Just because you have specific preference there does not make alternative game mechanics impossible to balance, or be enjoyable to others.

I guess you don't play on difficulty levels where you need much greater production than that. A single enemy unit will block at least two tiles of access before it's killed when attacked by units of similar tech level. If it's a defensive unit, particularly in a favorable terrain, chances are it'll stop three to four units. Which, in practical terms, equals to blocking access to the unit more often than not, because not even cavalry can go around such blockade and still be able to attack, especially if the terrain is somewhat varied. And why wouldn't you use terrain to your advantage in the first place?

It is possible to stagger defensive units to completely block wide-front advance. Put some artillery units behind them (or use airforce in late game) to weaken the attackers, and they may have 50 units back there, but won't get anywhere. That turn, anyway.

It's silly, to put it mildly. Any historical operations taking place were the result of concentration of forces within a rather small geographical placement.

No, I just started right above. I'd appreciate if you paid attention to who says what, I dislike having others' words claimed to be mine.

The problem with this "argument" is that Civ V prevents me from moving my artillery along with accompanied infantry in the same tile - something that was pretty standard for most armies through history. For both security reasons, and because there were usually limited choices of routes for efficient movement of mass group of troops.

In Civ's case, this means also denies me the choice of sacrificing speed of the group for power projection/multiplication by using dedicated attached support unit.

You had plenty of explanation as to why your assertion that stacks were somehow unbalanced was dead wrong. Ditto for other claims.

I'm not tired of Civ. I just dislike what the newer versions of it did. Removing stacks is just a small part of it.

Hey, enjoy your increasingly "casual" game, but I like some challenge in my strategies. With a dash of simulation, please, instead of increasingly odd abstractions.

Or, just maybe, it's intended to simulate the fact that the opposing commander has some brains and uses the best unit to counter your specific attack?

Anyway, Civ has always been full of simplifications like that. It's game mechanics restriction due to engine limitations. Unlike single-unit-per-tile change.

That's perfectly OK, but don't make easily disproven claims that stacks were somehow unbalanced.

Personally, I'd love to see a tactical battlefield like in Age of Wonders instead, but to each of their own.

Because there is no "proper" method to implement it.

Apparently Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, Hearts of Iron, Victoria, Supreme Ruler, Imperialism, Dominions, and who knows how many others I am forgetting right now do not have "proper strategic battle system?"

Or, in most cases, are not more detailed than any Civilization title? Hell, from the list above only Imperialism is less complex, and that's because it's an old-ass two-title release.

Honestly, your entire argument reads like the complaint of somebody who couldn't figure out a way to counter superior enemy production resulting in stacks, could not figure out a way to defend against them, and decided they were "unbalanced" instead of reconsidering their approach and recognizing perfectly viable and existing counters.

Again, if you're enjoying the change to one-unit-per-tile, good for you. But don't go around making claims that stacks were somehow game-breaking for the older titles, and recognize that some of us have perfectly valid reasons to prefer that implementation to the limitations of the current.

yeah exactly! The real reason is: These alternative game mechanics are useless crap

I played the highest difficulty, so what, doesn't change the issue. If favourable terrain helps defense, the attack elsewhere. That is very realistic.
so? sounds good to me. Now you need to think instead of just barging in with the 100 unit stack of doom.
it's not like one unit is one unit. One unit already represents a concentration of forces, so you can save your immersion crap

so what, just imagine the tile behind your infantry belongs to the same battlefield.

on the contrary, your claims were trashed and rendered meaningless!

casual? rofl, how can it be more casual if features and complexity keep increasing. But you probably don't manage to factor in all the possibilities in to your decisions anymore, so it must be the games fault. of course it is easier to barge into the enemy territory with a huge stack of doom rather than carefully having to advance many units each and minding the terrain.

maybe not because that is completely ridiculous? But from your strange reply I can see that this one got to you, hah!
It is unbelievably immersion breaking.

yeah exactly! one unit per tile makes it less simplified, aka more complex and less casual, glad you agree now.

unbalanced? don't think I ever made such claims. I'd appreciate if you paid attention to who says what, I dislike having others' words claimed to be mine.
like in master of magic? I don't know, I think it would get tiresome pretty fast. But, still much better than SOD combat, sure.
Are you projecting here or something? maybe you should read again, the problem is that attack with them is too easy, braindead in fact.
You seem to be under the impression that mass producing units is somehow difficult?
NO. I will continue to show why it is in fact so. You're the one making wild claims, because you have to face facts that all good hexgames like the many General games have one unit tile combat. And now SOD crap is a thing of the past in Civ, too.

