Improving 1UPT

DemonMaster said:
When it comes to civilians I can agree that they should be allowed to stack.
Click to expand...

Unlimited civilian stacking is not completely without a downside. Currently you are only allowed to park one civilian in a single city to safeguard it from attack. It's not a very big threat, usually, but it's there. Unlimited civilian stacking would remove this.

However, there's an alternative stacking rule that could solve most issues: Allow two or more units to stack, civilian or military, provided they all have a different nationality and are not at war with each other. Thus, as far as your units are concerned it's still 1UPT but friendly foreign units won't mess up your troop movements or road constructions.

i.e. 1UPT per nationality.
 
Then it would be much easier to have your religious units go into a foreign city...and to have foreign religious units to come into yours. Spreading religion should be tough and being able to block foreign units should be a key tactic. So why remove those??

Another key tactic is to use your units to prevent landing sites and movements by foreign settlers near your territories. Now you want to eliminate those tactics as well??
 
Which is why the 1 UPT per nationality can be limited to non religious units. Simple (still talking about civilian units)
 
Buccaneer said:
Then it would be much easier to have your religious units go into a foreign city...and to have foreign religious units to come into yours. Spreading religion should be tough and being able to block foreign units should be a key tactic. So why remove those??

Another key tactic is to use your units to prevent landing sites and movements by foreign settlers near your territories. Now you want to eliminate those tactics as well??
Click to expand...


I think the mechanic you describe is overly simplified. How does a 50,000 man army stop a few missionaries from sneaking through? The missionaries could easily get past an army. (assuming the missionaries aren't dumb enough to walk through the middle of camp or right into the front lines)


If it's 2 armies though it's a different story. An army can't really occupy the same piece of land as another army without being detected. Armies either need to agree to mutually occupy the same piece of land, or face off on the battlefield. Maybe this can be resolved by allowing the civ that already occupies a tile to decide whether they are willing to share it or not, or maybe this is automatic if there is an open borders agreement between the 2 civs.
 
These are just single units with defined rules on movement, placements and actions they can perform. In other words, a single chess piece. It is completely irrelevant whether they represent a single person or a tens of thousands.
 
My 2c ideas:

1- Units could combine somewhat like in Civ Rev. Same unit types only. Combining would be permanent. Maybe controlled by era: Ancient/Classical 1 UPT as-is; Medieval/Ren 2 units of the same type combine; Ind/Mod 3 units; Atomic/Info 4. In this way you would need to feed production into your best units instead of just gold for upgrades. To put it another way, you could keep building units through the ages without taking up more space.

2- Units could enter a 'Transport Mode' where they are defenseless (or poorly defended like embakation) but exist on a seperate layer that can pass under normal units (like civilian units). This could alleviate clog when moving lots of units through narrow passes.
 
kamex said:
"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! ;)
Click to expand...

Really? Then what are you are doing in Civ 5 forum. Better go & play an older civ of your liking. ;)

Anyway I think what OP suggested already works the same currently in ciV. What I would like is civilian stacking. BTW I like the civ1 idea people are suggesting (stacking possible but very risky & useless during combat situation).
 
My 5 cents:
- 1 UPT is overall good.
- Civilian units have serious issues that need to be fixed. I can see the problem in guarding many civilian units in one town as being a bit cheasy, but overall if that is the compromise we need to make to have a sensible system, I'd be willing to make that compromise.
- Religious units should have special rules - while normal civilian units should be able to pass through foreign (non-enemy) military units, religious units should not, at least not when you don't have an open borders arrangement.
- City States need to have some special rules. A huge issue is city states giving you a quest for a road or a religion and then completely blocking the way with military units. GAH! They even fixed the road problem back in vanilla right before G&K (so that CS will always build a road to their own borders before asking for a trade route), but then that fix was lost with release of G&K. :confused: So while that fix should be brought back, it would also be nice to allow religious units and possibly settlers to pass through military CS units when they give a quest for religion and/or when you are friendly or at least allied with them.
 
I don't see being able to stack Workers in a city as cheesy... so you hide the civilians behind the city walls when attacked; plenty of historical precedent for that. Not to mention the fact that that's how it's worked in every Civ game prior to V.

As long as multiple Workers can't simultaneously improve the same tile, I don't see any meaningful detriment to gameplay by allowing civilian stacking.
 
Buccaneer said:
Then it would be much easier to have your religious units go into a foreign city...and to have foreign religious units to come into yours. Spreading religion should be tough and being able to block foreign units should be a key tactic. So why remove those??

Another key tactic is to use your units to prevent landing sites and movements by foreign settlers near your territories. Now you want to eliminate those tactics as well??
Click to expand...

And with that I would say, keep 1UPT as it is! Those are all tactics I've used, I blocked off a whole half continent before using city placement, unit placement and mountains, good stuff
 
Babri said:
Really? Then what are you are doing in Civ 5 forum. Better go & play an older civ of your liking. ;).
Click to expand...

There are other features in Civ V that are better than IV. In case you didn't notice, 1UPT is not the only 'new feature' in V :rolleyes:
 
Buccaneer said:
Then it would be much easier to have your religious units go into a foreign city...and to have foreign religious units to come into yours. Spreading religion should be tough and being able to block foreign units should be a key tactic. So why remove those??

Another key tactic is to use your units to prevent landing sites and movements by foreign settlers near your territories. Now you want to eliminate those tactics as well??
Click to expand...

Actually, it is hellishly gamey and anyone who does it should feel bad. I consider any tactic that involves trapping foreign units, especially missionaries and GPs, to be gamey though.
 
