1upt No So Cool

[Vordeo]

It's not perfect, but no SoDs = a good thing, IMO.

 

[Dedrytus]

1. Can't group civilian and military units - say spearman-general, or warrior-settler

It would be cool feature. Sometimes I send settler and warrior and warrior takes another path so settler travels unprotected.

Another thing I would like to have is tile improvement (for example) that allows me to park my units in one place during peace time.

 

[pickle]

on the whole 1upt >> SoD but it is annoying when you have to move a few units around and would be nice to be able to get them out of the way when they are not doing anything

 

[Jediron]

it is far from perfect and even worse for the battle AI. It is now all too easy to take down the AI's arty, and you hardly can defend your arty (or other weak units) properly. It's a nightmare, and i am really stunned that alot of people don't see that.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

It's the worst combat / movement system in the Civ series. Aside from making the game even more unrealistic, it is also responsible for a large part of the brain dead AI and the end of turn slowness as the game works overtime on simple path finding. Stupid on a lot of levels.

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

edit: Jediron, not sure what you mean. Obviously, your artillery is something you have to defend carefully. Which is very fitting for artillery.

 

[Tutkarz]

Its because one stack of doom is easier - you cant loose weak unit. And now sometimes happend to me that i lost catapult or archer because enemy said hello with his cavalry out of nowhere to my units. And i think its good. Besides 1Upt actually keeps me playing this game. But i would like to have some more enchancments to this like:
- defending unit retreating when took alot casualties in one fight
- support fire from my ranged units while defending
- more unit statistics so spears dont get bonuses defending against charriot firing arrows.

 

[Toady]

It was a deliberate design choice. I'm not sure why they would change it in a patch.

They didn't accidentally or randomly decide to implement 1upt. It's pretty clearly something they designed a lot for.

And quite frankly, I love it. I loathed having a 'wars' that were only about having a ridiculous stack of units sliding around the map and demolishing whatever they approached.

My most coveted feature for Civ V was 1upt, however i am sorely dissapointed by it's implementation.

I don't know about you but in multiplayer games constructing a stack of doom (unit types, promotions chosen, number of siege, etc) to face off the opponents stack of doom required twice as much tactical thinking than current Civ V 1upt system.

There are also several things that make 1upt as it's currently implemented a complete joke... especially for multiplayer games.

Things like: units are really bland... promotions are a joke... terrain is basically 2 different tiles (open or rough)... unable to issue orders to units once you hit the end turn button (while your opponent still plays)... 3rd party units (allies, neutrals) completely messing up your strategies... and many more.

 

[GenericPlayer]

And now sometimes happend to me that i lost catapult or archer because enemy said hello with his cavalry out of nowhere to my units. And i think its good.

I have to agree, for the first time in Civ 'Flanking' has a tangible meaning.

Generally speaking, for protecting your own artillery, that is what ZoC is there for. You have to position your forces such that any fast moving unit would get caught in your ZoC and stopped short. This is also where picking the 'right spot' with respect to the hills/forests/jungles comes into play.

The other day Alexander had one of my key cities (only source of Oil and Aluminium I had) cut off with infantry units and he started moving 3 artillery pieces in. I managed to get an embarked tank into the city and what followed was some very careful moves to outflank the arties, destroy them, then withdraw to safety. It was some of the best fun I'd ever had in Civ - and it wouldn't have been possible without 1upt.

 

[Jharii]

It's the worst combat / movement system in the Civ series. Aside from making the game even more unrealistic, it is also responsible for a large part of the brain dead AI and the end of turn slowness as the game works overtime on simple path finding. Stupid on a lot of levels.

I disagree. 1upt is outstanding. And it's a game. By nature, it's "unrealistic" out of the box. Sim games may give you a better feeling of "realism" that you may be looking for. Actual life does it for me, though.

And you cannot blame an inferior AI on a game mechanic. AI's are supposed to be designed to take advantage of the game mechanics, not the other way around. Your argument goes in the wrong direction.

FYI, there still is stacking in the game. Just get flight and stack away in cities and carriers.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

I really agree on this. It would be so helpful to have a route display or something.

Also, someone above said you can't put Spearmen+General, or Warrior + Worker on the same tile, and uh... that's just wrong, because you can!

