yes sometimes supply does matter.

Now that we know the combat formula better that +5 the great general gives and the +1 movement for logistics makes a noticeable difference and combined with a +/- 25% they have got it fairly right in my view.

Well apart from clubmen and horsemen and troop boats at sea.

This is meant as an idea for a mod, not that the developers would officially adopt such mechanics.

 

[Victoria]

This is meant as an idea for a mod

Oh OK a supply mod, why not, good idea if it can be done.

"there is no theoretical limit to how many units of the same kind can be stacked

OK fair enough, but ... an army is a stacking of 4 units of the same strength but done cheaper which is why you cannot break them up. It is encouraging people to stack is it will avoid what I call the wet carpet... its not a carpet of doom, it is a useless thing when faced with armies well played.

Napoleon's and Hitler's invasions of Russia

Napoleons arrogance was a little different to Stalin's survival by the skin of his teeth and scorching the earth very efficiently.

To be fair I did say - ... and yes sometimes supply does matter.

 

[Horizons]

Is it realistic to expect Firaxis to make any major changes to the current gameplay mechanics?

Isn't it just in their interests to release DLCs now, 'balance' the game by increasing the AI's bonuses (cheats) and milk the franchise for all the cash they can?

'Of course' Civ7 will be different

 

[RealAntithesis]

I think the beauty of the 1UPT is the simplicity. Your proposal sounds way too complex to me.
In my optinion, the only problem with 1UPT is that the AI is not very good in it (now). Which can be fixed without changing anything on 1UPT. But I would also go back to CivV movement system, or at least improved the CivVI one.

The key problem with unit stacks were the stacks of doom (which should be able to be countered with a few simple rules, but hey...). There are few problems with 1UPT, namely the AI, carpets of doom, terrain congestion where the whole map is literally covered with a unit on every single tile and traffic jams. I'd say there are way more inherent flaws in a 1UPT system (especially in a game that should really be more strategically focused rather than tactical) than one that allows unit stacking. 1UPT certainly isn't beautiful on the map, and it's not simple - it's more complex than stacks. Really, the only issue with stacking was how to counter stacks of doom, and that's a relatively simple problem to solve rather than trying to work through all the issues that 1UPT created.

But obviously, 1UPT and stacking each have their own fans and detractors, and 1UPT is what we got in Civ6. I would however support modding to change the game to appeal to the crowd that lost out this time around

 

[Ryika]

and it's not simple - it's more complex than stacks.

Not sure why you list this as a "bad" thing, I think it's great. Stacks are just boring, 1UPT ensures that the game maintains a strategical aspect instead of just becoming army-vs-army clashes that are inevitably going to happen in any system that allows stacking without harsh limitations (or with mechanics that allow players to get around these limitations). That's of course only half-true because of the braindead AI, but that's a negative we agree upon.

"Complexity" is only a problem if it doesn't achieve much, if there's a better way to achieve the same thing, or if it's much more complicated than the rest of the game. 1UPT certainly is none of these,

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

Well, from the inputs I've seen, it seems the essence of my idea might be quite complicated, especially after the newly-discovered damage formula showed that corps/armies/fleets/armadas (i.e. limited stacking) are stronger than what we thought. Nonetheless, I still stand for the civilian stacking rules to prevent the missionary abuse.