Stacked combat

[aCa]

Haven't had mutch time for message boards lately so you guys have probably talked about this before but ....... have there been any official answers about stacked combat?

If they don't have stacked combat I would say it's a big disapointment... More realistic that you can choose have many units you wan't to attck with at once.

aCa

[Zanzin]

Hey aCa, Firaxis have talked about "armies" in various interviews. This would indicate stacked combat..but considering their decision to use a "worker" unit instead of a Public Works system - basically, who knows what they're thinking over in that place!!

I would have thought that if stacked combat was for certain, it would have been mentioned in their original site update about combat! guess we'll have to wait and see.

[SerapisIV]

I'm sure that CivIII will have some kind of army/stacked combat, that is probably the most requested feature in the game. However they're doing it though, there should be a large bonus for using combined arms. Say infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Some kind of weighting in favor of such armies should be part of the combat system

[Ilkuul]

I'm relying on them having this feature as well! I've never played with stacked units, but I can begin to imagine the advantages. And for me one of the biggest pluses of stacking would simply be ease of gameplay! I absolutely hate having to move dozens of units all to the same destination painfully one at a time in the endgame in Civ2!!

[Colonel Rhombus]

What do people think of a Masters of Magic style tactical combat mode? Like MoM, you can let the computer resolve the battle for you, (which is practically what happens in Civ2) or take control yourself.

Personally, I liked the idea. But any system that benefits a balanced combination of units is good enough. At the very least, not all combat encounters should end with one unit or army being completely destroyed.

------------------
Regards,
Col. Rhombus

[SerapisIV]

There are so many battles that occur in Civ, I'd rather keep the tactics to the computer. Civ is a strategic simulation. By having tactical combat, it just provides another game layer in which AI/balancing flaws can be exploited negating a lot of the strategy of the game because fewer units can now do more. In addition to that, I've played 40+ hour games before, how much extra time would tactics put into the game? As much as I'd like to have tactics, to me its a matter of too much time and micromanagement versus not enough fun in return.

[King Richard]

Does any of you know if they are gonna change the problem with one unit beeing able to kill 13 units that are placed at the same tile? If they make this work better, so that the one attacking unit has to attack every unit in the tile, making it almost impossible to kill a great number of units. If this is made possible the value of catapults, cannons will be greatly enhanced. In real life, these units are usually placed behind the infantry/cavalry anyway. As it is now, I never even bother to build any artillery because of this. Perhaps if these units could be used like missile-units as in SMAC?

[SerapisIV]

Definitely KingRich the kind of overpowering destruction is way to unrealistic, almost unfun. Sinking a transport is one thing. I could see the destruction limited to two or three units and the others get damaged a bit, but not total slaughter, even if it is away from a fortress. Such attacks should be more balanced then as they exist in SMAC and CivII
[This message has been edited by SerapisIV (edited April 18, 2001).]

[Zanzin]

If they do stacked combat the way Activision did it, I'll be happy. It was one of the things Activision did do right with the Civ series

[samurai]

I think they are using the system that is written under combat in the "list V1" site. Stacking units into armies and then the range of the weapon decides how many times a long ranged unit can fire before the short ranged can reach them. And you use a different strength on the unit depending on they are in close combat or fireing long range.

And, the fastest stacked army or unit can withdraw from the battle.

[Colonel Rhombus]

One thing that could diminish playability is gigantic stacks of 20, 30 or more units, forming invincible armies. Two ways of balancing this is to impose a limit (say 8 or 10 units) or punish excessively large armies with a "disorganisation penalty". "Leader" units, if implemented, could lessen this penalty, but there should still be a limit placed on the size of any army.

If tactical command is not implemented, a display that represents all participating units could be used to indicate the progress of the battle so that either participant can retreat or fight till the bitter end.

------------------
Regards,
Col. Rhombus

[SerapisIV]

Nice point Rhombus, there should be a limit on units per stack/army. That could become a balancing problem otherwise.

[Ilkuul]

Anyone care to define the difference between a 'stack' and an 'army'??

[SerapisIV]

They are really the same thing, it's just tradition to call them stacked units as Civ would have units "stacked" on the same tile and people always wanted to move them as one. An army is just wha the recent website and preview called them. Though this isn't for sure, no one from Firaxis has defined it exactly, I can't exactly see a difference otherwise.

[samurai]

There has to be a limit to the number of units in one army, but I would like to see two armies crashing into each other, both with 20+ units. the negative is that one of these armies early in the game could wipe out almost everything.
the positive is that you will be able to create really complex armies that can work together, and you will have to produce many different units in your civ to create the ultimate army.

I think the number of unit in an army should be allowed to increase during the game, since this is what has actually happened through history.