Uniform Sierra
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2010
- Messages
- 139
I think workers should be able to share a tile with other civilizations' units.
Was It Obvious 1UPT Wouldn't Work?
- Thread starter Stretchy Man
- Start date
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
The problem there is that there should be no such thing as ranged bombardment in a game at the scale of Civ. That is the reason it was dropped in the transition from 3 to 4, and it was a good thing too.
Now there, should be an option for defensive/offensive strikes against a unit(s) you're attacking (attacking you) from a distance of 1 tile away. This would better simulate bombardment in battle. Probably the best version of this I've seen was in FfH2 where if you promote an archery unit up the drill line it gets defensive strike chances if it is not the active defender. Something like this could be easily coded in.
At what scale?
The size of cities violate any realistic scaling of terrain.
Why are you willing to suspend disbelief for one aspect of the game, but not another?
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Compare the scale to other games which use 1UPT Civ is much larger.
Actually, no they don't when you factor in the tile yields gotten from the base terrain underneath the city representation. The scale of the buildings are off, yes, but as it doesn't affect gameplay, or the underlying logic of tile yields, it is not important.
Because it is a lot easier to suspend disbelief for what is simply a graphical oddity (i.e. cities "taking over" one tile), than it is for an obvious player exploit (i.e. ranged bombardment).
Zhahz
PC Gamer
1UPT is one of the best ideas to hit civ. It has the potential to make comat something other than pure cheese. If you don't like 1UPT, you can always stick with Civ IV, expansions, and mods.
The fact that Civ 5 didn't nail the AI has nothing to do with whether 1UPT is a good idea or not - it just means they didn't invest enough or give a crap enough about developing their AI.
The Civ 5 AI is very poor and there's no excuse for it. No AI in a PC game will ever match player deviousness but there's no excuse for what shipped with Civ 5, especially considering that Firaxis aren't some nublet developer - they have the money and know they'll get the sales and should've properly invested in AI.
Instead, they'll probably end up ditching the better combat system for a return to utter cheese in VI, and civ combat will go back to exploiters beating hard difficulty levels by exploiting crappy AI, which is the way it's been all along.
The fact that Civ 5 didn't nail the AI has nothing to do with whether 1UPT is a good idea or not - it just means they didn't invest enough or give a crap enough about developing their AI.
The Civ 5 AI is very poor and there's no excuse for it. No AI in a PC game will ever match player deviousness but there's no excuse for what shipped with Civ 5, especially considering that Firaxis aren't some nublet developer - they have the money and know they'll get the sales and should've properly invested in AI.
Instead, they'll probably end up ditching the better combat system for a return to utter cheese in VI, and civ combat will go back to exploiters beating hard difficulty levels by exploiting crappy AI, which is the way it's been all along.
It's hardly a "graphical oddity." It's vital to making the game work.
I'm unsure how you can demonstrate ranged combat as a "obvious player exploit," despite firmly holding the opinion that the AI is completely inept at leveraging it.
To give an analogy, the tech tree is an obvious player exploit, because the human can beeline, whereas the AI is programmed to essentially finish researching through eras before proceeding to the next.
Now, there were/are a few tricks which developers employed in CIV to break this pattern, but breaking a pattern on occasion is very different from replacing it altogether. Despite this, I've seen very little complaint regarding tech beelines and the AI's inability to replicate them. It's given a pass because humans enjoy it, as can ranged combat given appropriate implementation (in this case an actually working multiplayer, and an AI less reliant on using what to it is a confusing mechanic).
r_rolo1
King of myself
1upt works or not depending on the scale of the map ( including map landmarks, like cities, mountains, ... ), the unit number buldup average ( builds - losses ), the average speed of movement and the duration of the game. Depending of all of those, you can have a balanced and fun game with space to manouver the units, a void with the armies unable to avoid the others of slipping by or a clogged terrain.
And IMHO Civ V can get easily in the clogged terrain ,especially in high levels
You can talk about 1upt being superior to all the other systems in pure theory, but in the end what matters is how the thing applies in the ground. And BTW this is not a dichotomy between 1upt and unlimited SoD, given that there is a infinity of competing rulesets in this area (nPT , atrition systems, ... ). 1upt being in theory superior to unlimited SoD does not mean that civ V gets better served with 1upt than with any other possible ruleset
Moderator Action: <snip> Please leave mod decisions up to moderators, or report if you feel like a post is breaking the rules.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
There is absolutely nothing behind that statement. The main fact that 1UPT doesn't work with Civ is not that the AI is bad at it, it is because it is a system designed and workable only on a tactical map being ported onto a strategic level game, with all the nerfs that go with it, cascading from the direct nerf to production, needed to keep the number of units down (which doesn't actually work).
And if they weren't going to give two hoots (this is a family friendly forum, and I've had a few infractions for swearing already) about fixing the AI, do you honestly think they were going to care about whether 1UPT was going to work on the scale the game plays out in? No me neither. Frankly I'm fully convinced that the decision went something like this:
Shafer: "Man I love PG, lets implement the 1UPT system there to go with our lovely new hexes."
Baldrick (for it is he): "But master, what if it doesn't work, we should test it."
Shafer: "I love the idea it will work, and if it doesn't we can patch it. No need for balance testing."
The whole game, not just the AI screams of ideas which were implemented without thought for balance against each other or for thinking about how to balance them to the scale of the gameplay. 1UPT unfortunately is no different here.
