11-12-2003 23:31									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I agree

and I think that new thing should be something to make it better to split up your units

civ3 only favors stacks (As does CTP)

Jon Miller

	12-12-2003 03:37									#92
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa All those who think stacked is the solution should take a look at the Panzer General Series (and especially the first one) which had excellent tactics and yet no stacks.

But that was a tactical game. Civ is a grand strategy game.

In a war game, moving one unit at a time to get exactly the best result from it every single turn is the fun, because that's what the game mechanics are designed to do.

Civ as a war game is just a mediocre war game. Moving units that can number in the hundreds to get exactly the best result from them every single turn is tedius... because in Civ turns it just means marching 100 units one by one to the other guy's city, then arrowing them toward the city one by one until they die or take the city.

Wee.

	12-12-2003 03:41									#93
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller I agree and I think that new thing should be something to make it better to split up your units civ3 only favors stacks (As does CTP) Jon Miller

No, Civ 3 only favors numbers. The game doesn't care if they are spread out over hundreds of tiles, or hundreds strong in a single tile (with the single exception of zero range bombard units in stacks).

CtP doesn't favor stacks for the sake of stacks. Instead, it requires thoughtful army design (to take the definitions from the other thread ). The results are more strategic options regarding assault and defense forces, a more realistic and satisfying combat system, and (all together now) LESS TEDIUM!!!

Now Civ 4 can feature even better army composition, by learning from the mistakes of the previous games' tries.

	12-12-2003 04:04									#94
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian Unfortunately, the group movement command in civ3 was an all-or-nothing affair. You could only group the same type of unit, and you could not subdivide those units without a great deal of work. In CTP2, grouping was not limited by type, and it was not an all-or-nothing command. The end result was... ...you guessed it, LESS TEDIUM

huh? No, we are talking about a front. In that case, group move is pretty worthless anyways, as the units are all going to different places. Oh, and you are wrong about civ3 only being able to group units of the same type

	12-12-2003 04:05									#95
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Asmodean Jon: I understand that you do not like stacked combat. I don't agree with you, but I understand your position. What I don't understand is why you are also against stacked movement. Why be against a feature that makes playing easier, and, IMO less tedious. Wouldn't it be great to have a system where you could move units in and out of stacks, and move the stacks with a single click? Asmodean

Stacked movement is in Civ3, and I'm fine with it.

	12-12-2003 04:37									#96
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Fosse No, Civ 3 only favors numbers. The game doesn't care if they are spread out over hundreds of tiles, or hundreds strong in a single tile (with the single exception of zero range bombard units in stacks). CtP doesn't favor stacks for the sake of stacks. Instead, it requires thoughtful army design (to take the definitions from the other thread ). The results are more strategic options regarding assault and defense forces, a more realistic and satisfying combat system, and (all together now) LESS TEDIUM!!! Now Civ 4 can feature even better army composition, by learning from the mistakes of the previous games' tries.

have you played civ3?

it does favor numbers, true, nubmers at a specific location

and so what is valuable is stacks, I kick ass when I fight the computer, and it is not because I have more troops

Jon Miller

	12-12-2003 05:31									#97
	Support Apolyton

I had Civ:CtP for a hot minute before some slug stole it from me. In the ten or so games I played, I fell in love with stacking.

	12-12-2003 05:53									#98
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Oh, and you are wrong about civ3 only being able to group units of the same type

Is that a PTW/Conquests addition, because the last patch I had 1.29 only had same types of units.

I never bothered with PTW

	12-12-2003 05:57									#99
	Got spare money?

Yeah, fine. Civ 3 favors attacking units on grass instead of hills. Got it. And it favors attacking units with lower defense than your attack on grass instead of hills. Wee.

But frankly we aren't even talking about the question anymore, which is:

Is army-style combat - similar to what is seen in *gasp* the Call to Power series - or traditional Civ style combat the way to go for Civ 4?

