1upt No So Cool

NukeAJS said:

I enjoy 1upt. It makes the game more chess-like and less "Mongolian horde of destruction"-like.

One negative aspect is having to move each unit separately; however, this is mitigated by there being a lot fewer units in Civ5 compared to Civ4. Heck, my early conquests usually consist of ~5 units. The game definitely favors a small number of highly promoted, high teched units over mobs due to combat mechanics and unit maintenance.

Click to expand...

That is a very good point. People complaining about how hard it is to move units around and such should read this. Clearly, having a few cheap, very powerful and easy to manoeuvre units is a far superior strategy to having a lot of expensive, weak and hard to manoeuvre units.

Try to make some experiments. In GameDefines.xmal is filed, that specifies how many units can stay on one plot.
From what I have seen, changing value to 3UPT for example, there are some pros:
- roadblock happen less frequently
- AI is more efficient in offense, as each of your units can be attacked theoretically by up to 9 units, while positioning still counts. Human player loses his advantage with almost invincible high xp units. This also means, 6 units is not sufficient to crush AI.
- you have to think how to compose those 3-units stack (this could be even more important with few units tweaks)

Jediron said:

you still don't get it , do you ? Combined arms, in history, worked sight by sight, acting simultaniously. Now, can we do that in CIV, any CIV ? NO! It always comes down to, one fight at a time, any given time, the rest must wait. There goes your GRAND tactical wargame; down to the toilet. Positioning is very important too in warfare, true. But army's behave dynamicly, ALL units could ACT at the same time. None of that is true in CIV, again it's a handicaped system of one by one. So don't speak of "tactical" warfare in CIV 5, it does not exist. It never has, btw, in any CIV.

Click to expand...

It's a turn-based game. There's always been an element of positioning in Civ, e.g. redeploying troops in a hurry to counter an invasion. One-upt doesn't mean the game can't give a reasonable simulacrum of positioning during battle. Indeed, anticipation is even more important as you may not have the initiative.

Jediron said:

You speak for example, of good positioning. Very solid argument. But then i ask: how many times you have enough space to position your army as you like ?

Click to expand...

Never, but not due to lack of space, but because it is impossible to anticipate every possible action by the enemy.

Jediron said:

I know from experience, most of the time you are fightinh the map, with cramp spaces most of the time. Far from realistic and very gamey. And still, even then you lack the dynamics of true tactical warfare, on the battlefield, where every second counts.

Click to expand...

In ancient warfare, with limited units, there's plenty of room. In modern warfare, then the movement of units becomes important. During WWII, much of the invasion plans for Europe concerned how to move all those troops in such a small area. There's a famous scene in the movie Patton where he has to personally direct traffic because there are so many units converging on a limited number of country roads.

Jediron said:

They should have sticked with the strategical approach, instead of going with this "semi tactical" nightmare. That's my idea of CIV 5.

Click to expand...

We find that 1upt, even though there are still issues, is an excellent game mechanic, and adds a lot to the experience. Sorry you don't enjoy it, too.

Zachriel said:

It's a turn-based game. There's always been an element of positioning in Civ, e.g. redeploying troops in a hurry to counter an invasion. One-upt doesn't mean the game can't give a reasonable simulacrum of positioning during battle. Indeed, anticipation is even more important as you may not have the initiative.

Click to expand...

If 1UPT were so that I could only move ONE UNIT (not ALL units) per turn like in Chess, say, then perhaps 1UPT could possibly work although completely impractical in a Civ game.

But with 1UPT such that one player is able to move ALL his units while the opponent's units are stuck in suspended animation and can be picked off one by one is simply hugely flawed from any matter of trying to model combat in any sensible way. It is completely artificial and gamey. That's it. People say that SoD was flawed and they are correct. But 1UPT is just if not even more flawed.

Yes, the game is turned-based. That simply means that a CTP/MoM or similar type system is the way to go. Combat should be modeled so that all units from one side fight all units on another side in true combined arms rather than all my units get to attack while all your units just stand there to get decimated.

(The above doesn't even get into the other major flaw which is of the problem of scale. A CTP or MoM system solves that issue while 1UPT exacerbates it greatly!)

polypheus said:

Yes, the game is turned-based. That simply means that a CTP/MoM or similar type system is the way to go. Combat should be modeled so that all units from one side fight all units on another side in true combined arms rather than all my units get to attack while all your units just stand there to get decimated.

Click to expand...

I can't necessarily agree with this. Just because one mechanic works for one game does not mean another mechanic cannot work in another game in the same genre.

There is an obvioustear pretty close to down the middle between 1upt and SoD, and whether it can work in Civ or not. I still propose that the hybrid would offer both sides the important aspect of what they are looking for.

polypheus said:

If 1UPT were so that I could only move ONE UNIT (not ALL units) per turn like in Chess, say, then perhaps 1UPT could possibly work although completely impractical in a Civ game.