It can't be done, because the 1UPT and it's obvious..

If you could do the whole movement route clearly all the units will cross-path each other, breaking the path itself...

So it will be not implemented.


And i think is way too stupid that non combat units can't stack, and that "neutral" can block the passage I had a worker that was stopped by a nice explorer for 4 turns... And i can say that happens a lot...Totally game braking...I never seen a game using a so stupid mechanic to move units, absolutely trash....

 

[Jharii]

It can't be done, because the 1UPT and it's obvious..

If you could do the whole movement route clearly all the units will cross-path each other, breaking the path itself...

So it will be not implemented.

Well, I am 99% certain they are already going to address this. When you initially select a destination, a path is displayed. Why would this be any different if you select that same unit 1/2/10 turns later? It already knows it's destination. It's just a matter of drawing the path to screen again.

And i think is way too stupid that non combat units can't stack, and that "neutral" can block the passage I had a worker that was stopped by a nice explorer for 4 turns... And i can say that happens a lot...Totally game braking...I never seen a game using a so stupid mechanic to move units, absolutely trash....

Funny, I rarely, if ever, have problems moving units. I don't understand why you are having a problem. It uses very standard, basic movement functionality.

Your issue with units being "trapped" by neighboring units has been going on since the dawn of Civ. Civ5 at least allows you to move "through" adjacent friendly/neutral units, thoug, if you have enough movement points to move beyond them.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Well, I am 99% certain they are already going to address this. When you initially select a destination, a path is displayed. Why would this be any different if you select that same unit 1/2/10 turns later? It already knows it's destination. It's just a matter of drawing the path to screen again.



Funny, I rarely, if ever, have problems moving units. I don't understand why you are having a problem. It uses very standard, basic movement functionality.

Your issue with units being "trapped" by neighboring units has been going on since the dawn of Civ. Civ5 at least allows you to move "through" adjacent friendly/neutral units, thoug, if you have enough movement points to move beyond them.

UH??? I'm not sure if you ever played a civ game before. Civ IV allows you to stack with neutral civ units (it only asks if you want to declare war, answer no, and it will stack)....
And you don't have problem to move units? I need to show you some saves where is a crowd of people blocking the passage If i have enough movement points? With a worker on a forest\hill tile?? Are you sure to playing actually Civ V?

And speakig of the first statement, if it displays the path, why the option has not been implemented before launch??? It's simple, if you think a little, because moving unit within a path leads to path-crossing, where the initial path selected for a unit is blocked by another one unit's path (cause they cannot stack)....


Amazed by those statements...

 

[Jharii]

UH??? I'm not sure if you ever played a civ game before. Civ IV allows you to stack with neutral civ units (it only asks if you want to declare war, answer no, and it will stack)....
And you don't have problem to move units? I need to show you some saves where is a crowd of people blocking the passage If i have enough movement points? With a worker on a forest\hill tile?? Are you sure to playing actually Civ V?

And speakig of the first statement, if it displays the path, why the option has not been implemented before launch??? It's simple, if you think a little, because moving unit within a path leads to path-crossing, where the initial path selected for a unit is blocked by another one unit's path (cause they cannot stack)....

Amazed by those statements...

You make a lot of assumptions, but not a lot of sense. But it's obvious that you are just interest in looking for faults in the game and in other people's posts rather than solutions and applying common sense. Sometimes you will even view facts as faults based upon your bias and make them out to be "obvious" or "simple."

Sometimes things have not been implemented because of oversights. People have asked for it, and I am fairly certain that they have acknowledged it.

Every unit has a path. When you click on a unit, there is nothing preventing the caculation of that path at the time of clicking on it. The paths update each and every turn for your units, if you hadn't noticed. Your assessment is flawed. I would surmise that you have never done any coding, particularly any gaming code, otherwise you would have a much better grasp on what you are trying to explain. More importantly, you would realize that you are incorrect.

And I have been playing Civ since 1. But please, continue your condescension when trying to have a civil discussion. It obviously makes you more right when you do this.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

You make a lot of assumptions, but not a lot of sense. But it's obvious that you are just interest in looking for faults in the game and in other people's posts rather than solutions and applying common sense. Sometimes you will even view facts as faults based upon your bias and make them out to be "obvious" or "simple."

