I really, really hate 1upt.

[sonicboom12345]

This system is stupid. At least insofar as its current implementation, it is really, really stupid.

I get that people think it makes the warfare in Civ more "tactical" or whatever. But if the devs aren't capable of bringing on really smart people to program really smart AI who know how to wage tactical warfare, it's a bit lousy, isn't it?

But the worst thing is how it turns the whole game into a traffic jam.

City states build a dozen warriors and spearmen and march them all over god's green earth for the full length of the game. They stand on the roads. They block the roads. I cannot build more roads, because the devs still think it's a clever idea to sacrifice gameplay for the sake of some historic parallelism between roads and trade routes.

Then if I want to send a missionary down that road, it gets blocked by the city state's stupid warrior, who is just standing there doing F A.

Why?

It doesn't even make any freaking sense. Why would a non-combat unit compete for space with a combat unit? Why can't missionaries and apostles just stack? It would open up entirely new strategies. You could stack five missionaries and send a missionary bomb at another civ. Potentially convert the whole city in one turn, at the risk of losing the whole stack if it's intercepted by an inquisitor. Instead we have units stumbling over each other. Detour off the road, get back on the road, detour off the road, get back on the road, holy crap this blows.

Why can't the devs ever compromise? Units from different civs can stack on top of each other if they're at peace. How about that? That would alleviate traffic jams. That would let me send my units down the road and not constantly have to detour. Or how about this? You can combine as many units as you want into a single stack called a March, and the whole March can move together. However, it has no combat ability and it is vulnerable to attack until it is unstacked. Maybe you have to pay upkeep on it, so it's a good idea to only use during deployment situations. Would that be okay? Just to let your armies get from point A to point B? Just to unclutter the freaking map so you can travel around it?

I don't get why these issues still aren't resolved yet. This has been a problem since Civ 5 and the developers all knew it. I'm extremely disappointed so far at this aspect of the game. I picked up Civ 6 hoping some of these issues would be fixed, only to discover, nope, they're still all there, and worse than ever before. Great. Just great.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

I had hopes as well. Blown to pieces Heres for hoping the game will flop and a New team of developers re-inventing the series.

 

[Brianstorm]

Yeah I gave them a chance with V, obviously there are gonna be issues with such a big change to the series, but here we are 6 years later with the same exact problems.

 

[isau]

Well it worked kind of ok in the Community Balance Patch where Workers etc could occupy the same tile (just not work it). I'm totally perplexed why they would code the Civ 6 engine from the ground up and not take note of that.

Same with overpowered Archers who are the best unit for knocking down city HP. I used to think a lot of the issues in Civ 5 were accidental. But now they're back in Civ 6 and it's like the developers never understood why the CB{ became such a huge thing.

 

[Cuneiform]

I personally like 1upt, and the updated way in which Civ6 implements it.

I'm just wondering what percent of Civ5 players actually installed the CB patch, that was apparently a "Huge thing".

 

[Lord Shadow]

They're not easy issues to resolve, though I agree that missionaries and other religious units shouldn't block the movement of military units.

Stacking units for "marching" doesn't seem all that viable since the AI would need new functions to know how to handle it to avoid having entire armies wiped out at once. Not only would they need to know when to drop out of the formation, but also know how to distribute the units across the local terrain. In the end it solves nothing.

As for hiring "really smart people" to code a "smart AI", that is of course nonsense. I'm sure the AI will be tuned over patches, but a sizeable portion of the community doesn't know what it demands when it expects AI better than anything in the gaming industry. For instance, people are already complaining about the fairly reasonable turn processing times. Decent AI needs that time to evaluate situations and make decisions. You can't have the cake and eat it too, so you have interests pulling in opposite directions: good AI or fast AI, pick one unless you desire minimal progress.

But this discussion has been had a thousand times, so I'm not sure what novelty will come of it this time around.

 

[Stringer1313]

I like 1upt. I find stacks of doom un-fun and unacceptable. However, I agree with your suggested compromise measures, like letting combat and noncombat units from different civilizations stack if they are at peace. I don't know why that is so hard to implement, no Civ has ever done that to my knowledge.

 

[Larsenex]

/dead horse.

Really we had this thread years ago. Stacks of doom are going ..going..gone. We all knew that 1upt will be in Civ VI. Personally I love the dynamic it brings and it makes the game FAR better for it.

 

[Cuneiform]

I like 1upt. I find stacks of doom un-fun and unacceptable. However, I agree with your suggested compromise measures, like letting combat and noncombat units from different civilizations stack if they are at peace. I don't know why that is so hard to implement, no Civ has ever done that to my knowledge.

That would just muddy the rulebook waters. Sometimes I want to block my Ally from certain areas of the map, without having to go to war with them.

 

[isau]

Civilian units should be able to stack because there is no 'stack of doom' concept there. I see exactly zero reason that Builder units need to be prevented from walking over the same tile. Similarly religious units need their own layer. Try it in the CBP. Makes a world of difference.

Also in terms of "stacks of doom" wait for the first time the AI sends a swarm of religious units at you and you are unable to move or build improvements because they are occupied by missionaries.

 

[criZp]

I'd like this change: Make it possible to stack units with units from other civs. If 2 military units from different civs are in the same tile at the beginning of a war, simply have them fight each other (repeatedly during the same turn) until one is dead

 

[Brianstorm]

/dead horse.

Really we had this thread years ago. Stacks of doom are going ..going..gone. We all knew that 1upt will be in Civ VI. Personally I love the dynamic it brings and it makes the game FAR better for it.

Can you explain how? Anti-Staxxers just seem to say it's better, but don't ever give any reasons.

 

[Cuneiform]

Can you explain how? Anti-Staxxers just seem to say it's better, but don't ever give any reasons.

I'm sure any number of threads from 5 years ago would suffice.

 

[Shadeseraph]

I love being able to keep the other civs from settling/converting my lands while staying peaceful. I would hate any of those proposals - barring maybe the advance column.

 

[Faray357]

That would just muddy the rulebook waters. Sometimes I want to block my Ally from certain areas of the map, without having to go to war with them.

Yeah this so much. The last thing I need is for the AI to be able to bypass my unit blockaids to settle in the middle of my territory.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think the army system and escort system with a simple tweak could provide a simple solution to the 1upt problem while avoding stacks of doom. First, have the corp and army system start much sooner in the game. Second, let players use the escort function with any unit. So you could have a corp or an army of say sworsdmen with a catapult as an escort. That way, you have a mini stack that can attack a city without having a stack of doom. If the AI can make these mini stacks, it could attack cities much easier without the traffic congestion of units.

 

[MistyRonin]

Although I understand the opinion and arguments of someone that doesn't like 1UpT, from the beginning it was announced that Civ VI will use this system.

So, why would someone buy the game knowing that has a system that he doesn't like and later write a complain about it?

In any case, I'm pretty confident that the devs will improve the AI use of units.

 

[rkade8583]

No stacks-o-doom. Am happy

 

[Brianstorm]

I'm sure any number of threads from 5 years ago would suffice.

The thing with stacking is you don't have to stack, so I don't see what the exact arguments could possibly be other than "War Games do it!"

 

[gfeier]

I really, really like 1upt. This discussion was over years ago. I expect a modified version will be part of all Civ games going forward. I would like to see a change, though. Allow a ranged unit to stack with a melee unit. When it attacks, the ranged unit fires first and the melee unit follows. On the defensive, the ranged unit fires at the attacker before the melee combat. If the melee unit is defeated, both units are lost. When an enemy ranged unit attacks, it would hit the melee unit first.