I did not imply anything about who out numbers who here as this game is not majority rules. I just stated the group that I believe I belong in.
It came across to me as a claim analogous to a "Silent Majority", as it distinctly implied a belief that you are the "typical" civ5 gamer, thus your opinion is shared by a majority (else you would not be "typical").
I never meant to imply that you meant it in that way, just pointed out the phrasing was poor.
Actaully, common player could just imply regular, sizable, etc, not a majority. Regardless, the majority probably does not have a problem with 1UPT.
***As for 1UPT it's all about scale of units/cities/world relative to one another.***
1) On the extreme end you have tiny civ5 map last patch where cities can overlap. Units are huge relative to map size and city size, and city size is convoluted because they are large realative to the map but small relative to the units.
2) On the other extreme you have cities that each have a radius of 20 hexes and a map 20 times as large as huge. Now units seem a lot smaller relative to the map and cities, and the cities seem smaller relative to the map. The problem is now performance (and rebalancing).
Surely there is a middle ground where units/cities/world size seem appropriate relative to one another, and I think the main culprit in this equation is on the city size. If you increase the city size so more units fit inside the city limits it seems a more realistic scale. There must be a cutoff though, else every hex would be 5ft and we'd have DnD Civ rules. I think it would be a great experiment if Firaxis would make city size moddable and someone made the city size +1 ring and see how that affects perceived scaling.
The problem is sooo much rebalancing would need to take place. Basically the entire game. Firaxis won't do this, but a committed modder might try it (like, I might try if it were possible and I knew how).
I absolutely agree, there is a problem with scale. That problem has always existed, however, throughout all iterations of civ; With the latest version, it's just highlighted by 1upt, not caused by it.
IMO, the only true way to solve it is to quite literally have gameplay scale to map size. Movement, cost, city size, everything. That won't happen, though.
I'm also not convinced that simply expanding cities would solve anything; It might help Huge, but it screws Tiny.
Your opinion on my opinion would not matter.
Then your opinions are never heard by any who could help change the gameplay. If you lack faith in Firaxis, modders are your best bet.
But, you are quite welcome to ignore that.
Personally, all I see is a conflict of scale. Civ tiles, particularly city radii in all Civ games to date, each simply represent too large of an area to play out tactical battles using 1UPT. So I suppose the inherent conflict would be between viable tactical and strategic tile sizes. An amalgam of the two scales is necessary, IMO, to make the combination work. Master of Magic did this beautifully with tactical battles between armies, which is all well and good in an ancient, medieval, or even renaissance time frame, and in land battles. But it somewhat falls apart when you have to account for movement rates of mechanized or naval units, let alone aircraft.
My pipe dream would be a Civ game where city radius, tile improvements and tiles worked were one size hex, like we have now in Civ V. The tactical layer, where 1UPT applies, is contained within these hexes, with 7 (central +1 ring) or even 19 (central +2 rings) hexes contained within each strategic level tile. Military units would only occupy this tactical layer, and be limited to 1 UPT. Naval combat and transport could probably be handled on the strategic layer, as long as a naval escort system was implemented, that is better than what we have now. Roads, field fortifications, etc. would be built on the tactical layer, so workers would have a mechanism to move between the two layers, to do their thing.
It's a bit much for a patch of Civ 5, but maybe people with enough talent to implement it will listen, and we'll see a blessed union of scales in Civ 6. Who knows, maybe we're just experiencing a similar sequence to the Star Trek movies:
ToS = Civ 1
ST1 = Civ for Windows: bigger visuals, about as good as the original, nothing great
ST2 = Civ 2: still one of the best
ST3 = Civ 3: pretty good, but not as good as KHAAAAANNN!
ST4 = Civ 4: an all around great treat, for all ages and fan bases
ST5 = Civ 5: what happens when you let Shatner direct
ST6 = Civ 6: ?
Your concept is somewhat analogous to what I myself would prefer, but entails quite a bit more micro.
First, just to get various ideas in the discussion: Check this post. Listed all unit-management varieties I could think of (including one like yours; the vast majority of others would fit within these categories), and critiqued them.
http://forums.2kgames.com/showthrea...laced-with-2UPT-or-3UPT&p=1318430#post1318430
Now, my concept: Armies. Simply allow units to be joined into armies, and arranged within that army. More or less, take the "sub-tile" idea you described, and move it from tiles, onto units. You decide where the unit is positioned within the army, and combat takes this into account. Eases unit movement/management, maintains the tactical benefits of 1upt, and enhances them further (imo at least).
BTW: Your subtile idea is far more workable if you stick to triangles, rather than smaller hexagons, as they map accurately.
