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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Hope it help you.

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: ../../Forum6/HTML/001258.html

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

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).

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 !

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?

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!!!

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...

OTOH, can we suggest the best way to implement leaders, just to drive Sid and co. to the right way?

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.

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

I would prefer making a thing like that :

stack options/abilities .