No 1UPT

[nimling]

Let's try this again.

Workable alternatives? Better ways to manage combat?

Also, is anyone in the modding community able to put together an effective MUPT mod? I know there are some attempts in Civ V but the AI doesn't really understand them.
Sadly mods can't fix multiplayer, at least not easily, and that is where 1UPT is the most aggravating. The AI is going to suck at war no matter what, though it would definitely benefit from relieving dronejam.

 

[Galgus]

Ideally, something like Rome Total War's system of a real time battlefield.

Otherwise, 2UPT with a 10-20% penalty for stacking units.

I'm also generally a fan of melee units one-shotting most ranged units.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

My preference is 1APR
1 Army per region

essentially as many units as one wants are put into an army, and that army 'intercepts' enemies in its range.

 

[Galgus]

That sounds pretty much exactly like a stack of doom.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That sounds pretty much exactly like a stack of doom.

Except it would act as 1 unit.

When 2 stack interacted it wouldn't be a series of units attacking it would be one "unit" attacking one "unit". "Healing" would have to cost as much as building new units.

 

[ZTZaorish]

Perhaps you should mention to us why you don't like 1upt before we mention solutions.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Perhaps you should mention to us why you don't like 1upt before we mention solutions.

Good point, my solutions are based on the idea that I think
1. 1UPT is too tactical, taking attention/design away from the strategic part of the game
and
2. AI can't handle tactics (tactical gameplay is essentially a human cheat)

The problem with stacks of doom was that they were also tactical (because it was still unit-unit combat, and by managing which unit in your stack attacked when you could have a human cheat... not as strong, but still powerful...but requiring annoying micromanagement)

I'd rather manage a half dozen armies (where all units in it attack+defend at once), then manage 1 dozen (1UPT) or 10 dozen (stack of doom) units.

 

[Galgus]

Without tactics wars are a boring game of who can produce the most with the best tech, where things like defensible terrain considerations become non-existant.

I could see a 2UPT system to reduce terrain constraints, but I would absolutely oppose trying to remove tactics.

It would be a massive downgrade if wars were simply throwing my stack of units against another, with the bigger one winning.

 

[nimling]

Perhaps you should mention to us why you don't like 1upt before we mention solutions.

1UPT is bad. That is a given, not really up for argument. It's been deconstructed so many times by other people.

What 1UPT has done to the player base is just sad to watch. Playing an MP game in Civ5/BE is like eating rusty nails, and that is where the problems of 1UPT are most apparent.

I would prefer armies rather than units too, so long as they can be split up.

The bigger army winning is how the game should be, generally. There is no real skill in managing 1UPT silliness and spamming ranged units, just a matter of who can click first. If ranged units weren't so stupid then this would be less of a problem, but the reason for broken ranged units is precisely because of 1UPT.

I could see utilizing flank bonuses to add incentives to split up your army, and of course stack counters like Civ4 siege/air/nukes.

 

[Galgus]

Ranged unit spam could be addressed by lowering their defense in melee - let melee units one-shot them, and you'll see people guard them better.

 

[duckstab]

The problem is not 1UPT, the problem is 1UPT on a strategic level map. In theory you can have both easy strategic level unit management via stacks and rich tactical battles with 1UPT, as long as you're willing to move combat off to a separate battlefield-level map. (But still turn-based, please. Some of us don't have the reflexes for RT combat.)

Just thinking out loud here...

One advantage of such a system might be that tactical map generation could be constrained in various ways so that programming the tactical AI would be easier. I'm thinking of a tactical "module", something that is somewhat more random than a canned scenario but with enough predictable features that the AI could be programmed to fight them in certain ways. The main pitfall would be ensuring enough variation that the human player wouldn't immediately recognize a certain map from a previous battle and know exactly what the AI was going to do in that situation. Nevertheless, I suspect that's easier than creating a battlefield AI that can fight well on completely unknown terrain - which is exactly what we have now.

An interesting approach might be to build the system to evolve over time. New tactical modules could be incorporated into the game with patches and/or as DLC. These could also be locked or unlocked based on player skill level - say I win the same scenario decisively 2 or 3 times and the game knows not to show it to me anymore because it's become too easy.

 

[Galgus]

This would be solved by the maps simply being larger, or using less rough terrain features.

I'd be fine with a separate battle menu though, either turn based or in the style of Total War.

 

[Gorbles]

1UPT is bad. That is a given, not really up for argument. It's been deconstructed so many times by other people.

That is not a valid argument, sorry.

Any variation on 1UPT that could work involves a finite stack limit of sorts. However, creating this limit would be based on preference rather than any strength of games design.

Any comprehensive UPT modification would have to involve AI work to account for the changes, something to date I don't think anyone has attempted (definitely not for BE, not sure about CiV).

This is why the argument generally boils down to "1UPT" vs. "MUPT". Imposing a finite limit on MUPT has no decent design grounding because what people find an acceptable limit in the strategy vs. tactics payoff will vary. For some people 5UPT would be too much. For others 3UPT would be too few. And so on, and so forth.

