Kill 1UPT, add city maintenance, and we have a winner

[jjkrause84]

The more I think about it I think that if we can just get rid of 1UPT Civ VI has enormous potential. The building game is really fun...probably the best it's ever been. The governments are great, and religion is pretty good (but could be improved). 1UPT, however, has a few really grating implications that hold the game back.

- The AI can't handle it

- Civilian/foreign units can block mundane processes of building, settling, exploring in a way that is never fun

- 1UPT keeps armies small, which means that once an army is built (8-9 units) no more units need ever be built which means:

- There is not a whole lot of impetus to expand. Extra cities are a hassle, not a help

So, here's what I'm thinking. If we have unit stacking (say growing from 3 to 6 units per tile over the course of the game) then everyone will have to build far more units to hold choke-points, garrison cities, and have enough weight to launch an attack. This will mean having a larger manufacturing base will be a huge advantage, which is good: we need incentives for players and the AI to expand. More units should also mean deadlier combat, so the human has to keep building units in war (to say nothing of the need to build garrison forces as you advance and take new cities). As it currently sits it is easy to get through the entire game and only lose a tiny handful of units. This shouldn't be the case.

If we add military unit stacks, and allow unlimited stacking of civilian units and units of different nations not at war (i.e. you can have multiple full stacks from different nations on a single tile as long as none of those nations are at war with each other) then all of a sudden there will no longer be any roadblocks, ever. The only time units will be barred passage is by units in war-time or barbarians. The AI will be able to handle this much better, reducing turn times, and you'll never have to sit with a settler one tile away from where you want to found a city because an enemy missionary is just sitting there....

With this expansion all of a sudden becomes very appealing...perhaps too appealing. So, if we add a monetary cost to expansion, in addition to happiness penalties in captured cities, we have a nice balance. Yes, you can and should expand, but do so too quickly and you'll bankrupt yourself. You'll have a good reward for expansion (broader industrial/scientific/monetary base), with a more competent military opponent to stop your expansion, and a degree of friction in the form of maintenance which will force you to balance military expansion with having some way to pay for it (wars are very expensive, after all....a reality not reflected in the current game).

All of the other issues (warmonger penalty too high, roads are kinda pointless, etc. etc.) are minor and can be patched pretty easily. 1UPT, in my mind, is the only fundamental stumbling block that will hold Civ VI back from truly being great.

 

[Xyriach]

Stack of doom. That is all. 1UPT is infinately better than the alternative.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I'm with you--stacks and city maintenance combined to make the best Civ game ever, in my mind. If Civ VI had those, plus all of its cool stuff (policy cards, districts, unique great people, etc), I'm sure it would pass Civ IV, at least for me.

I will say, however, that there is sufficient impetus to expand in Civ VI--more cities means more of every economic yield, plus more trade routes. But you're right that there's basically no need to ever build more than 9 or 10 units, unless you're planning on fighting a two front war.

 

[Kozmos]

What was so wrong with stacks? You had artillery exactly for that purpose. Carpets are virtually non-threathening because the AI doesn't know how to use them. At least in Civ 4 it could manage to roll a stack with the the right amount of artillery and melee. Hell you can even put a limitation of say 5 units per tile.

 

[Nefelia]

OMG, more unit micro-management? Please no. Just no.

1) I've already notices that I am building more units in Civ VI than I was in Civ V, probably due to the need to go to war far earlier than I am used to doing. I certainly would not enjoy having to double or triple the amount of units built, collated together, switched up, disbanded, and redistributed.

2) I do agree that civilian units should not interact with military units unless a state of war is in place. If I want to place my Horseman on a forested hill covering my city's flank, the fact that an AI's apostle or worker is already there should not matter.

3) No to increased unhappiness and expense for military expansion. Civ VI already has mechanics in place that can be adjusted to account for that. Perhaps increase (or make exponential, if it isn't already) unit maintenance costs, especially for inherently offensive units (battering rams, catapults). Perhaps increase the impact of war weariness?

There is no need to go back to the tired mechanics of previous games. Civ VI already has the tools for such balancing. They just need to be tweaked.

 

[one179]

Stack of doom. That is all. 1UPT is infinately better than the alternative.

1UPT was the biggest mistake. CIV 4 is fun although stack of doom, just improve it. I would love CIV VI but 1UPT is really boring

 

[ddd123]

- The AI can't handle it

AI cant handle ANYTHING.
Get over it, you will never have a competitive AI(in any game, not just civ), if you want a though and balanced game... GO MULTIPLAYER.

And 1UPT is the best change ever, combat is so much better.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

What was so wrong with stacks? You had artillery exactly for that purpose. Carpets are virtually non-threathening because the AI doesn't know how to use them. At least in Civ 4 it could manage to roll a stack with the the right amount of artillery and melee. Hell you can even put a limitation of say 5 units per tile.

Personally, I don't get the hate for the "stack of doom." I rather like it. Unlike the carpet of doom, the stack of doom is totally functional. And in my opinion, the bigger and better army always winning is a good thing.

But anyway, since so many users here really dislike the stack of doom (for reasons I cannot fathom), I think your suggestion is a good one. Civ VI is taking baby steps in this direction with corps and armies, but it's not nearly enough. 5UPT sounds worth a try to me.

 

[Siptah]

I see corps and armies combined with 1UPT superior to stacks. I might be alone on this though.

 

[Kozmos]

I guess people feel smart kiting that disoriented carpet and shooting over their own units with archers at enemy units. Real great generalship there. For all the whining about micromanagement Civ 4 had a lot of UI tools so you could manage your masses of units effectively. Mass upgrade, groupations, mass attacks and so on.

 

[Mercade]

Stack of doom. That is all. 1UPT is infinately better than the alternative.

