Stacked vs Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues

[LDiCesare]

Stacked combat, in allowing multiple units to attack one unit, is actually unrealistic in that it ignores the fact the many times, only one unit at a time would be able to come into position to attack that other unit. In stacked combat, the power of a force increases exponentially with size, rather than directly, as in C3.

I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. If you make a stack of 12 hoplites in CtP2, they'll all fight one after the other one on one. Stack brings only 2 things: Easier management of moving units (select one insted of 12) and combined arms.

Surely that would be close to the truth, but 7 cavalry units might be able to exhaust or outflank the infantry and get some of those big guns.

In Clash, the combat model simulates stuff like this, although it is not visible to the player. The result is that the biggest army tends to win, which is not a very good result. If you place units in front/rear based on the nulbers, allowing numerous units to outflank less numerous units, you make it mandatory to have the biggest possible armies in order not to be outflanked, or armies made only of flanking elements. This tends to reduce the number of interesting units, unless you make siege weapons mandatory to take out walls for isntance, or make walls negate flanking.

[wrylachlan]

I'm coming a little late to this party, so can someone tell me if this is a fairly acurate picture of things?

Pros for stacked combat:
-Effectively models the "Overwhelming force" factor.

Pros for unit combat:
-more flexibility per unit

Some people seem to be implying that the ability to model tactical combat is contingent on having stacked combat with a mini-map game.

I'm very much against a mini-map game, and I really can't think of any tactics that you can't accomplish on the world map given the right set of rules (like say a flanking bonus if you attack the same tile in the same turn from 2 different directions...)

Can someone tell me what you can do with unit combat that you can't do with stacked, and vice versa? And I don't mean with the current unit combat or any specific implementation of stacked combat...I mean inherent to the idea of stacked combat.

[MrBaggins]

another pro for stacked combat is that it reduces the number of entities on the map, which is beneficial, not only in reducing micromanagement, but also in simplifying life for the AI (in terms of number of actors to deal with, and hence time to calculate a situation.)

[LDiCesare]

Stacked combat allows for 'combined arms' in a way single units can't. For instance, you can bombard with artillery, outflank with cavalry while getting the infantry to do its job.
Unit combat is unable to model the advantages of cavalry as flanking units. You can usually try to outflank the opponent on a strategic level on the main map, but this means cavalry is effectively nothing more than fast infantry.
It is possible to bombard with unit combat (a la civ3), but it becomes tedious pretty fast as there is no way to move after the bombardment and to defend your artillery with the unit that just beat an opponent. In order to solve that, unit combat would have to add more options which mean more hassle/micromanagement for players and ai alike.

MrBaggins' comment about the ai is really on the spot, too.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Stacked combat allows for 'combined arms' in a way single units can't. For instance, you can bombard with artillery, outflank with cavalry while getting the infantry to do its job.
Unit combat is unable to model the advantages of cavalry as flanking units. You can usually try to outflank the opponent on a strategic level on the main map, but this means cavalry is effectively nothing more than fast infantry.

You can make the cavalry able to get the flanking bonus at a lesser angle. For example make it so a infantry unit needs to attack from an angle of 90 degrees off the first attack or even 135 to get the flanking bonus, while a cavalry unit can get the bonus at 45 degrees. Point being that this isn't a problem with stack vs. unit so much as a problem of implementation.

It is possible to bombard with unit combat (a la civ3), but it becomes tedious pretty fast as there is no way to move after the bombardment and to defend your artillery with the unit that just beat an opponent. In order to solve that, unit combat would have to add more options which mean more hassle/micromanagement for players and ai alike.

Again I think this is a problem of implementation. With zone of control changed from civ2, it is possible for fast units to go around your other units and attack the artillery directly if they don't stay together. If you added ZOC back in, bombarding then attacking with your melee units wouldn't create the same problem.

Alternatively you could make bombarding units bombard and then move instead of move then attack like everyone else. This would reflect the time necessary to set up the artillery.