totally different games with combat screens where the units are NOT stacked, irrelevant
How is that my failure if I have a 200 unit stack of doom? I repeat again, stacks suck, no matter who has them.

oh yes, glad you agree!
no idea, as I said, I have only played 1-5, each for hundreds or even thousands of hours. I only play games once they are complete, and Civ 6 isn't yet.
yeah, because your feeble rebuttal showed your insecurity. The stack has a general that sends the strongest unit to defend?? Haahah, yeah right that is so immersive! I can picture it already as the arrows are flying in. "Go go, legion, move there and die to the arrows." Yep, makes sense!
Nope, you are wilfully ignoring how immersion breaking these ridiculous stacks of doom are.
apparently it was your argument
to have the entire nations army on one tile? annoying? stupid? lame? idiotic? illogical? never said unbalanced though
lool, can't you understand that the units in Civ represent armies? It is not one tank alone moving into take a city, it is not one worker dude building farms around Paris, you know. So your entire premise is faulty. I wonder how often I will have to explain this concept again.
No, not really. Just dump the catapults on it, done. Yup, really complicated mindboggling tactics needed to take out a stack.
oh please, like one cancels out the other lol, now you are really grasping at straws. Just assume that I am the best civ player ever who can do it all. Now, you still think this would be difficult for me? If your entire point rests on the idiocy of the player, then just keep playing Civ4, if thinking about unit production AND tactics is too much for you!
yeah games with extra combat screen where the units are in fact NOT stacked LOL. Ever heard of the term own goal?
All my facts are not personal preferences as I perfectly explained to you why they would be preferable to anyone.
Stacks did not work well, and everyone who is not stuck in the past (obvious by your pre-judgement of Civ6) knows it.
Oh, and they will NEVER come back, of that I am sure.

Man, it's like arguing with a petulant child. Yes, they are stacked, yes, they are relevant, and yes, they are just a fraction of the games ever released that use stacking to great success.

But feel free to flail your arms and wail how they are "irrelevant" of an example just because the graphical presentation of conflict resolution differs, heh. Or that they have some different game rules to it, because "obviously" only Civ titles can every be used as examples of games that use "stacking" without a problem. Or something.

Apparently pointing out that the defensive mechanics used in stack are perfectly logical is "insecurity."

Okee.

For that matter, since you keep bringing up "immershun" and "realism," have you ever read any kind of account of a battle? Yes, your commander would absolutely "counter" enemy moves by deployment or repositioning of appropriate formation.

"lool" no they don't. They represent formations of a particular unit type. Which is why your "army" is incapable of engaging in ranged combat unless it's specifically an "artillery" unit.

An army is a mix of various unit formations. In other words, a "stack."

Also, cute strawman you have there, bud. Would be a shame if somebody 420'd it.

And yet they are not. Wonders of wonders.

No, they are not "facts." They are exactly "personal preferences" you try to sell off as some end-of-all-game-design achievement.

The only difference between "stacks" and "one unit per tile" implementation is that the first allows for greater tactical flexibility. Because you can no longer cold-stop an entire army simply sacrificing a unit so the attacker blocks the tile. Assuming they don't have a very specific promotion not available to most units.

Everything else - terrain, flanking, promotions, defensive unit choice - everything is the same. Stacks just made defending more demanding and required defense-in-depth, not just one line of blockers that get adjusted every turn depending on losses on either side.

You got a "100 unit stack of doom?" Congratulations, if the enemy cannot defeat it (which artillery was hard-countering in the first place with collateral damage), that means your war preparations were superior. Enjoy well-earned victory.

Neither does the AI build as many units in Civ V as it did in Civ iV, nor will it bring them all into conflict at the same time. Because they block each other, something "stacking" system prevented. Hell, you can't even use cavalry to push through a break in enemy defensive lines anymore (there goes my "immershun"), because the unit that just cleared that enemy is now blocking you from exploiting the tactical advantage. Which also happens to remove the use of any direct-contact reserve units as part of attack plans, because all they will do now is sit in the back looking pretty, blocked by the front-line units.

"So complex, much better. Wow!"

Not going to bother with the rest of your personal attacks, because, honestly, this is getting extremely tedious. You are literally arguing that removal of tactical possibilities is better, while at the same time claiming it makes combat more complex. I can't even.

How about releasing Civ 2 and 5 on the week preceding Crimbo, so 17th to 21st of December?

Let's not stop at that and add Civilization 1 to the list!

I've always thought that the first Civilization would make a very nice permanent free game (or even bonus with the purchase of other games in the franchise, like the early Elder Scrolls) to celebrate the release of more modern ones. But, on the other hand, it will require some effort by the GOG team to make it work in modern computers, and it's only fair that they charge a small price for it.

