Why was 1UPT necessary?

[thenooblet22]

I just don't quite understand the reason for it. It absolutely cripples the gameplay, especially for the inept AI. If Firaxis wished to eliminate the Stacks of Doom, why not implement a system of attrition for each tile environment? Ex; a lush floodplain could support more troops than a dense jungle. Grasslands over a tundra. If there are more men than a tile can support, they'll become malnourished, afflicted, and penalized (lowered health/combat penalties). This is not an original idea-->EU3 uses such to cap their army sizes per territory. It just seems like a better substitute rather than gutting your entire gameplay for the limited capabilities of 1UPT.

td;dr-->no SoD's, no 1UPT, instead a system of attrition to cap the number of units per tile according to the tile environment

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I just don't quite understand the reason for it. It absolutely cripples the gameplay, especially for the inept AI. If Firaxis wished to eliminate the Stacks of Doom, why not implement a system of attrition for each tile environment? Ex; a lush floodplain could support more troops than a dense jungle. Grasslands over a tundra. If there are more men than a tile can support, they'll become malnourished, afflicted, and penalized (lowered health/combat penalties). This is not an original idea-->EU3 uses such to cap their army sizes per territory. It just seems like a better substitute rather than gutting your entire gameplay for the limited capabilities of 1UPT.

td;dr-->no SoD's, no 1UPT, instead a system of attrition to cap the number of units per tile according to the tile environment

Well, what do you mean what's the reason for it? I mean, what's the reason for multiple units per tile? What's the reason for anything?

 

[turingmachine]

td;dr-->no SoD's, no 1UPT, instead a system of attrition to cap the number of units per tile according to the tile environment

The thing is, SoD and 1UPT are both very simple to understand: as many units as you want or only one. Having some form of limited amount of units per tile that may or may not be based on the tile itself is more complicated.

Regardless of whether they did it correctly in V or not, if you have the option to build an effective combat system around a simple system such as SoD/1UPT or a complicated system such as varying units per different tiles, for gameplay reasons it makes sense to try and design it around one of the simpler approaches. So the options really were always either one extreme (unlimited) or the other (one unit per tile), and everyone looking for a compromise between the systems doesn't really make sense from a designer perspective.

Now, you can argue if 1UPT is better or worse than SoD (personally, I think it has the potential to be--or at least offer more varied combat--but still needs some refinement).

 

[Chronicles]

Well, what do you mean what's the reason for it? I mean, what's the reason for multiple units per tile? What's the reason for anything?

Deep!

 

[Babri]

1UPT offers more tactical options & makes the game more interesting. And I support this idea. Programming AI for 1UPT is difficult but Firaxis has started fixing it through patches.
BTW what are your issues with 1UPT ?

 

[thenooblet22]

The thing is, SoD and 1UPT are both very simple to understand: as many units as you want or only one. Having some form of limited amount of units per tile that may or may not be based on the tile itself is more complicated.

Regardless of whether they did it correctly in V or not, if you have the option to build an effective combat system around a simple system such as SoD/1UPT or a complicated system such as varying units per different tiles, for gameplay reasons it makes sense to try and design it around one of the simpler approaches. So the options really were always either one extreme (unlimited) or the other (one unit per tile), and everyone looking for a compromise between the systems doesn't really make sense from a designer perspective.

Now, you can argue if 1UPT is better or worse than SoD (personally, I think it has the potential to be--or at least offer more varied combat--but still needs some refinement).

I hope that the system will succeed, as that's apparently the direction Firaxis has chosen and so much depends on its success for the entire game to succeed. However, in this wonderful world of hindsight, I just believe there were better ways to address the SoD's than to abandon MUPT altogether.

I don't see an attrition system as overly complicated. Each tile already has certain food and production in relation to their environment. Attrition would only be another layer.

To me, no idea is too complicated. It's all about the presentation. There will always be a learning curve. It's just how you introduce the idea to your audience. When I began the Civilization series, I had to learn the food and production of each tile environment. I was dissuaded because of this. Because the interface was distinct and decipherable (food=bread, production=hammers), I was able to grasp the concept fairly quickly.

Now I have not thought out ways Firaxis could present a system of attrition to their audience (because I know this will most likely not happen), but I believe it does not require great ingenuity to pull off. Whether with icons or simply a number, a player (and more importantly, the AI) could recognize how many troops a tile environment would allow and act accordingly (whether to accept the penalties or move their troops elsewhere).

 

[thenooblet22]

1UPT offers more tactical options & makes the game more interesting. And I support this idea. Programming AI for 1UPT is difficult but Firaxis has started fixing it through patches.
BTW what are your issues with 1UPT ?

It turns a game about civilizations into a glorified board of chess. It eliminates the importance of army composition. The hex tiles are too large (in other words, the world is too small) for the system to be successful. Overall, I find the system of combat more frustrating than satisfying.

 

[Larsenex]

In order for 1upt to work (which I am ok with) the world needs to be MUCH larger. As Sulla pointed out in higher difficulty games you get the 'carpet of doom' from the AI or even players where you have EVERY hex filled by a unit. This is not where the designers intended to go but is what you get when you are limited by 1upt. I would like to see either better optimization, in code for MUCH larger maps that are processed by the CPU (MUCH FASTER) and/or limited stacking of some units. Limited stacking for NON-combat units like workers/settlers (and spies, other units coming along the pipe), and limited stacking of different combat types to allow for better player choices for combat mix, (horse, foot, siege,). This can be done now but the AI would need to be rebuilt from the ground up (which will need to be done if they want to save this game).

 

[Androrc the Orc]

1UPT makes no sense in a game of the scale of Civ. If one tile can fit an entire city, how come it can't fit more than one unit?

Unless we have "1 Building per Tile" along with 1UPT, 1UPT doesn't work very well together with the game as a whole.

 

[PEACE!]

the 1upt makes you thing more strategic...rather then stacking units with the thought "yea i'm save there I have strong units stacked" .. now u need to think twice before ending the turn.. wich makes it more exciting and fun

 

[Anthropoid]

It wasn't?

That would be my hypothesis.

Stacking limits is one thing. 1UPT is taking that general solution to stack of doom problem to the absolute extreme.

 

[thenooblet22]

the 1upt makes you thing more strategic...rather then stacking units with the thought "yea i'm save there I have strong units stacked" .. now u need to think twice before ending the turn.. wich makes it more exciting and fun

Okay, I'm not picking on you, but these are exactly the comments I'm talking about.

Why does it either have to be 1UPT or SoDs? Why either or?

What I am suggesting is the middle ground. A system of attrition would cap the amount of units per tile, according to the environment of that tile. SoD's would be strategic suicide in that case. It is possible to eliminate the advantage of stacking units without eliminating stacking units altogether.

Stacking limits is one thing. 1UPT is taking that general solution to stack of doom problem to the absolute extreme.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[PEACE!]

I really didn't find anything strategic in the SoD
..but the unit stacking depending on the terrain seems interesting..

it all depends on Fireaxis now.

 

[oldskald]

Larsenex makes the most important point. It doesn't really matter whether you prefer the combat aspect of 1UPT or Stacks (I prefer stacks but that is neither here nor there), but if a game mechanic can result in paralysed in-game movement then that mechanic is broken. The solutions appear to be relatively simple (in theory);

a) retain 1UPT but limit the number of units which can be produced, thus ensuring that there is always enough space to move or,

b) reintroduce stacks.

Now, I would favour the reintroduction of stacks, but it is more than possible to fix the 1UPT system with some form of production limit. What such a production limit should be is not something I really want to go into here, but it is perfectly possible and is the most pressing absolute necessity for an in-game fix. Limit production to ensure space and 1UPT will work (conceptually - the other problems with e.g AI usage are a different issue).

With regards to stacks - if stacking is to be used it must be unlimited otherwise the same problem as with 1UPT and space will have the potential to recur (and it may be much more difficult with e.g 6UPT, but theoretically it still exists). A solution to the unlimited and seemingly unending SoDs is, of course, a production limit.

When it comes to combat resolution, 1UPT is indeed intuitive and logical. But to make that work in a strategic sense we need to come back to [drumroll].... production limits. Because otherwise its back to the Carpet of Doom and all that entails.

Personally I would like to see some form of unlimited stacking for strategic movement, and 1UPT for combat resolution. However, this may involve other problems such as the creation of a tactical battle minimap, and might be something that players who care little for the combat aspect of Civ find irritating or distracting.

To conclude, I think its probably fair to say that I don't know the optimal answer. But I'm fairly sure I can see the problem...

Oh, and if 1UPT is to be retained please, please, please introduce a mechanic which allows me to brigade units for mass strategic movement. As it is there's just too much click, click, click just moving around the map.

 

[Aline]

Well one option would be to have stacks but when it comes to a fight it changes to a tactical screen wehre your troops are acctualy split up and fight individualy, kinda like in call to power 2, but less half assed.

 

[azzaron]

I found there to be very few strategical decisions that needed to be made when you could create stacks of doom. I think that the introduction of the 1UPT system in civ 5 is its single best feature. I think that most people don't like it because they have to actually think strategically and deploy their units in a way that makes sense.

Please don't start griping on the 1UPT taking up the same amount of space as a city not making sense. It's a game, and sometimes decisions have to made for GAMEPLAY. You could just as easily ask why a size-1 city takes up the same amount of space as a size-20 city. You could just as easily ask why, in civ 4, a single unit took up one whole square while 200 stacked units could also occupy that same square. These kinds of debates are silly and pointless, it's reasonable and makes for fun gameplay, so deal with it.

I love now having to position my catapults/trebs/artillery & archers/crossbowmen behind my warriors/spearmen/pikemen/swordsmen/infantry/tanks. I love using horses to quickly flank them. I love trying to circumvent their front tank lines to get at their weaker ranged units. I love putting units trained in open combat on grasslands while keeping my units trained in rough terrain on the hills. All of this extra strategical decision making has made the game a lot more fun for me. Someone talked about it being more chess-like... I agree... and I think that's a very good thing!

 

[jjkrause84]

Limited stacks seems like the way forward. No more than 3 per hex or something. Vastly ramp up production times, increase building diversity, fix a few nuances with diplomacy and foreign trade and we still might just have on helluva game here.

EDIT: Prety much every tiem someone says the word "strategical" (which should be "strategic" anyways) in this thread they mean "tactical". There are three main levels of combat planning and execution: strategic, operational, tactical. They are NOT interchangeable.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

I found there to be very few strategical decisions that needed to be made when you could create stacks of doom. I think that the introduction of the 1UPT system in civ 5 is its single best feature. I think that most people don't like it because they have to actually think strategically and deploy their units in a way that makes sense.

Please don't start griping on the 1UPT taking up the same amount of space as a city not making sense. It's a game, and sometimes decisions have to made for GAMEPLAY. You could just as easily ask why a size-1 city takes up the same amount of space as a size-20 city. You could just as easily ask why, in civ 4, a single unit took up one whole square while 200 stacked units could also occupy that same square. These kinds of debates are silly and pointless, it's reasonable and makes for fun gameplay, so deal with it.

Games need immersion. Otherwise we wouldn't have units called "Warrior", "Swordsman" and so on, but "Unit Type 1", "Unit Type 2" and etc.

Entire cities being in a tile but two units not being able to share it is demonstrative that the scale of Civilization simply doesn't lend itself to 1UPT. Like was said previously, limited stack seems like the way forwards.

 

[doompigeon]

This conversation has been worked to death I fear, but it seems that if one of our major problems with 1upt is that the AI isn't up to the job, why would the more complex limited stacking system with attrition based on tile type be better? I'm not a programmer, but I feel like a computer would make at least as many poor decisions about how to move its forces through varied terrain 2-5 units at a time as it does now with the 1upt system.

I don't intend to suggest that the AI is very good at 1upt, but I'm enjoying this more than I enjoyed the limitless stacks, and while a system of attrition might be wonderful in multiplayer, I don't think it would improve things if the AI is the problem.

 

[jjkrause84]

This conversation has been worked to death I fear, but it seems that if one of our major problems with 1upt is that the AI isn't up to the job, why would the more complex limited stacking system with attrition based on tile type be better? I'm not a programmer, but I feel like a computer would make at least as many poor decisions about how to move its forces through varied terrain 2-5 units at a time as it does now with the 1upt system.

I don't intend to suggest that the AI is very good at 1upt, but I'm enjoying this more than I enjoyed the limitless stacks, and while a system of attrition might be wonderful in multiplayer, I don't think it would improve things if the AI is the problem.

The AI is a crippling problem...but so is modern (or nearly modern) armies launching major wars with half a dozen infantry units and a few artillery. It just never feels "grand"....which is what happens when you replace strategy (big stacks, imperfectly implemented) with tactics.