1UPT is far easier to exploit than SoD, as has been proven by the game. There would have to be massive changes to AI, coding, and 1UPT rules before that is going to happen. The fact of the matter is that until you remove 1UPT (and go back to either SoD or some form of limited stacking) 5 is going to be a lot easier to beat than 4 ever was. How many people were able to report Deity level wins within a week of release for 4? Not nowhere near as many as for 5. That for me signifies that the whole structure of the game is making things easier not just an easy to exploit AI.
If Firaxis are going to continue with 1UPT the only workable solutions are:
1) make the game into a tactical wargame, with discrete maps and short-term goals, or
2) implement a tactical screen similar to something like the TW series or MOO, and while keeping stacks on the main strategic map, force 1UPT in the tactical ones.
If it is 1) I'll never buy another Civ, as RTS's IMO do far better jobs there than TBS's ever will. 2) I would buy, after a long time waiting and watching and reading, and preferrably (legally) getting my hands on a loan of the game.
That's an extremely poor argument.
I know T-hawk beat it within two weeks (pacing himself at that), and dropped the game almost immediately afterwards, but T-hawk is possibly one of the strongest CIV players in the world.
The entire game lacks challenge, because that was their intent. Yes, I think this intent made its way into designing the tactical AI. The tactical AI also suffers from design oversights (stacked friendly territory combat bonuses) as well as inept design (trying to implement bait-and-range).
They could have fixed the tactical AI, and T-hawk still would have steamrolled Deity because the rest of the game is still a complete failure at offering challenging gameplay.
Your blind hatred for 1UPT seems entirely inappropriate in light of the fact that the entire game failed to deliver.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
A lot more than one player beat it. But even if they were all experienced top players, it still works. But the fact that that is the only part you're willing to argue leads me to believe that you know my arguements have merit, are reasonable, and are pretty close to the whole story.
And by the way I don't hate 1UPT, in it's environment it is a beautiful system which balances play very well. Civ is never going to be remotely close to the right environment for it, unfortunately for those of you who seem to like it.
sketch162000
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 221
This. Except I suspect the switch to 1upt was less of a "system" and more of a simple anti-SoD rule taken to it's extreme.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Haha how do you take 1UPT to the extreme?
No units per tile?
No it's just pointing out the fact that there were other ways of changing the game, to both kill SoD's and not break the rest of the game.
Ah, there's the magic word again: potential.
This is just another term for "it doesn't work, I have no clue how it ever could do, but all of this doesn't matter. Somehow, someone will make it work. Somewhen."
I can't speak for others, but I love 1upt - when it is put into the right scale.
I love playing Panzer General. 1upt works perfectly there.
But it is a game about one era. It is a game in which map size fits the 1upt system.
And it has like 10 different stats for units to make it work.
Now, in Civ5 you don't have to exploit anything to beat the crap out of the AI.
Actually, I would prefer to have a combat system in which I would need exploits to beat the AI. In Civ5 it is a no-brainer to beat them.
Most probably that's exactly the reason why so many people claim to love it.
Zachriel
Kaiser
1upt Rocks
That doesn't mean it can't be improved.
Haven't seen the carpet of doom since the last patch.
That doesn't mean it can't be improved.
- Great Leaders should not count against stacking.
- Non-combat units should be able to link to a combat unit for convenience.
- Workers should be able to share space with non-enemy combat units.
- Pathing should use rally points so that units don't stop every time some other unit arrives at the destination or at a bottleneck, i.e. they should try to get as close as they can to the destination before stopping.
- Continued improvements in the combat AI would be appreciated.
Haven't seen the carpet of doom since the last patch.
Civsassin
Immortal
Some very good suggestions. They wouldn't change 1UPT at all, just make it easier to work with.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Well, 1mupt ( military unit per tile ) would definitely be a improvement over the current situation ( eer had a foreign scout parked in a crucial tile that you needed absolutely to improve ? Not funny ). But 1 mupt is not 1 upt 
... well , civ V does not have and never had a pure 1upt anyway 
... well , civ V does not have and never had a pure 1upt anyway
Civsassin
Immortal
Sure.
We get it. You don't like 1UPT. Many of us are in the other camp. 1UPT works fine, but like everything in this world, there is always room for improvement. 1UPT is light years better that SoD. What kind of a strategy is "stack 50 units and march across the countryside taking enemy cities?" Don't get me wrong, I liked CiIV very much, but I like the CiV combat system much more. You actually have to put some grey matter into your war plans. IMO there is plenty of room on a standard map for a formidable army. I've been there and done it. You're not goiing to convince any of us that like it not to, nor are we going to convince you to like something you don't. However, we can have an intelligent discussion about it. "Sure" adds nothing to the discussion. It is simply a snide remark.
r_rolo1
King of myself
@Civsassin
By the bold lschnarch appied in his quoting of your post, I assume he means that what you are sugesting is, for all the effects, letting 1upt down the road. That is not necessarily defending unlimited SoD or wanting to get back to civ IV ( really, I'm going to start reporting everyone that says that, because a lot of those are spam ( see definition of spam in the rules ) ). If you acept the fact that you can put more than one military unit in a tile, 1upt, even in it's military form, is dead. That is not improving 1upt , is replacing 1upt by something else ... probably closer of 1upt than of unlimited stacking, but being neither of them.
By the bold lschnarch appied in his quoting of your post, I assume he means that what you are sugesting is, for all the effects, letting 1upt down the road. That is not necessarily defending unlimited SoD or wanting to get back to civ IV ( really, I'm going to start reporting everyone that says that, because a lot of those are spam ( see definition of spam in the rules ) ). If you acept the fact that you can put more than one military unit in a tile, 1upt, even in it's military form, is dead. That is not improving 1upt , is replacing 1upt by something else ... probably closer of 1upt than of unlimited stacking, but being neither of them.
Similar threads
