Stacking units

emren · September 15, 2000, 05:08

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 · September 16, 2000, 00:15

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 · September 17, 2000, 10:48

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 · September 18, 2000, 22:08

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 · September 19, 2000, 05:52

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 · September 19, 2000, 09:15

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 · September 19, 2000, 17:37

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 · September 19, 2000, 21:36

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 · September 20, 2000, 11:41

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 · September 21, 2000, 06:11

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 · September 21, 2000, 07:24

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 · September 21, 2000, 11:37

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 · September 21, 2000, 18:29

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 · October 13, 2000, 06:29

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

Shogun Gunner · October 15, 2000, 22:31

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!

Seeker · October 15, 2000, 23:37

That brings up the TRULY important point...how will Sid and Co work 'the King' into the next game? In Civ I, elvii made happiness, in Civ II Elvis was an official advisor...Civ III? Elvis, the wonder?

Stuff2 · October 16, 2000, 11:03

I was very disappointed when i realized that stacking units in SMAC did not mean that you could move them all in one move (wich was what i had in mind). Or actually you could tell them in one order but they would still move separatly. It was not that time-saver i had hoped for.

I suggest that stacked units can be moved with one move just as if it was only one unit. I don't think anyone disagree with this. But during fight the stacked units should fight one by one. That is my opinion. Beacouse loss of units is a realization in civ-war (unless you spend all your time saving the game and retry every attack).

I'm not in favor of a command unit or anything like that. the commanders are invisible parts of the existing units.

Az · October 17, 2000, 07:52

quote:

Originally posted by Seeker on 10-15-2000 11:37 PM
That brings up the TRULY important point...how will Sid and Co work 'the King' into the next game? In Civ I, elvii made happiness, in Civ II Elvis was an official advisor...Civ III? Elvis, the wonder?

LMAO >

and what would be the effects ??

any way ...

I am really dissapointed with that leader ****.
It's not heroes of Might and Magic ... it's Civ !

that will look weird . I am almost sure.

Shogun Gunner · October 17, 2000, 22:45

quote:

Originally posted by Dalgetti on 10-17-2000 07:52 AM

I am really dissapointed with that leader ****.
It's not heroes of Might and Magic ... it's Civ !

that will look weird . I am almost sure.

I didn't understand that...what leader is that?

Shogun Gunner · October 17, 2000, 22:55

quote:

Originally posted by Stuff2 on 10-16-2000 11:03 AM

I suggest that stacked units can be moved with one move just as if it was only one unit. I don't think anyone disagree with this.

I'm not in favor of a command unit or anything like that. the commanders are invisible parts of the existing units.

Actually, as you probably know, in CTP stacked units can be grouped together and moved with one MOUSE click. I like using the keyboard, so this advantage was lost on me... I refuse to move from keyboard to mouse to keyboard, etc, etc, etc. The lack of an undo function caused heartache when unit went where I didn't want them to go... Needless to say, for many reasons, I don't play CTP...

I ONE HUNDRED percentage agree with you that commanders are part of the existing unit. Earlier comments about veteran status, etc are right on the money. That's why we got Schwarzkopf and that drunk knight in armor. They are our leaders...

We don't want Civ to turn into Squad Leader (for those of you familiar with that very intense, squad level war simulation from Avalon Hill). Boy, do I wish I was 12 years old again to have the whole summer to play combat on Eastern front, man by man... I just don't have that kind of time anymore!!!

Tiberius · October 18, 2000, 01:49

I don't understand what do you have people against leaders.

A cavalry unit isn't a man on a horse, right? It is a cavalry brigade, or battalion or something like this. In the same way, I imagine the leader beeing a commanding unit, which is not necessary a man, but the group of officers a brigade/battalion has. An army is nothing whithout command. So if the commander is a special, costlier unit, which is neccesary to make stacks and maybe add bonuses to the army (stack), what is the problem? It is realistic, adds only a bit of tactical micromanagent to the game, but increases a lot the pleasure of going to war (just for the record: I don't like wars and I always try to play/win in peace).

UltraSonix · October 18, 2000, 18:39

quote:

only a bit of tactical micromanagent to the game

You'll have to micromanage your leaders a lot more when your opponents only go for your leaders!

I think the thing about leaders is that when you play civ, everything is on a grand scale - each unit is more akin to an army, cities have millions of people, etc. All of a sudden, there's this unit that at max is composed of just a few people - it's just a bit weird...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

Adm.Naismith · October 18, 2000, 19:16

Well, Sid already spoke of leaders IN the game. I don't enjoy it but... can we change that? More important: it's worth to lobby against it?