But with 1UPT such that one player is able to move ALL his units while the opponent's units are stuck in suspended animation and can be picked off one by one is simply hugely flawed from any matter of trying to model combat in any sensible way. It is completely artificial and gamey. That's it. People say that SoD was flawed and they are correct. But 1UPT is just if not even more flawed.

Click to expand...

Couldn't disagree more. Though not perfect, the current system is quite playable and immersive. We've had many battles, maneuvering to control the high ground, rushing units to the point of an enemy invasion, using horsemen to pick off retreating and wounded enemy units, and clearing the field for siege.

polypheus said:

Yes, the game is turned-based. That simply means that a CTP/MoM or similar type system is the way to go. Combat should be modeled so that all units from one side fight all units on another side in true combined arms rather than all my units get to attack while all your units just stand there to get decimated.

Click to expand...

That simply isn't necessary in Civ.

polypheus said:

(The above doesn't even get into the other major flaw which is of the problem of scale. A CTP or MoM system solves that issue while 1UPT exacerbates it greatly!)

Click to expand...

It's just an abstraction. While cities may be thirty miles apart, during combat, the nearby hill is within sight of the city. If you can't see this, ..., well, Civ has always been this way.

But to each their own.

Zachriel said:

That simply isn't necessary in Civ.

Click to expand...

For many of us, Civ is supposed to be a empire-building/running game with war as one aspect of that. A CTP/MoM style combat much better fits a Civ game in terms of scope and scale. As far as scale goes its not only distances but things like how archers outrange some gunnery units and such.

Panzer General style combat was meant for a very small area, zoomed-in map, with a fairly high number of hexes to number of units ratio with all units from one era of technology and is also a purely tactical wargame. In the opinion of many, it simply was not appropriate model for a Civ-style game.

Another poster describes the issue quite well:

jpinard said:

The biggest thing people don't think about is scale. # of hex's vs. # of units. This game currently scales terribly when you up the difficulty or the # of Civs playing. 1 unit per hex works fine for a great strategic AI with a decent sized map. But if you took some of the scenarios in Panzer General, added 10 more sides to the battle and cut the space in half you end up with a big problem like we see now.

This needs a major amount of critical thinking to fix and make right. If the AI can't be up to the job in its current format, then more units per hex should be considered, or some other stricture that keeps the game balanced/fun. Arbitrary limits on units isn't always the answer either.

Click to expand...

Therefore if anything it is PG/1UPT style warfare that "isn't necessary in Civ".

But indeed to each his own.

Zachriel said:

Couldn't disagree more. Though not perfect, the current system is quite playable and immersive. We've had many battles, maneuvering to control the high ground, rushing units to the point of an enemy invasion, using horsemen to pick off retreating and wounded enemy units, and clearing the field for siege.

Click to expand...

You are completely right. We, the humans.
Unfortunately, there isn't any indication that anytime soon an AI will become remotely close to do as we can do.
Therefore, the system is inherently flawed for single player games.

Zachriel said:

I There's a famous scene in the movie Patton where he has to personally direct traffic because there are so many units converging on a limited number of country roads.

Click to expand...

Yes it's true! In my personal collection of war movies is one of my favourites with Tora! Tora! Tora!....

But there is an incongruity with what you wrote... It was a "tile" of the Panzer General scale, not of Civ V scale (as if it was directing the traffic of the whole country)....

Jharii said:

I can't necessarily agree with this. Just because one mechanic works for one game does not mean another mechanic cannot work in another game in the same genre.

There is an obvioustear pretty close to down the middle between 1upt and SoD, and whether it can work in Civ or not. I still propose that the hybrid would offer both sides the important aspect of what they are looking for.

Click to expand...

the truth is in the middle, in that case, the right is in the middle!
I agree totally to that, an hybrid could be better, the extremes are always worse...

An important read for those still thinking 1upt is cool.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392335

With this specific post being an excellent analysis of the deity game:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9851250&postcount=321

kittenOFchaos said:

An important read for those still thinking 1upt is cool.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392335

With this specific post being an excellent analysis of the deity game:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9851250&postcount=321

Click to expand...

Those are great links. But the analysis by pi-r8 is especially spot on. 1UPT only works when you have a small #units/#hex ratio ultimately. This causes all sorts of problems in terms of trying to limit production so there aren't many units. Thus not only is 1UPT is broken in and of itself, it also breaks a whole lot of other stuff along with it.

kittenOFchaos said:

An important read for those still thinking 1upt is cool.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392335

With this specific post being an excellent analysis of the deity game:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9851250&postcount=321

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links. I am spending hours on the walkthrough. The problems with hex and 1upt are well done too.

1 unit per tile is great. The combat system is so much more fun than prior versions. Even though V still has some ai problems and balance issue to work out, going back to playing civ 4 unit stacking and idiotic suicide catupults is unthinkable to me.

