Thread Tools
Old September 15, 2000, 05:08   #1
emren
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13
Stacking units
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.
emren is offline  
Old September 16, 2000, 00:15   #2
UltraSonix
King
 
Local Time: 10:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
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...
UltraSonix is offline  
Old September 17, 2000, 10:48   #3
emren
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13
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).]
emren is offline  
Old September 18, 2000, 22:08   #4
Gilgalad5
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 10

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.
Gilgalad5 is offline  
Old September 19, 2000, 05:52   #5
Deathwalker
Prince
 
Deathwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 671
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
Deathwalker is offline  
Old September 19, 2000, 09:15   #6
emren
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13
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.
emren is offline  
Old September 19, 2000, 17:37   #7
Shadowstrike
Emperor
 
Shadowstrike's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:30
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Glorious Land of Canada
Posts: 3,234
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.

Shadowstrike is offline  
Old September 19, 2000, 21:36   #8
UltraSonix
King
 
Local Time: 10:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
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...
UltraSonix is offline  
Old September 20, 2000, 11:41   #9
Deathwalker
Prince
 
Deathwalker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 671
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
Deathwalker is offline  
Old September 21, 2000, 06:11   #10
Adm.Naismith
King
 
Adm.Naismith's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Milano - Italy
Posts: 1,674
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
Adm.Naismith is offline  
Old September 21, 2000, 07:24   #11
UltraSonix
King
 
Local Time: 10:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
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...
UltraSonix is offline  
Old September 21, 2000, 11:37   #12
Adm.Naismith
King
 
Adm.Naismith's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Milano - Italy
Posts: 1,674
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
Adm.Naismith is offline  
Old September 21, 2000, 18:29   #13
UltraSonix
King
 
Local Time: 10:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
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).]
UltraSonix is offline  
Old October 13, 2000, 06:29   #14
emren
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13
*bump*
This relates to the recent talk in Tactics Upgrades.
emren is offline  
Old October 15, 2000, 22:31   #15
Shogun Gunner
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization IV: MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildCivilization III Democracy GameCall to Power II MultiplayerCall to Power MultiplayerC3CDG Team BabylonPtWDG Vox ControliCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Shogun Gunner's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:30
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Potomac Falls, Virginia
Posts: 6,258
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!
Shogun Gunner is offline  
Old October 15, 2000, 23:37   #16
Seeker
Emperor
 
Seeker's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:30
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Yongsan-Gu, Seoul
Posts: 3,647
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?
Seeker is offline  
Old October 16, 2000, 11:03   #17
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
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.
Stuff2 is offline  
Old October 17, 2000, 07:52   #18
Az
Emperor
 
Local Time: 03:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: A pub.
Posts: 3,161
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.
Az is offline  
Old October 17, 2000, 22:45   #19
Shogun Gunner
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization IV: MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildCivilization III Democracy GameCall to Power II MultiplayerCall to Power MultiplayerC3CDG Team BabylonPtWDG Vox ControliCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Shogun Gunner's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:30
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Potomac Falls, Virginia
Posts: 6,258
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 is offline  
Old October 17, 2000, 22:55   #20
Shogun Gunner
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization IV: MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildCivilization III Democracy GameCall to Power II MultiplayerCall to Power MultiplayerC3CDG Team BabylonPtWDG Vox ControliCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Shogun Gunner's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:30
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Potomac Falls, Virginia
Posts: 6,258
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!!!

Shogun Gunner is offline  
Old October 18, 2000, 01:49   #21
Tiberius
PtWDG LegolandCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Tiberius's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,496
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).
Tiberius is offline  
Old October 18, 2000, 18:39   #22
UltraSonix
King
 
Local Time: 10:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
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...
UltraSonix is offline  
Old October 18, 2000, 19:16   #23
Adm.Naismith
King
 
Adm.Naismith's Avatar
 
Local Time: 01:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Milano - Italy
Posts: 1,674
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
Adm.Naismith is offline  
Old October 20, 2000, 00:58   #24
Tiberius
PtWDG LegolandCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Tiberius's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,496
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).]
Tiberius is offline  
Old October 20, 2000, 15:53   #25
Az
Emperor
 
Local Time: 03:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: A pub.
Posts: 3,161
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 ?
Az is offline  
Old October 20, 2000, 19:32   #26
UltraSonix
King
 
Local Time: 10:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
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...
UltraSonix is offline  
Old October 21, 2000, 00:09   #27
Stuff2
Warlord
 
Local Time: 00:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 274
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.
Stuff2 is offline  
Old October 21, 2000, 00:50   #28
Tiberius
PtWDG LegolandCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Tiberius's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,496
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.
Tiberius is offline  
Old October 23, 2000, 19:00   #29
Tim White
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kearns, Utah, USA
Posts: 86
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).]
Tim White is offline  
Old October 24, 2000, 01:01   #30
Tiberius
PtWDG LegolandCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization IV CreatorsC4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Tiberius's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:30
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 4,496
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.
Tiberius is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:30.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team