Oh dear, yes it is. You're still at it ?

'Kay. I had written this :

At that scale you can easily imagine that one army's strongest unit will be thrown at the other army's stronger unit. And try to throw your stronger army at their weakest army. Tactics roughly modelized, for a strategy game.

What you're wanting is a tactical game. It's fun too (a bit silly when both scales are confused) but you're the one basically loving tic tac toe and hating that anyone would ever play anything else. Most other, regular, people, enjoy both. I have no strong preference between the Civ games (I hop from one to the other), and I've been probably playing Cry Havoc and its clones way before you decided that Panzer General provides the only acceptable gameplay ever. But I just don't limit my gaming pleasures to that.

It's funny to watch you rationalize your narrow tastes as some universal standard. Or as a matter of grand abilities, all while hinting at your problems to cope with the specific challenges of alternative gameplays. The joys of gaming forums.

---

But then I had given up, not wanting to bump this whole idiocy. I think it's really pointless. Let the kid with his fantasies. There's a few people like that on these boards, be it about games or movies or whatever. Once the mentality is identified, I suggest to just shrug.

Plus side of the pseudo-convo : made me want to replay all the Civs.

DOS game = easy. The 2nd game I do not want to ever again setup as it was a nightmare.

Link to show you the first game runs just fine on DOSBox:
https://www.dosbox.com/comp_list.php?showID=48

Open source programmers may come to the rescue here (https://www.civone.org/About).

Although I wonder why anyone would like to recreate an old game even including all the bugs.

The first one indeed requires almost no effort. Even the 2nd one runs in Wine without any tweaks. But it seems to be quite buggy as it crashes a lot. So it's better to play FreeCiv instead.

if rational arguments sound childish to you, then you are the petulant child. Yes these other games used stacks with seperate combat screens. Not relevant still, despite your personal insults.

"Just" Graphical resolution of the conflict? rofl! A seperate combat screen where the combat is resolved WITHOUT stacks of doom, yeah, just a graphical gimmick. Except no, even those games realised that stacks of doom are not enough.

Come on, don't twist words. Your lame reasoning for WHY the stack mechanics are "logical" showed your insecurity.

Dont twist words, you are the ones on about immersion and realism, I couldn't give a crap less, I want gameplay. And no, I haven't seen to many war account where both nations entire armies died in one turn on one tile, nope, cant think of any. Large battles maybe, but the entire nations army hmmm no.

Oh so you do understand that one unit represents many units, good! So you do realise that a huge stack of the entire nations army is completely ridiculous.
Yeah not really, they move in formation, in tiles next to or behind the other. Not ALL the nations units in one area, nice try though, just forget this realism crap, doesnt work for your stack fantasies.

I am not selling them, Firaxis is, and very successfully. Not only commercially, Civ 5 is a huge improvement, mostly thanks to the removal of the awful stack combat. And it is gone forever, you know it.
Oh ok, so fewer tactical options means greater tactical flexibility, makes sense hah!

btw, anyone who is not a total moron will be able to get around this one unit stopping an entire army. I can only assume you are not very good at producing units in Civ 5 (see what I did there...)
yeah not really, but I guess these are your "facts"
That sucks! Would be nice to be able to play the actual war, too, no? And now we can, thanks to Civ 5 and the removal of this stupidass stack mechanic.
There is usually more than one tile, so I cannot confirm these problems, no matter what difficulty. But I guess you have not played Civ 5 much.
actually you are, as shown above. You want to remove all the "lame" blocking options in the one unit system in favor of a huge 1 second 1 battle SOD vs. SOD war. And you call this tactical flexibility LOL

ok, lame, and back at ya, kid! Meanwhile the rest of the world can finally enjoy Civ without the lameass stacks of doom you and three other people loved to much. But yeah everyone else has the narrow taste...projection much

Even Jon Shafer, lead designer of Civilization V, admitted that introducing one unit per tile was a mistake: https://www.pcgamer.com/jon-shafer-criticizes-every-decision-he-made-in-designing-civ-v-explains-how-at-the-gates-will-differ/

Nice demonstration of quote out of context. From you and that article. Look at the full essay, he was merely talking about some downsides of a general improvement. But nice try!

"This was a model very much inspired by the old wargame Panzer General. On the whole, I would say that the combat mechanics are indeed better in Civ 5 than in any other entry in the series. But as is the theme of this article, there's a downside to consider as well."

I would say that as well, wouldn't you?

What's the need for the condescending tone and personal attacks? "Nice try" claiming that I a posted an out-of-context quote, then quoting only one sentence and leaving out the next few paragraphs where Jon Shafer explains why one unit per tile works in some games, but doesn't in Civ 5: