Stacked vs Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues

[rendelnep]

I choosed stacked- the armies are great but too difficult to produce just make 'em easier to produce like using a tech as a requisite

[TheBirdMan]

Soft limits.....

How about having a maximum "unitpoint" for a tile and giving each unit "point" dependent on how much "space" a unit occupies?

Giving specialunits value of 1, phalanx value of x, legions a value of xx.... (values have to be tweaked of course).

Same for ships.

Then the number of units in a stack depends on which units you put into it (and maybe which era you are in=different values for each era).

[Sore Loser]

I don't think hard limits are any good for gameplay. Instead of having to figure out what the optimal decision is, you just fill up until you're not allowed more. With properly balanced soft limits, you have more options to choose from.

[Paddy]

Excellent stuff stacking....

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by TheBirdMan
Soft limits.....
How about having a maximum "unitpoint" for a tile and giving each unit "point" dependent on how much "space" a unit occupies?
Giving specialunits value of 1, phalanx value of x, legions a value of xx.... (values have to be tweaked of course).
Same for ships.
Then the number of units in a stack depends on which units you put into it (and maybe which era you are in=different values for each era).

Some thoughts to consider...
The more I think about it, the more I am in favor of a hard cap, because it strikes a nice balance between streamlined gameplay and strategy.

Having a soft cap would automatically add several levels of (almost unnecessary) micromanagement. Imagine having to rearrange your stacks every time you moved into different types of tiles. Or you would have to look at all of your armies on a turn-by-turn basis to make sure they are at the optimal size - because a soft cap, as it is being presented, would have almost infinite variation based on the situation. (Do I go into battle with 15 units at a (-1%) effectiveness or with 14 units with a normal effectiveness - and next turn, that situation may change.)

The end result is that the game would sink back into a different type of tedious mess - that being you better have your calculator handy when you play.

As it has been pointed out, civ is not merely a war game. There are other games that are much better in portraying tactics. Most players want the game to cover the ideas of 'civilization', 'war', 'culture' on a somewhat superficial level, but to cover those ideas in a way that is intuitive in gameplay.

[Sore Loser]

Good points hexagonian. I still think soft caps would heighten the tactical aspects of the game, but as you correctly point out, that would come at the expense of other aspects.

[LDiCesare]

I'm not sure about hard limits, or soft ones either.
The gameplay problem limits address is that of killer stacks where you mass all your armies in the same stack. This should cause more problems to the player who does so rather than give a limit. If you model supply lines and the supply lines are cut, your whole killer stack will die or suffer a lot, thus I'd rather have a good supply line management and no limit in stack size.

[TheBirdMan]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
If you model supply lines and the supply lines are cut, your whole killer stack will die or suffer a lot, thus I'd rather have a good supply line management and no limit in stack size.

Guess that would work too. A new Stalingrad could be waiting...

And it would be harder to send in some stacks of tanks (having endless resources) rolling whole the backland up. They should surely be allowed to make lots of damage, but not "forever".

[Fosse]

Modeling supply lines would radically alter the Civ universe. I know that many are in favor of it, but it's one issue I'm hesitant to support, given the amount of micromanging that would come with it.

I know that Clash is modeling them with Merchants, but Civ doesn't have anything like that (of course, but then again Firaxis should simply hire Laurent and his friends and we'd have the best game we could ), and probably won't.

People don't like "hard" unit limits because then you have pathing problems... I think "soft" limits are a good idea, because they seem realistic, don't cause pathing problems, and let the player make more decisions.

What about a compromise: Hard limits to army stack sizes, but unlimited armies can exist on a single square. If a square with more than two armies enters combat, then only one fights the fight.

TheBirdMan: I really like the "unit size" thing... what if instead of using it to decide how many units can fit on a tile, it's used to determine how many units can be in an army? Each army can have a maximum of 100 unit points, for example, and a tank unit uses 8, infantry 5, etc, like you suggested!

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Fosse
What about a compromise: Hard limits to army stack sizes, but unlimited armies can exist on a single square. If a square with more than two armies enters combat, then only one fights the fight.

