Stacking units

[emren]

Hello there, I'm a completely new poster to these forums. Also, I've spent probably thousands of hours playing CIV 1&2.

However, I'll throw in a suggestion here on this assumption: Stacking Multiple Units into Armies does NOT yield synergies - i.e., the resulting stack is not more powerful than each individual unit fighting separatly.

However, in real life, combining units to form more powerful units, requires organizational skills.
What I'd LOVE to see in a game, is a system that requires exactly that. Each civ should have a Command Rating assigned to it. Through winning combats (and building certain buildings and wonders), your civ gains Command Rating Points. Through improving technologies, your civ LOSES CRP's (putting new techs into your units decreases their actual experience with new weapons).

With more and more CRP's you should be able to increase the number of units stacked in an army, thus increasing your overall military strength by experience and improvements in organization skills.

Result: A low CR allows only a limited number of different units to combine into armies, and yielding no special bonuses. A high CR allows for more complex combinations (more units) of units, creating more powerful armies. As new technology is researched, organizational skills are lost or need to be re-discovered as new weapons and new doctrines of war are invented.

[UltraSonix]

Stacking, heroes, and army commanders are one of the moost hotly debated stuff here.

And so I ask - what do you mean by "army"? A group of units that move as one? And if:

quote: Stacking Multiple Units into Armies does NOT yield synergies - i.e., the resulting stack is not more powerful than each individual unit fighting separatly.

then why is there any need to create an "army" in the first place? What happens if you're simply moving a unit through a square with a army in it, but the game won't let you 'cause the army's full?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[emren]

An army is a user-defined group of units - I imagine a separate graphic representation of armies to separate them from individual units. And they don't just move as one - the assumption I made is there because I don't know if something similar is already in the works.

Creating an army is not just placing units on top of each other and issuing a group command. I'd like to see an army creation screen - a general HQ, if you like - where you can combine units into armies and see what special bonuses you'll be awarded. Then, when your organization is defined, it is up to your cities to produce the units required to 'fill the ranks'. Thus, it is also possible for armies to be under-strength.

So an army and a separate unit can easily be in the same square, but their abilities are not combined.
[This message has been edited by emren (edited September 17, 2000).]

[Gilgalad5]

While a more fleshed-out and realistic combat system would be nice, I can easily see it going too far. For example, your concept of "command points" could lead to a whole new game, where you actually have to personally manage armies and appoint commanders. War should not take up 90% of your playing time. Small improvements I would like to see are: multiple unit attacks (of course), distinct rules for siege operations, and a marginal consideration of supply. Civ was never meant to be a tactical game.

[Deathwalker]

I have mentioned this before stacking units to form an army that moves as one is a good idea. Also have a commander unit that gets experience from combat, would be a great assest to the game. But with out the commander they have only their combined total, for this to work would have to have the ability to comabine units into an army, and I think can have more that one army in a square. But still seperate armys so no bouse for having them both in one square, this would all mean that the AI wouuld have to be better.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[emren]

What I DON'T want is leaders. They are simply irrelevant for games at this scale. What I DO want is for a civilisation to be able to improve it's military capabilities. Military tradition can of course be attributed to a single civ, just by saying that they are "warlike", but I'd like to see a game where you have an influence on it. That's why I suggest the Civ Command Rating system.

[Shadowstrike]

Maybe the MoM system of stacking units on the same tile into armies might work here. Where MoM had tactical combat, the system could be modified for Civilization III. We could use a unit pairing system . Consider the following with Army A having 4 units and B having 3.

A01 (first unit of army A) vs. B01
A02 vs. B02
A03 vs. B03
A04 vs. B01 (or one of the other units had Unit B01 been killed off)

Each match is to the death, i.e. the unit that loses is destroyed. That's my take on the Stacking idea.

[UltraSonix]

quote: What I DON'T want is leaders. They are simply irrelevant for games at this scale.

No only that, the AI must be considered when trying to design an army system - somehow I don't think leaders/commanders/heroes will go too well with the AI.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Deathwalker]

Why not have a general, I am not saying have a person as commander but a unit that can act as commander such as in Imperialism, a unit in their own write, but who get experience to make them better. This way it is a whole unit. Like one extra tank that would commander. Though I do believe that the simple veterain system was not enough and mor levels of experience should be included. I personally think the method used for ships in BOTF is a good idea.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Adm.Naismith]

I vote for emrem and Ultrasonix. I see no place for this kind of tactical detail on a Civ scale. You are supposed to be the great leader of your armies, not a bunch of heroes out of time (Alexander the Great to command my tanks blitzkrieg? No thanks! ).

But I'm afraid Firaxis already decided that commanders will be in (old info post by Firaxis a few months ago), so we can start a petition, but I suppose we'll be on the loser side

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[UltraSonix]

quote: But I'm afraid Firaxis already decided that commanders will be in (old info post by Firaxis a few months ago), so we can start a petition, but I suppose we'll be on the loser side.

Really?! Must have been before I arrived - you think you can dig it up?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Adm.Naismith]

Hmm, it was a letter from Sid. At the moment I've found back only a
related thread that summarize it a bit.

Hope it help you.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[UltraSonix]

Thanks Admiral, I managed to find the sites:

GUYS - IT'S A MUST READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From Sid:

quote: You'll also see major new developments in our combat system. For the first time you'll be able to conduct sweeping military invasions using brand new units and military features, including leaders and armies. Another area of focus is diplomacy. We made great progress in the diplomacy system in Alpha Centauri and we plan to radically advance the diplomacy in Civ III by giving the player more power to construct deals to match any situation.

Sid's message (March): http://apolyton.net/news/000323sid.shtml
The discussion thread in responce: http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum6/HTML/001258.html

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited September 21, 2000).]

[emren]

*bump*
This relates to the recent talk in Tactics Upgrades.

[Shogun Gunner]

OK, we get leaders.

What I really want to be able to do is fire/hire my Council advisors. If I have to see that Science geek complain about his funding one more time, I'll order General Schwarzkopf to shoot him...he wants to bonk heads anyway, here's his chance.

I would love to hire

MILITARY: I'll keep Schwarzkopf on. (Gen McArthur as backup)
SCIENCE: Wen Ho Lee for my science guy (Bill Nye as backup)
FINANCIAL: Greenspan for my financial dude.
FOREIGN: My foreign advisor has got the job for life(maybe she can steal the nude code I saw on a post earlier)
ENTERTAINER: Elvis has gotta go, Welcome Beck!