Sonereal said:
Actually, it is hellishly gamey and anyone who does it should feel bad. I consider any tactic that involves trapping foreign units, especially missionaries and GPs, to be gamey though.
Click to expand...

If by 'gamey' you mean exploiting the stupid AI then I agree. :p
 
AriochIV said:
As long as multiple Workers can't simultaneously improve the same tile, I don't see any meaningful detriment to gameplay by allowing civilian stacking.
Click to expand...

So the proposal is to enable civilian units of the same civilization to stack.

I'll throw out some bad ideas just to get rolling :

1) I could build a civilian SOD, that I wouldn't otherwise be able to do if I was limited to 1upt. What would I do ? I'd stack em all, then when the time was right I'd place them to trap or impede progress of another Civs units.

This assumes that they do not change any other movement mechanic. Thats all I got...
 
whyidie said:
1) I could build a civilian SOD, that I wouldn't otherwise be able to do if I was limited to 1upt. What would I do ? I'd stack em all, then when the time was right I'd place them to trap or impede progress of another Civs units.
Click to expand...
Seriously, isn't this a completely hypothetical case? Between the production you'd have to actually make a significant amount of workers, the upkeep you would have to pay to sustain them for a longer time, and the fact that units move several tiles so you'd have to make a barier several levels deep (if units were able to pass over each other as long as they are none-hostile), would this ever happen in reality?

It seems to me as a completely thought-up case with no actual relevance, and while you might on paper be able to use this strategy, wouldn't it play against you overall in terms of the amount of time, money and production you waste to pull it off? I don't really see this as something one would have to worry about to the extent that one should discard the idea of civilian stacking if there are no other arguments against it.
 
Pembroke said:
However, there's an alternative stacking rule that could solve most issues: Allow two or more units to stack, civilian or military, provided they all have a different nationality and are not at war with each other. Thus, as far as your units are concerned it's still 1UPT but friendly foreign units won't mess up your troop movements or road constructions.

i.e. 1UPT per nationality.
Click to expand...

This is all I ask for. I don't know how many times I've had to wait 20 turns for some random CS unit to move from the one tile I can hook up a road to in order to fulfill the CS's quest. Further, this would eliminate the silly spectacle of using idle workers to block missionaries and prophets during peace time.

The one question that I would ask, though, if we got this, would be:
* What if I get a DoW from Ethiopia on a turn in which my rifleman is stacked with their worker? Or with their musketman? This is only an issue in neutral territory (units would be automatically kicked out of the opposing territory with the DoW anyways, so it couldn't happen within my borders or Ethiopia's). But it's still an issue.
 
Guys guys... I fixed it.
I'm a pro freedom and flexibility guy so my solution is this: ALLOW stacking. Any stacking like in Civ 4! Now before you go on and flame me let me explain a little bit more. Allow stacking, but attach penalties to it. Here's what I have in mind:
1) When a stack is attacked by a ranged unit, all units in stack receive damage. Collateral.
2) Only 1 unit can attack from a stack!
3) Keep the existing bonuses of having your units spread out: Flanking bonus, discipline bonus.

Now what does this solve?
The No 1 most important underlying problem of Civ5: Moving units around.

How is this not Civ4?
Now it actually makes sense to keep your forces spread out, to avoid collateral, spread your risk, get those combat bonuses and actually allow more units to attack simultaneously. It isn't strictly enforced! It gives you options:
-Do I just want to move my units around? Stack them! (and avoid the pain of meaningless coordinating movements between them)
-Do I want to fight? Spread them out!
A stack isn't a stack-o-doom now and you get all that tactical gameplay of Civ5! Plus, it'll be much easier for the AI to handle. It's WIN-WIN.

Your thoughts.
 
phoinix said:
Guys guys... I fixed it.
I'm a pro freedom and flexibility guy so my solution is this: ALLOW stacking. Any stacking like in Civ 4! Now before you go on and flame me let me explain a little bit more. Allow stacking, but attach penalties to it. Here's what I have in mind:
1) When a stack is attacked by a ranged unit, all units in stack receive damage. Collateral.
2) Only 1 unit can attack from a stack!
3) Keep the existing bonuses of having your units spread out: Flanking bonus, discipline bonus.

Now what does this solve?
The No 1 most important underlying problem of Civ5: Moving units around.

How is this not Civ4?
Now it actually makes sense to keep your forces spread out, to avoid collateral, spread your risk, get those combat bonuses and actually allow more units to attack simultaneously. It isn't strictly enforced! It gives you options:
-Do I just want to move my units around? Stack them! (and avoid the pain of meaningless coordinating movements between them)
-Do I want to fight? Spread them out!
A stack isn't a stack-o-doom now and you get all that tactical gameplay of Civ5! Plus, it'll be much easier for the AI to handle. It's WIN-WIN.

Your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Sounds good! Collateral would have to be capped though, otherwise melee units would be really really bad, if only one in a stack can attack but unlimited archers in a stack can shoot. But I'd change all ranged units to have a range of 1, same as Gatling Gun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
[BNW] Byblos? Babylon?
Replies
0
Views
321
Draynul
D
J
Unit cycling gets 'stuck'
Replies
2
Views
522
StargazingDog
StargazingDog
A
  • Locked
(7-48b) Songhai UA Tweak
Replies
9
Views
517
azum4roll
A
A
  • Locked
(7-46) Ordo "+1 Move" Rework
Replies
5
Views
296
azum4roll
A
Y
  • Locked
[Complex] (7-NS) Stealing territories with melee Units during a War
Replies
14
Views
502
epicivfreak
E
Top Bottom