STACK MOVMENT in 1.17f YEEEEEEEES!!!!!

[Libertarian]

I don't like that sort of "group movement".

Yin, the way I see it working is something like this. Suppose, for example, you decide you want to launch an assault on Russia to get a much needed strategic resource. Remember that a big part of the problem was not just group movement, but its companion attribute — unit activation sequencing.

What you can do now (assuming it works) is assemble your forces for movement by stacking them, like units together. Then deliever those units to the theater of battle. Once there, gather your units in whatever combined forces you desire. You can keep workers together as they build roads and railroads under the feet of your other units. If the unit activation sequencing works, then you will be able to conduct your battle campaign without bizarre interferences from units a continent away.

[korn469]

Wrong.

Aside from the fact that armies cannot accomodate ships, planes, and workers, they suffer from the very problem that I'm talking to Yin about : they are as efficient in movement as their weakest unit. Armies serve a purpose as uber-units, nothing more.

that really isn't a weakness, because like yin says you aren't forced to stack them together, and two other points out of all of the stacked movement systems i've seen it always has the group moving at the rate of the slowest unit, and if you hand move them and want them to stay together then you are going to have to sacrifice your faster units movement

the only would to get around it would be this:

a good combined arms bonus for infantry would be if they were in an army with mechanized units that the infantry would get +1 to movement, so while the army couldn't move as fast as pure modern armor, it could move faster than just infantry

[Libertarian]

Please see sig.

[notyoueither]

I have to agree with Lib here.

I think they have found an elegant middle ground.

It requires little or no preparation. It leaves the different unit types with their own movement advantages to be used, or not, at the players discretion.

The only thing I would have liked better, maybe, is groups that could be formed from units in multiple locations, give them all the same movement goal, and let the path finding do the rest. However, that would require more preparation (tedium?).

Hmmm, one other thing, actual worker groups that shared movement AND orders would have been even better.

Maybe what I see in it is that the tedium I have experienced in late game conquer-a-thons is tremendously reduced. Coincidentally, I think this is also the same kind of game that drove Lib to distraction.

My biggest issue has been addressed. I am happy. For now.

Salve

[yin26]

You still face the same problem your way but with several times the hassle. What I mean is, your tanks will arrive before their support does AND I still go through TONS of extra tedium. Now if you don't care if the tanks arrive first, then put them in their own stack.

Absolutely nothing is lost by defaulting a stack to its slowest unit. It is still the player's choice to stack which units where. And why for the love of God must stacks be artificially limited to 'type'? One reason: Not enough time put in to programming it correctly.

[yin26]

notyoueither: There's really nothing elegant about being forced to put like units together just so you can press 'j' to move them around when we could have a point and click system that allows ANY group you chose, defaulting to the slowest unit for movement.

That's far more elegant.

[korn469]

Yin, the way I see it working is something like this. Suppose, for example, you decide you want to launch an assault on Russia to get a much needed strategic resource. Remember that a big part of the problem was not just group movement, but its companion attribute — unit activation sequencing.

What you can do now (assuming it works) is assemble your forces for movement by stacking them, like units together. Then deliever those units to the theater of battle. Once there, gather your units in whatever combined forces you desire. You can keep workers together as they build roads and railroads under the feet of your other units. If the unit activation sequencing works, then you will be able to conduct your battle campaign without bizarre interferences from units a continent away.

you're forgetting that firaxis didn't specify if they meant land/sea/air units (hopefully just the active ones) or if they were talking about warriors/archers/chariots

if they were talking about a stack of active land units for example, then it could move the stack at the rate of the slowest unit, but it wouldn't have to take away a movement point from the faster units like armies do, since a stack wouldn't have the same abilites as armies do, so if you had a group of modern armor and paratroopers in a stack, at the end of the turn you could then move your modern armor ahead

though i do tend to agree that they were describing marines/tanks/paratroopers and not land units

also hopefully once you form a stack, you can simply hold down on the j key and then add and subtract units of any kind from that stack at will

EDIT:

you should hit j and then all of the unfortied/unloaded/not asleep units should automatically be in the stack, then by holding down on the j key you should be able to edit the units in your stack, also i'm thinking the number keys are used but if not then they should have the RTS staple of numbered control groups, ala starcraft

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by yin26
And why for the love of God must stacks be artificially limited to 'type'? One reason: Not enough time put in to programming it correctly.

And another reason. It's simple, for both the programmer and the player. Honestly, they've reduced moving a twelve unit 2-unit-type mixed stack from 12 orders to 2. That's an improvement isn't it?

Salve

[yin26]

Yes, it *is* an improvement. I hope they keep working on it, however. In the meantime, you guys can playtest it for me.

[Libertarian]

I guess that, for now, we'll have to agree to disagree, Yin. I will be testing the feature, and will report to you my honest assessment.

