Stacking Limits Y/N

[Kuciwalker]

Another reason for soft caps is it actually reduces MM - in a non-combat situation, it's easier to just stick everything together than have to spread it out over many tiles.

[Agathon]

Ideally, if you are going to defend your territory it is best to have units in cities and forts, that can sally forth to smite the infidel. I wish that railways would be fixed too. It just seems unrealistic that your tank can only move two tiles while his can beam in from the other end of a continent and have two goes at yours.

[Agathon]

What about limits on how many units can pass over a stretch of river? I mean, bridges aint that big.

[lajzar]

Ideally, if you are going to defend your territory it is best to have units in cities and forts, that can sally forth to smite the infidel. I wish that railways would be fixed too. It just seems unrealistic that your tank can only move two tiles while his can beam in from the other end of a continent and have two goes at yours.

Thats why I proposed making the Rail Depot a city improvement with a transport function similar to civ2 airports.

[Agathon]

Don't get me started on airports. The fact that you can transport heavy armour through them wrecks the game - even with the one unit per turn limit.

I liked CtPs railroads. Enough to make a difference, but not ridiculously so.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

OK, my 'solution' to the whole Infinite RR issue is as FOLLOWS:

RR should only grant its unique movement bonus if it is entered onto via a city, fort, outpost or airport! i.e. if you move onto a RR midway along its length, then you should still get a movement bonus (maybe 1/4 or 1/5), but should not get the unlimited movement rate! In addition, every city/fort/outpost/airport that the unit moves through should cost 1mp, regardless of whether or not they're travelling by rail!
Thirdly, you could reduce the amount of RR's used in the game by giving them a maintainence cost, per turn, which would come out of a PW budget!

An alternative measure to help balance RR's is to have a 'Loading Factor'-or a maximum number of units which can travel on a certain section of RR per turn, though this option feels a little unweildy!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Agathon]

What's wrong with 10 squares for tanks?

Actually, this is a good topic. How about someone start up a separate poll on railroads. I already have two threads up, so it's someone else's turn.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
What about limits on how many units can pass over a stretch of river? I mean, bridges aint that big.

Over the course of a year?

[MrBaggins]

I tend towards a hard cap, with an exception: more than X (say 12 for sake of arguments) units can exist in a tile, provided its not a destination... I.E. a maximum stack wouldn't block another armies passage.

Ultimately, though, keeping the cap limit, is a sensible method of maintaining strategic limits on defence.

Soft caps could work too... but ultimately its a good idea to limit the number of entities within a game, and theres no real reason to have 50 units as opposed to 12 when you consider that units are composed of an abstract number of men/machines/whatever. Its always better to have less "things" where you can... better for the AI, and less crap for the human to worry about. 500 units could be represented in about 40 size 12 stacks, which are perfectly managable. I wouldn't recommend a maximum number of units, necessarily... support costs aside, just pointing out that a stack of 12 isn't particularly limiting.

[Kuciwalker]

MrBaggins - the reason for a soft cap is so that, as I said, you can have them there for non-combat purposes. For example, in CtP2 I always got pissed when I realized I couldn't build a navy (or, in fact, any units at all) because I had 12 defenders in each city. A soft cap allows for those sorts of things, but has the same COMBAT effect (and combat is the problem) as a hard cap.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Attrition is also a FANTASTIC Idea, BTW. We've discussed it elsewhere, but a very simple notion of supply would be a worthwhile addition to the game, and improve the ability of tactical 'finesse' to win out over Brute Force!
For instance, even if you CAN have a mega-death stack of 200 units, they won't do you a great deal of good if-deep within your enemies territories-your enemy sends half a dozen swift scout/horsie units to cut your lines of supply!!! Then, you have to get that mega stack back home before they wither away and die ! If you don't believe such a thing could happen, just ask Napolean in Russia (those damned COSSACKS!!! ) or Russia in Afghanistan (those damned Mujjahadeen !!!)
Anyway, I know this idea belongs in a different thread, but I definitely think that stack limits and supply/attrition would add a new, tactical depth to the Civ Series!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by GePap
But defensive bonuses should remain- it is realisitc to say that troops in a fortress or a city have a huge defensive edge- history has probalby more examples of long sieges that pitch battles-

But at what cost? If my armies attack your armies in your cities then your people die, your industry is destroyed, your morale plummets, and you generally have a horrible time. Right? So why in Civ do we focus on the fact that, at the beginning of the battle, the defenders have a better tactical position (rooftops for modern snipers, behind walls for medeival troops, etc) without touching on the horrors of war at your doorstep?

the problem in civ is that the defenders forces never begin to starve, thus they do not have a long term reason to engage the enemy in battle after 20 years of siege and their stores running out.

I disagree. The problem is that there is no disadvantage to having your city serve as the front line.

The way top make war moe dynamic then is introduce problems with supply- but then that eats up too much processing power.

You don't need to throw supply into it... just make battles fought in city squares have horrible consequences in those cities. Then the defender has to meet you in the field, like in the real world.

On terrain-certainly terrain should have diffeent caps- you can not fit as many forces through mountain passes and jungles than plains- and it would make wise use of terrain even more important.

Yuck. So if you want to move your stack of infantry across a mountain range you have to break it into several smaller stacks? Part of the idea of stacks is to help reduce micromanagment.
And I'll say with confidence that terrain type stack limits will wreak havoc on AI path finding.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by skywalker
Another reason for soft caps is it actually reduces MM - in a non-combat situation, it's easier to just stick everything together than have to spread it out over many tiles.

When skywalker agree (like now), it's 100% When we disagree though...

I tend towards a hard cap, with an exception: more than X (say 12 for sake of arguments) units can exist in a tile, provided its not a destination.

I would rather have soft caps, but as long as this "loophole" exists I wouldn't tear my hair out. This isn't an interface friendly solution for those of us who like to use our keyboards for movement. Also, what if an army is "in transit," ends a turn on the same tile as a full stack, and gets attacked that turn?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker
Um, isn't that basically what the Germans did? Stack lots and lots of tanks on the Belgian border and stroll towards Paris?

No. Check the number of armoured division in there.

[Paddy]

stacked limits could damage events such as the DDay landings