Improving 1UPT

A lot of people complain about 1 unit per tile (1upt). Overall I like it, but I do think it can be improved.

I think that a military unit should be able to pass through a tile that is already occupied, so long as 2 units do not finish the turn on the same tile. If the terrain won't allow for enough movement or if the unit doesn't have enough movement left to pass through the occupied tile, then the unit won't be allowed to move to that tile unless if its unoccupied. This will greatly improve the movement of units around the map, while still maintaining the strategic aspects of 1upt.

Also if another civ is occupying a tile, there should be an option to pass through that tile without declaring war. There is nothing more frustrating than not being able to move because the AI has units blocking the way. This is especially true of non-military units. Once I could not move my longsword because another civ I was not at war with had a missionary in the way. My military unit should have been able to move to that tile and occupy it simultaneously with the missionary.

If the other civ wants to prevent your units from moving freely around the map, they always have the option to declare war.

It already works like that !

One thing I wish they would change is units freaking out that someone is occupying the tile you sent them too, even though they may be 3 or 4 turns away

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it until it's there: limitless. civilian. stacking. Would solve a billion problems + 1. The ONLY downside that I can think of is the AI stacking 30 workers for you to capture... But I think I could live with that.

snipperrabbit!! said:

It already works like that !

Click to expand...

No it doesn't, you can't pass through another civs units at all. Even if its a military trying to pass through a non-military (or vise versa) it still won't let you.

Civilian units can not pass under other player's military units. However, military units can pass over other players military units (just not ending their turn under them)

1upt is the most brilliant thing about civ5 and it's fine like it is. I can understand about a civilian unit passing through another but just say no to more stacking beyond what we have now.

Buccaneer said:

1upt is the most brilliant thing about civ5 and it's fine like it is. I can understand about a civilian unit passing through another but just say no to more stacking beyond what we have now.

Click to expand...

...Why? Why not stack unlimited civilians? What are the possible downsides to it (apart from capturing AI workers, which I'm sure they could code the AI to be wary against)?

It's a virtual nightmare shuffle right now, with no great people, missionaries, settlers and workers being able to occupy the same tile. Have you ever tried spreading your religion to an Immortal level civ? Or to the Iroquois on Deity? If I had to guess I'd say that anyone who thinks the current stacking rules 'fine', must play on King or lower. Even then there's only upsides to the lifting of the civilian stack limit, so I can't see why it couldn't be done. The bigger the difficulty, the more convenience it would bring.

Maybe it's partly because I sell open borders to everyone and their uncle... But the gold benefits outweigh the annoyance. With the rule change I could have the best of both worlds. How realistic is it anyway that, say, German tourists block the streets of Helsinki to the extent that the local road crews cannot get around? Or that Swedish tanks block Finnish ones on Finnish soil...

I say 'yes' to both limitless civilian stacking and allied stacking of military if there are no wars (both allies are at peace with every civ in the game). Then if someone DOWs either civ, the units are 'bounced' to the nearest free tiles, to avoid issues when the other civ is attacking stacked units. Alternatively the stronger unit could defend and upon it being destroyed, both units would be killed. This would ensure that you'd only use the new rule for easing movement (it could be disabled in MP games to prevent teamer abuse; the AI is so brainless that you couldn't effectively team up and protect your archers and whatnot).

I am an Immortal player and I find the chess-like moving of pieces to be one of the more interesting and fun parts of civ5. It would be too easy and not any fun to build large stacks of anything and it takes away a key tactical component. Moving missionaries in foreign territories should not be easy, esp when the goal is to convert. Why dumb this down just because players don't have the patience to move pieces in a finite manner?

Buccaneer said:

I am an Immortal player and I find the chess-like moving of pieces to be one of the more interesting and fun parts of civ5. It would be too easy and not any fun to build large stacks of anything and it takes away a key tactical component. Moving missionaries in foreign territories should not be easy, esp when the goal is to convert. Why dumb this down just because players don't have the patience to move pieces in a finite manner?

Click to expand...

