1UPT - final verdict?

[Aeson]

What if you switched their places on the Tech Web and Affinity requirements? Still game with CNDRs?

I would still build CNDRs once I got to Affinity 9 ... and until then I probably would go with Ranger + Rover/Soldier lines. SABRs I might not even research to. They are really just that slow.

It's not like you can't use them both if you have enough Firaxite.

If you use CNDRs properly with faster moving bombardment, you really can't use SABRs much at all. The front moves too fast.

You field 12 CNDRs at a time? I can see why you'd think the 1UPT system is tedious. That's an awful big army. What's your maintenance like?

1UPT isn't tedius because of number of units. You can't use in-game pathing so every unit has to be individually moved each turn. I don't mind using units at the front every turn, that's interesting (sorta). Moving a unit to the front is tedius, because it's completely brainless clicking.

My current game on Standard Continents is about 75% towards complete domination. Will be a few more turns to get to 100%.

2 CNDRs
4 Carriers
4 Destroyers (fighting inland most right now)
7 Dragoons
12 Battlesuits
7 LEV Tanks
6 Wardens
6 Raiders.

Most of that Floatstone that's in LEV Tanks now was in Battlesuits previously. So the numbers were higher earlier. At this point I only build Dragoons and LEV Tanks.

That's actually a small military for me during the conquest stage. It's a very laid back game. I've been trying something different in regards to Virtues (no Industry) and Terrain improvements (more Academies) and it didn't work too well in regards to Production capacity.

75% of 38 is 28.5. That's close to the effective combat Strength of a Disciple already (base 24 +20% for adjacency). And you're pushing them closer in Affinity, plus 2 Firaxite? I'd rather just use the Disciples. What would CNDRs allow me to do that I couldn't do with Disciples then? I could even mass the Disciples faster and cheaper by doing it while they're Marines.

It's just a rough estimate. Ideally CNDRs would be a bit better early, with the Soldier line gaining the upper hand for a while after being upgrade a couple times, and then later CNDRs being a bit better again after being upgraded. Their upgrade bonuses could further differentiate them so each is situationally better than the other.

Super units are nice for marketing, but make for boring gameplay.

There's something strange going on with your settings. I rarely have 12 extra Firaxite at all at Affinity 4, let alone 12 CNDRs - though that's because I don't find it useful to field that many melee units.

I usually use the Firaxite for Optical Surgery - I generally want at least 2 to help with Health, so I'd need 16 (!!!) Firaxite to field 12 CNDRs. That's a lot. I usually have something like 8 on an insanely good start. It's usually more like 5.

I think the CNDRs work a lot better when you're not able to mass them like zerglings. How are you massing 12 at a time so fast?

I play on standard settings. I expand fast. I don't start with 12 ... I usually start with the first 3 or 4 because you can win a war with that (and Gunners). But why win just one war? Just keep building more units as you go, open up more fronts ...

If you don't have 12 Affinity resources, you can get it pretty fast with what units you do have.

 

[Roxlimn]

Aeson:

I would still build CNDRs once I got to Affinity 9 ... and until then I probably would go with Ranger + Rover/Soldier lines. SABRs I might not even research to. They are really just that slow.

Eh. It's a drawback. It's not completely unmanageable. Arguably, the fact that none of the other units don't have such an interesting drawback makes them inferior designs.

If you use CNDRs properly with faster moving bombardment, you really can't use SABRs much at all. The front moves too fast.

It really depends on how you're moving the SABR, of course. You can rarely just walk it over terrain. That really would be too slow.

1UPT isn't tedious because of number of units. You can't use in-game pathing so every unit has to be individually moved each turn. I don't mind using units at the front every turn, that's interesting (sorta). Moving a unit to the front is tedious, because it's completely brainless clicking.

It's actually easy to automate that, especially once they're hovering. Actually, I don't like that so much that I research Phasal Transporters before engaging in anything like a lengthy military campaign. It's not like the tech is all that far.

With Phasal Transporters, you suffer none of that tedious moving. Totally worth it.

My current game on Standard Continents is about 75% towards complete domination. Will be a few more turns to get to 100%.

2 CNDRs
4 Carriers
4 Destroyers (fighting inland most right now)
7 Dragoons
12 Battlesuits
7 LEV Tanks
6 Wardens
6 Raiders.

Most of that Floatstone that's in LEV Tanks now was in Battlesuits previously. So the numbers were higher earlier. At this point I only build Dragoons and LEV Tanks.

That's actually a small military for me during the conquest stage. It's a very laid back game. I've been trying something different in regards to Virtues (no Industry) and Terrain improvements (more Academies) and it didn't work too well in regards to Production capacity.

48 units is a small military?!?! On a Standard map! That many units would occupy every single tile around a very large city with some left over! I daresay you could attack every single Civ in every single continent with something that large. With that kind of a military, I'd be tempted to take Domination with a single world-wide announcement of war followed by a Capital takeover of every capital in a single turn!

Of course, you'd have to hold the cities for a while, but that's relatively easy.

Battlesuits require Titanium only. LEV Tanks require Floatstone only.

With a Purity primary, I have to wonder what the CNDRs are for. Centurions would be better troops at that point. There's also a distinct lack of Aegis.

It's just a rough estimate. Ideally CNDRs would be a bit better early, with the Soldier line gaining the upper hand for a while after being upgrade a couple times, and then later CNDRs being a bit better again after being upgraded. Their upgrade bonuses could further differentiate them so each is situationally better than the other.

Super units are nice for marketing, but make for boring gameplay.

It kind of depends on how many "super units" you have. A few CNDRs in a largely Disciple force is an interesting mix. I think that's why all the key Supremacy buildings require Firaxite and why most deposits only have 2 or 3.

I play on standard settings. I expand fast. I don't start with 12 ... I usually start with the first 3 or 4 because you can win a war with that (and Gunners). But why win just one war? Just keep building more units as you go, open up more fronts ...

If you don't have 12 Affinity resources, you can get it pretty fast with what units you do have.

I actually prefer building over war, so that's why I don't do that. When I wage war, it's usually over within 10 turns or less. If I really wanted Domination, I could just slingshot-spam Battlesuits at turn 50 and win Apollo Domination at turn 142 or something, but that wouldn't be what I'd call a fun evening.

 

[Senethro]

Roxlimn, can you stop sprinting with the goalposts between whats fun and whats functional? Aesons making good points and you're just replying to all of them as if he said something different than what he did.

 

[Aeson]

Eh. It's a drawback. It's not completely unmanageable. Arguably, the fact that none of the other units don't have such an interesting drawback makes them inferior designs.

Yah. Affinity 4 units could be made interesting somehow. Though at this point I'd expect the best we can hope for is a patch that balances their cost:effectiveness through a STR reduction and/or cost increase.

It's actually easy to automate that, especially once they're hovering. Actually, I don't like that so much that I research Phasal Transporters before engaging in anything like a lengthy military campaign. It's not like the tech is all that far.

With Phasal Transporters, you suffer none of that tedious moving. Totally worth it.

Yah, I use lots of Phasal Transporters. But they come somewhat late in the game. I've Phasal Transported in SABRs before and even though they just had to move 1 tile to get into position, the city was gone before they could fire a shot. Then it takes another couple turns to get to the city to Phasal Transport again, in which time the other units have already taken the next city too.

I just take more cities faster with the Firaxite in CNDRs and relying on the Ranger line (and/or Air/Sea) for bombardment.

48 units is a small military?!?! On a Standard map! That many units would occupy every single tile around a very large city with some left over! I daresay you could attack every single Civ in every single continent with something that large. With that kind of a military, I'd be tempted to take Domination with a single world-wide announcement of war followed by a Capital takeover of every capital in a single turn!

Thus why 75% will be 100% in a few turns. Though I dislike Capital Domination and always try to avoid triggering it. Complete Domination is much more satisfying. Getting to eliminate each rival completely is the best part of the game.

Normally I'd have a lot more air and sea units, and a higher ratio of Ranger line. But with Purity LEV Tanks fill all those roles.

Battlesuits require Titanium only. LEV Tanks require Floatstone only.

Not sure what I was thinking with that.

With a Purity primary, I have to wonder what the CNDRs are for. Centurions would be better troops at that point. There's also a distinct lack of Aegis.

I don't research to Aegis usually. LEV Tanks are just so much more useful.

CNDRs were useful once I got Prime Battlesuits. Allows building a cheap unit or an expensive one. Centurions are much more expensive and I had the Firaxite just laying around. I had several more CNDRs but just letting them die to make room for new Dragoons that are being produced.

I actually prefer building over war, so that's why I don't do that.

I tend to do both to some extent. I like to vary it. My cities all have most of the buildings you can build. I build a good share of the Wonders. Building is fun too. It would be best if the military units were fun and interesting in regards to all playstyles. Currently they're much better balanced for peaceful/defensive builders than for warmongers.

But it's still a decent system. Just need the Affinity 4 units toned down, and LEV Tanks too. I don't really care if there's some units like SABRs that just don't work for me. I don't have to use them.

The problem is when one unit is so much more useful than anything else you have to use them.

When I wage war, it's usually over within 10 turns or less. If I really wanted Domination, I could just slingshot-spam Battlesuits at turn 50 and win Apollo Domination at turn 142 or something, but that wouldn't be what I'd call a fun evening.

The conquest of the other continent will take roughly 15 turns. Could have been faster but not getting Standardized Architecture is a huge hit to overall Production in this sort of game. Maybe 2 or 3 extra Battlesuits per city in extra Production towards the buildings that were built. The game would have already been over with those extra units sooner.

 

[Antilogic]

Roxlimn, can you stop sprinting with the goalposts between whats fun and whats functional? Aesons making good points and you're just replying to all of them as if he said something different than what he did.

If you believe in 1UPT then you can't stack your goalposts. You have to keep moving them, and keep them separated from your expectations.

 

[Roxlimn]

Yah, I use lots of Phasal Transporters. But they come somewhat late in the game. I've Phasal Transported in SABRs before and even though they just had to move 1 tile to get into position, the city was gone before they could fire a shot. Then it takes another couple turns to get to the city to Phasal Transport again, in which time the other units have already taken the next city too.

I just take more cities faster with the Firaxite in CNDRs and relying on the Ranger line (and/or Air/Sea) for bombardment.

What I do is Phasal Transport the SABR (or maglev it) directly into position, and setup the next turn. Fire begins the turn after that. Once the city is taken, the unit is deleted. A new unit is purchased at a city, and it's Phased into position for the next city target.

It's no use moving SABRs. They're essentially immobile Artillery.

I don't research to Aegis usually. LEV Tanks are just so much more useful.

CNDRs were useful once I got Prime Battlesuits. Allows building a cheap unit or an expensive one. Centurions are much more expensive and I had the Firaxite just laying around. I had several more CNDRs but just letting them die to make room for new Dragoons that are being produced.

I don't know how that matters. By that tech level, you should be making Centurions or CNDRs at 1 or 2 turns apiece anyway, and Centurions heal like 30 or 40 HP per turn every turn. They're the ultimate cannon fodder.

I tend to do both to some extent. I like to vary it. My cities all have most of the buildings you can build. I build a good share of the Wonders. Building is fun too. It would be best if the military units were fun and interesting in regards to all playstyles. Currently they're much better balanced for peaceful/defensive builders than for warmongers.

But it's still a decent system. Just need the Affinity 4 units toned down, and LEV Tanks too. I don't really care if there's some units like SABRs that just don't work for me. I don't have to use them.

The problem is when one unit is so much more useful than anything else you have to use them.

The Affinity 4 units are fairly basic. I wouldn't mind putting some drawbacks to them appropriate to their Affinity. That said, I think they're the basic melee thing unit for the newbies and casuals to play with. I'm sure a few drawbacks would be fine for us, but it's not just us playing the game. As much as I hate the basic Aff4 units, I restrain myself since I see them as newbie material.

 

[Roxlimn]

Roxlimn, can you stop sprinting with the goalposts between whats fun and whats functional? Aesons making good points and you're just replying to all of them as if he said something different than what he did.

With all due respect, Senethro, I think we've got an understanding and a nice dialogue going on. I'm certainly enjoying myself. I don't know that I'm moving any goalposts, but it hasn't been that structured of a discussion for a while now, at least on my part.

I like the SABR unit. I think it's a better design precisely because it has drawbacks. This makes it powerful, but with significant limitations, being both balanced and interesting to use. In contrast, the Aff4 units (really, all of them) are meant to be simple and iconic and powerful, but inherently uninteresting. I think they serve a function in the game, so I can't fault the design for having different intentions, but I do find them significantly less interesting and fun to play with.

The balance of the different melee units is a subtopic of the 1UPT discussion in itself. The last one vis a vis MUPT in my understanding was the reference to the Army mechanics.

 

[mzprox]

Civ should have an army system sort of. Where a more advanced, better maintained army with a better leader could be victorius over a bigger army. Battles between armies would be decided by computation with army composition and luck counted in.
Army size should be limited by many different things, maintenance cost, morale, technology, command points, leader ability etc etc. (and ofc it would be 1 army per tile)

edit: just read back a little in this thread and saw that very smiliar ideas as mine were already put here. Finger crossed that we will see something like this in civ6

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I used to dismiss the idea but the more I think about it, the more I think that having say 15upt on the main map and an optional 1upt tactical map to resolve battles could make both sides happy.

The mupt crowd would have their stacks (but limited to avoid stacks of doom) and could auto resolve battles so as to avoid the tactical combat that they hate and the 1upt crowd would have their 1upt tactical battles. Tactical combat should be optional and auto resolve would automatically happen for stacks below a certain size so that players don't get bogged down with tactical combat every time a couple units fight.

