Stacked vs Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues

[Jon Miller]

I agree

and I think that new thing should be something to make it better to split up your units

civ3 only favors stacks (As does CTP)

Jon Miller

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
All those who think stacked is the solution should take a look at the Panzer General Series (and especially the first one) which had excellent tactics and yet no stacks.

But that was a tactical game. Civ is a grand strategy game.

In a war game, moving one unit at a time to get exactly the best result from it every single turn is the fun, because that's what the game mechanics are designed to do.

Civ as a war game is just a mediocre war game. Moving units that can number in the hundreds to get exactly the best result from them every single turn is tedius... because in Civ turns it just means marching 100 units one by one to the other guy's city, then arrowing them toward the city one by one until they die or take the city.

Wee.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I agree

and I think that new thing should be something to make it better to split up your units

civ3 only favors stacks (As does CTP)

Jon Miller

No, Civ 3 only favors numbers. The game doesn't care if they are spread out over hundreds of tiles, or hundreds strong in a single tile (with the single exception of zero range bombard units in stacks).

CtP doesn't favor stacks for the sake of stacks. Instead, it requires thoughtful army design (to take the definitions from the other thread ). The results are more strategic options regarding assault and defense forces, a more realistic and satisfying combat system, and (all together now) LESS TEDIUM!!!

Now Civ 4 can feature even better army composition, by learning from the mistakes of the previous games' tries.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian

Unfortunately, the group movement command in civ3 was an all-or-nothing affair. You could only group the same type of unit, and you could not subdivide those units without a great deal of work.

In CTP2, grouping was not limited by type, and it was not an all-or-nothing command. The end result was...

...you guessed it, LESS TEDIUM

huh? No, we are talking about a front. In that case, group move is pretty worthless anyways, as the units are all going to different places. Oh, and you are wrong about civ3 only being able to group units of the same type

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Asmodean
Jon: I understand that you do not like stacked combat. I don't agree with you, but I understand your position.

What I don't understand is why you are also against stacked movement. Why be against a feature that makes playing easier, and, IMO less tedious.

Wouldn't it be great to have a system where you could move units in and out of stacks, and move the stacks with a single click?

Asmodean

Stacked movement is in Civ3, and I'm fine with it.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Fosse


No, Civ 3 only favors numbers. The game doesn't care if they are spread out over hundreds of tiles, or hundreds strong in a single tile (with the single exception of zero range bombard units in stacks).

CtP doesn't favor stacks for the sake of stacks. Instead, it requires thoughtful army design (to take the definitions from the other thread ). The results are more strategic options regarding assault and defense forces, a more realistic and satisfying combat system, and (all together now) LESS TEDIUM!!!

Now Civ 4 can feature even better army composition, by learning from the mistakes of the previous games' tries.

have you played civ3?

it does favor numbers, true, nubmers at a specific location

and so what is valuable is stacks, I kick ass when I fight the computer, and it is not because I have more troops

Jon Miller

[chequita guevara]

I had Civ:CtP for a hot minute before some slug stole it from me. In the ten or so games I played, I fell in love with stacking.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by skywalker
Oh, and you are wrong about civ3 only being able to group units of the same type

Is that a PTW/Conquests addition, because the last patch I had 1.29 only had same types of units.

I never bothered with PTW

[Fosse]

Yeah, fine. Civ 3 favors attacking units on grass instead of hills. Got it. And it favors attacking units with lower defense than your attack on grass instead of hills. Wee.

But frankly we aren't even talking about the question anymore, which is:

Is army-style combat - similar to what is seen in *gasp* the Call to Power series - or traditional Civ style combat the way to go for Civ 4?

The reasons for Army style:
*less micromangement
*better combat results: instead of simulating one unit sitting still while another one shoots at it for a while, you simulate two units fighting.

"General, our longbows are being fired upon by their longbows! Wha should we do?!"
"Hope against all odds that we aren't killed, then maybe we'll fire at them when they stop."
"Why not just shoot at them right now?"
"Because it's Civ TRADITION!"

*It is widely supported (on this forum) by those of us speaking out.

Reasons for traditional Civ combat:
*It's tradition.



You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be.
Saying that we should keep it because it's the old way is silly. If we did that then we'd never have had resources, or culture, or any number of things.

I understand that you will always like Civ 3 style combat. I cannot persuade you otherwise. Nobody else can persuade you otherwise. We should now focus our efforts on figuring out just how we would like army-style combat to be, and you should just focus on explaining how you intend to address the myriad of problems that the old way has, and that you've agreed are present.. Our arguing back and forth isn't going to get us anwhere at this point.



