How would you re-implement 1UPTs?

Full text:
1) It's fine the way it is.
2) It's fine, but I would like to see some minor changes.
3) Quick combat. The idea is to auto-execute the combat between SODs. Solves battle micromanagement.
4) Limited stacks. The idea is to limit the size of SODs to a fix number or to a dynamically changing number, which is for example determined by technological advance.
5) Deploy/Undeploy. The idea is to have a non-combat stack which can be moved as a single unit and undeployed at the destination into a tactical formation. This solves movement micromanagement and units blanketing terrain.
6) Tactical layer. The idea is to have an additional tactical layer based on 1UPTs ( a separate combat map "within" the main map). While on the main map you have stacks. Additionally a quick combat could take place between stacks same way as in Civ4. . This solves movement micromanagement and units blanketing terrain.
7) 1UPT is unsalvageable. Eliminate them and revert to Civ4 SODs or something similar to Civ4 SODs (a more balanced version of Civ4 Sods)
8) Other. Please choose this only if you have a substantially different wish, like revert to Civ1 or implement a real time strategy game instead of turn-based etc..

6; a tactical layer. Strategic layer Stack size could be dependent on logistics and or tech, something yet to implemented seriously in any civ version so far. Crossing my fingers about VI, however.

Note; see the suggestion? Constructive criticism. Literally.

Honestly the only complaint I have with 1UPT is that stupid neutral scout screwing up attacks. It happens for too often.

1UPT totally changes the nature of the game. If they are still moving down the mass market format route of current trend, expect only minor tweeks to it. As it stands it:

- Wrecks naval warfare to the extent its a joke
- Prevents the the most basic time honoured principle of warfare, concentration of forces at the right time and place
- Causes a traffic jam when moving more than 2 units along roads
- Ignites the most polite version of warfare I've seen as units queue up to attack a city - "you first", "no by all means you first" - its quite bizare
- The restriction on the number of units you can own this causes, knocks onto production levels of units, and therefore restrictions on production capacity and methods compared to previous versions
- Mandates the need to create the rediculous "amphibious" units, a more silly concept I cant imagine. They have no choice as 1UPT slams any chance of realistic landing craft et al, let alone turning naval warfare into a Monty Python joke fest.
- The additional load on the AI in terms of additional code that was not there before to cope with all this, means the balloon bursts somewhere, cant just keep adding, so Culture, Diplomatic and Spaceship Victories get quietly nerfed because all the AI understands now is some new military warfare rules, and those not yet complete.
- Air warfare becomes rediculous because with the new levels of reduced units, air units need nerfing to prevent it being too powerful against reduced unit numbers. That exacerbates an already silly naval warfare left over, as air assets get zapped by 75% in some cases against ships - zapping the most powerful weapon any country has in the real world against naval units .... ?

Thats just for starters, the list goes on and on and on.

Will it work in the end? For mass market format that they are now constructing, for sure, it'll be tweeked, life moves on. It will not however be a Strategy Game, not a snowball's chance in Hell. The changes to simplify the mechanics (aka 1UPT, there's others) to meet mass market needs, compromises permanently any chance of it remaining a main stream Strategy Game.

Regards
Zy

I would like to see a sort of stack (Limited to 2).

Where 2 different units are able to stack.

Ex:
Warrior / Archer

but not:
Warrior / Warrior

Best solution: reintroduce unlimited stacking, with exponential penalties for increasingly large stacks.

Problems with the options listed in the OP:

1. The idea of 1upt is not too bad, but there are certainly better ways of implementing warfare in the game.
2. I think the changes needed are slightly more than minor; I would want 1upt scrapped and replaced with my aforementioned suggestion. However, I'll stress again that this is not because I think 1upt is a horrible idea, but that it isn't the best solution.
3. This doesn't solve the issues of SoDs causing a lack of strategic depth in warfare.
4. Limits are arbitrary, and restrict the choices of the player.
5. Solves unit micromanagement issues, but does not solve anything with regards to strategy and tactics with warfare.
6. Civ is not Total War. It is a Turn Based Strategy game. Adding tactical elements necessarily takes away from the strategic focus of the game. The aim of a solution is to increase the strategic depth of warfare, not the tactical depth. Also, this would make the game even more warfare focused. Civ is not a war game.
7. That doesn't really solve any problems. I would agree with this in that I think stacks are a better concept to work with than 1upt, however.
8. See the beginning of this post.

luisfpf said:

I would like to see a sort of stack (Limited to 2).