There is a big range between 1UPT and InfiniteUPT. I've seen proposals for 3UPT, 5UPT, that surely aren't Stack of Doom proportions.
For me 1UPT, or VeryLowUPT is quite good as a game mechanic. I'm just getting used to the slower movement between Civ5 and Civ6.

I see corps and armies combined with 1UPT superior to stacks. I might be alone on this though.

This actually is a good mechanic to have a little more power on one tile.

 

[Kozmos]

That little extra power however doesn't still hold up to ranged butchery. Now you even have medics and observation balloons, like the human player doesn't have enough advantages.

 

[Nefelia]

What was so wrong with stacks? You had artillery exactly for that purpose. Carpets are virtually non-threathening because the AI doesn't know how to use them. At least in Civ 4 it could manage to roll a stack with the the right amount of artillery and melee. Hell you can even put a limitation of say 5 units per tile.

Stacks of Doom were the most unengaging combat ever. Build your troops, collect them in a stack with the right variety of forces, roll up to target, and then attack. Done.

With 1UPT you need to path out an approach for your troops, shuffle troops around to prevent losses from attrition and focused fire, make favourable use of terrain, and balance attrition on the city with killing reinforcements from the city and elsewhere.

The AI does need to improve, that is true. I'd recommend placing a higher weight on focusing their fire to kill off attacking units. Lots of Civ players are savvy enough to pull injured troops back and cycle fresh replacements. The only was to stop the human-controlled war machine is to incur actual losses.

 

[TruthfulCake]

We already have corps and armies, as well as different kinds of units in this game. I say the problem lies not in the concept of 1UPT (which made multiplayer warfare so much more fun in CiV) but rather the execution. The Vox Populi (Community Balance) Patch actually solved the first two issues - the AI was competent at war using the 1UPT system, and it allowed civilian units to move through units of other civilizations during peace.

The latter is something I especially want to return in VI, as it is important not to block progress for religious victory using something as brain-dead as 6-tile meat walls. Having a worker who can improve a tile a foreign scout is standing on, or missionaries who can reach enemy cities without running in circles made the game so much better.

Therefore there is no need to ditch the 1UPT system, which forces more strategic warfare, in favor of uninspired doomstack mechanics.

 

[Toulouse]

Personally, I don't get the hate for the "stack of doom." I rather like it. Unlike the carpet of doom, the stack of doom is totally functional. And in my opinion, the bigger and better army always winning is a good thing.

But anyway, since so many users here really dislike the stack of doom (for reasons I cannot fathom), I think your suggestion is a good one. Civ VI is taking baby steps in this direction with corps and armies, but it's not nearly enough. 5UPT sounds worth a try to me.

This is what I've been thinking as well. Limited stacking is the best of both worlds, and would help the AI stay competitive in battles. That said, there is no greater joy than nuetering and wiping out an AI stack of doom with the right mix of units to counter it.

 

[Cerilis]

I see corps and armies combined with 1UPT superior to stacks. I might be alone on this though.

Dont worry, you are not!

 

[Mustakrakish]

I always liked the idea of mini stacks and was propagating it as long as V was around. But it always comes down to the same problem, in a nutshell: "instead of building 1 individual unit, you'll be always building 5 (or 3 or 10, whatever the max units per tile is) to maximize the strength of the stack. That was always the position people took... in a nutshell.

There needs to be some certain rules to stacks to balance it out somewhat. It can't work the same way it worked in IV with the only change there being a limit now. My suggestion were that the stacks be used primarily for logistics, to transport those units around, and while they could be used in combat also, there would be some negative modifiers in combat. One that I can think of is ranged unit damage. Where artillery would do 60 damage to single unit, it would do 70 to 2 unit stack (the damage spreads, so each unit gets 35 damage), 90 to 3 unit stack and so on, numbers to be adjusted. The idea is that units couldn't hide in a stack. Plus it makes sense. Some other rules could be made. I had some ideas but can't remember now. My idea is to keep 1upt somewhat viable while still have stacks. it needs some polishing though, a lot actually.

 

[Kozmos]

Stacks of Doom were the most unengaging combat ever. Build your troops, collect them in a stack with the right variety of forces, roll up to target, and then attack. Done.

With 1UPT you need to path out an approach for your troops, shuffle troops around to prevent losses from attrition and focused fire, make favourable use of terrain, and balance attrition on the city with killing reinforcements from the city and elsewhere.

The AI does need to improve, that is true. I'd recommend placing a higher weight on focusing their fire to kill off attacking units. Lots of Civ players are savvy enough to pull injured troops back and cycle fresh replacements. The only was to stop the human-controlled war machine is to incur actual losses.

How is that more engaging or different? Civ 4 also had terrain modifiers, unit types and promotions and you had to look where you were engaging and whether the enemy had artillery that could turn your own stacks into mush. Air combat was a little uninspired though. All civ V/VI added was mechanics the AI couldn't deal with it and it made it the same kite, shoot, stab, spend 3 turns healing because you had to tank damage from a city for several turns while you lowered its fortifications.

 

[wiggawuu]

I think we should be able to stack more units. Perhaps a rule that on smaller maps, yo can stack more units because less space. I imagine on massive maps, its easier.

Yeah, I think it would be really cool in future expansions to re introduce the idea of being able to stack units again(not just linking a range and melee). Mybe firaxis are listening and can experiment.

I feel like it deserves more attention as we need to find more common ground between the folks that liked SODs vs the ones that don't.

 

[jjkrause84]

Stack of doom. That is all. 1UPT is infinately better than the alternative.

So, because you personally didn't like unlimited stacking we should not even consider limited stacking? Far better to have an enemy missionary blocking you from upgrading some wheat in your own territory? Really?