3 ms·

Take any important battle in history and try to represent it in a tiled world and you will get a death stack.

dragontamer 6y ago
No. You get Lanchester's laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws Games which more accurately represent Lanchester's Square Law are Axis and Allies, or Ikusa (as well as Pathfinder / D&D 3.5 actually). The death-stacks of Civ4 are very far removed from reality. ------- Civ2, Civ5, and Civ6 work pretty close to Lanchester's linear law and are more acceptable battle simulations IMO. Risk is the board game commonly associated with the linear-law. ----- The tactician chooses the Linear-law when outnumbered. You run and hide in a chokepoint, 300-style, fighting as small of a force as possible. When you have the advantage, you try to choose terrain that's beneficial to the square-law, where you can outflank your opponent and focus fire them down (allowing the Square Law to take affect instead). Civ4 has no play between these two different situations, because the Deathstack doesn't care about flanking or shapes of your units, or anything.
- hannofcart 6y ago
  You've evidently spent a lot of time thinking about this so let me ask you this: would there be a sweet spot that's _between_ one unit per tile a la Civ 6 and the infinite stack as in Civ 4? Do you think that there might be an 'n' sized stack that enhances strategic play? Also do you blog about this stuff anywhere? If so I would love to read it.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    > You've evidently spent a lot of time thinking about this so let me ask you this: would there be a sweet spot that's _between_ one unit per tile a la Civ 6 and the infinite stack as in Civ 4? Civ2 / FreeCiv is my favorite. Civ2 / FreeCiv has infinite stacks EXCEPT all 20-units die if they lose in a singular combat. (!!!) One swordman can kill 20-swordmen if the 20-swordmen are stacked in one tile. Its quite unrealistic, but it leads to very nice emergent behavior. I do think Civ6 and Civ5's stack behavior is actually pretty good and tactical. Civ6's main problems are in the economic engine / science / culture mechanics. The tactics / war point of Civ6 is pretty good in my opinion (although Civ6 could definitely use a more complex military). The main issue with Civ6 / Civ5 stack behavior is more pedestrian: when you have 20-units on the battlefield and none of them can step on each other, it becomes incredibly tedious and unfun to move them around. Consider a chokepoint between two unpassable mountains: you now need to click each of your 20 units to individually move across the narrow pass. In Civ2 / FreeCiv, they just stack-up and unstack into their final positions. In Civ5/Civ6, they constantly block each other, the AI fails to reroute, and then you end up manually clicking on every unit you've ever built on every single turn until the end of the game. In Civ2 / FreeCiv: you still don't want to stack your units if enemies are close. Put your 20-swordmen in that narrow pass, and they can die even against a singular enemy. A lot of unnecessary risk there. So this sort of movement only really happens during peacetime, far away from any risky battlefield. -------- In theory, Civ5 / Civ6 could be fixed with some kind of AI that can perform flocking movement (like Starcraft 2's pathfinding AI: select 100 units in Starcraft, they "flock" together as a group, and traverse the terrain automagically). Alas, this still has its flaws: flocking AIs still wouldn't necessarily put all the units you have in the correct locations. You'll have to still deal with chokepoints slowing down your army's movements, etc. etc. (Chokepoints slowing you down is tactical however: so it'd be annoying but "realistic" and maybe worth considering as a mechanic) Still, the tedium of clicking on so many damn units so many damn times is aggravating. It really makes me wish for the old Civ2 days. ----------- It should be noted that in Civ6, you can merge two units into a Corps for +40% damage and +40% defense. A 3rd unit can be added, forming an Army for +75% total damage and defense (once you account for +20 healing per turn with Medics, these bonuses are substantial) So Civ6 has a "stacking mechanic" so to speak. Tactically, its fine and the 40% and 75% boosts feel rather balanced to me. The issue is once again: economic. A 3x stacked Tank Army has the same maintenance costs as a regular 1x unit of Tank (wtf?) So the economic engine of Civ6 is just completely out of whack. Given the high-maintenance costs of endgame units, it pretty much means you're 3x stacking everything into an army in the endgame, (which basically cuts your maintenance costs by 1/3rd). There's almost no economic cost to this strategy. Because there's no downside, there's no strategy: you just always make an army at endgame.