Where 2 different units are able to stack.

Ex:
Warrior / Archer

but not:
Warrior / Warrior

Click to expand...

So you can again work around the unique unit abilities?

1UPT is great, it finally allows a working rock/paper/scissors concept for the units. When you can stack (different units in particular) you can work around it. The entire idea of 1UPT is that I can overrun your archer if there is a gap in your lines.

But 1UPT is far from perfect in its current state:
- My main issue is the AI, it doesn't understand the concept.
- The zones of control are to weak, especially at sea.
- And I'd like to see the +against certain unit type promotions back, as well as more units with different unique abilities. With 1UPT those would really matter, I don't understand why they moved to 1UPT and shrunk the available units to the absolute minimum without special abilities in most cases. I want machine guns (strong in defense, weak in offense, maybe with "has to set up") and shock troops (attack bonus against machine guns) to go along the regular infantry.

I finally voted for "other", but was torn between "unsalvagable" and "tactical layer".

The later is the one which I would generelly prefer the most, yet it doesn't cover the problem of archery type units having more combat range than firearms type units.

So, in total I have come to think that the CtP/CtP2 combat system, in which a limited stack was set up for tactical combat and performed that combat in some kind of "quick combat" would be the most meaningful way to resolve battles, if archers are not changed.

In any way, the current 1upt system is an atrocity, literally picking the worst from both worlds.
Zydor has displayed some of the main flaws very good.

Camikaze said:

Best solution: reintroduce unlimited stacking, with exponential penalties for increasingly large stacks.

Click to expand...

That should be 7). I'll edit the original post, to make 7 not that much connected to Civ4.

Consider these options just broad categories, and whenever possible don't chose Other

bitula said:

That should be 7). I'll edit the original post, to make 7 not that much connected to Civ4.

Consider these options just broad categories, and whenever possible don't chose Other

Click to expand...

I feel dirty choosing an option that is related to Civ4 stacks.

My main point is that stacks themselves are not a bad thing. The idea of change is not to completely get rid of the ability to stack, but to get rid of the massively dominant nature of stacks, to broaden strategic options.

I voted for the tactical layer, because I think it would be awesome, though I don't think it will ever happen in a Civ game. It seems like it is the only way to get rid of the nonsense of tactical scale combat on a strategic scale map, without going back to the even greater nonsense of "suicide catapults."

I would happily ignore the problems of scale though and enjoy the current system, if they 1) improve the interface, 2) drastically improve the "AI" combat moves, 3) sort out all the various balance problems resulting from 1upt. Whether they can do that remains to be seen...

I would go with tactical layer and quick combat option.

For this to work it would also require a stack limit in the strategic view since the tactical map can't be illimited in size. This should remove the SOD issue.

I can imagine this solution reducing CPU requirement big time.
1 The startegic map movement would require a lot less processing for the "strategic" AI
2 The tactical "mini map" being defined in size the "combat" AI should be better at handling it.

Just my opinion

Well, the processing would be easier on strategic, but the logic would be insane to program for tactical layer AI, since it has to combine both aspects. Don't see it happening (unless you want 10,000 more A.I. is stupid threads for civ 6).

This is probably due to my limited programming skills.
I was under the impression that since CiV is kind of actually handling tactical combat within the strategic map.
Adapting this engine for a tactical only would be easier to handle since it would be on a limited map with limited parameter compared to what we have now where the strategic view is large and random.

I have to agree that with the current AI even in a reduced tactical platform we will still have the same 10,000 threads

LegionSteve said:

I voted for the tactical layer, because I think it would be awesome, though I don't think it will ever happen in a Civ game.

Click to expand...

cytreck said:

I would go with tactical layer and quick combat option.

Click to expand...

I'm considering changing back to a Civ≠Total War usertitle.

Seriously, a tactical layer is really a valid solution, IMO. However 'cool' it may or may not be, it isn't appropriate for a strategic game that isn't specifically focused on warfare.