The reasons for Army style:
*less micromangement
*better combat results: instead of simulating one unit sitting still while another one shoots at it for a while, you simulate two units fighting.

"General, our longbows are being fired upon by their longbows! Wha should we do?!"
"Hope against all odds that we aren't killed, then maybe we'll fire at them when they stop."
"Why not just shoot at them right now?"
"Because it's Civ TRADITION!"

*It is widely supported (on this forum) by those of us speaking out.

Reasons for traditional Civ combat:
*It's tradition.



You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be.
Saying that we should keep it because it's the old way is silly. If we did that then we'd never have had resources, or culture, or any number of things.

I understand that you will always like Civ 3 style combat. I cannot persuade you otherwise. Nobody else can persuade you otherwise. We should now focus our efforts on figuring out just how we would like army-style combat to be, and you should just focus on explaining how you intend to address the myriad of problems that the old way has, and that you've agreed are present.. Our arguing back and forth isn't going to get us anwhere at this point.



-Fosse

	12-12-2003 08:48									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Fosse You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be. -Fosse

...and the truly sad thing is that with the elimination of a conventional ZOC, those front lines doubled in size.

All we can hope from this discussion is that it'll open some eyes to the possibilities.

I know that Soren still lurks here.

	12-12-2003 09:25									#101
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Fosse Yeah, fine. Civ 3 favors attacking units on grass instead of hills. Got it. And it favors attacking units with lower defense than your attack on grass instead of hills. Wee. But frankly we aren't even talking about the question anymore, which is: Is army-style combat - similar to what is seen in *gasp* the Call to Power series - or traditional Civ style combat the way to go for Civ 4? The reasons for Army style: *less micromangement *better combat results: instead of simulating one unit sitting still while another one shoots at it for a while, you simulate two units fighting. "General, our longbows are being fired upon by their longbows! Wha should we do?!" "Hope against all odds that we aren't killed, then maybe we'll fire at them when they stop." "Why not just shoot at them right now?" "Because it's Civ TRADITION!" *It is widely supported (on this forum) by those of us speaking out. Reasons for traditional Civ combat: *It's tradition. You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be. Saying that we should keep it because it's the old way is silly. If we did that then we'd never have had resources, or culture, or any number of things. I understand that you will always like Civ 3 style combat. I cannot persuade you otherwise. Nobody else can persuade you otherwise. We should now focus our efforts on figuring out just how we would like army-style combat to be, and you should just focus on explaining how you intend to address the myriad of problems that the old way has, and that you've agreed are present.. Our arguing back and forth isn't going to get us anwhere at this point. -Fosse

I never said that I like Civ3's combat that much

I don't, I find it boring

I feel that it has most of the same problems as CTPs

Civ2's was better, but it had different failings

in civ both sides do fight

the offense defense numbers show effects of initiative and agression

sure you can figt over a larger front with armies

but is it smart to?

in Civ3, and CTP,itis not

the stack/army rules the day

I never said that we should keep it beacuse of it being the traditional way, quit puttin g arguments in my mouth

I said that I like what I am suggesting, which is closer to civ2 than civ3 and CTP, because I think that it is more fun

I have started addressing the issue of how I would like combat, if you had bothered to read all of my posts

Jon Miller

	12-12-2003 09:28									#102
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: You've argued that it supports longer fronts, but frankly that's hogwash. I can fight over an extended front with my armies, and break my armies into smaller componants if need be. Saying that we should keep it because it's the old way is silly. If we did that then we'd never have had resources, or culture, or any number of things.

Actually, with stacked combat, it is extremely disadvantageous to spread out your units because 12 vs 1 is FAR more deadly to the 1 with stacked combat than in unstacked.

Also, another thing - this is actually MORE realistic in some ways. You [proponents of stacked combat] say that it is ridiculous that one guy can hold off huge numbers. However, can those huge numbers really attack him all at once? For example, on a mountain and in a fortress (IRL), a huge advantage is that the defender only has to face a small number of the enemy at a time.

