Civ 4 - The List of BAD Ideas.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I like a large front

I do not like Civ3's infinite stacks

I will peruse this more, and provide my owne examples later

one other thing I would request

because it is not apparent on casual perusal, could you post the contents of the armies?

JOn miller

In light of hexogonian's explanation of the only current *need* of long fronts (which I knew, but never bothered to even THINK about, thans, hex!), I am going to have to say that your insistence on large fronts "because you like them" is tantamount to me demanding purple units, because I like purple.

You aren't backing up long fronts with arguments of how they make gameplay better on the whole. I'm not saying that your opinion doesn't matter - I wouldn't say that at all - but I feel like the conversation has stagnated completely because you are instantly dismissing concepts that mean having a hundred units abreast might not be an ideal way to handle a war.

And Jon, I apologize, but I still am not sure what you want in combat. I know you don't like Civ 3, you don't like CtP, and you don't like my idea. I think my failure to understand what you do want is why we're simply arguing in cirlces, which isn't helping either of us make the points we need to make to win others (or more importantly, Firaxis) over to our respective sides.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Bottom line - with no limit on number of units in your army, defense is simply a matter of size as the main determinating factor (strength of unit type is secondary - after all you will need some high-level defenders), but more importantly, no FIELD tactics are necessary. Keep your (infinite-sized) armies safely in cities.

You could argue that you need to protect workers/tile improvements, but that is the only reason to have units outside of a city, but I'm assuming that as soon as a war heats up, workers are brought back to the cities if they are vunerable - anyhow, that is the same issue you have to deal with in CTP2 (at least the tile improvements).

Oh I forgot...you have to maintain a large front of units to stop the 'VERY irritating to gameplay' AI trespassing element. In fact, that is the only reason to maintain a frontline, because all the AI needs to do is punch a hole into a front and slip on through because of the weakened ZOC setup in place.

Are you trying to describe Civ3?

[Jaguar]

We need lots of animated cartoony-looking leaderheads in a style that few people can replicate, thus making it hard for us to add civs with consistent-looking art! To circumvent that problem, we should hardcode the maximum civ number really low so people can't add new civs!

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Are you trying to describe Civ3?

...based on my playing it for a couple of months, I would say yes.

I'm not going to deny that it is a tough game, and there are elements within cvi3 that are actually done rather well (diplomacy, AI/AI alliances, and strategic goods), but combat and tactical implimentation is not one of them.

[notyoueither]

Ahh, well. Play MP and sit in your cities. You'll have a nice, short game that way.

Actually, sit in your cites vs the AI. That wouldn't last very long either.

[Roman]

I like infinite stacks like in Civ III! I really hated how in CTP you could not move a unit through a square with 12 units... I also think we should be able to have infinite stack movement - a huge time saver in games with large numbers of units.

Now, as to army combat versus single unit combat I am undecided and would not really mind either way, but if army combat is implemented and there is a limit on the number of units in an army, please allow other units to pass through the square or stay in the square even if the army is at maximum strength!

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Ahh, well. Play MP and sit in your cities. You'll have a nice, short game that way.

Actually, sit in your cites vs the AI. That wouldn't last very long either.

Hey I know MP is a different animal, (and that is the case for all games)

...and by the time I have large stacks in SP, they are usually marching on enemy cities.

The situation I described is if you are in a defensive fight already. It stands to reason that you will run to your cities in almost all situations because...
1. they are the main target, since they are the most valuable target. Plus, as I have pointed out already numerous times, since they have no limit on what they can hold, and they offer quicker healing for units, they can stand up against a long seige.
2. unless you have a choke point that offers a terrain bonus/fortress that is over and above what a city offers, and it can cut off access to that city, then the city is still the best choice. ZOC is is greatly nullified in civ3 - simply walk around the obstacle to get to your main target.

My example shows that you have to do 2 things instead. Play the field game AS WELL AS make sure you have sufficient city defense in place. A field game that requires pre-planning and some field manuvering.

Again, I'm not arguing the difficulty of the game. Soren did a very great job with the AI. I'm more interested in the mechanics, and the reasoning behind it.

Infinite stack movement (not tied into unit type) is a step in the right direction, as it streamlines one of the most tedious aspects of the current system.

Another point...
Stacked combat is really a series of one-on-one mini combats. The strongest attacker lines up against the strongest defender, right down the line. In civ3, when attacking a tile and you throw a unit into the battle, the strongest defender is the one who takes the hits.