Sometimes things have not been implemented because of oversights. People have asked for it, and I am fairly certain that they have acknowledged it.

Every unit has a path. When you click on a unit, there is nothing preventing the caculation of that path at the time of clicking on it. The paths update each and every turn for your units, if you hadn't noticed. Your assessment is flawed. I would surmise that you have never done any coding, particularly any gaming code, otherwise you would have a much better grasp on what you are trying to explain. More importantly, you would realize that you are incorrect.

And I have been playing Civ since 1. But please, continue your condescension when trying to have a civil discussion. It obviously makes you more right when you do this.

Are you sure you speak seriously? If you have an automatic update for path, do you know of much it takes to be calculated evey time it verified an "if" with path-crossing? The simplier solution is to interrupt the automatic path, but that's very useless if you have to move a lot of units. To Calculate the positioning within a board with multiple pieces moving at once, in exclusive box, takes ages... And i have plentry of computer engineers as fellow civ friends that stated that....

I'm polite and countering your statements with logic assumpionts, i questioned your experience, because you stated that there was traffic jamming in Civ franchise before, which is wrong, as i wrote.

And you do not answer to my questions about neutral unit and enough movement... You only accuse me of some sort of hate... My criticism is far more positive than your calling me basher or something else, i made clear the problem, that is huge to common sense, and that is very difficult to work out without stacking (limited or not)...

 

[Jharii]

Are you sure you speak seriously? If you have an automatic update for path, do you know of much it takes to be calculated evey time it verified an "if" with path-crossing? The simplier solution is to interrupt the automatic path, but that's very useless if you have to move a lot of units. To Calculate the positioning within a board with multiple pieces moving at once, in exclusive box, takes ages... And i have plentry of computer engineers as fellow civ friends that stated that....

I'm polite and countering your statements with logic assumpionts, i questioned your experience, because you stated of traffic jamming in Civ franchise before, which is wrong, as i wrote.

And you do not answer to my questions about neutral unit and enough movement... You only accuse me of some sort of hate... My criticism is far more positive than your calling me basher or something else, i made clear the problem, that is huge to common sense and that is very difficult to work out without stacking (limited or not)...

I haven't played Civ4 in a couple years. So it is very possible that I forgot of Civ4's handling of this.

It doesn't change the rest. The paths of each unit are processed each turn. They have to be. If you have noticed, units that you have set destinations to often change their paths. To be more precise, each turn, each unit:

- Checks to see if the current path is obstructed
- If the path is currently obstructed, calculate a new path
- If the path is not obstructed, use the current path

There is no reason that it cannot be implemented that when you click on a unit in transit that the above function cannot be called prior to displaying the current path of the unit. It would be a very (VERY) simple implementation. All the functionality is there, they just need to call the above function followed by the function which displays the path.

Now... rereading your latest response, you may be trying to describe the same thing. It's hard to tell since we may be calling things differently. The whole process is typically called "pathfinding." I think you are separating different components of pathfinding and calling one thing pathfinding and the other thing something else. It could be a language gap. Whatever the case, the functionality is readily available and non-intrusive, and will cause no performance issues.

 

[Camikaze]

Surely it is not too much to ask that this be changed in the next patch. The functionality is obviously still there, so giving us access is only a relatively simple tweak. I am not suggesting that 1upt be dumped altogether, but rather I am asking that what we had in civ 1-4 be returned as an option in the game setup screen.

Such a core change would not easily be done in a patch, if you want it done well. I'm not sure how well the AI copes in the Legions mod (?), but I would assume that it would take a fair amount of effort to get them to be able to use stacks at least semi-reasonably. Of course, it isn't like dumping 1upt means a return to the SOD; I advocate for stacks to be in the game (exponential penalties and no arbitrary hard caps FTW!), but it's going to have to wait until Civ6. And in the meantime, surely 1upt isn't that bad to work with.

 

[CultureManiac]

The only issues with 1upt is getting the AI to use its units better. If it could you wouldn't get kill ratios of 5:1 or 10:1, or even higher. It's not that this particular AI is that much more stupid than the others, however. Putting all your units in one stack and going to town on your opponents ain't exactly brain science.