This would also help the AI since it would not have to worry about the 1upt bottlenecks on the main map anymore and the tactical maps would be flatter, with less obstacles, thus easier to navigate. Plus you could have say 10 template battle maps that the game would reuse depending on the terrain of the battle. So the AI could be pre-programmed with how to move on each tactical map since the maps would not change from game to game like the main map.

This would allow more strategic planning on the main map and better tactical planning on the battle level instead of what we have now which is tactical planning shoehorned onto a strategic map.

 

[Roxlimn]

Endless Legend is doing that. It's pretty borked, from what I hear. Very bad.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Endless Legend is doing that. It's pretty borked, from what I hear. Very bad.

I'd also argue it wouldn't work for Civ because it "feels" small. You have about the same number of units as in Civ 5 but now they're condensed into small armies. While that's nice for navigation, it makes armies feel small. There are no front lines, choke points or similar considerations. There's a lot less strategy involved and the AI tactics can't make the tactical play interesting enough at the moment.

It (apart from the borked AI) works for the fantasy theme, I think, where small bands lead by legendary heroes winning the day are a thing. I don't think it'd work for Civ's grander scale.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I'd also argue it wouldn't work for Civ because it "feels" small.

1upt with 7-8 units bumping into each other on the main also "feels" small to me. I never get the sense that I am leading large armies in civ5 but I do feel that way in civ4 because of the larger stacks.

Personally, if you had a tactical map that was say 20x20 and each side had no more than 15 units, I think you could make it "feel" epic and big, especially if graphically you made each unit have like 30 little guys.

 

[ButSam]

I like 1UPT (well, 1 civ & 1 mil UPT), but I would be willing to try 1APT; that is, one Army Per Tile. You built 3 military units, combined them together (a la Civ 3 Armies), and that was the limit. That allows some additional customization, while still keeping stacks limited.

 

[Senethro]

Endless Legend is doing that. It's pretty borked, from what I hear. Very bad.

Nope, its actually really well implemented. One of my favorite features of EL. Hex combat without an awful carpet of units to faff with.

 

[Acken]

Meh I don't like EL version of it. I like the idea of expanding the field once two army clash but I do not like the gameplay there.
Also it doesn't work for MP you have to autoresolve which mean you'd have some pretty good auto combat calculator, which I have rarely seen in army vs army games.

 

[Roxlimn]

I like 1UPT (well, 1 civ & 1 mil UPT), but I would be willing to try 1APT; that is, one Army Per Tile. You built 3 military units, combined them together (a la Civ 3 Armies), and that was the limit. That allows some additional customization, while still keeping stacks limited.

I also thought this would be a good idea until I realized that this is essentially just Custom Unit 1UPT. It's 1UPT with added customization complexity per unit. I'm not seeing the AI navigating that at all well.

 

[Kutuzov]

I also thought this would be a good idea until I realized that this is essentially just Custom Unit 1UPT. It's 1UPT with added customization complexity per unit. I'm not seeing the AI navigating that at all well.

One might also argue that this is a good reason for not implementing 1UPT as well

I've played AGEOD games where stack building is a necessary part of the game and the AI does a reasonable job, (let's say that again for clarity, reasonable job) of building stacks. It can't build them as well as a human can but it can build them. I would expect any Civ army building would be a whole order of magnitude less complex than what we find in an AGEOD wargame and so it might be possible for a future Civ AI to do a reasonable job of building armies too.

I'm not convinced that 1UPT is here to stay although I'll live with it if it is. I think we're likely to see some form of army building in Civ VI. It would also be easier, and perhaps more attractive publicity-wise, to do this than to create an AI that could manage 1UPT better as well.

 

[Roxlimn]

1 Army per unit IS 1UPT. It's just 1UPT with the added problem of customizable units. The classic way AIs can build a "reasonable" stack is the AI is given twice the size or more. You can't do that with Armies - and it's still essentially 1UPT. The worst of both systems.

GalCiv2's Fleet system is essentially this. However, the composite units in that game are VERY simple. Stupidly so. It's the only way the AI can cope, and It still doesn't know how to build the truly good compositions, it's just not brain-dead.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

1 Army per unit IS 1UPT. It's just 1UPT with the added problem of customizable units. The classic way AIs can build a "reasonable" stack is the AI is given twice the size or more. You can't do that with Armies - and it's still essentially 1UPT. The worst of both systems.

How would customization be a problem for the AI? You could pre-program the AI with templates like template 1 is 2 melee+1 range+1 cavalry. Then the AI just has to put template 1 in the build queue to build that army unit.

 

[Antilogic]

I go back to the question of why use artificial stack limits in the first place when you could use an intuitive stack limiter like supply.