So in both games, you do not have control in what unit you are attacking. Both games DO require balanced forces, although I feel that the stakes are higher to have balance in a stacked-combat situation, because you do not have the fallback of sheer numbers.

As Notyoueither earlier pointed out, you do have more control over the battle because you can cut and run at any point. But as I debate about this topic, I realize that one of the nice features of stacked combat is the factor that once you commit to battle, you have to pay the consequenses. CTP2 has a retreat button, which allows you to pull out if you realize the odds are against you - CTP1 did not have this, so I got used to the idea that it was all-or-nothing. So I rarely use retreat in CTP2. (For one thing, the AI doesn't use it, so I see it as an improperly implimented feature that ends up being an exploit.)

And historically, (especially up to the Modern Age), once the battle started, there actually was not a great deal of control - not anywhere near what is capable today. Look at some of the recorded enemy losses when Alexander the Great took the field. They were staggering. It simply wasn't '...throw another unit into the field - oops, that's not working - retreat and save everyone for another day'

[notyoueither]

In any game when you run into your cities, you face the same problem in that you have already lost the war. That is because you forfeit the initiative to the attacker, and he will be able concentrate superior forces against first one city and then the next, and so on.

Be that as it may, thinking about this... I think an army combat model could be better for my tastes if they do it right. Having armies block movement when they are full is a bit absurd. Perhaps armies could stack as well, but if the first is defeated the others face a combat penalty. If bombardment could affect random and perhaps multiple targets within the stack, that would be good too.

At any rate, having played both extensively, both systems have their strong points. I'll be happy with either if it is well done.

btw,

Infinite stack movement (not tied into unit type) is a step in the right direction, as it streamlines one of the most tedious aspects of the current system.

I must have missed something. What is meant by Infinite Stack Movement?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian

Wholeheartedly agree!!!

Which also makes scouting and perimeter defenses all the more important too. End result - more pre-planning and more tactics.

As for border cities the same principle is in place - If you plan on taking a border city, you have to prepare to also set up perimeter defenses.

What if it is a border city, for example? They would quite probably be able to move in massed forces quickly enough to lay seige.

[Kuciwalker]

hexagonian - in your example, there is a HUGE amount of space between the borders and the city. In C3 and C2 the distance is not nearly so large. Thus, "intercepting stacks" aren't really feasible, as an enemy can get the the city in one, two turns max.

[Fosse]

So if you have border cities that you feel are in jeapordy, plan ahead. You might not get ten turns of warning, but having a few extra troops along such borders that could respond in a sneak attack isn't a bad idea.

Border cities should be at more risk than those that are further within your territory. There is never any reason that you should be immune from attack, or protected from losing cities.

[Maquiladora]

In CtP2 its better to get to the attackers first anyway, because when they attack your city, even if they lose its possible they will kill a pop point in the attack.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Fosse
So if you have border cities that you feel are in jeapordy, plan ahead. You might not get ten turns of warning, but having a few extra troops along such borders that could respond in a sneak attack isn't a bad idea.

Border cities should be at more risk than those that are further within your territory. There is never any reason that you should be immune from attack, or protected from losing cities.

However, it is game-breaking if it is possible to cut off a city from all reinforcements in one or two turns, if there is a cap on the number of defenders.

[Fosse]

If your game is broken because you lose a few border cities, the it isn't the game that's broken.

Is risking a border city or two being swept up in a blitz that much more game breaking than the player being able to build an impenitrable fortress at every single city?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
In any game when you run into your cities, you face the same problem in that you have already lost the war. That is because you forfeit the initiative to the attacker, and he will be able concentrate superior forces against first one city and then the next, and so on.

Historically cities were areas of fallback. You tried to keep the enemy away from you by meeting them out in the field - failing that you fell back to the city. If you won on the field, you were thankful to spare the civilian base.

On your statement I agree, but ultimately, it is a lot easier when you are in this situation to be able to dump all of your units in a key city or two.

In civ3, it is the cities that are the places to set up primary defenses (your fronts) and not out in the field. There are times to set up in the field (choke points and such) but most of the time, you are better off protecting your cities by simply keeping units in them.

Originally posted by notyoueither
I must have missed something. What is meant by Infinite Stack Movement?

The ability to assemble your infinite stack of units into any configuration of sub-stacks for movement purposes.
...Say 20 Tanks, 12 MIs, 6 Infantry in Group A - 10 Tanks, 4 MIs, 18 Infantry in Group B - and you can keep them grouped together until you change their makeup.

At least in my last version of civ3 (1.29) that was not possible. I don't know if it is in 'Conquests'. If so, I would probably consider getting it sometime.