Stacked vs Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues

[wrylachlan]

I think I got you. You're conceptualizing the "Front Line" moving forward to the ranged units, whereas I'm conceptualizing the units positions being on a sort of absolute map. So in my mind:

R=friendly ranged
M=Friendly Melee
E=enemy melee
S=enemy ranged

RRR
MMM
EEE
SSS

then if you kill a couple of the enemy melee, your melee advance toward the enemy ranged units:

RRR
  M
MME
SSS

This makes more conceptual sense to me than the ranged units moving towards the melee units:

RRR
MMM
SSE
  S

Do you see the difference I'm talking about? And the free pot shot comes on the round that the melee advance. So if the outcome of a round is that an enemy melee is killed, the units don't automatically advance. Its the next round that they advance, but while they're advancing, the ranged takes a shot.

I think that 2 melee lines allows the most flexibility in terms of tactics. If you have powerful ranged units it might be the best tactics to use a set-up like:
r=Ranged
a=strong melee attacker
d=strong melee defender

rrrr
aaa
ddd

but if your ranged units aren't that great but you have strong attackers:

rrrr
ddd
aaa

and you can deal with flanking defense like so:

rrrr
daaaaad
daaaaad

[Grandpa Troll]

ok good explanation

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I think I got you. You're conceptualizing the "Front Line" moving forward to the ranged units, whereas I'm conceptualizing the units positions being on a sort of absolute map. So in my mind...

We really are on the same page - the basic concept is that once you eliminate the melees, your enemy's ranged units become vunerable. I look at it from the standpoint that as your melees push thru the front lines of the enemy they come into contact with the ranged units because the frontlines have crumbled.

In essence, you just want an additional round from when the melee is destroyed in order for your ranged units to get that last free shot. As I said, its a small detail that I do not have a real problem with.

Visually, in CTP2, the units move forward on the screen - but it is only a way to simulate which units are on an active front, which ones are still firing from a ranged postion and which units are twiddling their thumbs.

Maybe there is a better way to visually present it in a game, but the concept is sound. I do like the way it is visually in CTP2 because I can tell at a glance exactly which units are on the front - which is the key position anyhow...

[Addled Platypus]

Stacked, I say Stacked

combined arms figthing, just like in the real world

Stacked I say

Thank you for your time

[Exile]

In Civ, time passes, technology advances, and conditions change. This should, ideally, have an effect on combat stacking.

In pre-industrial warfare, there was often a single, main army fielded by a given state. Command was imperative. The survival of the main army was closely linked to the survival of that pre-industrial state. History shows that state after state, either declined or simply vanished after its army was defeated or destroyed. With this in mind, pre-industrial units shouldn't be able to move unless they are part of a STACK, and have the commander unit there, which would enable them to move. Of course, there would be a very few exceptions; sipahis, ghazis, etc.--raiding/scouting units. If you examine historical warfare, you'll see that this is the pattern, and is easily replicable in a game. From Sargon of Akkad to Tamerlane, a single state fielded a single army. I'm annoyed at civ games that are taking place in a pre-industrial era where there are dozens of military units wandering aimlessly over the map. Unless those units are the raider type of units I mentioned above, this is ahistorical.

It is not until the Napoleonic era that armies of over 500,000 men appear, thus necessitating multiple commanders. The creation of multiple commanders should be a function of a higher tech, as could individual unit movement. Radio and telegraph communications come to mind.

Stacking should be in the game, and accompanied by commander units, possibly with variable traits/numbers. I do agree with those who mentioned the Imperialism series of games and its treatment. Not ideal, but certainly better than the abstraction-of-tactics that seems to be the worst feature of civ games, which are undeniably strategic in scope. Of course this should be an option, just as in the Imp games, so that if one wants to fight battles, it can be done, and if not, such things can be bypassed in favor of the strategic abstraction of battle.

That said, two things follow;

1.) Not sure if such a profound alteration CAN be made in civ. . . and still "be" civ. Corporate culture being what it is.

