Stacking Limits Y/N

[Agathon]

I'm a fan of stacking limits and I've gone 8 pages deep in this forum and I can't find anything specifically on them.

After looking at the C3C multiplaying forum I have become even more convinced that stacking limits are needed in Civ. The idea of stacks of 50 or more units is completely ridiculous; there is a limit on how many things can fit in a given piece of terrain/water.

Also lack of a stacking limit tends to favour force over finesse. Just take your mega stack of Immortals/Cavalry/Tanks/Knights/Modern Armour and if you have a preponderance over your opponent you are to all intents and purposes invincible.

This sucks. An outnumbered civ should be able to smash a numerically superior foe with deft movement and use of terrain. Mega stacking makes this less unlikely and exaggerates differences in production (usually down to starting position) preponderate over skill in a manner in which they should not.

I suggest that 12 is a reasonable stacking limit, including units in armies (but not the army itself as a separate entity), but not including units in transports, but including aircraft on carriers and in bases (which count as 1/2 a point). Cities with ports have two stacking limits, one naval and one land (so theoretically 24 units can occupy that tile).

Perhaps there could be different stacking limits for different kinds of terrain, less for mountains, more for plains/grasslands.

[Kuciwalker]

soft cap for defenders

[Agathon]

You voted for the banana option SW - you are not to be taken seriously???

What's the point of having a cap for defenders if 100 high stacks of tanks roam the world leaving no room for skill.

In EU2 you can't stack huge amounts of troops in a province because of attrition - perhaps that would solve the problem.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm also for defenders being a LOT more power, making it very cost-effective to defend a front, but to make it impossible to have some invincible stack (without the soft cap, making defenders more powerful would have no effect wrt front vs. stack).

What's the point of having a cap for defenders if 100 high stacks of tanks roam the world leaving no room for skill.

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

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker
I'm also for defenders being a LOT more power, making it very cost-effective to defend a front, but to make it impossible to have some invincible stack (without the soft cap, making defenders more powerful would have no effect wrt front vs. stack).

As it stands a static defence should always fail anyway, unless the technology tree mandates it. This is what happens in Civ 3 with the introduction of infantry and artillery. Otherwise defenders are at a disadvantage. If it wasn't for that there would be no conquest.

You can always attack with multiple stacks in turn.

What's the point of having a cap for defenders if 100 high stacks of tanks roam the world leaving no room for skill.

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

Hearts of Iron manages to simulate this with a stacking limit, so stacks aren't the problem.

[Kuciwalker]

As it stands a static defence should always fail anyway, unless the technology tree mandates it. This is what happens in Civ 3 with the introduction of infantry and artillery. Otherwise defenders are at a disadvantage. If it wasn't for that there would be no conquest.

You can always attack with multiple stacks in turn.

I'm seeing a few non-sequiters in there (at least, I don't understand what you're saying). Could you rephrase that?

Hearts of Iron manages to simulate this with a stacking limit, so stacks aren't the problem.

I was pointing out that it WASN'T a problem, that it was a realistic and useful strategy

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

As it stands a static defence should always fail anyway, unless the technology tree mandates it. This is what happens in Civ 3 with the introduction of infantry and artillery. Otherwise defenders are at a disadvantage. If it wasn't for that there would be no conquest.

You can always attack with multiple stacks in turn.

I'm seeing a few non-sequiters in there (at least, I don't understand what you're saying). Could you rephrase that?

Since Civ 3 is usually tied to one dominant offensive and one dominant defensive unit every era, giving the defensive units an advantage would discourage aggressive wars, which are part of the fun.

If a defensive stack is hard to budge, you can attack it with several stacks one after the other. A stacking limit does place a limit on how much force can be gathered into a given space, so this makes skilled maneuver more important.

[joncha]

Discouraging offensive wars at certain points is not necessarily a bad thing. Think of it as a kind of bottleneck for warmongers, forcing them step back and actually build their empires once, say, gunpowder is introduced.

The reverse should also be true, with the introduction of cavalry or armour forcing builders to go on the offensive or lose their pretty little empires.

As an added bonus, it reflects the punctuated equilibrium of the various arms races through-out history.

jon.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Since Civ 3 is usually tied to one dominant offensive and one dominant defensive unit every era, giving the defensive units an advantage would discourage aggressive wars, which are part of the fun.

No, there wouldn't be an advantage, because you could only have so much effective defense, after which it would become useless. Thus a strong offensive force could break through ANY static defense.

If a defensive stack is hard to budge, you can attack it with several stacks one after the other. A stacking limit does place a limit on how much force can be gathered into a given space, so this makes skilled maneuver more important.

And I think a soft cap is better - decrease the defense by a certain % (or remove the bonus) after X number of defensive units (or any units) are in the tile. Offensive forces should use stacks, because the best offensive strategy is a massed attack using overwhelming force (assuming you have the resources for it).

[Agathon]

There's nothing wrong with using massed force, but stacks of 50+ units are ridiculous - and that's what no stack limit ends up with. Go look at the multiplayer tournaments - first guy to get the biggest stack wins. That's not much of a game.

And no one ever fought a real war with such an army. Even Napoleon who was the master of overwhelming force used to have his armies converge on the point of battle because the attrition from not doing so was immense.

[lajzar]

On a 256x256 giga map, each tile is 55 miles across. Any stacking limit imposed should be really really high if any. You can get a lot of tanks in 3000 square miles.

The question isnt what is the stack limit, but how do we resolve combat with stacks.

All I know is that neither civ2 (all die on the basis of 1 unit) nor civ3 (no limits, no penalties) have it right.

A modified ctp model might work. No hard limits, but the maximum number of units involved in battle is based on your highest 'leadership' technology.

A way to do it with existing civ2/3 rules is that each unit beyond the first multiplies the defence factor by 0.95 (or some other factor). This factor would be larger on smaller maps. Also, this factor is compound. 5 units in a stack would be x 0.95^5, or about 0.774

[Skanky Burns]

Stack limits may be a good idea, it seemed to work for simple war games like Warcraft.

Will hold off voting yet though.

[lajzar]

Warcraft works on a different scale. Stacking actually makes sense when you are working with individual soldiers and 1 metre tiles instead of thousands of men and 55 mile tiles.

[Agathon]

But that area has to feed the troops.

[CerberusIV]

I voted variable stacking as I think that offers a variety of opportunities to improve the game.

Concentration of force is actually a function of supply. Napoleon's forces marched dispersed and concentrated for battle because they had to largely live off the land whilst moving. So the idea of stacking limits increasing during the game makes sense, perhaps linked to specific techs. Military Tradition and Advanced Flight are two obvious ones.

Supply limitations are affected by terrain so it is not possible to sustain as many troops on mountain terrain as grassland. There are also physical limitations of road and rail networks, harbours and airports - the idea that in the Ancient era you can load 10 galleys in a size 2 coastal town in one turn may be unreasonable.

The overall effect of stack limits will be to make having the right force mix the crucial factor. Not just a huge stack of Immortals but having the correct balance of assault units, bombardment units to soften up the enemy and defensive units to protect the attack force and occupy the ground taken.

I don't advocate a full-blown wargame type combat system, it just isn't appropriate, but this is a potentially good improvement.