STACK MOVMENT in 1.17f YEEEEEEEES!!!!!

[Libertarian]

I don't like that sort of "group movement".

Yin, the way I see it working is something like this. Suppose, for example, you decide you want to launch an assault on Russia to get a much needed strategic resource. Remember that a big part of the problem was not just group movement, but its companion attribute — unit activation sequencing.

What you can do now (assuming it works) is assemble your forces for movement by stacking them, like units together. Then deliever those units to the theater of battle. Once there, gather your units in whatever combined forces you desire. You can keep workers together as they build roads and railroads under the feet of your other units. If the unit activation sequencing works, then you will be able to conduct your battle campaign without bizarre interferences from units a continent away.

[korn469]

Wrong.

Aside from the fact that armies cannot accomodate ships, planes, and workers, they suffer from the very problem that I'm talking to Yin about : they are as efficient in movement as their weakest unit. Armies serve a purpose as uber-units, nothing more.

that really isn't a weakness, because like yin says you aren't forced to stack them together, and two other points out of all of the stacked movement systems i've seen it always has the group moving at the rate of the slowest unit, and if you hand move them and want them to stay together then you are going to have to sacrifice your faster units movement

the only would to get around it would be this:

a good combined arms bonus for infantry would be if they were in an army with mechanized units that the infantry would get +1 to movement, so while the army couldn't move as fast as pure modern armor, it could move faster than just infantry

[Libertarian]

Please see sig.

[notyoueither]

I have to agree with Lib here.

I think they have found an elegant middle ground.

It requires little or no preparation. It leaves the different unit types with their own movement advantages to be used, or not, at the players discretion.

The only thing I would have liked better, maybe, is groups that could be formed from units in multiple locations, give them all the same movement goal, and let the path finding do the rest. However, that would require more preparation (tedium?).

Hmmm, one other thing, actual worker groups that shared movement AND orders would have been even better.

Maybe what I see in it is that the tedium I have experienced in late game conquer-a-thons is tremendously reduced. Coincidentally, I think this is also the same kind of game that drove Lib to distraction.

My biggest issue has been addressed. I am happy. For now.

Salve

[yin26]

You still face the same problem your way but with several times the hassle. What I mean is, your tanks will arrive before their support does AND I still go through TONS of extra tedium. Now if you don't care if the tanks arrive first, then put them in their own stack.

Absolutely nothing is lost by defaulting a stack to its slowest unit. It is still the player's choice to stack which units where. And why for the love of God must stacks be artificially limited to 'type'? One reason: Not enough time put in to programming it correctly.

[yin26]

notyoueither: There's really nothing elegant about being forced to put like units together just so you can press 'j' to move them around when we could have a point and click system that allows ANY group you chose, defaulting to the slowest unit for movement.

That's far more elegant.

[korn469]

Yin, the way I see it working is something like this. Suppose, for example, you decide you want to launch an assault on Russia to get a much needed strategic resource. Remember that a big part of the problem was not just group movement, but its companion attribute — unit activation sequencing.

What you can do now (assuming it works) is assemble your forces for movement by stacking them, like units together. Then deliever those units to the theater of battle. Once there, gather your units in whatever combined forces you desire. You can keep workers together as they build roads and railroads under the feet of your other units. If the unit activation sequencing works, then you will be able to conduct your battle campaign without bizarre interferences from units a continent away.

you're forgetting that firaxis didn't specify if they meant land/sea/air units (hopefully just the active ones) or if they were talking about warriors/archers/chariots

if they were talking about a stack of active land units for example, then it could move the stack at the rate of the slowest unit, but it wouldn't have to take away a movement point from the faster units like armies do, since a stack wouldn't have the same abilites as armies do, so if you had a group of modern armor and paratroopers in a stack, at the end of the turn you could then move your modern armor ahead

though i do tend to agree that they were describing marines/tanks/paratroopers and not land units

also hopefully once you form a stack, you can simply hold down on the j key and then add and subtract units of any kind from that stack at will

EDIT:

you should hit j and then all of the unfortied/unloaded/not asleep units should automatically be in the stack, then by holding down on the j key you should be able to edit the units in your stack, also i'm thinking the number keys are used but if not then they should have the RTS staple of numbered control groups, ala starcraft

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by yin26
And why for the love of God must stacks be artificially limited to 'type'? One reason: Not enough time put in to programming it correctly.

And another reason. It's simple, for both the programmer and the player. Honestly, they've reduced moving a twelve unit 2-unit-type mixed stack from 12 orders to 2. That's an improvement isn't it?

Salve

[yin26]

Yes, it *is* an improvement. I hope they keep working on it, however. In the meantime, you guys can playtest it for me.

[Libertarian]

I guess that, for now, we'll have to agree to disagree, Yin. I will be testing the feature, and will report to you my honest assessment.

The problem for me was never one of the type you describe. I always inventoried my expendable arms according to type anyway. Delivering them to the theater of battle was tedious for two reasons (not just one) — I could move them only one at the time, and the next unit to activate was anybody's guess.

But even without considering the effects on fighting units, the effects on workers is perfect. The most efficient way to handle workers is to form brigades, one for grassland and plains, another for hills and forests, and another for mountains. These brigades can now be formed easily. Assuming, again, that unit activation sequencing works. And that means activating the unit in the stack that was most proximate to the stack you moved from.

[korn469]

And another reason. It's simple, for both the programmer and the player. Honestly, they've reduced moving a twelve unit 2-unit-type mixed stack from 12 orders to 2. That's an improvement isn't it?

i agree it's an improvement, but movement by type could mean that a stray click would seperate your artillary from your infantry for example and then you could lose 6 artillary to the enemy, where as being able to stack any units you want which default to the movement rate of the slowest unit without the faster units losing extra movement points as described above would be much simpler and better

[yin26]

I agree it is fine for workers, and if you already had your units defined by type, this is a good fix for you. For me, however, it's still a bit short. I'll await the reviews.

[yin26]

i agree it's an improvement, but movement by type could mean that a stray click would seperate your artillary from your infantry for example and then you could lose 6 artillary to the enemy, where as being able to stack any units you want which default to the movement rate of the slowest unit without the faster units losing extra movement points as described above would be much simpler and better

Another good point. True stacking must still be made a priority.

[Libertarian]

Fair enough. As always, your good temperament and reasonable nature speak well of you, my friend.

[notyoueither]

Yin. Yes, I thought the implementation would be closer to what you just out-lined. However, I actually think what they have done may have advantages. I can't say for sure, until I have tried it in a conquer-a-thon, but I can imagine the impact in increasing the fun quotient. I'll let you know.

Salve