2.) I have no faith in the company that presently produces the game to do anything intelligent, only expedient. (oh, for the days of microprose!)

[realpolitic]

Good it's stacked combat by a landslide- ctp battles are much more fun!

[Max Sinister]

Hm, of course there's the problem that all units in Civ have the same size. Because else, we could have a special tech that allows having more than one army/unit at once...

[GePap]

Personally, I would prefer "unit combat" as long as the "units" were armies capable of a variety of missions.

Just stacked combat is not enough. Imagine a Civ game in which you could besiege a City in a manner other than having to place 20 units on 20 tiles? And imagine a time in whcih said option of a siege would actually make military sense!

Unit combat, even stacked unit combat makes warfare in civ seem small and pedestrian- I whish we had a system in whcih I felt I was in command of an ARMY, not a lose collection fo units, even if those units fought as a stack.

[Stuie]

I'd like to see stacked with combat results like most old wargames had (losses were usually a ratio, only in extreme circumstances was one side or the other eliminated). Appeals to the wargamer in me.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Stuie
I'd like to see stacked with combat results like most old wargames had (losses were usually a ratio, only in extreme circumstances was one side or the other eliminated). Appeals to the wargamer in me.

Anyone who has read my posts on this subject knows I'm going to agree with this statement. Good idea, Stuie.

BTW, CtP2's stacked combat works roughly like this...

[ThePlagueRat]

Well, in CtP2 you have the retreat-button if that's what you mean. Kinda nice compared to Civ3 where it always ends with total annihilation or tile occupation of either side, except for the units with the withdrawal flag. In CtP its only the attacker who can break off with that button and it's still the total annihilation thing.

In most older wargames that use a combat resolve table, there is the possibility of just retreating from the combat resolve, taking some hit and retreat, taking a hit and finally, a slight chance of being destroyed.
It's a whole different system than both Civ3 and CtP2.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
Well, in CtP2 you have the retreat-button if that's what you mean. Kinda nice compared to Civ3 where it always ends with total annihilation or tile occupation of either side, except for the units with the withdrawal flag. In CtP its only the attacker who can break off with that button and it's still the total annihilation thing.

In most older wargames that use a combat resolve table, there is the possibility of just retreating from the combat resolve, taking some hit and retreat, taking a hit and finally, a slight chance of being destroyed.
It's a whole different system than both Civ3 and CtP2.

++1 million++

Allowing intermediate outcomes would be the single best addition to Civ combat that I can possibly think of. Add in a fortify that not only adds defense, but adds to the chance that the battle will take multiple rounds, and then issues of reinforcement come into play, as well as choosing where to make your stand based on terrain, etc. Also retreats become much more interesting.

[Enigma_Nova]

[Russian_King]

civ2 unit after unit = BULL**** i hate it with a passion!
civ4 is the same. and what they did with the whole this unit is better against that unit is also bull because u dont actually chose which unit attacks and which defends!! that only happens in RTS!
stacked combat was MUCH better, although not being perfect.

this is what i think a combat system should look like:

you have a choice of units from:
infantry
flank units
artillery
special
anything else?

each of those will have a designated unit so u NEVER have to chose from more than 4 or 5 units!!! If you lose a resource, then those units that require it will go back to the units that didnt. u discover a new tech, ur unit automatically switch!

now. the units you chose, you should combine in a stack.. such as the CTP stack. however it should be unlimited. or have a very high limit. when a battle begins it should zoom into the attacked tile and the 2 armies will be standing on either side, and the combat itself should represent chess. or something like what they had in Pirates. In fact you should be able to choose to control the fight from your side (at least in single player) and it should last about half a minute to a minute depending on the size of forces. and because you are using a whorde of units at one time, that minute u spend on directing them will be much more fun and quick toward the overall game time than the click unit, click enepy unit. wait. click unit, click enemy unit, wait.....

come on firaxis! come on sid! if you dont make the best out of the next civ i will! as shareware!

[Shogun Gunner]

again, months later - and now playing cIV - no argument from me.