Either way, I don't see how this necessitates stacked combat or a mini-game.

MrBaggins' comment about the ai is really on the spot, too.

I agree with this point. That is probably a big bonus for stacked combat.

Note, I'm not for or against stacked combat per se, but it's hard to make up my mind based on the arguments here, because a lot of people are argueing what seems to be implementation to me, instead of any inherent advantage to one or the other.

[hexagonian]

The civ3 system is flawed because it is a cumulation of a bunch of things - using single combat resolution, with infinite rail movement, with infinite stack size, with a weakened ZOC rule makes for a tedious game that discourages the need for any strategic thinking.

- single combat (as it stands currently) is tedious, simplistic and downplays the use combined arms.
- infinite rail movement eliminates the need for preplanning unit placement, either offensively or defensively. You have instant defense/offense at your disposal for any hot front.
- infinite stack size as allowed in civ3 eliminates the need to play any sort of field game. Cities are your fronts.
- a weakened ZOC rule/AI disregard regarding trespassing means that you have to use a lot of units to stop what amounts to a MAJOR gameplay irritation, not to mention that it further nullifies the need to play a field game.

The thread linked below also has my breakdown analysis of this issue.
Bad Ideas for civ4

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by hexagonian
The civ3 system is flawed because it is a cumulation of a bunch of things - using single combat resolution, with infinite rail movement, with infinite stack size, with a weakened ZOC rule makes for a tedious game that discourages the need for any strategic thinking.

- single combat (as it stands currently) is tedious, simplistic and downplays the use combined arms.
- infinite rail movement eliminates the need for preplanning unit placement, either offensively or defensively. You have instant defense/offense at your disposal for any hot front.
- infinite stack size as allowed in civ3 eliminates the need to play any sort of field game. Cities are your fronts.
- a weakened ZOC rule/AI disregard regarding trespassing means that you have to use a lot of units to stop what amounts to a MAJOR gameplay irritation, not to mention that it further nullifies the need to play a field game.

The thread linked below also has my breakdown analysis of this issue.
Bad Ideas for civ4

I'm in agreement with all those points, but are they an argument for or against stacked combat?

[wrylachlan]

So I just read the Bad Ideas thread...

I guess you're pro-stacked

And I think I get what some people have a problem with. Is it that the tactical level and strategic level sor of co-exist? Because there is a tactical level to civ3, but it doesn't exist in a mini-map, it occurs on the world map. And a lot of the issues you have with unit combat can be addressed on the world map without necessitating a mini-map game - things like flanking, mixed forces, etc.

Is your main issue that you don't want tactical decisions made on the world map? Is that what bothers you? If it were possible to create as robust a tactical game on the world map as you currently have in the CTP mini-map would you be against that?

[hexagonian]

I'm basically against unlimited units in tiles...the rest of my objections simply dogpile on top of this main issue and make it even more painfully unbearable - (although each of my other objections do have gameplay problems inherent of themselves...)

To me, unlimited units is the main killer in the civ3 model, because it destroys, what I call, the field game. When you do not have a limit on the number of units that a tile can hold, you basically can put all of your units in a super-stack (or several large stacks) Those units basically remain in cities because there is little need to set up fronts outside your city - only if you have a chokepoint do you need to set up outside the city.

The lack of a conventional ZOC makes the above a better strategy to follow, because if you have a long front, you have to commit double the normal forces (as from the past) to block everything. And with a huge attacking stack, you generally can punch through a frontline anyhow.

You use your stacks to plow into enemy cities - once you capture them you can then use the roads/rails that are in place to move in - so there is little need to pre-plan your movement. (I like a game that forces me to think beyond mere army makeup and also forces me to commit to a plan - after all, an army has to take movement and positioning into account too) And once rails come into play, you do not even have to deploy defensive forces until your opponent commits to a direction.

This dumbs down the game immensely.

(BTW, this opinion is based on SP experience - not MP - but civ is first and foremost a SP game)

Because the game forces you to make large stacks as the best strategy, single-unit combat becomes a chore (or as it has been pointed out, like having your teeth pulled...)