Why? How about because this is a game that's supposed to be fun to play? Just because you have limitless time to sit around moving each piece around in whatever intricate ways you see fit, does not mean other people enjoy doing the same.

1upt is nice, but there are some things that need improvement. For one, you can't move one unit though another if it ends with an attack. The game always makes it go around. Civilian units are also going to have change. If caravans are the same as workers and missionaries, the game is going to be very frustrating to manage.

Dida said:

Why? How about because this is a game that's supposed to be fun to play? Just because you have limitless time to sit around moving each piece around in whatever intricate ways you see fit, does not mean other people enjoy doing the same.

Click to expand...

That's actually not it at all. No one is asking for stacks. This isn't Civ 4. Plenty of us are former Civ 4 players here and one thing most of us say is 1UPT is one of the best ideas of Civ 5. Civilian stacking is about the only thing we are asking for so pathing issues don't exist.

And possibly keep existing rules for missionaries/great prophets (But that is why inquisitors exist... park them in a city and can't be converted). But outside of that, workers, caravans, and the rest of the lost would make sense to have civilian stacking

I kinda think that we should go back to Civ 1 - you can stack as much as you like wherever you like, but if one takes damage, they ALL take the damage.

There - now you can move anything around as much as you like in peacetime, but you're setting yourself up for pain if you do it during a war.

Buccaneer said:

1upt is the most brilliant thing about civ5 and it's fine like it is. I can understand about a civilian unit passing through another but just say no to more stacking beyond what we have now.

Click to expand...

"1upt is the most awful thing about civ5 and and is single handily responsible for destroying all sense of scale and thus immersion within the game."

Fixed!

And cue the outdated sullasaurs in 3...2...1... oh wait they are already here.

"1upt is the best idea in the civ series since religion and is single handily creating immersion, a surge in multiplayer interest, and offering countless options within the future of civ."

Now its truly fixed

I always chuckle when people say 1upt kills immersion. Funny saying that about a game where you have the same leaders for thousands of years, random maps, having China right next Songhai, and dropping nuclear weapons on the English as Polynesia.

Great people should be able to stack with workers. I don't really see workers stacking as necessary, but I do get the annoyance with great people and workers.

I'd like to see some way to improve transporting units when they're out of combat (ie, moving from one front to another). It's a nightmare to have to manage each unit individually, waiting for spaces to open up on your roads, etc. It can be fun to pack your units in the optimal configuration for sieging a city or setting up a defense line, but it's just annoying to do this when you're trying to move your units across the map.

Perhaps combat units could have a noncombat mode that would allow unlimited stacking and stack movement. You would be able to select a group of units and hit a hotkey to transfer modes, then you could move the group as a stack until. The strength of units in noncombat mode would be reduced dramatically, and they wouldn't be able to attack or pillage. On switching a unit back to combat mode, you would have to move it to an adjacent tile and its movement would be consumed.

I also agree with unlimited noncombat unit stacking in general. In particular, I've never understood the logic behind friendly combat units blockading your noncombat units. Why should your combat units be able to pass through tiles occupied by friendly units when your accompanying great generals cannot? I can see how it may been implemented to allow settler blocking, etc., but whether it should be allowed is debatable (blockading was deliberately removed in Civ 4, anyway).

Here's an idea - mobilization:
When not at war, you can demobilize troops - they can stack up to three, cost less maintenance, and gain extra movement. However, they get a significant (on the order of 50-60%) malus in combat.
When war breaks out, you can pay something like 3-5 gold apiece to mobilize individual units, or all at once (though the cost must still be paid). You can also demobilize individually.

Buccaneer said:

I am an Immortal player and I find the chess-like moving of pieces to be one of the more interesting and fun parts of civ5. It would be too easy and not any fun to build large stacks of anything and it takes away a key tactical component. Moving missionaries in foreign territories should not be easy, esp when the goal is to convert. Why dumb this down just because players don't have the patience to move pieces in a finite manner?

Click to expand...

Agreed! But I am not an immortal player yet, the AI still kicks my butt on prince