Other!
Firstly... Here's Why or How.

The main issue is the ZoC and how range & immediate movements are somehow limited when Units are grouped tightly together.
Stacking is a mess of micman and doesn't really provide tactical edges besides pooled elements towards eventual combat phases. Don't get me wrong, it *IS* important to have battle support and progressive strategy aimed at specific targets.

Although, i also almost clicked on 6 -- Tactical layer for a very simple reason; it'd make or add some alternative combat gameplay elements. The danger being cumbersome while automation might be required in certain cases.

Secondly... 1upT isn't really the whole problem when one digs deeper into AI's algorithmic path or even, how slow proper deployment can get.

While you may think flanking is pointless, it sure is supposed to be an effective modifier **unless** a clog occurs barely outside the ring of the nearest 12 hex-tiles. That's where my transitional capacity above would solve many issues. By having free-will deployment (within 12 directions & appropriate distances) BEFORE combat begins, you'd actually use the 1upT to your advantage (or to the AI, btw) while keeping track - not of stacks - but of some available resources within reach.

It may seem complex at first, but the ZoC ruleset is highly adaptable once the principle of pre-battle conditions is clearly defined & given much less restrictions to movement functionality.

The way that 1upt has been put into the game is clumsy and ill thought out. It's hard to say whether it would work if it had been well thought out. A revamp of the unit mix could make a lot of difference since at the moment you play most of the game with warriors, archers, slower archers (catapults), fast warriors (horsemen), and more of the same with bigger numbers.

Camikaze said:

I'm considering changing back to a Civ≠Total War usertitle.

Seriously, a tactical layer is really a valid solution, IMO. However 'cool' it may or may not be, it isn't appropriate for a strategic game that isn't specifically focused on warfare.

Click to expand...

Are you sure you've been playing Civ? Just about ever Civ version in existence had wargamer strategies as the best performing strategies in both MP and SP(Deity or Sid level), except for maybe Civ I where the ridiculous score punishments on conquest victory meant you beat everyone down in combat, expanded like crazy and won an early space victory with only 1 or 2 opposing Civs left. I mean if its not supposed to be specifically focused on warfare stop making warfare the best and easiest way to win in every single version.

Slowpoke said:

Well, the processing would be easier on strategic, but the logic would be insane to program for tactical layer AI, since it has to combine both aspects. Don't see it happening (unless you want 10,000 more A.I. is stupid threads for civ 6).

Click to expand...

I think the difference is the tactical layer feels more like winning through good play than doing so at the strategic level, so even if the AI is bad at it, at least the player feels like they actually accomplished it. It's also a lot easier to guide the AI to build basic stacks and deploy basic formations for those stacks.

I also really think its better than the strategic layer alternative. I'd much rather have a tactical layer than longbows firing from London to Paris on the world map, I mean this tactical on the strategic map is so game breaking that whenever ranged units come into existence, I get sick of the world map. Historically world maps have been my favorite part of Civ and I played them a lot, but the World maps in V are so ahistorical (with the way combat works) that I get frustrated and play random maps instead where I can at least pretend its sort of ok.

It's like I said in another thread.. in the real world we call stacks of doom "armies" and they have sound historical precedent. Only being able to have 1 unit in a city is pretty absurd.
You can have:
1. Archers on the walls
2. Swordsmen protecting the archers
3. Cavalry to make sorties and attempt to destroy enemy Siege equipment
4. Spearmen formations putting up a wall of spears in front of gates
5. Siege Equipment to fire on opposing massed units or opposing Siege Equipment.
1 UPT says pick 1 and only 1 of the above (and if its 2 they can't defend the archers because you won't have any).

I said it's fine, though I could live with minor changes.

Those who want a tactical layer . . . seriously? Every time there is combat you want to load and zoom to another screen . . . you do realize there can be 5+ combats on a given turn even if you're not in a major war (and if you are . . . ). Have fun with that!

The scaling issue is semi-problematic, but not a big deal. If you can't deal with traffic jams of your own units . . . well . . . either you have way more units than you need or you just don't think.

The problem of the "friendly" scout camping out on the tile which you want to improve - well, that needs some work.