Stacked vs Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues

[Jon Miller]

it is if it is to take one square

it is not if it is along a whole front as part of a war

I am visualizing a game where it does not take 60-70 units to take a square

whether in stacked combat (as in CTP) or in Civ2 style one after another

Jon miller

[hexagonian]

Actually, if you are attacking a whole front, then the micromanagement process takes even longer to set up and execute.

End result - even more tedium...

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Fosse

That would mean having two sub optimal AIs

Why do we need an AI? Any human player is 1000 times better than an AI. What we need is an efficient way to promote and play human v human games.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by hexagonian
Actually, if you are attacking a whole front, then the micromanagement process takes even longer to set up and execute.

End result - even more tedium...

no

because that is fun

having a stack attack another is only 1 choice by me, to do only one meaningful thing

attacking along an entire front has a number of meaningful things done by me

as well as a number of meaningful results

so it is better in many ways

the problem with tactitcal miny games, or watching your stack fiught

is that a lot more time (and effort) gets taken for only one meaningful result

Jon Miller

[DarkCloud]

BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE LIKE TO PLAY SINGLE PLAYER AND SOME PEOPLE DONT HAVE THE TIME TO PLAY MULTIPLAYER!

and some people don't have DSL!

You can't just maek games for online people!

More people play sp than mp!

[Jon Miller]

a lto of that has to do with the fact that civ has never been made really mp freindly

I would play more civ3 if it was more mp freindly

Jon Miller

[DarkCloud]

I don't disagree that Civ should have a mp component, just that the focus should be as it always has, sp... sp has made it a million-seller, sp will continue to make it a million-seller.

[Jon Miller]

I use to play a lot of SP

I now only rarely play SP

and I have a lot of games that call for me when I do

Jon miller

[Fosse]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Why do we need an AI? Any human player is 1000 times better than an AI. What we need is an efficient way to promote and play human v human games.

You're going to be on your own fighting for THIS standpoint.


The others are right... Civ began and will continue to be a single player game. Multiplayer is fun for those who can manage... but those people number even fewer than those who spend time on Apolyton forums I'd bet.


Besides... don't you want viable AI civs in your MP games?

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Fosse


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

I don't quite agree with this.

Civ3 has a workable combat system. I am suggesting a subroutine be developed for optional usage that will be some form of stacked combat. My point is that you could easily program (it's just decision tree stuff) which combat system utilized to resolve combat. The Civ3 one is already in place, so time, money and brainpower would be needed to develop the stacked combat model.

If you are against the expenditure of funds for this aim - that's your opinion and that's fine. It's actually very achievable. Not two rule sets, one set -- two pathways with one already done.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
it is if it is to take one square

it is not if it is along a whole front as part of a war

I am visualizing a game where it does not take 60-70 units to take a square

whether in stacked combat (as in CTP) or in Civ2 style one after another

Jon miller

I do agree with your point about "overstacking" -- regardless of the combat system used. There should be some limit to the number of troops occupying, or passing through, a particular square.

In all the Avalon Hill, SPI and S&T war games, there was always a stacking limit. (Please no one tell me that Civ is not a wargame -- we are talking about military units, it's the same concept)

NATO continually studied Soviet military strategy and watched their military exercises very carefully in the 70's and 80's. The Soviet doctrine at the time called for an advance of 60 kilometers PER DAY, once hostilities started, through West Germany and into France. NATO and the US military concluded that it wasn't possible due to space restrictions for transporting so many vehicles on too few roads. Additionally, the supply was major limiting factor as well. It would have been one major traffic jam in the Fulda Gap.

So yes, there needs to be some restrictions on stacking.

[Jon Miller]

I love Avalon Hill board games, SPI is also ok

Jon Miller

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I love Avalon Hill board games, SPI is also ok

Jon Miller

The computer really doomed those lines didn't they? There was something about spreading out the map, moving around the units, etc.

I used to setup massive Squad Leader games...I don't have that kind of time anymore...

[Jon Miller]

I am still buying Advanced Squad Leader

only have about half the modules

don't really have anyone here to play with, there is a club in the area though I should go to and two tourneys nearby (I will go to the one in december)

Jon Miller
(have all of the Squad Leader Core Modules though)

[Jon Miller]

I still maintain that there is nothing better than Advanced Civ, or Settlers, or Diplomacy, or Republic of Rome for multiplayer (I am trying to get Third Reich to work as well)
\
KJpm