Stacked vs Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues

[Childeric]

Hey, just read Merp's post - Total War co-addict too?

[ThePlagueRat]

Now I noticed the least popular option is "Single unit, Civ 2 style" Those Civ2 ZOCs worked just fine! Like when you play Freeciv there is a single combat system with ZOCs, and it's nice for defence and MP-strategies.

It's the Civ3 ZOC-less single combat system that is stupid IMO... Where the other civs can just walk across the borders as they please.

I voted stacked, and you can see the reason for that in the movement and supply thread...

[Pedrunn]

YOU GUYS ARE MAKING THIS TOO COMPLICATED

Stacked of course. you cant be discussing this

[rendelnep]

Well as far as I am concerned all civilizations were built by war, constant or slow expansion, War is an important method of building empires. Settling only occured because there were less people on the virgin soil or nobody was there and war result almost always is if the there were two peoples

[MrBaggins]

Actually, thats a fallacy. The common view is that trade was far more important to the foundation and growth of civilization, than war. War did happen, yes, but wasn't the primary means of empire growth.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Actually, thats a fallacy. The common view is that trade was far more important to the foundation and growth of civilization, than war. War did happen, yes, but wasn't the primary means of empire growth.

What in the world are you talking about? Or, more to the point, what world are you talking about? Not Earth, thats for sure.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
Actually, thats a fallacy. The common view is that trade was far more important to the foundation and growth of civilization, than war. War did happen, yes, but wasn't the primary means of empire growth.

Being wrong doesn't make it a fallacy

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Now I noticed the least popular option is "Single unit, Civ 2 style" Those Civ2 ZOCs worked just fine! Like when you play Freeciv there is a single combat system with ZOCs, and it's nice for defence and MP-strategies.

It's the Civ3 ZOC-less single combat system that is stupid IMO...

thanks for the laugh

Civ2 ZoC is the 3rd most ridiculous combat feature in Civ2 behind one kill eliminating the stack and bombers blocking squares from being attacked.

Seriously, how does a warrior unit in 4000bc prevent another warrior unit 100 miles away from walking by? (I think each tile is supposed to represent 100 square miles)

Civ2 Zoc is brainless. Plunk a unit down every other square and you're great. Civ3 you can't (probably) defend every square so you have to choose where to defend and where not to defend.


If the ai comes into your territory, kick them out. I rarely have incursions by the AI these days on Emperor and Demi-God (my usual levels) you just have to be smart about your actions. Block them where you can, or demand they leave. If you're not strong enough they will declare war. But if you're so weak, then why shouldn't you be treated like the Ai's *****?

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Seriously, how does a warrior unit in 4000bc prevent another warrior unit 100 miles away from walking by? (I think each tile is supposed to represent 100 square miles)

...And how does a general send his units into battle one unit at a time - for every stinkin battle, mind you - to resolve combat? And then call it good military tactics?

Just another one of those elements that civ cannot simulate to the degree of realism that we all want. Sometimes realism has to be sacrificed somewhat to get better gameplay, which is why the ZOC rule is in effect.

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
...in Civ3 you can't (probably) defend every square so you have to choose where to defend and where not to defend.

...And that is offset by the fact that defending is incredibly easy to the point being able to do it, (even if brain dead) once you get those infinite rails... At least you faced the prospect of losing an entire stack to a single unit (a la civ2) - not so the case in civ3...

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
If the ai comes into your territory, kick them out. I rarely have incursions by the AI these days on Emperor and Demi-God (my usual levels) you just have to be smart about your actions. Block them where you can, or demand they leave. If you're not strong enough they will declare war. But if you're so weak, then why shouldn't you be treated like the Ai's *****?

I gotta say this much - Did Firaxis adjust the settings for AI trespassing in C3C, because it sure seems like the AI trespasses a lot less than it did in civ3 v1.29 - at least this is my impression. If so, this fixes one of my (big) gripes.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Just another one of those elements that civ cannot simulate to the degree of realism that we all want. Sometimes realism has to be sacrificed somewhat to get better gameplay, which is why the ZOC rule is in effect.