    - 29athrowaway 6y ago
      In Civ 6, Normandy in WW2 would be a couple of units in one tile. The Battle of Stalingrad would be another couple of units. Same with Iwo Jima, and every other major battle in history.
- 29athrowaway 6y ago
  It should be possible to make a Civ 4 mod that incorporates some of these ideas, likely by just forking an existing mod. Civ 4 is a pretty moddable game. Any thoughts on Europa Universalis?
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    Haven't played Europa Universalis. I hear good things about it and its engine. I'm considering getting into Crusader Kings 3 since that's the newest game on that engine. Any idea which Universalis game is the best to get into? Stellaris? Crusader Kings? Or EU?
    - bllguo 6y ago
      not who you're replying to - so they share some similarities but are all the Paradox games are independent and have different foci. Here are my thoughts: Stellaris is probably the easiest to get into, but I'm not a big fan; I see it as only a few steps above Civ complexity and tedium. It is broadly similar to Civ in concept and in how the game plays out. The sci-fi setting can be a plus, compared to the other games which are rooted in history. However this is also a con in that you lose all the dynamics and lore that make historical factions interesting. It's hard to manufacture good backstories from scratch, after all. I would recommend Crusader Kings or EU4 instead. Crusader Kings is best described as a dynasty simulator. Yes, you can lead countries, raise armies and conquer your enemies, engage in diplomacy and intrigue, etc. But ultimately it's more of a game about people than nations. For instance, several main aspects of managing your realm are maintaining your relationships with your vassals, and planning for your succession and developing your heir. These are mechanics that would typically be abstracted away, and only really make sense from the game's _personal_ perspective. There are a lot more RPG elements as a result. EU4's core concept is simpler than Crusader Kings - you are a nation, and your goals are viewed from those lens. It throws out the characterization of Crusader Kings in return for much more fleshed out mechanics around war, politics, and diplomacy. Consequently the gameplay is more strategic than Crusader Kings, at least in my view.

No. You get Lanchester's laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanchester%27s_laws Games which more accurately represent Lanchester's Square Law are Axis and Allies, or Ikusa (as well as Pathfinder / D&D 3.5 actually). The death-stacks of Civ4 are very far removed from reality. ------- Civ2, Civ5, and Civ6 work pretty close to Lanchester's linear law and are more acceptable battle simulations IMO. Risk is the board game commonly associated with the linear-law. ----- The tactician chooses the Linear-law when outnumbered. You run and hide in a chokepoint, 300-style, fighting as small of a force as possible. When you have the advantage, you try to choose terrain that's beneficial to the square-law, where you can outflank your opponent and focus fire them down (allowing the Square Law to take affect instead). Civ4 has no play between these two different situations, because the Deathstack doesn't care about flanking or shapes of your units, or anything.