OTOH, can we suggest the best way to implement leaders, just to drive Sid and co. to the right way?

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

Tiberius · October 20, 2000, 00:58

quote:

Originally posted by UltraSonix on 10-18-2000 06:39 PM
I think the thing about leaders is that when you play civ, everything is on a grand scale - each unit is more akin to an army, cities have millions of people, etc. All of a sudden, there's this unit that at max is composed of just a few people - it's just a bit weird...

You have right, everything is on grand scale in Civ. The problem is, I'm not sure that this is always good. Factors that aren't important in small scale, shouldn't be included in the game, that's true. But still exist elements of human society, which are small but important. One such an important factor is "the leader". Sometimes in the history of mankind, one leader changed the world more than 1.000.000 people. Why shoudn't they be included in the game than?

I'm not saying that we should have hundreds of leaders running all around the world, but implemented with a proper balance, I would like to see leaders in Civ3.

Just one more thing: not everything in Civ is represented on the same scale. A cavalry unit represents how many men: 1000? 10000? Maybe even more. And a spy? Or an explorer? Certainly not 10000. Maybe 100 or even less. Not necesarry the number is important, but the importance of that unit.

As for the micromanagement: there are things that worth to be micromanaged, while others not. Some people love to micromanage cities, others like to micromanage armies and others hate to micromanage everything. After all, I think you can't find two players here with exactly the same preferences on every issue. Let's hope Firaxis will find a good balance for everyone's desires.
[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited October 19, 2000).]

Az · October 20, 2000, 15:53

IIRC there were these leaders of the armies in HoM&M
it depended on the kind of city you rise your armies in.

I would prefer making a thing like that :

stack options/abilities .

just like Units I want the whole stack to have a Green/Veteran/Elite strength . if the stack looses some units they could reinforce the stack ... you see my point ?

UltraSonix · October 20, 2000, 19:32

The crux of the argument against leaders:

quote:

4. Unit-mania.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

Stuff2 · October 21, 2000, 00:09

quote:

Originally posted by Tiberius on 10-18-2000 01:49 AM
I don't understand what do you have people against leaders.

A cavalry unit isn't a man on a horse, right? It is a cavalry brigade, or battalion or something like this. In the same way, I imagine the leader beeing a commanding unit, which is not necessary a man, but the group of officers a brigade/battalion has. An army is nothing whithout command. So if the commander is a special, costlier unit, which is neccesary to make stacks and maybe add bonuses to the army (stack), what is the problem? It is realistic, adds only a bit of tactical micromanagent to the game, but increases a lot the pleasure of going to war (just for the record: I don't like wars and I always try to play/win in peace).

I'll tell you why i don't wan't command-leaders-units

1. Every unit is a small army that consists of BOTH leaders and soldiers. Why have two units doing the same thing that one unit can do? There is no need getting in to more deatils, especially considering that every turn is atleast a year.
2. You are the ultimate commander.
3. This is a civ-game not a wargame. Command leaders units belong to wargames rather than civ-games. In civ i wan't an abstract form of warfare not a day-to-day-strategics.
4. Unit-mania. If you will include commanders, supply-lines e.t.c. as units civ3 will end up as a very messy game with tons of units. Personally i most often play on small maps just to avoid getting too much units.

Tiberius · October 21, 2000, 00:50

I don't want tons of units either. I want commanders only for the purpose of stacking. I'd like to have the possibility to make an army, formed by different types of units AND leaded by a commander unit. That's all.

Tim White · October 23, 2000, 19:00

Tiberius, Im right with you. I would like commanding units. For (only) armies. They would add bonuses to armies. Think about it, in all of history, very often commanders did much more to history then large armies. I also dont want civ3 to be a war game, like Red Alert, but I also want it to be realistic, and a game cannot be realistic without realistic war! and war cannot be realistic without commanders! What would history have been like without Admiral yommamoto (japanese navy during ww2), or Alexander the Great, or Nepoleon, or, General Washington!?!?
[This message has been edited by Tim White (edited October 23, 2000).]

Tiberius · October 24, 2000, 01:01

quote:

Originally posted by Tim White on 10-23-2000 07:00 PM
Think about it, in all of history, very often commanders did much more to history then large armies. ... What would history have been like without Admiral yommamoto (japanese navy during ww2), or Alexander the Great, or Nepoleon, or, General Washington!?!?
[This message has been edited by Tim White (edited October 23, 2000).]

Exactly my point.