1 unit per hex: failed experiment

[LDiCesare]

That's why you can AUTO battle in TW. Fight the interresting battles, leave the rest for calculation. That solves the "time-consuming" and more so; it prevents repetative actions (see below for example, but i guess you can come up with much more repetative actions with a very much predicted outcome).

Honestly, why is that bad and seeing your spearman winning every battle in CIV5 against the barbs over and over again would be any better ?
The only solution for tactical warfare is realtime, 1upt HEXs/turn based just does not cut it. Period!
In that sence, all debate about "tactical & strategical" warfare in CIV is "nuts".

Auto battle is bad. I've used it in several games to always have, at one point, the ai lose a whole army where, if I took control, I'd win without a single loss. But I'd have to use boring tactics. Those battles lost in auto-battle weren't even challenging or interesting, so it was a chore to play them out. So your argument about auto battle is worth nothing ass far as I'm concerned, it solves zero issue.
As for seeing the spearman win every battle, I turn off the animations and it gets faster.
Realtime is not real-time, it's click-fest time. A real time battle would take hours to play out.

 

[Jediron]

Auto battle is bad. I've used it in several games to always have, at one point, the ai lose a whole army where, if I took control, I'd win without a single loss.

I know TW inside out, and i know exactly what you mean and you either right or wrong ;-)
TW's Generals have a bad habit to lead the troops in battle and, because of that; a change to die. Which can result in a fleeing army. To say it's a bad idea, is silly. Only thing to do is make sure the general GUIDES his army and not Fight the battle himself. In TW, a unbalanced fight, resulted mostly in a Winning Battle; as long as the general lived to fight another day.

But I'd have to use boring tactics. Those battles lost in auto-battle weren't even challenging or interesting, so it was a chore to play them out. So your argument about auto battle is worth nothing ass far as I'm concerned, it solves zero issue.

Your concern is noted and i disagree. It only needs some finetuning, see above.
Btw; you are infact AUTO-battling all the time with CIV 5; with very predictable results thanks to your allmighty advisor.

As for seeing the spearman win every battle, I turn off the animations and it gets faster.
Realtime is not real-time, it's click-fest time. A real time battle would take hours to play out.

Don't tell me you didn't had enough time in TW to click ...lol
(with 1x,2x,3x,4x and PAUSE button/ don't forget the group buttons etc.etc.etc. / normally i hated realtime, in TW I LOVE THEME because of all the CHILL functions)
And about the spearman, so making killing the barbs all the time with no animation, makes things better ? Real funny sence of enjoyment you have. ADvisor : 5-4 = you win, Advisor 6-3 = you win, Adv 10-2 = you win, yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

[LDiCesare]

Btw; you are infact AUTO-battling all the time with CIV 5; with very predictable results thanks to your allmighty advisor.

Yes, but I can't change the outcome by taking the fight in my hands, so it's not an issue.
My favorite TBS combat mechanics are those of CtP2, where the fight is simulated (stack limited to 12 units, with only 5 in front, and need special abilities to flank, so an army of melee + ranged + flankers is the best you can have) and Dominions (with unlimited army sizes ad where you give tactical orders prior to the battle, and let them play out hoping you managed to outwit your opponent's tactics).
In TW and the like, battles are the core of the game. In Civ, it's not.

As for the speed, yes you can pause. But then sometimes you go at max speed because the armies are jsut closing in and nothing happens, you then pause, change orders, go back etc. adn this change of speed where you can't go faster and just click 'n' to get to the next turn outcome is something I dislike. And I think it's unrealistic to be able to give orders to all your units on a battlefield before the radio era (and even then under certain conditions). YMMV.

 

[Vertico]

Coming back to main topic.

I played last 2 days Civ 1 (yep, this one from '91 ) and I believe solutions used there were pretty good. I believe a small "Civ 1 like" changes could be done to combat system in Civ 5:

1) I would allow limited stacking (for example up to 3 units) per hex, but like in Civ 1 - at risk of loosing them all at the same time. This system worked very well in first Civ games, so why not to come to it?

2) Additionally, I would introduce strict ZOC like in Civ 1. That would limit the willingness of stacking even more. If a player or AI would group too many units at the same tile, he will risk, he wouln't be able to withdraw them, being blocked by opponent units and encircled. If we will also add some negative bonuses from being encircled or flanked, it will naturally force players to dispatch their units in reasonable way, but on the other hand, there will be no blockades like those described by Ohioastronomy

 

[polypheus]

Coming back to main topic.

I played last 2 days Civ 1 (yep, this one from '91 ) and I believe solutions used there were pretty good. I believe a small "Civ 1 like" changes could be done to combat system in Civ 5:

1) I would allow limited stacking (for example up to 3 units) per hex, but like in Civ 1 - at risk of loosing them all at the same time. This system worked very well in first Civ games, so why not to come to it?

2) Additionally, I would introduce strict ZOC like in Civ 1. That would limit the willingness of stacking even more. If a player or AI would group too many units at the same tile, he will risk, he wouln't be able to withdraw them, being blocked by opponent units and encircled. If we will also add some negative bonuses from being encircled or flanked, it will naturally force players to dispatch their units in reasonable way, but on the other hand, there will be no blockades like those described by Ohioastronomy

The problem here is that you would also regress to Civ1 style combat where you paired horsemen with spearmen. And your horses now are no longer that effective as you horses now always attacks horsemen/spearmen stacks.

