Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I stand corrected regarding the flank attack / collateral damage confusion. Thanks for the link.

You have no considered first strikes, which are an important factor. For example Japanese samurais (Macemen) have 2 first strikes and Musketmen are not effective against them.

Then, because cities have a tile bonus for defense the AI might prefer defending a city rather than engaging in a regular tile.

As an invader you can protect yourself in hills and forests, and also using rivers to your advantage (there's a penalty for an attacker if it involves crossing a river) until you reach a city, not to mention a coastal drop.

But I really do not think Musketmen are as powerful as you say. They're the first gunpowder unit and a good defensive unit, but are not an unstoppable force.

Then, once cannons/artillery and air units come into play, death stacks are very vulnerable to them.




> But I really do not think Musketmen are as powerful as you say.

Its not Musketmen that makes the strategy annoying. Its the death-stack mechanic in general. The tactical possibilities of a Death-stack are boring: its just bigger is better.

Engaging in a death-stack is similarly boring: if your stack is smaller, you retreat. If their stack is smaller, you advance.

Musketmen are just the example I'm using because they're the "all-around" unit from the mid-game. I don't really need to know the composition of your military if I'm using Musketmen around the time they come out. It has nothing to do with Musketmen in general, the boring part is just throwing 20 of anything down onto a single tile stack.

-----------

It doesn't matter if the stack is composed of Axemen, Samurai, Infantry, Gunships, Tanks, or whatever. Its all the same to me: you make a big ball then wreak things without thinking too much about the individual strategy.

In contrast: Civ2 was extremely punishing against stacks in general, only a well-defended location (ie: City or Fort) could support stacks. In the open field, it required careful consideration of the board whenever you were moving. Maybe a stack was worthwhile (ex: moving onto a Fortified Musketeer in Civ2, since you're confident in its defense). Or maybe not (well maybe you'll lose 3 units to their Artillery).

Civ5 and Civ6 get the right idea by preventing death stacks: it means that choke-points truly exist in those games. However, the lack of stacking messes with the movement of both games, and moving units (especially in the endgame) becomes EXTREMELY tedious.

Civ2's "kill the whole stack" allowed you to have simplified endgame movement and tactical gameplay. It was the best of both worlds, albeit with just the occasional newbie complaining about killstacks.

> Then, once cannons/artillery and air units come into play, death stacks are very vulnerable to them.

Cannons and Artillery only have one movement, and have the same problem as the Trebuchet. Mobile artillery has 2-movement, but everything in the game has 2 or more movement by that point (Tanks / Mechanized infantry)

Bombers, sure. Bombers finally give an answer to the deathstack right before the game ends. But Gunships (Helicopters) and Fighters don't do anything vs stacks. And it only takes a single Fighter running interception missions (100% interception rate) to deter any Bombers from your stack.

Stealth Bombers with 50% evasion, finally give a way to reliably attack stacks in the absolute endgame.


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


No. You get Lanchester's 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.


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.


> 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.


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.


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?


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?


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.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: