I have to say I really like 1UPT. There are certainly issues with it that could be addressed with the right tweaking but I do not want to go back to stacks. I recently re-installed Alpha Centauri and while the game is still great the one thing I dislike is the stacking issues.
Improving 1UPT
- Thread starter aluelkdf
- Start date
I think, this is one of the better proposals to overcome the "Carpet of Doom"-issue.
And it might be the only reason to do Civ 6! (Everything else would speak for another expansion: The still up-to-date graphics, the already great game-mechanisms that will hopefully be enhanced with BNW again, the diversity in civilizations, the meanwhile quite good AI,...)
While the idea itself is not new, it is still good and worthwhile a consideration. The biggest problem with this proposal is the enormous hardware requirements. I am not a computer specialist, but Shaffer mentioned in his AtG-promoting article, that Civ 5 already pushed the possible map-size to the limit - and a tile-subdivision like this would need the sevenfold of memory.
But maybe in the future, when Civ 6 might be launched, the computer capacity has reached the level to handle the data.
Try this: Change the minimum distance between cities from 3 to 5.
Just played a game that way and it was actually quite good in a different sort of way. Like playing on a small map but with lots of room to deploy your units.
I think the only practical way to do something like this is the system used in Master of Magic, Age of Wonders and other similar games: allow stacking on the main map, but resolve combat on a zoomed-in submap that uses 1UPT. This system can be a lot of fun (city combat can actually take place in the city among the buildings), but each battle can take a lot of time, and it doesn't lend itself well to multiplayer (not that Civilization does in general, for that matter).
But fundamental changes on this scale aren't things that are likely to happen in an expansion.
Actually I had the very same idea about improving 1UPT. That would not only solve scaling issues but also the pathfinding we have & most probably AI would have better chance of attacking cities rather than shuffling units like it does right now sometimes.
We might need to wait till cVI or cVII though because it is a very fundamental change to the game.
Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk 2
Dunkah
Emperor
I think a slightly modified version of 1UPT would be better.
If you scale units up to armys and scale some of the graphics up to be farming communities or commercial centers the scale would fit right in. Cities would be like capitols. TP's would be like Suburbs Farms and Resources would be towns.
Allow 2UPT but don't allow stacked units to attack. However both would take equal damage if attacked.
Allow several Civilian Units per hex. No effect on attack and defense. (More than 1, less than infinite).
Each Unit should have up to three graphics associated with it. You could plug in either a Ranged, Melee, Mounted or Siege unit to it, or any combination there of. Creating your own customized armies. (The graphic diplay would show what you had in the army.) Movement goes by the slowest unit within. Only Ranged Siege units have a range other than the next hex.
If you scale units up to armys and scale some of the graphics up to be farming communities or commercial centers the scale would fit right in. Cities would be like capitols. TP's would be like Suburbs Farms and Resources would be towns.
Allow 2UPT but don't allow stacked units to attack. However both would take equal damage if attacked.
Allow several Civilian Units per hex. No effect on attack and defense. (More than 1, less than infinite).
Each Unit should have up to three graphics associated with it. You could plug in either a Ranged, Melee, Mounted or Siege unit to it, or any combination there of. Creating your own customized armies. (The graphic diplay would show what you had in the army.) Movement goes by the slowest unit within. Only Ranged Siege units have a range other than the next hex.
If they should go for really abstract warfare on this scale you should be able to build a unit and mix what types of troops it would contain. A mix of cavalry, art and infantry and so on. If the map scale and 1UPT are sacred cows they should change the way units are constructed. Then they should also redesign the way city defense work. Right now I think too much of the defense value depends on its size.
albie_123
Modding In Secret
Civ III had "armies" which were stacks that were treated as one unit, it was a really interesting idea that hasn't been seen since.
Excuse my stupidity, but how do I do that? I do truly hate the AI spamming cities one next to the other
Rael
Chieftain
This is a great idea
City tile range could be decreased from 3 to 2 so you'd end up with 19 workable hexes instead of 37 (the size of the map would then be increased only fourfold with the same number of cities). Cities could also grow organically, say from 1 central subhex at 1 population to all 7 at 19 pop. It would open up possibilities of genuine urban warfare with units instead of just decreasing health bars. Not to mention navigable rivers (one subhex wide). That would be a whole new game 
I don't know if it has been discussed, but I'd like to see some effective limits on the stacking of air units, particularly stacking on city tiles. I'm not a big fan of aerial spam, especially if land army spam is prohibited.
Additionally, I wish there were some way for one of my units to swap tiles with an adjacent allied unit, particularly if allied units have effectively trapped one of my units by completely surrounding it in hindering terrain. I think it usually happens with gifted units from Militaristic City States....
Additionally, I wish there were some way for one of my units to swap tiles with an adjacent allied unit, particularly if allied units have effectively trapped one of my units by completely surrounding it in hindering terrain. I think it usually happens with gifted units from Militaristic City States....
I don't know about that one... Civ IV had air stacking limits and I found them to be pretty annoying gameplay-wise. I don't think forcing you to manage which cities the aircraft are based in either limits the power of air units or gives you interesting decisions to make. Whereas I think managing how ground units are deployed does both.
Excuse my stupidity, but how do I do that? I do truly hate the AI spamming cities one next to the other
You need a mod for it but it's a very small, very simple, and very easy to make mod. All you need is to create a mod in the ModBuddy that contains just one SQL file with a single SQL statement:
UPDATE Defines SET Value=5 WHERE Name='MIN_CITY_RANGE';
Then add in the "Actions" tab the event "OnModActivated" with the action "UpdateDatabase" and with the file name of whatever you chose to name the SQL file above. Give your mod a nice name and a description to appear in the game mods list. "Save" and "Build" and you are done.