	12-12-2003 09:29									#103
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian ...and the truly sad thing is that with the elimination of a conventional ZOC, those front lines doubled in size.

... which has nothing to do with the merits of stacked vs unstacked combat, as virtually everyone agrees that Civ3-style ZOC was a mistake and Civ2-style ZOC was good.

	12-12-2003 09:50									#104
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Actually, with stacked combat, it is extremely disadvantageous to spread out your units because 12 vs 1 is FAR more deadly to the 1 with stacked combat than in unstacked.

I agree. But if the reason for wanting a system that lets you battle across a huge front line, then why not disregard the advantages of armies and have a string of units anyway? This wasn't really an argument... just a rant. Forgive me.



Also, another thing - this is actually MORE realistic in some ways. You [proponents of stacked combat] say that it is ridiculous that one guy can hold off huge numbers. However, can those huge numbers really attack him all at once? For example, on a mountain and in a fortress (IRL), a huge advantage is that the defender only has to face a small number of the enemy at a time. [/QUOTE]

I see this as where the fortification bonus - that can still be in an army vs. army system - comes in. Given those bonuses, we can simulate the effects of great fortification. I appreciate the argument, but I don't think that this one instance makes the system of unit vs. unit more realistic as a whole. Besides, if two guys are in that fortress on a mountain top, then one of them isn't taking a break while the other one fights off the attackers.


Jon: I have read every double spaced line of all of your posts. Forgive me if I've misread them, but other than frowning on army-style combat I've seen no real proposal of a method. I would be obliged if you provide a single post, right here in this thread, that explained exactly what you want and why. Reviewing your posts isn't helping me, because the way I'm reading them, I'm seeing too many contradictory statements for me to get a clear picture of what you want, other than an abscense of army vs. army.

And I agree with the current ZOC being a real kick in the pants.

Regards,
Fosse

	12-12-2003 10:17									#105
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I posted in great detail just now in the units thread

could you look there?

JKon Miller

	12-12-2003 16:41									#106
	Full PM-box? Change here!

12 vs one is firstly realistic because of the map scale we are talking about.

Also, you should note that 12 attackers never simultaneously attack one guy in CtP combat... for a start you only have a front line of 6. Being that an individual unit could be attacked from different directions, I don't see the situation being unrealistic.

	12-12-2003 21:37									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by skywalker ... which has nothing to do with the merits of stacked vs unstacked combat, as virtually everyone agrees that Civ3-style ZOC was a mistake and Civ2-style ZOC was good.

But I am also dealing with the inherent problem of tedium within a single-unit vs single-unit setup that is compounded by the tedium that is brought about by the elimination of ZOC that effectively doubles the number of units strung out on a front line.

I do need to clarify this though - it is the total disregard of trespassing agreements by the AI that is the real culprit. This necessitates the need for long fronts to stop what amounts to a MAJOR gameplay irritation. With a ZOC rule, I could probably stomach the trespassing since I could set up strategically placed units, but without the rule, I have to set up in every tile that touches the front.

	12-12-2003 23:06									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

you should have included "leave it as it is in civ3" as an option in poll ...

	13-12-2003 01:06									#109
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: you should have included "leave it as it is in civ3" as an option in poll ...

That's quite true. I bet it would have been the overwhelming choice of Civ3 players, who, after all, are the market that Firaxis is aiming their games at. We CTP2 players are the Mac owners in this situation. Billy didn't get all that money by trying to please them.

	13-12-2003 01:10									#110
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: HOM&M, MOO, MOM- all used stacked combat and this greatly helps the AI when it comes to combat

MOO ai being helped by stacked combat? Urgg... If you let it play tactical combar, the ai would lose your battles happily...
But stacked combat is the way to go. CtP2 system was very good. Better than any other system I found. Adding more special powers than ranged / flanking might be an option, though.

	13-12-2003 02:12									#111
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Rasputin you should have included "leave it as it is in civ3" as an option in poll ...

