Civ4 Units

[MrBaggins]

Jon Miller> I'd like to rebutt a couple of points you've made regarding stacking combat...

First its patently absurd to say that you only learn to build a stack once or twice... and that there is only One True Way (TM) to do it.

There are different statistics involved which complicate the process significantly... not only attack, defence... but in addition, ranged attack, bombard, movement, firepower and HP's too.

Combined with flags like flanking and elite, you'll NEVER find a one size fits all army.

Following this... while you don't have a conveyor-belt-of-death ala Civ3, you absolutely DO have strategic movement, and tiles absolutely ARE important. This can be demonstrated very simply from the CtP2DG save games...

A major advantage of stacks in CtP2 is their reduction in micromanagement, allowing you to focus on the big picture better. How? Why?

You compose armies (and yes, can shuffle the units around) and name them. This allows you to find units quicker, and look at statistics on an epic scale.

A number of features in CtP2 significantly reduce the micromanagement problems of Civ... in addition to army formation. Those include the nation manager, and expanding city radii, allowing for spreading metropolis (more of the map used, ergo less cities, ergo less late game entities, ergo less micromanagement)

[Jon Miller]

give me an example where tactics is needed in CTP

do it out like I did it, in ascii

stacks reduce micromanagement, sure

but they also reduce fun, by taking out a huge portion of what should be in the game

Jon Miller

[MrBaggins]

Tactics is an inappropriate part of Civ... why?

Civ is an abstracted empire strategy game TBS. Tactics are a function of in-combat maneuver. You can't have simultaneous manuever, since you only move one "piece" at a time. To simulate war the way you're talking about, you need to introduce the concept of time, and thus have a RTS, instead of a TBS.

or... you have a conveyor-belt-o-death... like Civ3 (truely unrealistic, IMO)

[MrBaggins]

Oh.. and I'd say its more important for Civ games to be strategic than tactical. The entire scope of the game is strategic... NOT tactical.

[Jon Miller]

tactics have been in Civ from the beginning

I enjoy them

since they have been part of the game, I think that they are appropriate

you can't use that argument to say that they should no longer exist

and if you are getting rid of tactics, than you shuold get rid of tiles and the like too, because they serve no purpose (all we would need is provinces)

and we might as well be playing EU 3

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

I Am getting from you and the other CTPers a lot of words

but nothing hard

you just say

no, it is not like that

but don't back it up

Jon Miller

[MrBaggins]

*chuckles* Crafty that... my using words to debate. WOW... what a concept.

So.. back to the subject.

Do you care to debate the fact that Civ ISN'T a strategy game? Do you have an answer as to how simultaneous movement can be shown in a TBS game without use of stacks?

[Jon Miller]

civ does have strategic elements, and tactical elements

and those have been a lot of the fun, through out it;s 12 year history (i got Civ1 when it first came out)

andI have given what I consider to be an interesting unit/combat model

where stacks are deemphasized

noone has read it yet

JOn Miller

[Jon Miller]

strategy and tactics in civ3 and ctp has been decreased to

choose your force composites
and amass more of your units than your opponents

you and others have claimed that this is not the case in CTP

the last time I played CTP was over a year ago

so give some examples where this is the case

show not only that stacks and armies decrease tedium

but that they increase fun

the ball is in your court now, I am not going to keep asking you to back your claims up and have you not do so (I am refering to you as CTPers as a group)

Jon Miller

[MrBaggins]

I absolutely disagree that civ has (in a military sense) tactical elements.

Tactics can be defined as "the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat"

Firstly... Civ has always abstracted both time and distance... turn lengths are both variable, and obviously encompass abstracted movement. Tiles are massive... a single tile holds an entire city. There isn't any actual definition of scale, but a tile can be thought to be at least several square miles in area.

This abstract granularity of time and distance (and thus manuever) preempts tactics.

The definition of tactics also specifically states forces in the plural... thus making the obvious point that combat forces don't move in isolation, but in unison.

An isolated unit based system, rather than a stack system cannot simulate simultaneous movement. They are mutually exclusive. A TBS system cannot simulate tactical movement. You have either simultaneous movement... or individual movement, and never both.

---

I did scan your post at the top of this page. You don't make it clear why its less effective to have larger forces.... and you tacitly agree to the concept of stacking, which is contrary to your arguements for tactics (and against stacking.)

[Jon Miller]

I dislike making huge stacks, and having wars fought between 2-4 stacks

that is boring, and not a good simultation

I know that there is a lot of reason to make them, which is the main (and most important part) of combat in Civ3 and CTP, and that is to have the most troops at the point of conflict

therefore, inorder to make it reasonable to spread out (As happened in real life), you need reasons to do so

such as in Civ2 and Civ1, where you lost your whole stack when 1 unit lost

that is what the post at the top is trying to add some of

problems for over stacking (having more than one unit in a tile)

if you have played Civ2 or Civ1 you will know examples of Civ games with tactical elements

if you have not played them, I would recommend them highly as I feel that they are the best of the series (although there are some things that Civ3 does better (like borders, and culture, and resources))

tiles existing is synominmous with tactics

without tactics, there is no reason to have tiles, all you would need is provinces, as in EU2

JOn Miller

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MrBaggins
IThe definition of tactics also specifically states forces in the plural... thus making the obvious point that combat forces don't move in isolation, but in unison.

man

I want to have a discussion, please cut the bull****

Chess is the quintesential tactical game

and peices do not move simulateously

I play a lot of tactical board games, and computer games

and the number of games where moves are simuiltaneous is very low

and actually, excluding RTS, most of them are strategic simulations

Jon Miller

[MrBaggins]

Having huge stacks is not a good simulation?

Pardon me?

So... your school of generalship supposes its better to spread out forces, rather than to concentrate them?

I'd say thats the best way to get isolated and destroyed piecemeal.

It seems that your reasoning is very much your own sensibility than any real-world reason for why you shouldn't have large stacks.

As for Civ1 or 2 being tactical... they weren't tactical either... still abstracted distances and times... and still non-simultaneous movement...

As for stacking... we are discussing real CtP stacks... not Civ1 or 2 "stacks".

You can't destroy an entire CtP stack by defeating a single defender... so your point is entirely moot.

As for your last point... there absolutely is a reason for tiles, even without tactics (and you still haven't directly responded to the fact that tactics don't exist... in Civ 1, 2 or 3, or ANY TBS for that matter)

You still have strategic movement AND strategic placement of cities. The granularity, in this case, is several miles, in a regular pattern... although you could use, as you point out, regions. Tiles are just another valid choice... not proof of tactics.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


man

I want to have a discussion, please cut the bull****

Chess is the quintesential tactical game

and peices do not move simulateously

I play a lot of tactical board games, and computer games

and the number of games where moves are simuiltaneous is very low

and actually, excluding RTS, most of them are strategic simulations

Jon Miller

Bad analogy...

Chess has one piece per tile. Civ has many per tile... possibly.

Chess isn't technically tactical in military terms... if we wish to be pedantic... or unless you wish to disagree with the dictionary definition.

Or are you saying M-W and the Oxford English dictionaries have incorrectly defined the word?

Oh... and you've hit the nail on the head... TBS games... are called TBS games for a reason. The "Strategy" bit is significant.

[Jon Miller]

did you read my post at all?????

I have already shown your definition of tactics to be crap

so please stop using it

and while troops mass, there are limitations to it which are not taken into account at all in the CTPs or Civ3 (please check late post in page 1 for some more ideas of how to model this), but where better handled in Civ2

I don't think that you have a clear idea of strategy or tactics

would you please stop, and read my posts before you respond?

Jon Miller