DaviddesJ
Deity
If you make the hexes much smaller, then what's the point of 1upt? If you're going to have many smaller hexes with one unit in each, why not simplify by just having bigger hexes and putting all of those units in that one hex?
If you make the hexes much smaller, then what's the point of 1upt? If you're going to have many smaller hexes with one unit in each, why not simplify by just having bigger hexes and putting all of those units in that one hex?
Seriously though, if you want 1upt, which I prefer
But why do you prefer 1upt with lots of tiny hexes if that just gives the same results as moving stacks around? Is combat with six units all in tiny hexes going to be any different than combat with 6 units in a stack in one larger hex?
Changing the tile scale to me would have helped, but at least I'm not the only one thinking along these lines.The reason why this wasn't an issue in Panzer General was that their AI didn't actually need to do anything. It was always on the defensive, and a large part of that game was simply solving the "puzzle" of how to best crack open enemy strongholds. It was plenty sufficient if your opponents simply ordered a single tank to stir up some trouble every so often.
What made Panzer General fun was you blitzkrieg-ing through Europe while your enemies quickly and dramatically fell before your might. However, in a Civ game, the AI has to be capable of launching full-scale invasions, sometimes on different landmasses. Needless to say, we're talking about a challenge on completely different scale.
Speaking of scale, another significant issue with 1UPT was that the maps wasn't really suited for it. The joy of Panzer General was pulling off clever maneuvers and secretly encircling your helpless enemies. Unfortunately, in Civ 5 nasty bottlenecks aren't uncommon and this tempers much of the natural value added by 1UPT. Ultimately, there just wasn't enough room to do the fun part.
To address this, I could have done something crazy like added sub-tiles to the existing grid. I really don't think this would have been a good idea though, as the whole point in having a tiles is that everything happens on the same playing field, which makes it very easy to tell what's going on. Once you start muddying the waters of what goes where, you lose that clarity and mechanical chunkiness tiles offer. And at that point, you might as well just get rid of them entirely.
So is there a way to make 1UPT really work in a Civ game? Perhaps. The key is the map. Is there enough of room to stash units freely and slide them around each other? If so, then yes, you can do it. For this to be possible, I'd think you would have to increase the maximum map size by at least four times. You'd probably also want to alter the map generation logic to make bottlenecks larger and less common. Of course, making the world that much bigger would introduce a whole new set of challenges!
I, in fact, already did in the 6th paragraph of the "Combat" section of my article:Presumably Jon can answer this, but was it ever considered to reduce the actual size of each hex given the 1upt and the larger city radius?
To address this, I could have done something crazy like added sub-tiles to the existing grid. I really don't think this would have been a good idea though, as the whole point in having a tiles is that everything happens on the same playing field, which makes it very easy to tell what's going on. Once you start muddying the waters of what goes where, you lose that clarity and mechanical chunkiness tiles offer. And at that point, you might as well just get rid of them entirely.
Thanks for the update, Jon. Sounds interesting. If you ever need playtesters, let me know!