The problem for me was never one of the type you describe. I always inventoried my expendable arms according to type anyway. Delivering them to the theater of battle was tedious for two reasons (not just one) — I could move them only one at the time, and the next unit to activate was anybody's guess.

But even without considering the effects on fighting units, the effects on workers is perfect. The most efficient way to handle workers is to form brigades, one for grassland and plains, another for hills and forests, and another for mountains. These brigades can now be formed easily. Assuming, again, that unit activation sequencing works. And that means activating the unit in the stack that was most proximate to the stack you moved from.

[korn469]

And another reason. It's simple, for both the programmer and the player. Honestly, they've reduced moving a twelve unit 2-unit-type mixed stack from 12 orders to 2. That's an improvement isn't it?

i agree it's an improvement, but movement by type could mean that a stray click would seperate your artillary from your infantry for example and then you could lose 6 artillary to the enemy, where as being able to stack any units you want which default to the movement rate of the slowest unit without the faster units losing extra movement points as described above would be much simpler and better

[yin26]

I agree it is fine for workers, and if you already had your units defined by type, this is a good fix for you. For me, however, it's still a bit short. I'll await the reviews.

[yin26]

i agree it's an improvement, but movement by type could mean that a stray click would seperate your artillary from your infantry for example and then you could lose 6 artillary to the enemy, where as being able to stack any units you want which default to the movement rate of the slowest unit without the faster units losing extra movement points as described above would be much simpler and better

Another good point. True stacking must still be made a priority.

[Libertarian]

Fair enough. As always, your good temperament and reasonable nature speak well of you, my friend.

[notyoueither]

Yin. Yes, I thought the implementation would be closer to what you just out-lined. However, I actually think what they have done may have advantages. I can't say for sure, until I have tried it in a conquer-a-thon, but I can imagine the impact in increasing the fun quotient. I'll let you know.

Salve

[yin26]

Lib and notyoueither: In our younger years, we might have killed each other in this thread. In fact, I kind of miss the tension. Screw BOTH of you guys! (Yes, it is nice to have decent conversations where people agree to disagree. Very rare. Hats off to you gentlemen.)

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by korn469
movement by type could mean that a stray click would seperate your artillary from your infantry for example and then you could lose 6 artillary to the enemy

That's a point. I'd already thought that one would have to be careful. I'm willing to risk it for the gains.

Salve

[korn469]

That's a point. I'd already thought that one would have to be careful. I'm willing to risk it for the gains.

yea, i like getting new features, i was just pointing out that there are other RTS inspired ways which could work quite well

control groups are your friend

[notyoueither]

Holy-smoking-thread! Broadband, muahahahaha!

Let's play it and post our comments in a thread dedicated to the topic.

I'll let one of you gentlemen start it. I lack the time to constantly monitor it.

Salve

[notyoueither]

Yin can lead the peanut gallery.

Hi dad.

Salve

[Leonidas]

korn469:

Hi Korn, I wasn't really making a point-by-point comparison with Civ 3 with regard to armies; I was just pointing out that CTP2 HAS accomplished stacking 12 different units together as an army and it works. Plus, it's soooo easily done in the game.

This alone reduces the tedious movement of hundreds of units in the game. It really frees you up to concentrate on strategy, etc. Now I don't worry about how many military units I build. . .

Unfortunately, in Civ3 the only time you can build an army is when you get a great leader. And that army can only contain 3 units that cannot be changed or ungraded. Plus when it attacks, all three units attack individually, making for a lack of combined power as an army. Frankly, it's a waste of a great leader. I always used them to build Wonders anyway.

However, the way they are implemented in CTP2, armies have a real purpose AND power. While not perfect, they do attack as a single force, which is the way it should be.

However, in Civ 3 because of the one-hex movement rule in enemy territory, mixing fast units with slow units in an army is a moot point anyway. . .

CTP2 has matured, and it's the Mods that have made this game playable and FUN Just like it was the modders and scenario creators who made Civ2 fun all these years.

CTP2 is very customizable and I wouldn't play it without the mods. The mods fix almost everything that was wrong with the game, especially the AI. Considering the reception the game got when it was first released and then abandoned by Activision, I have just recently discovered how great this game is. . .

CTP2 modded has solved most of the problems that Civ 3 is experiencing. In addition to 12-unit armies, there are NO workers to have to worry about

Oh, glory days. . .

My click-finger thanks you. . .

I hope all the problems with Civ3 can be worked out. At its core, its a fun game; the frustration and tedium needs to fixed. . .