TheBirdMan: I really like the "unit size" thing... what if instead of using it to decide how many units can fit on a tile, it's used to determine how many units can be in an army? Each army can have a maximum of 100 unit points, for example, and a tank unit uses 8, infantry 5, etc, like you suggested!

What happens if you have 5 armies (or to take it to its logical end - unlimited armies, since you have established that there is no limit) defending in a city? If they are not destroyed after the first attack, then you are back to the civ3 premise that sheer numbers make up your best strategy option. If they are destroyed, then its back to the civ2 premise where the strongest unit (or in this case, army) rules the map.

A possible compromise solution...
What you may consider is if that first army is defeated, all other armies on that tile automatically have to retreat into an surrounding unoccupied tile. If no tile is free, your remaining armies will have to engage enemy units in a surrounding tile (maybe with a huge (50%) or more morale penalty)

If there is no access to any tile (1 tile island), the units are lost.

Or maybe, those units do not have to retreat, but they fight with a huge penalty (either defending or attacking) for several turns.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by hexagonian

Some thoughts to consider...
The more I think about it, the more I am in favor of a hard cap, because it strikes a nice balance between streamlined gameplay and strategy.

Having a soft cap would automatically add several levels of (almost unnecessary) micromanagement. Imagine having to rearrange your stacks every time you moved into different types of tiles. Or you would have to look at all of your armies on a turn-by-turn basis to make sure they are at the optimal size - because a soft cap, as it is being presented, would have almost infinite variation based on the situation. (Do I go into battle with 15 units at a (-1%) effectiveness or with 14 units with a normal effectiveness - and next turn, that situation may change.)

The end result is that the game would sink back into a different type of tedious mess - that being you better have your calculator handy when you play.

Two points:
1) Soft caps need not be complex or tile based:
For every unit above or below 12 in a stack, each unit looses 2% combat effectiveness.

This is a simple rule that doesn't require a lot of thought. You know your sweet spot at 12, but if you have 14 or 15 units, its better to keep them together than split your forces. It also allows you to move a lot of units as a stack if you are moving across a map, which would actually lead to less micromanagement.

In fact Hard Caps probably lead to just as much micro. I attack with 1 full stack and loose 3 units. I have another stack with 9 units nearby. Is it better for me to combine them into a 12 and a 6 and attack with the 12 risking a counterattack against the 6, or do I keep the 2 9's. I fail to see how a hard cap is enherently less micro.

2)The needing to keep a calculator handy factor is not a problem with the game mechanics, so much as it is a problem with the way the interface presents those mechanics to you. If there was a simple graphical representation of how big your stack was, you'd know your penalty without having to bust out the calculator. And how about a graphical representation of your chances on a given attack? Every time you move next to an enemy unit, an arrow appears between your unit and the enemy. The arrow is Green for "You've got a great chance" to Red for "If you attack you're gonna get your ass whooped", and maybe Blue or something for "our intelligence isn't good enough to determine the odds".

[Kuciwalker]

How about setting the soft cap lower, though - like around four.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker
How about setting the soft cap lower, though - like around four.

I like ten to 15 or so based on the games of civ3 I've played. I think that would make enough stacks to allow you to have a more tactical game, but not so many that you're in micro hell dealing with a hundred stacks.

Assuming your choice of four is not arbitrary, why four?

[Myrddin]

I like stacked combat, but it works best with a limit on units in a tile. I now realise that this limit will give major problems for AI pathing; can it cope with 'I want to get there, but to get a sensible path, need to move this stack somewhere elese first'?

Given a choice between a good AI and stacked combat, I would have the to choose a good AI

[LDiCesare]

I like stacked combat, but it works best with a limit on units in a tile. I now realise that this limit will give major problems for AI pathing; can it cope with 'I want to get there, but to get a sensible path, need to move this stack somewhere elese first'?

A solution to that is to make sure all units can move 2 or more tiles a turn and let them go over friendly units in their turn as long as they end up in a clear tile.