1 unit/tile overkill

Amen to that!

I don't know how many times I've had important moves by great generals made derailed by the weird fact that a single great person can't stand on the same tile as an entire division of something, whether work or military related. I mean, come on, it's just one guy, he doesn't take up much space!

I also wish that I knew when I moved any piece in the game how many more hexes there are left in the move til it turns to a turn 2-move, if that makes sense.
 
Completely agree about civilian units stacking. While I'm not particularly overjoyed by the implementation of 1UPT I can certainly see the arguments in favour of it for combat. But managing worker/great person traffic jams is not fun and adds absolutely zero value to the game.

I agree with your very, very, very least part that units like workers and GP and spaceship parts should be able to occupy the same tile, but to totally bin 1 UPT military units would be to take away the best part of Civ 5. If that makes Civ 5 less empire management and more tactical war game then so be it. The expansion may add enough depth to satisfy us in those other non-war areas, we'll see.

I find 1UPT wars to be much more rewarding than stacks, and it's the funnest part of the game for me. I suppose it's important to play at the difficulty level that pushes you, if you're not losing units and cities some of the time then it's probably not that much fun. The AI can only cosnampete with strong human play via extra numbers, that's the reality and it's not the optimal situation, but I still find wars to be a lot of fun.

I agree there are some valid arguments for having 2 or 3 civilian units on the same tile, however, I've never really had any serious problems caused by this, the odd annoyance is about all. Perhaps because I've anticipated the problem and avoided it?

However, I agree 100% with snarzberry that 1upt is so much more rewarding than stacks... I agree too that playing at a difficulty which pushes you, not only is far more interesting, and more fun, but will improve your play quicker too. You learn more from a loss than an annihilation, and as far as I'm concerned, winning too easily is not fun. Yes, the AI cheats, and it has so many extra advantages at higher levels, but that is what makes it all the more fun to beat, imho.

Yes, the AI is not perfect, no AI is, or is ever likely to be, but it's not as bad as many make out (especially those that haven't played it for a long time). It can still give almost any player a tough time on Immortal or Deity, and that is what makes it fun.

Would love to see a new level of difficulty between Immortal and Deity too, but that's another story...
 
But it is the *most* arbitrary hard cap in relation to its (negative, as it turned out) effects on the builder game. Why, when addressing stacking limits is the *necessary* relationship to the builder game forgotten? Design the builder game first, and from that determine the hard cap that works best.

Perhaps this is all forgotten because the real rationale behind the 1UPT design decision was to shift the fan base from primarily builder/itinerant warmongers to pure warmonger, and then have it proclamed that the Civ series "was always a wargame after all" - as if there weren't enough all warmonger games out there. What a shame.

1 is the least arbitrary hard cap they could've set. Now I was never in favour of hard caps to begin with, but if they had to set one, then setting it at 1 was probably the best they could do.

Exponential penalties FTW.
 
Like i said, but "so be it" just doesn't cut it as an adequate answer to the question behind 1UPT: Why wreak one of the few commercially available builder oriented game franchises also featuring a war-game aspect, just to transform it into another wargame with a supporting production sub-feature, more like Age of Empires RTS (but without the true tactical feel of AoE, which actually was fun in itself, unlike CivV)?

Agreed, it's too late to change the stacking rule for CivV, because this would require the re-engineering of the whole builder aspect from the ground up, and not just complexity flavor addons like the forthcoming religion and espionage features (good in themselves, but lits not exaggerate to what depth they can change the builder game with 1UPT in place).

But how about CiV6? "So be it" or reverse the CivV design verdict and start by designing a builder game, then balance in the wargame?

I agree with your very, very, very least part that units like workers and GP and spaceship parts should be able to occupy the same tile, but to totally bin 1 UPT military units would be to take away the best part of Civ 5. If that makes Civ 5 less empire management and more tactical war game then so be it. The expansion may add enough depth to satisfy us in those other non-war areas, we'll see.

I find 1UPT wars to be much more rewarding than stacks, and it's the funnest part of the game for me. I suppose it's important to play at the difficulty level that pushes you, if you're not losing units and cities some of the time then it's probably not that much fun. The AI can only compete with strong human play via extra numbers, that's the reality and it's not the optimal situation, but I still find wars to be a lot of fun.
 
Top Bottom