hannofcart 6y ago
You've evidently spent a lot of time thinking about this so let me ask you this: would there be a sweet spot that's _between_ one unit per tile a la Civ 6 and the infinite stack as in Civ 4? Do you think that there might be an 'n' sized stack that enhances strategic play? Also do you blog about this stuff anywhere? If so I would love to read it.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  > You've evidently spent a lot of time thinking about this so let me ask you this: would there be a sweet spot that's _between_ one unit per tile a la Civ 6 and the infinite stack as in Civ 4? Civ2 / FreeCiv is my favorite. Civ2 / FreeCiv has infinite stacks EXCEPT all 20-units die if they lose in a singular combat. (!!!) One swordman can kill 20-swordmen if the 20-swordmen are stacked in one tile. Its quite unrealistic, but it leads to very nice emergent behavior. I do think Civ6 and Civ5's stack behavior is actually pretty good and tactical. Civ6's main problems are in the economic engine / science / culture mechanics. The tactics / war point of Civ6 is pretty good in my opinion (although Civ6 could definitely use a more complex military). The main issue with Civ6 / Civ5 stack behavior is more pedestrian: when you have 20-units on the battlefield and none of them can step on each other, it becomes incredibly tedious and unfun to move them around. Consider a chokepoint between two unpassable mountains: you now need to click each of your 20 units to individually move across the narrow pass. In Civ2 / FreeCiv, they just stack-up and unstack into their final positions. In Civ5/Civ6, they constantly block each other, the AI fails to reroute, and then you end up manually clicking on every unit you've ever built on every single turn until the end of the game. In Civ2 / FreeCiv: you still don't want to stack your units if enemies are close. Put your 20-swordmen in that narrow pass, and they can die even against a singular enemy. A lot of unnecessary risk there. So this sort of movement only really happens during peacetime, far away from any risky battlefield. -------- In theory, Civ5 / Civ6 could be fixed with some kind of AI that can perform flocking movement (like Starcraft 2's pathfinding AI: select 100 units in Starcraft, they "flock" together as a group, and traverse the terrain automagically). Alas, this still has its flaws: flocking AIs still wouldn't necessarily put all the units you have in the correct locations. You'll have to still deal with chokepoints slowing down your army's movements, etc. etc. (Chokepoints slowing you down is tactical however: so it'd be annoying but "realistic" and maybe worth considering as a mechanic) Still, the tedium of clicking on so many damn units so many damn times is aggravating. It really makes me wish for the old Civ2 days. ----------- It should be noted that in Civ6, you can merge two units into a Corps for +40% damage and +40% defense. A 3rd unit can be added, forming an Army for +75% total damage and defense (once you account for +20 healing per turn with Medics, these bonuses are substantial) So Civ6 has a "stacking mechanic" so to speak. Tactically, its fine and the 40% and 75% boosts feel rather balanced to me. The issue is once again: economic. A 3x stacked Tank Army has the same maintenance costs as a regular 1x unit of Tank (wtf?) So the economic engine of Civ6 is just completely out of whack. Given the high-maintenance costs of endgame units, it pretty much means you're 3x stacking everything into an army in the endgame, (which basically cuts your maintenance costs by 1/3rd). There's almost no economic cost to this strategy. Because there's no downside, there's no strategy: you just always make an army at endgame.
  - 29athrowaway 6y ago
    In Civ 6, Normandy in WW2 would be a couple of units in one tile. The Battle of Stalingrad would be another couple of units. Same with Iwo Jima, and every other major battle in history.
29athrowaway 6y ago
It should be possible to make a Civ 4 mod that incorporates some of these ideas, likely by just forking an existing mod. Civ 4 is a pretty moddable game. Any thoughts on Europa Universalis?
- dragontamer 6y ago
  Haven't played Europa Universalis. I hear good things about it and its engine. I'm considering getting into Crusader Kings 3 since that's the newest game on that engine. Any idea which Universalis game is the best to get into? Stellaris? Crusader Kings? Or EU?
  - bllguo 6y ago
    not who you're replying to - so they share some similarities but are all the Paradox games are independent and have different foci. Here are my thoughts: Stellaris is probably the easiest to get into, but I'm not a big fan; I see it as only a few steps above Civ complexity and tedium. It is broadly similar to Civ in concept and in how the game plays out. The sci-fi setting can be a plus, compared to the other games which are rooted in history. However this is also a con in that you lose all the dynamics and lore that make historical factions interesting. It's hard to manufacture good backstories from scratch, after all. I would recommend Crusader Kings or EU4 instead. Crusader Kings is best described as a dynasty simulator. Yes, you can lead countries, raise armies and conquer your enemies, engage in diplomacy and intrigue, etc. But ultimately it's more of a game about people than nations. For instance, several main aspects of managing your realm are maintaining your relationships with your vassals, and planning for your succession and developing your heir. These are mechanics that would typically be abstracted away, and only really make sense from the game's _personal_ perspective. There are a lot more RPG elements as a result. EU4's core concept is simpler than Crusader Kings - you are a nation, and your goals are viewed from those lens. It throws out the characterization of Crusader Kings in return for much more fleshed out mechanics around war, politics, and diplomacy. Consequently the gameplay is more strategic than Crusader Kings, at least in my view.