How does it improve gameplay? I can be convinced.

Originally posted by hexagonian
...And that is offset by the fact that defending is incredibly easy to the point being able to do it, (even if brain dead) once you get those infinite rails... At least you faced the prospect of losing an entire stack to a single unit (a la civ2) - not so the case in civ3...

Oh, no doubt about it, defending industrial age onward is easy with rails. Insanely easy. Until then, however, you either have to man every single square (expensive) or defend the more strategic points (risky). The infinite rail swung from easy offense in Civ2, ie engineers + howitzers to easy defense in Civ3, one move workers (though can still build rrs up to border, just can't start from scratch) and slow movement on enemy territory. Either way it sucks and should be changed.

Originally posted by hexagonian
I gotta say this much - Did Firaxis adjust the settings for AI trespassing in C3C, because it sure seems like the AI trespasses a lot less than it did in civ3 v1.29 - at least this is my impression. If so, this fixes one of my (big) gripes.

I'm not sure if its more that they've changed it a bit, or that I've adapted to it (no gaps in my territory, expanding to block AI paths, etc. )

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
What in the world are you talking about? Or, more to the point, what world are you talking about? Not Earth, thats for sure.

Huh? Trade has always existed, and has always been vital in civilization.

Without trade, cities are limited to the resources they can gather within the locality. Trade also facilitated the spread of ideas and technologies.

Not one significant culture didn't trade, even say, the mongols... who had elaborate trading networks. The Mongol's modus operandi was to use war to wipe out resistance, then establish advantageous trade terms, before retreating.

The greatest cities were (and are) trade centers. Trade gathered wealth, which became power and influence, which in turn supported larger populations, organized armies, and more far flung empires.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
How does it improve gameplay? I can be convinced.

Here's my take on it - With no ZOC rule in effect (and this is in combo with the use of infinite-sized stacks), you have little need of establishing a front outside your cities (other than protecting a strategic good or a choke point), because the opponent can simply walk past your units to target cities (and let's face it...the priority in civ regarding the use of a military is to take cities.) Your cities are the fronts, not the land between you and the attacker.

Granted, your cities will generally be your most favorable areas of defense anyhow, because of their natural defender bonuses (due to size and buildings), but with a ZOC rule in effect, it opens up several more options for a player to consider on a strategic level. (For instance, it may be that access to a city can be better defended outside a city due to terrain bonuses.) It's this option of more strategic considerations that I favor...

With a ZOC, units can be used as shields out in the field to protect cities - to buy time for proper defenses to move into position. This is also historical, as cities were often considered to be the last line of defense.

It may not have been implimented as well as it could have been in civ2 (or for any other civ-style game for that matter) but the concept of ZOC makes for a better game, IMO.

[MrBaggins]

ZOC's were largely eliminated as a design solution in Civ3, not because they are unrealistic, but because they increase the complexity of AI coding.

I, for one, like ZOC's. I'd consider their most valuable contribution to be reducing the number of entities necessary on the map. This reduces micromanagement, AI load and turn times in general.

Hexagonian, has brought up several other pertinent points, which I also agree with.

[asleepathewheel]

Thankyou for actually putting some time into your argument (a rarity around here I've seen), I appreciate it. My biggest problem with the Civ2 version was that it seemed bizarre that a unit could comandeer so much area. Thinking about your points, I think I would like it more as a compromise. Units by themselves would function like Civ3 ZoC (ie, not do muchother than pot shots) but forts would prevent movement on adjacent tiles. Seems more realistic to me anyway, and would cause the creation of forts, something that doesn't happen much.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I think that a compromise between the Civ3 Armies and the CtP stack is the best way to go! The reason I say this is that I LOVE in civ3 how bombardment units can be used to whittle down defenders, but not to actually take a defended city (though I WISH the pre-C3C element of bombardment randomness was reintroduced!!), but I would also love to have the CtP system of flanking, and the like! So how about if we have stack limits, like Civ3 Armies, and make it impossible to put certain units into a stack, but utilize the CtP form of 'stack combat'!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.