Stacking Limits Y/N

Agathon · February 16, 2004, 19:58

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 · February 16, 2004, 20:01

soft cap for defenders

Agathon · February 16, 2004, 20:16

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 · February 16, 2004, 20:25

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).

Quote:

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 · February 16, 2004, 20:29

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · February 16, 2004, 20:41

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 · February 16, 2004, 20:52

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

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 · February 16, 2004, 23:23

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 · February 16, 2004, 23:58

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · February 17, 2004, 01:09

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 · February 17, 2004, 04:38

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 · February 17, 2004, 05:04

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

Will hold off voting yet though.

lajzar · February 17, 2004, 05:32

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 · February 17, 2004, 07:38

But that area has to feed the troops.

CerberusIV · February 17, 2004, 08:29

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.

Agathon · February 17, 2004, 09:16

I want to avoid things like this:

lajzar · February 17, 2004, 09:20

Alternate rule on stacks:

Each unit in the defending stack after the first adds one to the effective attack factor. This means that as units get more advanced, the relative penalty for stacking drops, so stacks will tend to grow as time advances. I'd also say that if a unit is killed, all units in the stack take token damage, as in SMAC. More advanced units should also have more hit points.

3000 square miles can house a population of a few million with modern technology. Historically, 1% (give or take) of the population would be at arms, and in Roman times, Europe's population was about 10% of what it is now. Which makes for say, 5000 soldiers. Let's say a typical ancient foot unit is 500 men (a typical cohort in Roman army terms), and at ancient tech levels we can assume a grasslands tile will support 10 units.

Hmm, perhaps CTP was onto something when they set the stack limit at 9-12 units.

otoh, certain units are in no way dependant on the land for their upkeep. Diplomats, ironclads, aircraft, and just about any modern vehicle unit spring to mind.

Agathon · February 17, 2004, 09:29

Anyone who wants to read about the recent history of military tactics should read The Shield of Achilles by Phillip Bobbit. Not much on naval stuff but interesting things on the development of land combat and on the revolutions of the Napoleonic era, an era that is sadly underplayed in Civ.

Shogun Gunner · February 17, 2004, 09:31

I voted for a strict stack limit. However, i think it should be flexible by unit type. Ancient units and technologies should be able to stack more units than modern units and technologies. Today's armies have a ratio of 10 support soldiers to every 1 actively fighting soldier. Plus, today's forces are so much deadlier with killing ability at long ranges.

Agathon · February 17, 2004, 09:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
I voted for a strict stack limit. However, i think it should be flexible by unit type. Ancient units and technologies should be able to stack more units than modern units and technologies. Today's armies have a ratio of 10 support soldiers to every 1 actively fighting soldier. Plus, today's forces are so much deadlier with killing ability at long ranges.

Realism is only one part of the game.

A well designed game should not be purely a numbers game. If it is, both fun and tactical nous suffer.

For me the chief argument against mega stacks is not the historical one, but from the point of view of gameplay.

lajzar · February 17, 2004, 10:39

If anything, modern armies should be the ones that get a higher stack limit.

Unit size is typically smaller, making foraging potentially easier. And the transport network means they don't have to rely on the local production for supply.

btw, the actual support:combatant ratio is about 3:1, not 10:1. And support personnel tend not to be anywhere near the front line if the high command has any sense, so they aren't usually a factor in figuring supply requirements.

But the main argument against huge stacks is gameplay, not supply.

Fosse · February 17, 2004, 11:06

I agree that we should be looking for good gameplay, and not focusing only on realism.

I like the soft stacks idea, for both defence and offence. But I think that the soft cap should be pretty low, around 12 units.

The idea is to give bonuses to troops in stacks that gradually peter out the more units you have in, until placing more than 12 doesn't give you the bonus. After around 18 units there can be penalties for stacks that are too big, to simulate too many people in one place causing confusion.

What soft caps on combat effectivness does is let us allow to move one stack of 12 through a tile that already has another stack of 12 in it, preventing the CTP problem of not being able to move through your cities with your armies. Also, it doesn't cripple the AI's pathfinding as much because you don't have moving roadblocks every turn.

And since the topic of defense vs. offense has been broached... I think defense should be weakened to force the defender to meet their attacker in the field. We shouldn't be allowed to sit in the middle of our population centers and expect to win. If we have stacks fighting on the front, however, then the consideration of who is attacking vs. who is defending becomes purely strategic. The "tactical" nonsense of sitting in the city for a 100% defense boost goes away.

Fosse · February 17, 2004, 11:08

I voted banana, as "soft caps" wasn't an option.