1 UPT is the future, and is here to stay.

Stefanskantine said:

1 unit per tile is great. The combat system is so much more fun than prior versions. Even though V still has some ai problems and balance issue to work out, going back to playing civ 4 unit stacking and idiotic suicide catupults is unthinkable to me.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

kittenOFchaos said:

An important read for those still thinking 1upt is cool.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=392335

With this specific post being an excellent analysis of the deity game:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9851250&postcount=321

Click to expand...

But, 1upt is cool! And makes the game more fun! The system works quite well with a smaller number of units. With moderate numbers, it becomes a problem of logisics. With unit-spam, it becomes unwieldy.

Pi-r8's analysis is largely correct, but none of the problems appear insoluble, or suggest that 1upt is inherently flawed. The game is simply more fun with fewer units. It's a question of balance. This, and the problem of city-spam are the biggest issues with the current game.

Zachriel said:

Agreed.



But, 1upt is cool! And makes the game more fun! The system works quite well with a smaller number of units. With moderate numbers, it becomes a problem of logisics. With unit-spam, it becomes unwieldy.

Pi-r8's analysis is largely correct, but none of the problems appear insoluble, or suggest that 1upt is inherently flawed. The game is simply more fun with fewer units. It's a question of balance. This, and the problem of city-spam are the biggest issues with the current game.

Click to expand...

Yes we need fewer units in game! So Ai can't manage for sure even on deity the fury of four horsemen...

Licinia Eudoxia said:

It's really easy to program AI when the only combat strategy is "pile as many military units onto a stack as you can."

Click to expand...

It's *not* really easy when your enemies are *also* piling as many military units as they can into a stack. "As many" is also wrong. You have to equate the type and strength of the units involved. And what about the economy behind building a huge stack/army? Does anyone really find building a huge all-defeating stack at say, Monarch level on Civ 4 "really easy"? Compared to picking off the brain dead AI with a couple of archers in Civ 5 at deity level? Nah, it's Civ 5 'combat' that's so easy it isn't even worthy if the term 'combat'. Dodo shoot describes it better.

You can trivialise anything in the way that you have done. Football has a simple strategy of "just kick a ball into a net more times than your opponents". Simple, huh? Becoming a mega-popstar is really easy just "write a song with a tune that people love". Knowing the right time to go to war has always been a skill in Civ series, I've always liked the arms races that sometimes raged, just like real life, as 2 (or more) nations tried to out build each other. Sadly lacking in CiV. At the 'grand strategy' level of Civ, this is what warfare is all about. Managing your economy and research to build a army that will beat your opponents. And yes, size matters!

The reality is that in Civ4, unlike Civ5, on higher difficulties, it is actually a real challenge to build a stack that is more powerful than the stacks the AI is building. That's why it took most players a long time and much studying of tactics to be able to win Civ 4 at Monarch, even Prince level.

I find the micromanagement of 1upt surprisingly tedious. Surprised because I thought it was introduced to reduce micromanagement. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything resembling a real wargame, it is not 'tactics', but reminds me of the puzzle game "Rush Hour". http://www.thinkfun.com/RUSHHOUR.ASPX?PageNo=RUSHHOUR

To me, 1upt fails on gameplay, realism and micromanagement.

A key part of programming AI is designing a game system that makes for a good programmable AI in the first place. Actually, 1upt is quite simple to write some basic rules for. I would guess that it is time constraints, not complexity that has caused the ommission. eg It is simple to program a unit to NOT sit still getting murdered by ranged fire, absolutely simple. When/if the AI *is* programmed to use the rules to the max, I have a feeling that the game is suddenly going to get a lot more difficult and will probably lose a lot of the fans it has gained through it's simplicity.

man-erg said:

To me, 1upt fails on gameplay, realism and micromanagement.

Click to expand...

This is how I feel about stacked units.

There is one huge difference though; he is right and you are wrong.
you may like the new system, it is far less realistic. All the "power=up"s" for the units, is far less realistic also. Goofy, cool, fun, maybe. But realistic ? no.
And that are just two examples.

Take, for example the +1 sight bonus. Why? Do people get suddenly "hawk-eyes" or something ?
Why not a far more realistic approach, like +1 sight for ALL units, when you research optics.
Doesn't that feel more logical ?

Jediron said:

There is one huge difference though; he is right and you are wrong.

Click to expand...

I guess everyone is wrong, then.

Micromanaging stacks is a PITA. And when a stack gets to the size where I don't care what is in it and I just keep piling units into it, well... that is just complete and utter silliness.

Everyone just needs to face the facts that people are going to have varying opinions on the subject. The only way to resolve it to make both camps happy is to meet in the middle.

Oh, yeah. And then convince Firaxis to implement it.

And Jharii, that's the funniest and hardest quest...

Convince Firaxis to do something right...