A better thread would be "what problems are posed by 1UPT and how to resolve them". Modders have already made great efforts in this area - the map generation code is a bit rough and benefits a great deal from refinement; the Pandora mod for BE really polishes up terrain generation and (optionally) resource placement. These two things in of themselves not only improve strategic options for army movement, but they also improve build diversity by improving available (Affinity) resources.

tl;dr: there are issues with 1UPT, there are issues with MUPT; it largely comes down to personal preference despite the design strengths and weaknesses of each.

I consider 1UPT superior, but that's because I prefer the tactical army map compared with the strategic faction map. It's cleaner and thus leads to better design when compared to a muddle of tactics and strategy on the army map vs. mostly strategy at the faction level.

When you have a clearer design goal for a particular segment of gameplay, you end up having better design.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Without tactics wars are a boring game of who can produce the most with the best tech, where things like defensible terrain considerations become non-existant.

I could see a 2UPT system to reduce terrain constraints, but I would absolutely oppose trying to remove tactics.

It would be a massive downgrade if wars were simply throwing my stack of units against another, with the bigger one winning.

If composition also mattered it would be more interesting.

Also who says terrain would not matter. rather than the individual tile, you look at the path between two armies that are going to intercept each other. (add in defender/attacker, and armies approaching from multiple directions, and you have plenty of opportunity to defeat the larger army)

 

[Ryika]

Hopefully, Civ VI is x64 only, then maps can become a lot larger and more open to offer better support for the 1UPT-System. Given that this is now your third(?) thread on the issue and you've still not given any reasons why 1UPT is "objectively bad" other than claiming that it is and that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, I'd say that's the best alternative to the system we have right now.

 

[Galgus]

If composition also mattered it would be more interesting.

Also who says terrain would not matter. rather than the individual tile, you look at the path between two armies that are going to intercept each other. (add in defender/attacker, and armies approaching from multiple directions, and you have plenty of opportunity to defeat the larger army)

The only way I'd be okay with a system beyond 2UPT is if battles took place on a separate map, like Total War or using a turn-based system.

Short of that, wars with larger stacks are a mind-numbingly dull business of telling your units to attack their units with no positioning or terrain concerns.

I'm fine with the occasional choke point making invasion difficult, but there are just too many in current map sizes.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The only way I'd be okay with a system beyond 2UPT is if battles took place on a separate map, like Total War or using a turn-based system.

Short of that, wars with larger stacks are a mind-numbingly dull business of telling your units to attack their units with no positioning or terrain concerns.

I'm fine with the occasional choke point making invasion difficult, but there are just too many in current map sizes.

That's if it is unit based instead of army based.

That was the mind numbing part... 100 units in a stack meant you had to make 100 attacks (sometimes choosing specific units in the stack for the attack first)

on the other hand army v. army would be 1UPT... just with fully customizable, buildable units.

positioning could still be a concern (look at pathway instead of individual tiles)

 

[Galgus]

Having to click attack once doesn't make it any more interesting, it just makes it slightly less tedious.

If by positioning you simply mean the path a stack of doom unit must take, that is barely worth consideration as a limit.

 

[Hail]

Call to Power offers an excellent solution:
12 (CtP2. in CtP1 the cap was 9) unit cap per tile, but the units can be united into armies. a army fights as one entity according to a set of rules (range in the back, melee in front, flank units on the sides, etc.).

another solution:

• infinite stacking.
• each terrain type has a capacity parameter.
• units can be united into groups (an army) and fight as one.
• congestion [penalty] is a situation where the number of units on a tile exceed the capacity of the terrain type of the tile.
• congestion results in different penalties such as suffer more damage from ranged attacks, fight less effectively in melee, etc.
• unit experience lowers the congestion penalties for this specific unit.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Having to click attack once doesn't make it any more interesting, it just makes it slightly less tedious.

If by positioning you simply mean the path a stack of doom unit must take, that is barely worth consideration as a limit.

By positioning I would say

Army 1 (range of intercept= 5 movement points) defending

Army2 attacking

Army 2 moves into range of Army 1

in between them is a path of # hills, # Forests/jungles, # rivers, # roads/rr for each side and # flatlands (and having to wrap around # mountains)

Those # and who they were closer to (Army 2-hill-grass-Army 1 would be different than Army 1-hill-grass-Army 2) would affect the stats of the battle.. so Army 2 might want to approach from a different angle
or
Army 1 might want to have itself based on a different tile (closer to a choke point)

You would have simpler combat than in 1 UPT (instead of each of 6 units deciding who to attack, your whole stack hits their whole stack)

So it might not be more interesting, but it would be
1. more interesting than a stack of doom
2. less tedious than a stack of doom
3. less tedious than 1 UPT
4. overall less vulnerable to artificial stupidity than 1UPT
5. better for immersion (no ranged units firing multiple tiles, except maybe aircraft)