Good riddance SoD.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

I haven't played Civ4 in a couple years. So it is very possible that I forgot of Civ4's handling of this.

It doesn't change the rest. The paths of each unit are processed each turn. They have to be. If you have noticed, units that you have set destinations to often change their paths. To be more precise, each turn, each unit:

- Checks to see if the current path is obstructed
- If the path is currently obstructed, calculate a new path
- If the path is not obstructed, use the current path

There is no reason that it cannot be implemented that when you click on a unit in transit that the above function cannot be called prior to displaying the current path of the unit. It would be a very (VERY) simple implementation. All the functionality is there, they just need to call the above function followed by the function which displays the path.

Now... rereading your latest response, you may be trying to describe the same thing. It's hard to tell since we may be calling things differently. The whole process is typically called "pathfinding." I think you are separating different components of pathfinding and calling one thing pathfinding and the other thing something else. It could be a language gap. Whatever the case, the functionality is readily available and non-intrusive, and will cause no performance issues.

So you are speaking of pathfinding, but pathfinding is something that is applied to avoid the intersection of solid objects in a path. It is applied in the RTS but it is not so easy to implement in games based on bidimensional box-board (or chessboard if you like it), where the avoiding rule is not based on spatial dimension, if you understand what i'm saying... To be honest there is another factor that you need to consider, the movement of the piece involved on the board, that is limited. So if implemented, it can cause a lot of strange movements. An example, to clarify that for the future, is the inability of the automatic exploration movement to avoid borders of neutral city-states...

 

[Jharii]

So you are speaking of pathfinding, but pathfinding is something that is applied to avoid the intersection of solid objects in a path. It is applied in the RTS but it is not so easy to implement in games based on bidimensional box-board (or chessboard if you like it), where the avoiding rule is not based on spatial dimension, if you understand what i'm saying... To be honest there is another factor that you need to consider, the movement of the piece involved on the board, that is limited. So if implemented, it can cause a lot of strange movements. An example, to clarify that for the future, is the inability of the automatic exploration movement to avoid borders of neutral city-states...

Right. I think we are both talking about the same thing, in a sense. I am talking about pathfinding in its entire functionality whereas you are talking about the actual calculating the path, which is a component of pathfinding.

And yes, I realize I oversimplified the steps. That was intentional. There are many more complexities to pathfinding. One additional one is that if the target tile is occupied, clear the existing path and activate the unit. Another is if the path is blocked, and the target tile can no longer be reached, clear the existing path and activate the unit. I am sure that Civ5 has much more involved (accounting for movement, terrain, etc.), but these things are relatively trivial as for the demand on the system, particularly when we are talking about one unit.

No matter what is taken into consideration and what the entire pathfinding process includes, it still doesn't alter the fact that by clicking on the unit, that this entire process can be done immediately and the resulting path (whether stored or newly derived) be displayed on screen, or even simply displaying the destination square if you want to save processing.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Right. I think we are both talking about the same thing, in a sense. I am talking about pathfinding in its entire functionality whereas you are talking about the actual calculating the path, which is a component of pathfinding.

And yes, I realize I oversimplified the steps. That was intentional. There are many more complexities to pathfinding. One additional one is that if the target tile is occupied, clear the existing path and activate the unit. Another is if the path is blocked, and the target tile can no longer be reached, clear the existing path and activate the unit. I am sure that Civ5 has much more involved (accounting for movement, terrain, etc.), but these things are relatively trivial as for the demand on the system, particularly when we are talking about one unit.

No matter what is taken into consideration and what the entire pathfinding process includes, it still doesn't alter the fact that by clicking on the unit, that this entire process can be done immediately and the resulting path (whether stored or newly derived) be displayed on screen, or even simply displaying the destination square if you want to save processing.

But displaying the path and automatically executing it are two different things. i agree that it is doable, but the current work on AI pathfinding is not very promising... If i can throw the expression: it is already very difficult to provide the Ai with a sense of direction for combat or exploring movement that putting in the game a pathfinding even for the auto-route of player's units is like adding gasoline to a fire...