I don't want to go back to the civ2 model either - where an entire stack could be wiped out by a strong unit, because that swings the game into another extreme of unrealism - that being the game is then ruled solely by tech (the race for tanks) It is more bearable than the current civ3 model though...

I'll be honest here - I play 'Modded CTP2' mainly because of the combat model. Sheer numbers and tech are nicely balanced, and there is a good addition of deeper tactics. Sure, its not rocket science, but compared to the current civ3 model, it's a huge step upward. And it can be improved.

I think civ3 is a more atmospheric game - and despite my other issues with the civ3 game (tech whoring, inane culture flipping, corruption, workers vs PW, to name a few), I'd probably be playing civ3 now if the combat model wasn't so @#%& crappy.

If they put a cap on units allowed on a tile, eliminated infinite rails, put back the ZOC, and allowed for unit movement grouping that was not limited to unit type, I could probably live with single-unit combat. Stacked combat would still be superior, but at least the game would be bearable. After all, stacked combat (as it is in CTP2) is merely a series of 12 single-stacked combats run at the same time (with a nice mix of flanking/ranged elements thrown into the mix)

[LDiCesare]

You can make the cavalry able to get the flanking bonus at a lesser angle. For example make it so a infantry unit needs to attack from an angle of 90 degrees off the first attack or even 135 to get the flanking bonus, while a cavalry unit can get the bonus at 45 degrees.

This means you need fronting for units. So on a small world map, do the armies in France face Germany or Spain? Silly to me.
Even if I agreed with fronting, it would be adding more micromanagement: Instead of moving a stack of 12 units in a city, you'd be moving 12 units into that city and then changing their orientation, which is 24 times more hassle. I think this is really the most importnat argument. For instance, Galciv allows to fleet units into a stack, but the only prupose of these fleets is to let units move together, and this works well enough.
The biggest point, though, is that flanking of itself is not a threat. It becomes a threat because the defender has to defend on 2 fronts. So you need 2 units to attack in order for flanking to have any effect. More important, they must attack at the same time. That's a reason why stacked combat models this better: You can have a simultaneous attack. Again, this is not the only solution. You could move units one by one and then make simultaneous movement (resolve orders button).

Again I think this is a problem of implementation. With zone of control changed from civ2, it is possible for fast units to go around your other units and attack the artillery directly if they don't stay together. If you added ZOC back in, bombarding then attacking with your melee units wouldn't create the same problem.

Why would my artillery stay in Germany when my infantry is in France? The ZOC doesn't solve the problem: Artillery will be delayed one round for no reason with a ZOC model. Attacking then moving would solve this, though. There is no reason why artillery should be handled differently from other units here, so all units could go attack then move if you have move points left.

To make it clear, I am for stacked combat and against a minimap player conrolled tactical combat. Mini games don't work well in my opinion. My experience with MOM and MOO shows that the ai is usually pitiful at these and so I'd rather not have to suffer such a mini game. So I want the game to be strategic, and don't want to cope with tactical decisions like 'does the cavalry attack first or do I throw the artillery in before'.

Overall, stacked combat is a simple solution that handles several problems with units combat. Each issue could be addressed differently, but if you do so, you add probably a half dozen of new things to manage when dealing with units, which results in more hassle and worse/slower ai. Stacked combat on the other hand, streamlines everything into a single new concept which actually helsp the ai.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by hexagonian
I'm basically against unlimited units in tiles...the rest of my objections simply dogpile on top of this main issue and make it even more painfully unbearable - (although each of my other objections do have gameplay problems inherent of themselves...)

Because the game forces you to make large stacks as the best strategy, single-unit combat becomes a chore (or as it has been pointed out, like having your teeth pulled...)

