Stacked vs Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues

[rah]

I see stacking as a way to speed up the game. If micro management is required, then it defeats the purpose. MP games are slow enough as it is. The more time it takes, the worse MP games will get.

[TheBirdMan]

Originally posted by Martin Gühmann


............. Of course this problem could also be solved by not setting a limit units per tile, but again we have the unrealistic Civ2 system with the possibility to place infinite units on one tile.

-Martin

Stacked combat as in CTP, no doubt about that in my mind.

I still halfway remember a game of Civ2 I played, where I sunk a whole AI-fleet (can't remember the exact number of ships, but it was a rather large fleet) with one lucky attack from a battleship. That could never have happend in a CTP-game.

Edit and added:


See this too:

Units - bombarding from the distance. It is not really a part of stacked combat, but I would like if it was possible, to weaken an ememy with relative cheap-only-use-once weapons. At least from modern times and forward.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=2544298&t=4075#post2544298

[Carolus Rex]

Whatever the choice, please make it possible to at least move units in stacks if non-stack combat is chosen.

A lot of the end game tedium in Civ 2 would have been eliminated if you could have moved x howies at a time...

Carolus

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think everyone know's my vote
having the tactical element is an integral part of civ
if it isn't there, than it isn't civ, it is some other game (like europa universalis), now that game might be good, but it isn't civ
Jon Miller

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I hate the idea of a tactical minigame
I don't want to even see battles (as is seen in the pick)
I definitely don't want any control of them Bolded for empasis
Jon Miller

So let me get this straight...
On the one hand, you want tactical control.
On the other hand, you do not want tactical control.

I'm still unclear about your ideas about what constititues 'tactics'?

Civ tactics are VERY simplistic - it takes little thought, if you are on the attack, to use your bombard units first to soften up the target, and then use your most powerful offensive units - going down the line until the enemy is eliminated.

In fact, all you need to make sure is that you have enough units. Brute numbers rule the day. I remember a poster here who limited his own tech in a civ3 game to the lowest class unit (spearman) and he won the game because of sheer numbers.

Personally, I find it exciting to go down my army list of 60-70 civ3 military units, selecting each one to send into battle, and then watching it either die or win.

That's not tactics, that's tedium. I guess I will send in another offensive unit - maybe he will win (sigh...)

And once railroads come into play in civ3, throw all consideration of tactics out the window because it becomes a matter of making huge stacks, taking cities, and then flood-moving units into those newly-captured cities on the same turn because of your newly captured rail system that the rival civ most likely has in place.

I'm not even going to go into the lack of use of variable HP based on unit type in civ3 that makes tactical decisions even less important. The creators of CTP2 were smart enough not to repeat their mistake regarding HP that they made in CTP1.

At least in CTP, the fact that your forces have a cap size (12 units) and that combat elements like range and flanking make a huge difference in whether you win or lose a battle, make decisions more than a 'how many units can I throw against the enemy'.

All computer games have that element to some extent, but it seems to be the overriding tactic consideration in civ3.

And make no mistake - range and flanking is important in CTP2.

Not to mention that because of the size cap, army composition is suddenly very important - more so than in civ3 because placing a limit on what you can do as a player forces you to put some thought into what needs to be done.

Here's an analogy - in one situation, you have an unlimited amount of funds to build the perfect army - in another situation, you only have $10,000.

Which situation forces you to think more carefully about what you are going to do???

I do agree that there are problems with the CTP2 system. (The main one is that the AI does not handle it as well as it could - placing a cap on army size works in the player's favor - but in Chariots of War which has a similar setup as CTP2, the developers did make some steps in improving the AI use of the cap, so there is hope.) It's not perfect - but at least there is thought given to elements such as flanking, and the concept of range has a much deeper application. (After all, you can bombard in CTP2, as well as have units that have good attack strength in a ranged situation during a battle - but once those units get on the front line, they are toast).

I would be in favor of adding a tactical minigame, whereby you can set basic commands and then run the battle. (and once commited to battle, the die is cast and you can't change anything) Of course this would not work in the current civ3 setup.

[yaroslav]

I'm not sure if I prefer stacked system or not (sounds good, but I'm so used to Civ2 system...), but I'm pretty pretty sure that I don't want to micromanage battles... as Jhon Miller, I don't want to see them - ever! I want to be informed of the results. Period.

At the end of the day, I really apreciate quickness when playing civ.

That is one of the reasons I love civ2.

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by yaroslav
I'm not sure if I prefer stacked system or not (sounds good, but I'm so used to Civ2 system...), but I'm pretty pretty sure that I don't want to micromanage battles... as Jhon Miller, I don't want to see them - ever! I want to be informed of the results. Period.

Agreed! There're lots of games out there where micromanaging units in combat is the thing. They're called RTS games and Civ isn't one of them! Nor should it become one...