When you launch Civ your mod will appear in the mods list and is ready for playing. Check it, start a new game and have fun!
And, of course, you can set the "5" of the Value to any distance you prefer. The bigger map you play the bigger distances you can use to get a viable "zoom in" effect.
Trias
Donkey with three behinds
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 594
In civ4, it certainly put a cap on the power of air units. I have frequently found myself in situations were the cap on the number of planes that could be stationed in a city limited the available bombers in an assault to 4 or 8, which is not that much compared to late game stacks of doom. This often forced the decision, do I bomb their units or reduce city defenses.
:: shrugs ::
I think the main reason why air stacking in Civ IV was annoying was because tile stacking didn't also apply to land units.
Uh, limiting the amount of air units stacked in one tile certainly DOES limit the power of air units.
Heck, it's pretty much the same way that 1upt limited the power of land units in Civ V.
Now, whether limiting air stacking directly increases the amount of interesting decisions is a bit more difficult to counter, because it depends on the details of the air stacking limits.
Personally, with the current operational radii of the various Civ V aerial units, I'd be in favor of air stacking limits similar to Civ IV: 4 air units per city tile, and city improvements can increase that limit.
Why do I favor a 4 unit limit? Because there are too many important combat roles for aerial units for a lower number.
:: shrugs ::
I agree that land unit stacking decreases the power of individual land units (if that is indeed a favorable outcome).
However, I disagree that land unit stacking increases the amount of interesting decisions...
In fact, I find that juggling how ground units are deployed under 1upt just increases the amount of tedious decisions in moving an invasion force. How is it an "interesting decision" to have to obsess over whether each amphibious unit actually disembarked where you told them to, instead of aimlessly loafing around for an indeterminate amount of turns?
Now, that said, I find it odd that land and naval stacking in Civ V would be so stringent, but aerial stacking is completely overlooked. If a player has to nitpick about the deployment of their land and naval units with a fine toothed comb, I see no reason why they shouldn't have to do so with their aerial units too.
Split units into three categories (this is pretty much already done in G&K):
1. Melee units: 1 per tile
2. Ranged units: 1 per tile
3. Civillians: unlimited per tile (Generals are considered civillians, right?)
The major change is 1 melee and 1 ranged on a tile at the same time. This makes things like gatling guns supporting great war infantry actually viable (a ranged unit with a range of 1 supports nothing unless it can stand on top of the unit it's supporting).
The thing that annoys me the most is encircling a city with ranged attackers and then finding it really annoying to make room for a melee unit to pass by for the cap. That's daft.
1. Melee units: 1 per tile
2. Ranged units: 1 per tile
3. Civillians: unlimited per tile (Generals are considered civillians, right?)
The major change is 1 melee and 1 ranged on a tile at the same time. This makes things like gatling guns supporting great war infantry actually viable (a ranged unit with a range of 1 supports nothing unless it can stand on top of the unit it's supporting).
The thing that annoys me the most is encircling a city with ranged attackers and then finding it really annoying to make room for a melee unit to pass by for the cap. That's daft.
mitsho
Deity
That would then mean that archer units would need to be 1 range as well in general. I'm not sure that would improve tactics since it lessens the maneouvrability (is that even a word).
Another bad result would be that you essentially would need the double amount of units: a ratio of 1 to 1 for melee and ranged units. And the attacker has an advantage since he can attack by ranged first and then melee... What happens to the other unit when one unit on the tile is defeated?
One good thing would be that it'd give a good role for mobile units, being able to attack the ranged unit directly without going through the melee one first (and spears/pikes give massive defensive bonus or something.
I'm not sure that would work as well though. or civ 6, I would prefer the 'army' model and being able to raise and dismiss armies quickly in any case.
Another bad result would be that you essentially would need the double amount of units: a ratio of 1 to 1 for melee and ranged units. And the attacker has an advantage since he can attack by ranged first and then melee... What happens to the other unit when one unit on the tile is defeated?
One good thing would be that it'd give a good role for mobile units, being able to attack the ranged unit directly without going through the melee one first (and spears/pikes give massive defensive bonus or something.
I'm not sure that would work as well though. or civ 6, I would prefer the 'army' model and being able to raise and dismiss armies quickly in any case.
Dunkah
Emperor
If you bring back the Army unit (I would call the unit a "division"), and allow three units per Division of any type then you eliminate the hard requirement of only 1 type per hex. Limit Divisions to roads or improved hexes (call it "being supplied"), and you create avenues of attack that the AI should be able to understand a little better.
The AI understood stacks of doom. If it knows to defend in force near roads it may do much better.
You would need to have a swap or pass-through movement action so two divisions couldn't occupy the same hex.
The AI understood stacks of doom. If it knows to defend in force near roads it may do much better.
You would need to have a swap or pass-through movement action so two divisions couldn't occupy the same hex.
Just thought of another change that might enhance 1upt.
Make it so that ranged units are incapable of inflicting damage on units, if the target's health is 25 percent or lower. For the purposes of this suggestion, I suppose aerial units count as ranged units.
The only way to cause damage to a unit at 25 percent health or lower is to kill them with a melee attack.
Make it so that ranged units are incapable of inflicting damage on units, if the target's health is 25 percent or lower. For the purposes of this suggestion, I suppose aerial units count as ranged units.
The only way to cause damage to a unit at 25 percent health or lower is to kill them with a melee attack.