If they put a cap on units allowed on a tile, eliminated infinite rails, put back the ZOC, and allowed for unit movement grouping that was not limited to unit type, I could probably live with single-unit combat. Stacked combat would still be superior, but at least the game would be bearable. After all, stacked combat (as it is in CTP2) is merely a series of 12 single-stacked combats run at the same time (with a nice mix of flanking/ranged elements thrown into the mix)

Would a soft limit do? Like an overwhelming force bonus that tapers off after say 12 units.

This means you need fronting for units. So on a small world map, do the armies in France face Germany or Spain? Silly to me.

What are you talking about? Flanking wouldn't require fronting. The degrees are between the first and second attack in the same turn.

Say you are at 5 on the number pad. The first attack comes from tile 2 on the number pad. A flanking attack would be any attack in the same turn that comes from tile 6 = 90 degrees. Or at least that's the basic idea. Your "fronting" is assumed to be facing the direction of the first attack. Obviously there's balancing to be done in terms of - you can't have one unit do the first attack, and then ten units do a flanking attack- but those specifics could easily be worked out.

So I want the game to be strategic, and don't want to cope with tactical decisions like 'does the cavalry attack first or do I throw the artillery in before'

Then we're going to have to agree to disagree. As much as you're right about the more tactics you implement the harder it is for the ai - I still enjoy tactics, and don't think that there's any reason that a robust tactical game can't be compatible with civ.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
Would a soft limit do? Like an overwhelming force bonus that tapers off after say 12 units.

You already have Attack/Defense/HP/hopefully Armor, Firepower, Morale all working together to determine you strength. I think that adding force bonuses based on the number of units on a tile would be too cumbersome and it would end up needlessly complicating things.

There would still be an optimal number with the use of a soft cap, and that is where the player would gravitate. (For instance, that optimal number may be 15 units if you have a 12 unit limit with a soft cap) The end result is that it would either end up setting a (hard) cap for the player anyhow, or if sheer numbers started to offset the loss of the bonus, it would do nothing to eliminate the use of huge stacks.

IMO, the cap would have to stay hard - what that number should be is open for debate...

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by hexagonian

You already have Attack/Defense/HP/hopefully Armor, Firepower, Morale all working together to determine you strength. I think that adding force bonuses based on the number of units on a tile would be too cumbersome and it would end up needlessly complicating things.

What is the difference between giving a unit armor vs. more hp? Attack versus Firepower? I think its infinitely simpler to have Attack, Defense, Hp, and possibly Range as a unit's basic stats, and everything else is just a modifier to them. Armor adds Hp or Defense. An overwhelming numbers bonus effects Attack.

There would still be an optimal number with the use of a soft cap, and that is where the player would gravitate. (For instance, that optimal number may be 15 units if you have a 12 unit limit with a soft cap) The end result is that it would either end up setting a (hard) cap for the player anyhow, or if sheer numbers started to offset the loss of the bonus, it would do nothing to eliminate the use of huge stacks.

Not necessarily. If you gave the bonus in the form of a curve, you would keep the granularity while still imposing limits. For instance:

For every unit more than 5 in a stack the whole stack gets a 1% attack increase, up to a limit of 12. After twelve the bonus goes down by 1% for each unit.

Thus the optimal distribution of units is in stacks of 12. However, if you have 14 units, you don't need to make them travel separately and have those extra two be easy prey. But having really large stacks in battle becomes a drawback, as everyone's tripping over each other and their effectiveness goes down. Also, if you want to move a lot of troops en masse, you can do that and then break them out into their groups of 12 before the battle.

I'm opposed to hard limits for unit numbers.

[Maquiladora]

In CtP2 all units have 10HP, but they have different armour ratings to each other, so basically 1 armour = 10HP, 2 = 20 etc, so no need for HP and armour together.

[Sore Loser]

I'm all for soft limits. There is no reason why soft limits would automatically generate sweet spots which are always preferrable, it would depend on how the system was set up. For example, it would likely be wise to spread out your forces when facing enemy bombardment. Likewise, when trying to evade detection you might prefer smaller stacks (assuming they'd be more difficult to detect, of course). It would all depend on the situation, if balanced properly.