Yeah, that's odd. I would think C3C might be more appropriate, as its the latest...

I'm an admitted Civ fanboy, but even I would vote banana over the Civ2 (howitzer/engineer army) model.


And I must be the only one around to find the ZoC of Civ2 to be utterly ridiculous and lazy. How large are tiles? 100 square miles or something? How can a warrior unit control tiles adjacent to his own? We can't do that now very well... I think you should have to physically control each tile. The AI rarely crosses my territory anymore, though when I first got the game, they did it incessently. After being kicked out once, they seem to stay away from my land (fearing war).

	13-12-2003 03:24									#112
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by statusperfect I vote for stacks. More tactics = more fun

:d: 80% are for Ctp stacks, about what I expected, in Ctp it adds a dimension to the game and speeds the game up (because you have to attck in groups).

	13-12-2003 04:27									#113
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

realpolitic:

Agreed. I'll say again, it seems to make sense to go onto talking about how we'd like to see stacks, instead of whether we want to... since we overwhelmingly do.

	13-12-2003 04:48									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I oppose having all units in stacks, you need plenty of unstacked units to scout and recce to defend and explore/attack.

I've not played Ctp yet, tho I may compile its source code to see if its any good ( it was designed by a Lawyer so its got to be good NOT ). Sending everything around in stacks would be easy , but you'd end up having more trouble than you started with. You'd have to have 50 stacks to take over the world in the end, and it would make micromanagement far worse. Each city needs units to defend it.. i'm not going to have a big army stack of 5 units defending one city when it could be off fighting a war.

If we have more stacks and armies, they need to be better than the Civ3 Armies. Armies are like stacked units, and I think they make sense.. they could be expanded upon for Civ3. Army combat could come into being in the late Ancient era, the Classical era to be precise perhaps relating to the Monarchy Advance, which was alot to do with millitary organisation.. the king effectively being the General of the army. Feudalism also brought about advances in army tactics, leading to professional standing armies.

Someone needs to define the different types of stack options.

I think some stacks should be available as an option.. where the stack can have a General or Knight commanding it. Depending on his skill and technological , tactics and training level he can work out what units to defend with, and what to attack. The player must be involved in all stages.. I hate having combat resolved automatically simply based on an abstract defencive value. One example here is The player could select skirmish mode, where the stack units spread out and think for themselves, but the general
still directs them to ambush or harrass the enemy. Formations and combined warfare tactics can be simulated too.

I'd prefer to go for unit detail and quality , over quantity.
Anyone can make a large tank army, but its more interesting making a couple small stack armies and many skirmishing scout and fast attack cavalry class units .

CTP2 had a battle screen where the stacks battled it out.. tho this dosen't have much strategy in it I believe.. if we went this way it would have to be a battlefield on which to play upon.

Civ isn't CTP , lets try to keep some of the old great game intact.

	13-12-2003 04:59									#115
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

PJ,
You don't have to move around every unit in stacks! In the CtP series most of the early game is played with single units in fact, because you have so few and they have so many things to do.





Off topic: The compiled source code still requires the commercial CD.

	13-12-2003 05:20									#116
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I think we could have Units spread into fronts and Stack like advantages. Like i said before this here, a General, call it a Commander would be a Leadership unit that controls a group of units. These units could include Marines, Fighterbomber jets , Destroyers to allow them to work together to both bombard and soften up targets alongside normal ground combat - Combined Tactics.. I think this is why people are thinking stacks would be useful in part.
The units would be linked to the commander only through command structure, they could be 50 miles away if communications allowed it. This is similar to a modern millitary structure where the Marines have support Bombers and artillery as well as Supply trucks etc.
You could have 10 infantry troops spread into line formation and the commander can be given orders by you to go on Defencive or Sentry duties, which organises the whole Battalion/'Stack' into that stance.

