Stacked vs Single Unit Combat - The Battle Continues

[Skanky Burns]

This is the thread to debate the relative merits of using a combat system similar to that employed in Call to Power versus the system we all know and love from Civilization 1 or 2.

Let the fireworks begin.

[Jon Miller]

I think everyone know's my vote

having the tactical element is an integral part of civ

if it isn't there, than it isn't civ, it is some other game (like europa universalis), now that game might be good, but it isn't civ

Jon Miller

[Maquiladora]

Youre right jon, it wouldnt be civ and thats why i think they wont use it for civ4 but something completely new.

cut from other thread -

Okay if we're quibbling then CtP2 has more strategy in composing forces..... tactics, one knight attacks a city then another attacks, then another etc until all the defenders die or you lose all your knights, dull IMHO.

[Trifna]

It isn't like civ is now, thus it can't be incorporated... Civ ain't any religion with dogmas :P

The tactical element would be kept if you'd get an advantage when you have more units all in the same place, since it would mean you can decide to strongly defend one place, or try to defend more places.

PS: I believe that there's stack un-CtP style also... like Spartan style, which is presently a game in beta.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Theben in t'other thread
Just out of curiosity, how do CtP2 scenarios deal with stacking?

I'm not sure I understand the question. (so why quote it dufus?)

CtP2 scenarios, or at least in the five* where battles really occured, made use of stacks because it meant that you could have more advanced battles than simply a WW1-stylee wave after wave of howitzers (or catapults, cannons, whatever)
This means that rather the tactics being in solely getting the right units to the right places, you have to get units in the right places with the right other units.
I will explain the LotR scenario, which I have played more extensively that the others, though the same can apply roughly for all. Middle Earth is a world, the large scale is important, but most of the action takes place either in Isengard, Helm's Deep or Minis Tirith. The way the map has to be done leaves a very small area for those battles. Two or three tiles at most. This leaves no room to cut supply lines, exert ZOC influences and whatnot that you'd do in Civ2, so under the Civ combat system you would be forced into a single pair of tiles brawling over control. It would be boring, quite simply. In CtP2, each individual battle becomes more important because you are using more of your force at once.

Outside of seige combat, it also makes travel in numbers more important. The strength of the whole stack becomes an issue rather than just the strength of the strongest defender in the tile. The ambusher cannot get away with having one assault unit, it needs backup, and if it is a ranged unit such as a cannon or catapult, it wouldn't even work unless it had at least one infantryman to stand behind and fire from range.

Scenarios are built knowing that stacking is in place, it is never an issue to overcome or otherwise, except in the rare instances where more than 12 units are essential in one tile. Harlan's Alexander the Great scenario has issues with the AI being unable to get stacks to pass on roads for example. Hannibal Ad Portas overcame the problem somewhat in his scenarios by making the General unit into a transport unit for catapults. But that is a separate issue really, and stacked combat has never been a design problem.

[Fosse]

Stacked.

Why?

Well... the reasons for stacked are:
1) More realistic.
2) Less Micromanagment.
3) The community wants it.
4) Additional possibilites*

Reasons against stacked combat are:
1) It's the status quo.
2) Jon wants it.

*Additional possiblities? Well, if your military is divided into armies, instead of units, each army could have different standing orders. You could craft orders so that your 5th cavalry will attempt to flank any enemy forces that your 10th infantry is engaging. The old supply layer could be added without overcomplicating things. And dozens of more ideas that I can't think of.


And Jon Miller... I only pick on you because you are the vocal proponant of the single unit way. I mean no harm.

[centrifuge]

Has to be stacked, the one on one nonsense that is the current civ model needs to go

[Jon Miller]

where do you people come from?

I didn't think that many people played CTP period

Tass, do you even know what tactics is?

tactics in civ take place outside of cities

I agree that in city combat, tactics is really low

but that is only one type of combat

and Civ4 should make out of city combat more important

Jon Miller

[Tamerlin]

As far as I am concerned, the One unit against One unit combat of Civilization 2 is certainly one of the worst "feature" of the game, the second worst one is the removal of the whole stack because you lost your best defending unit. In my opinion the civilization combat system is tedious and boring...

IMO again, stacked combat is the only combat system suitable to grand strategy games like Civilization or CtP2.

[Solver]

Jon,

Please give me a real example of tactics in civ 3. Is it deciding when to attack a certain unit in the field and how to move your attackers? If so, that also exists with the stack system.

I've mentioned many times I prefer stack combat, and diversity is another reason. In CtP2, late Industrial Age I use:

Machine Gunners - very decent all-around infantry
Artillery - bombarding and very strong ranged attack
Cavalry - for quick raids and pillaging
Infantrymen (Musketeers) - cheap defensive infantry that I can mass
Spies - intelligence, enough said

This is not to mention the different types of ships...

In Civ 3, early Industrial I use:

Cavalry - attack.
Riflemen - defend.

Then, Infantry replaces Riflemen (at which time it's near impossible to take a city, Infantry defends better than Cav attacks). Then, Tanks replace Cavalry - but that remains two units at all times. With then possible "speical" support from Marines, but there's a ton of those in CtP.

Stacked combat is better, all, all the way.

[Nikolai]

I think the idea of stacked combat sounds good. That'll be my vote.

[Fosse]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
where do you people come from?

I didn't think that many people played CTP period

I don't think that having played the CtP series is necessary to see how superior the system is. I played CtP some, didn't much like it in its unmodded state, but loved the military system.


I agree with you that more out of city combat should be emphasized, though. I can't exactly think of how it should be done, however.

[Martin Gühmann]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Harlan's Alexander the Great scenario has issues with the AI being unable to get stacks to pass on roads for example.

That is a bug in the AI itsself if it tries to pass a tile and it has to realize that the tile is blocked it doesn't search for another path, Dale located this already in the code. Of course this problem could also be solved by not setting a limit units per tile, but again we have the unrealistic Civ2 system with the possibility to place infinite units on one tile.

-Martin

[Trifna]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
where do you people come from?

I didn't think that many people played CTP period

Tass, do you even know what tactics is?

tactics in civ take place outside of cities

I agree that in city combat, tactics is really low

but that is only one type of combat

and Civ4 should make out of city combat more important

Jon Miller

Jon, one vs one is what put the LESS tactic/strategy. If you can stack, then you can divide (as usual) OR stack. Both are still possible.

[Asmodean]

Yeah...I would like to see Firaxis go with stacked combat as well. It's just the better option

Asmodean