Originally posted by yaroslav
At the end of the day, I really apreciate quickness when playing civ.

That is one of the reasons I love civ2.

Quickness?!

Carolus

[Shogun Gunner]

Well, there are obviously two schools of thought on this. I submit, why couldn't both systems be available to players?

This could be a setting in the preferences at startup. Simple battle resolution or complex battle resolution. The simple setting would be what we have now. The complex would be some variation of what exists in the CTP series. You choose one.

Better yet, both options are available during gameplay. You could select which battles you want to get involved in. Maybe you feel confident enough the default computer choices to handle some battles and you never see the subroutine for complex battle resolution - just the results. But for critical battles, you will take the reins from the computer and make your own choices.

Unless the objection is "scarce R&D resources being diverted from things I want" to this "complex tactical battle resolution" feature -- I don't know what all the fuss is about.

45,000 uses at 'Poly and 45,000 different ideas about the priority of new features. Let's face it, people want different things.

I wouldn't mind better leaderheads and improved graphics, Heck, I even miss the wonder movies -- but I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on that one...

[SpencerH]

I would like to see a tactical pop-up map that allows me to marshall my forces against my enemies on an appropriate screen (a la the 'war' series of games) and fight tactical battles if I wish to. In fact, it could also include the possibility of leaders that influence the troops morale etc (a la warcraft III).

Oh

I also want ZOC and lines of supply!

[TheBirdMan]

Originally posted by SpencerH
.................................

Oh

I also want ............ and lines of supply!

Ohh, that brings me to extend my suggestion for "Units - bombarding from the distance" http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...70#post2544298 from modern ages to ancient.

Cause what is an archer without arrows? Probably dead - or at best a scout?! And musketeers and canons without powder/bullets?

Maybe the limited number of arrows/bullits/missiles could be used to show the fatigue of the troops

[Maquiladora]

This could be a setting in the preferences at startup. Simple battle resolution or complex battle resolution. The simple setting would be what we have now. The complex would be some variation of what exists in the CTP series. You choose one.

In CtP2 you can change in the settings whether to watch the battle or you can just see your units live or die on the normal terrain, not in "zoomed combat". If you lose all troops then the fog of war descends quickly and you dont see how damaged or how many your enemy has left, so its sensible to watch the battle, unless its an archer attacking a settler, which can be turned off too "simple battles".

[yaroslav]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Well, there are obviously two schools of thought on this. I submit, why couldn't both systems be available to players?

This could be a setting in the preferences at startup. Simple battle resolution or complex battle resolution. The simple setting would be what we have now. The complex would be some variation of what exists in the CTP series. You choose one.

Better yet, both options are available during gameplay. You could select which battles you want to get involved in. Maybe you feel confident enough the default computer choices to handle some battles and you never see the subroutine for complex battle resolution - just the results. But for critical battles, you will take the reins from the computer and make your own choices.

Unless the objection is "scarce R&D resources being diverted from things I want" to this "complex tactical battle resolution" feature -- I don't know what all the fuss is about.

45,000 uses at 'Poly and 45,000 different ideas about the priority of new features. Let's face it, people want different things.

I wouldn't mind better leaderheads and improved graphics, Heck, I even miss the wonder movies -- but I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on that one...

I like COMPLEX battles - complex in the sense that they include many factors, like terrain, veteran grade, parameters like FirePower (in Civ3 I miss FirePower a lot), etc. But I don't want to be bothered with details - I want them to be transparent. A very different game that takes in account many factors transparentely to users is Panzer General (IMHO).

And moreover, the more micromanage the system needs, the bigger the advantage of human over AI.

[Jon Miller]

in civ I am interested in big scope

that is why Id on't want any tactical minigames

I like having tactics in the big scope

that is why I am against stacks (note I include stacks in the civ3 and cvi2 sense as well)

I don't even like hte time it takes for the fighting animations in civ3

after a certain point, they are just delaying what I want, which is the results

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Well, there are obviously two schools of thought on this. I submit, why couldn't both systems be available to players?

Because you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I'd rather see one system (coughstackedcough) done well, than two done in such a matter as to accomadate each other. Theoretically, it's possible But realistically we're talking about a software company with limitd funds. That would mean having two sub optimal AIs, two rule sets that are both crippled to be compatible with each other, and an overwhelming sense that too much time was spent on the non-feature of a choice between the two.

If Firaxis had all the money in the world, then I'd agree with you 100% Shogun... but they don't, so I don't

[Jon Miller]

stacked combat always takes more ai work

Jon Miller

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
after a certain point, they are just delaying what I want, which is the results
Jon Miller

So sending 70 units into battle one-by-one is not a delay of results - especially if that process takes 10-15 minutes of playtime to do so?????