	13-12-2003 05:38									#117
	Support Apolyton

Tactical minigames.. Shouldn't that be a separate topic?
I'm thinking of putting that in my originally coded game (nothing to do with the ctp source code i should add, for clarity). It allows us coders a lot less work, but it can make a worse game as it reduces strategic planning.

Having a minigame means the rest of the map isn't being animated or drawn so it saves on computer processor overhead. The advantage is that the player has to play out the battle in one area till a result is reached, and dosen't have to halfway through leave this battle and concentrate on a drought in China or a skirmish with the English etc.

If civ can do this minigame well, it could have a lot of advantages. You could have one minigame set in a Modern European City style, with separate buildings and rivers and roads as tactical obstacles or defencive fortifications. This is why i'm considering it for my game project.

Its possible to make this concept work on the large world map, just section off a part of it and make it a battlefield.
The major problem is reinforcements.. if a units just outside the battlefield, shouldn't it be able to join the battle if it lasts more than a day for example.
The solution is to keep minigames short and allow a battle to continue to the next Fullworld game turn ends for reinforcements , though they should be called tactical combat games/levels.

	13-12-2003 08:59									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Admiral PJ Sending everything around in stacks would be easy , but you'd end up having more trouble than you started with. You'd have to have 50 stacks to take over the world in the end, and it would make micromanagement far worse. Each city needs units to defend it.. i'm not going to have a big army stack of 5 units defending one city when it could be off fighting a war.

Well, here is a sample gamefile of my current CTP2 Cradle game. This is on turn 290, so I am well into the game. This is to illustrate that army management is greatly streamlined in a stacked situation.

Note that there are not a lot of stacks. Most of my cities are garrisoned by anywhere from 2-12 units, based on how hot things are. On this front, I am not dealing with a lot of units - this front is somewhat isolated and the enemy is halfway around the world, but I am also outclassed on unit type (base enemy infantry unit Legion - 30A/30D/15HP against Hoplites - 15A/20D/12HP), so I have to make sure that I have numerical superiority. This is not a particularly hot front either.

I have several units out on the perimeter and when something shows up, I send out my lone stack to deal with it. I'm on a steady military build up there, yet because of battle attrition and that there are no enemy cities to hit, I have to expend a lot just to make sure I do not lose anything.

My southern front (not shown) is a lot hotter, but the civs/units down there are more technologically similar and because I'm close to hostile cities, the enemy stacks are larger when they show up. I am treading water down there. I did most of my war expansion in that area, and I have gone back and forth on a few cities. Nevertheless, it is pretty much the same regarding deployment - only a few stacks. I would like to put together a lot of stacks and do a major push, but it is hard to put it together AND cover all of my bases.

I have to carefully manage troops because when a battle can wipe out an entire stack, the stakes become very high - unlike in civ3 where single-unit combat can be easily stopped. (One of the reasons why stacked combat is such a rush, IMO...)

And since I cannot load a city with infinite units, I have to pick my battles very carefully.

	14-12-2003 04:28									#119
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I don't like city garrisons

civ3 also doesn't have lots of stacks, I don't like that

Jon Miller

	14-12-2003 06:32									#120
	Tired of ads?

quote: I see this as where the fortification bonus - that can still be in an army vs. army system - comes in. Given those bonuses, we can simulate the effects of great fortification. I appreciate the argument, but I don't think that this one instance makes the system of unit vs. unit more realistic as a whole. Besides, if two guys are in that fortress on a mountain top, then one of them isn't taking a break while the other one fights off the attackers.

The defense bonuses, unless they are EXTREMELY LARGE (like, 300-400%, maybe), are not helpful. The fact that multiple units are engaged in combat at the same time means that the only truly viable stack is one between 8 (probably only defense) and 12 units (given a max of 12). Stacked combat, in allowing multiple units to attack one unit, is actually unrealistic in that it ignores the fact the many times, only one unit at a time would be able to come into position to attack that other unit. In stacked combat, the power of a force increases exponentially with size, rather than directly, as in C3.