[korn469]

Leonidas

hehe, i think i've just gotten used to seeing a list and posting a responce to each point, i meant it as friendly banter and i'm sorry about if it seemed like i grilling you

Unfortunately, in Civ3 the only time you can build an army is when you get a great leader. And that army can only contain 3 units that cannot be changed or ungraded. Plus when it attacks, all three units attack individually, making for a lack of combined power as an army. Frankly, it's a waste of a great leader. I always used them to build Wonders anyway

normal civ3 rules i agree with you completely, armies as implemented are completely useless

However, in Civ 3 because of the one-hex movement rule in enemy territory, mixing fast units with slow units in an army is a moot point anyway

they just don't get road or rail bonuses iirc, hehe a one hex movement rule would be the end of conquest lol

CTP2 is very customizable and I wouldn't play it without the mods. The mods fix almost everything that was wrong with the game, especially the AI.

modification is one area where CtP:2 completely destroys civ3

I hope all the problems with Civ3 can be worked out. At its core, its a fun game; the frustration and tedium needs to fixed

same here! hehe and hopefully it won't be too long either

[Leonidas]

Hi korn469: Friendly banter it is. I wouldn't want it any other way .

I sincerely hope that the problems with Civ 3 can be fixed. Or if enough tools to do the job can be given to modders like you to do the work.

When CTP1 was first released there were all kinds of criticisms leveled at the game. I wouldn't go near it with a ten-foot pole.

Then CTP2 was released, and Activision left the fans twisting in the wind. I wouldn't touch that game either.

Until. . .

Just recently, after reading about what the modders have done to the game, it really sounded like it might be worthwhile playing. I mean they got into the actual code and even made the AI more aggressive (which was its biggest problem previously); they beefed up the diplomacy; they made it possible to play a game with 29 civilizations; they've added new units, etc, etc. . .

I'm actually enjoying the game, especially for the low price its selling for now.

CTP2 modded is a very good game. It's very intuitive, and feels like a natural extension of the civ series. Leave it to Activision to blow a good thing: take the money and run I guess.

My enjoyment of CTP2 is owed entirely to its mod community; cudoes to you all - without your hard work and effort, I wouldn't be playing it now

Now, if Civ3 can get through its teething pains and make some strides, I'll probably return to give it another whirl

[Deathwalker]

I personally am glad they are going to put in stacked movment. Just so long as you can't move a stack to attack

[player1]

The way stack movement is solved is GREAT compromise.

Make small modif. gain a LOT.

Anyway only ACTIVE units of same type will move.
So, if you don't want to move somethiong then FORTIFY it (or sentry).

If Firaxis planed to make complete stacked unit movement that would need a lot more code:
-they'll need a unit selector menu

This way is good for now.
I expect for next patches to get additional improvements.

[LaRusso]

well it all sounds good. when will the post it for download? friday 2 pm EST?

[Zoid]

As many others have mentioned, the stacked movement (if it works a we predict) is a fair compromise and, I might add, a pretty realistic one. Tanks move faster than cavalry and cavalry move faster than infantry or artillery. If you want to protect your artillery you can do this with infantry, and if you want some tanks to accompany you artillery regiment, you´ll have to accept that movement for the tanks is restricted (as it is in real life).
I don´t see what could be wrong with this

What would be neat, however, would be some form of troup transport vehicle for infantry to supplement the transport and helicopter units. Then you could have stacked movement with tanks and stuff, and kick some serious AI butt

Edit: And I don´t mean like an army, I ´m thinking Tiberian Sun-like

Or have I just revealed my total lack of knowledge of the Civ3 combat system?

[ChrisShaffer]

Originally posted by Kamrat X
As many others have mentioned, the stacked movement (if it works a we predict) is a fair compromise and, I might add, a pretty realistic one. Tanks move faster than cavalry and cavalry move faster than infantry or artillery. If you want to protect your artillery you can do this with infantry, and if you want some tanks to accompany you artillery regiment, you´ll have to accept that movement for the tanks is restricted (as it is in real life).
I don´t see what could be wrong with this

The way Yin would like (and I would too), if I want to move my tanks and cavalry and infantry and artillery together, I'd designate them as a group, hit j, and they'd all move together.

The way it's designed, I'll have to select a tank, hit j, the tanks move together. Then select a cavalry, hit j, the cavalry move together. Then select an infantry, hit j, the infantry move together. Then select an artillery, hit j, the artillery move together.

See the difference?

Yin's method allows players to designate groups containing only tanks, only artillery, etc. -- which is almost identical to the 1.17f system -- if that's what they want. And it allows other players to make combined forces groups. The 1.17f system doesn't allow for combined forces groups. Sigh.

[Libertarian]

Yes, I think I understand now. You're saying that you want to be able to form your attacking stacks prior to moving them, is that right?

[Slax]

Then, to move again next turn, I assume you have to again press j to keep your like units together for the next move.

I'd rather have stacks that you load and unload.