-Fosse

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Fosse
You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be.
-Fosse

...and the truly sad thing is that with the elimination of a conventional ZOC, those front lines doubled in size.

All we can hope from this discussion is that it'll open some eyes to the possibilities.

I know that Soren still lurks here.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Fosse


Yeah, fine. Civ 3 favors attacking units on grass instead of hills. Got it. And it favors attacking units with lower defense than your attack on grass instead of hills. Wee.

But frankly we aren't even talking about the question anymore, which is:

Is army-style combat - similar to what is seen in *gasp* the Call to Power series - or traditional Civ style combat the way to go for Civ 4?

The reasons for Army style:
*less micromangement
*better combat results: instead of simulating one unit sitting still while another one shoots at it for a while, you simulate two units fighting.

"General, our longbows are being fired upon by their longbows! Wha should we do?!"
"Hope against all odds that we aren't killed, then maybe we'll fire at them when they stop."
"Why not just shoot at them right now?"
"Because it's Civ TRADITION!"

*It is widely supported (on this forum) by those of us speaking out.

Reasons for traditional Civ combat:
*It's tradition.



You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be.
Saying that we should keep it because it's the old way is silly. If we did that then we'd never have had resources, or culture, or any number of things.

I understand that you will always like Civ 3 style combat. I cannot persuade you otherwise. Nobody else can persuade you otherwise. We should now focus our efforts on figuring out just how we would like army-style combat to be, and you should just focus on explaining how you intend to address the myriad of problems that the old way has, and that you've agreed are present.. Our arguing back and forth isn't going to get us anwhere at this point.



-Fosse

I never said that I like Civ3's combat that much

I don't, I find it boring

I feel that it has most of the same problems as CTPs

Civ2's was better, but it had different failings

in civ both sides do fight

the offense defense numbers show effects of initiative and agression

sure you can figt over a larger front with armies

but is it smart to?

in Civ3, and CTP,itis not

the stack/army rules the day

I never said that we should keep it beacuse of it being the traditional way, quit puttin g arguments in my mouth

I said that I like what I am suggesting, which is closer to civ2 than civ3 and CTP, because I think that it is more fun

I have started addressing the issue of how I would like combat, if you had bothered to read all of my posts

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be.
Saying that we should keep it because it's the old way is silly. If we did that then we'd never have had resources, or culture, or any number of things.

Actually, with stacked combat, it is extremely disadvantageous to spread out your units because 12 vs 1 is FAR more deadly to the 1 with stacked combat than in unstacked.

Also, another thing - this is actually MORE realistic in some ways. You [proponents of stacked combat] say that it is ridiculous that one guy can hold off huge numbers. However, can those huge numbers really attack him all at once? For example, on a mountain and in a fortress (IRL), a huge advantage is that the defender only has to face a small number of the enemy at a time.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by hexagonian
...and the truly sad thing is that with the elimination of a conventional ZOC, those front lines doubled in size.

... which has nothing to do with the merits of stacked vs unstacked combat, as virtually everyone agrees that Civ3-style ZOC was a mistake and Civ2-style ZOC was good.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by skywalker
Actually, with stacked combat, it is extremely disadvantageous to spread out your units because 12 vs 1 is FAR more deadly to the 1 with stacked combat than in unstacked.

I agree. But if the reason for wanting a system that lets you battle across a huge front line, then why not disregard the advantages of armies and have a string of units anyway? This wasn't really an argument... just a rant. Forgive me.



Also, another thing - this is actually MORE realistic in some ways. You [proponents of stacked combat] say that it is ridiculous that one guy can hold off huge numbers. However, can those huge numbers really attack him all at once? For example, on a mountain and in a fortress (IRL), a huge advantage is that the defender only has to face a small number of the enemy at a time. [/QUOTE]

I see this as where the fortification bonus - that can still be in an army vs. army system - comes in. Given those bonuses, we can simulate the effects of great fortification. I appreciate the argument, but I don't think that this one instance makes the system of unit vs. unit more realistic as a whole. Besides, if two guys are in that fortress on a mountain top, then one of them isn't taking a break while the other one fights off the attackers.


Jon: I have read every double spaced line of all of your posts. Forgive me if I've misread them, but other than frowning on army-style combat I've seen no real proposal of a method. I would be obliged if you provide a single post, right here in this thread, that explained exactly what you want and why. Reviewing your posts isn't helping me, because the way I'm reading them, I'm seeing too many contradictory statements for me to get a clear picture of what you want, other than an abscense of army vs. army.

And I agree with the current ZOC being a real kick in the pants.

Regards,
Fosse

[Jon Miller]

I posted in great detail just now in the units thread

could you look there?

JKon Miller