Variable by terrain sounds awful, by the way.

wrylachlan · February 17, 2004, 11:40

I think that the reason that stacks become such a necessity in Civ3 is that the healing is all whacked. I can decimate a defender to 1/4 of its full health, and by the time my next attacker arrives from the next city over, the defender is back at full health.

This forces me to attack in stacks so that 1 unit weakens the defender, and the next unit kills it.

A solution might be to give units something along the lines of 20 hp. A unit heals 1hp in neutral territory, 2hp in friendly territory, 3 hp in cities, and 4 hp in cities with barracks.

Thus the advantage of flexibility would outweigh the stack advantage. By which I mean, it would be advantageous to only use as much force as necessary to take a city, knowing that you can always bring more force to bear in a timely manney.

Another check and balance on the power of the stack would be to allow bombard to hit multiple targets. Obviously there would have to be some limit to this, or a falling off of the effectiveness, but the point is that if you pack your men in like sardines in a tile, there is a greater chance that the cannons are gonna hit something.

All that aside, I agree with Fosse that I would like soft limits in the form of a bell curve combined arms bonus that has its peak in the 9-12 units range.

Agathon · February 17, 2004, 11:57

The healing is ridiculous and encourages a static defense when such wars have historically been dynamic. Having a stack limit in cities would fix that since you couldn't pile up so many defenders as to make it impregnable.

wrylachlan · February 17, 2004, 12:00

I had another idea for a check/balance on stacks while reading the ZOC thread. Currently, Bombard units get a free shot when you enter their ZOC (if they have one). I would suggest that the percentage chance of ZOC bombard be revised downward, but each bombard unit gets a free shot at every unit entering the ZOC, BUT, and here's the crux of it, they only get as many shots as the total number that enter any one ZOC tile.

Thus:

ABC
DEF
GHI

If I have 15 units on tile F and want to attack city D, I move all 15 units to tile E, entering the ZOC of city D. City D gets 15 free shots.

If I move 5 units to B, 5 units to D, and 5 units to H, city D gets 5 free shots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If a stack limit is implemented, I think its important that the unit costs be rebalanced to lower the total amount of units. I know I sound like a broken record on this subject, but If you think that stack of 50 or 100 units is bothersome in its unreality, it doesn't hold a candle to how bothered you'll be when you have to move all those units individually.

hexagonian · February 17, 2004, 12:44

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Check these threads - both are long and they stray off-topic a bit, but they also have a lot of discussion about stack caps. I'm not going to go into a long repeat of all the issues I raised in those threads that are related to a stack cap, because those threads cover it very well.

Thread 1 - Bad Ideas...

Thread 2 - Stacked Combat Poll

Most of my opinions about this issue have been stated by Fosse and wyrlachen. Ultimately, I think that unlimited stacks make for a less strategic game because without a limit on how many units can occupy a tile, strategy boils down to whoever has the largest stack. (think of Risk...)

This whole issue is much broader than just a cap, because couple the use of an unlimited cap with infinite movement with rails ends up reducing strategic considerations to nil - and the use of single-unit combat resolution makes battle a tedious affair when you can have 50+ units on a single tile. At least, if combat could be resolved for multiple units at one time, that would cut down on the tedious aspect of an uncapped limit.

As a matter of opinion, I favor a hard cap, but there have been some good suggestions that would work well with a soft cap, so I'm not dead-set against it.

GePap · February 17, 2004, 14:55

I agree with a soft cap on units, more akin to 20, not 12 units. The limit should be smaller for sea units, again soft.

But defensive bonuses should remain- it is realisitc to say that troops in a fortress or a city have a huge defensive edge- history has probalby more examples of long sieges that pitch battles- the problem in civ is that the defenders forces never begin to starve, thus they do not have a long term reason to engage the enemy in battle after 20 years of siege and their stores running out. The way top make war moe dynamic then is introduce problems with supply- but then that eats up too much processing power.

On terrain-certainly terrain should have diffeent caps- you can not fit as many forces through mountain passes and jungles than plains- and it would make wise use of terrain even more important.

Agathon · February 17, 2004, 17:57

The one problem with variable caps is that if stacks can be fixed a la CtP, then it will be a pain to keep stacking and re-stacking.

The_Aussie_Lurker · February 17, 2004, 18:20

Hmmm, I also think that unit type AND tech level should impact on stack limits! Do agree that a stack limit IS neccessary, though!!! I HATE (and I repeat HATE) SofD's!!! It kinda allows strategy to be replaced by overwhelming numbers!!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.