 

[jaldaen]

JLoZeppeli,

You asked what the difference was, not necessarily if I thought the scale was right. I actually think the use of armies, fleets, and air groups would be an interesting change in the 1UPT Civ game... but it'd be a lot of work and take a lot of playtesting to get right.

 

[nokmirt]

Well, this is like Jules Verne saying "We could fly to the moon" in 1865. While it's theoretically possible that an AI able to analyze and learn from the player's moves, in a game as complex as Civ, may be conceived at some time in the future, we currently have neither the technology nor the programming concepts to get anywhere near there. As long as we haven't, it's science fiction.

I know but they should have made some strides forward in this department since civ IV! In Civ IV I had some AI's giving me a god damn fight, that's for sure. So what happened here. Nobody knew enough about hex tactics, that programmed the AI. It is so obvious.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

I know but they should have made some strides forward in this department since civ IV! In Civ IV I had some AI's giving me a god damn fight, that's for sure. So what happened here. Nobody knew enough about hex tactics, that programmed the AI. It is so obvious.

Civ4 AI was able to offer more challenge in war department because in Civ4, production rate alone meant a lot for war-making abilities. There were only few ways to get around an approaching stack of death that had good numerical advantage over yours (like using culture to slow down the SoD then chip away with collateral unit).

In contrast, for Civ5 production means very little (because production is so slow in this game to begin with) once you get your core set of units (like 4 ~ 6 melee to hold line and 4 ~ 6 range units) while position means a lot more. And as much as I like Civ4, I can't really think of anything that would suggest that AI had good positioning in Civ4; it was just as dumb as it is in Civ5.

 

[Dark.Revenant]

Can't they have taken a page from Galactic Civilizations II? Fleet size limits were a nice medium between stacks of doom and 1UPT.

 

[nokmirt]

Civ4 AI was able to offer more challenge in war department because in Civ4, production rate alone meant a lot for war-making abilities. There were only few ways to get around an approaching stack of death that had good numerical advantage over yours (like using culture to slow down the SoD then chip away with collateral unit).

In contrast, for Civ5 production means very little (because production is so slow in this game to begin with) once you get your core set of units (like 4 ~ 6 melee to hold line and 4 ~ 6 range units) while position means a lot more. And as much as I like Civ4, I can't really think of anything that would suggest that AI had good positioning in Civ4; it was just as dumb as it is in Civ5.

True but overall the ai did get better in 4, it went from ******ed to negligible. Civ 5 needs a vast improvement, they have alot to do to make this game better. Perhaps by Civ 7 or 8 we will see something out of the AI, that will cause a grin of respect, after it whips everyone's candy beep!

 

[JudgeDeath]

Can't they have taken a page from Galactic Civilizations II? Fleet size limits were a nice medium between stacks of doom and 1UPT.

A size limited stack? Just how would that be an improvement? The only change over traditional SOD that I can see would be that choke points would become 'chokier'.

 

[Jediron]

Yes, But is that a bad thing ? It's not uncommon civ's fought for years for that same piece of land.

 

[Jediron]

Yes, but I can't change the outcome by taking the fight in my hands, so it's not an issue.
You are right. The whole battlesystem in CIV 5 is not a issue; there are no suprises. You see a nice win/loss sheet, which almost always is correct.

My favorite TBS combat mechanics are those of CtP2, where the fight is simulated (stack limited to 12 units, with only 5 in front, and need special abilities to flank, so an army of melee + ranged + flankers is the best you can have) and Dominions (with unlimited army sizes ad where you give tactical orders prior to the battle, and let them play out hoping you managed to outwit your opponent's tactics).

Dunno these games , but anything other then the current upt1 system can be better.

In TW and the like, battles are the core of the game. In Civ, it's not.

Yes and no. Fighting is a big part of Civ, but not the only or most important part.
In TW it comes down to battles, strategy and Diplomay. The battlesystem i think is the
best part of it. Because it's so well executed. Well, in Rome/Medieval anyway. Since Empire TW; they have made some mistakes.

As for the speed, yes you can pause. But then sometimes you go at max speed because the armies are jsut closing in and nothing happens, you then pause, change orders, go back etc. adn this change of speed where you can't go faster and just click 'n' to get to the next turn outcome is something I dislike. And I think it's unrealistic to be able to give orders to all your units on a battlefield before the radio era (and even then under certain conditions).

It isn't perfect, true. Other then that it's also personal preference; i love it (Rome: TW as my favorite).

 

[Neomega]

I'm actually really intrigued by this idea. Let's go with it.

A hex can hold four military units. They can be any four mixed units, or specialist units, or whatever.

Have you guys ever played Gemcraft? There was a process in which you would take various colors of gems and combine them to enhance damage or enhance special abilities, or combine abilities.

Blue gems would freeze, so combining blue gems would give you a specialty gem that froze longer. Red gems would do splash damage, so combining red gems would increase the splash radius. If you combined a blue and a red gem, however, you'd increase damage, decrease the freezing and the splash, but combine the freezing and the splash effect together to get freezing splash damage. Less effective than its pure color brethren at their specialized task, but more effective in a new task. The game became about ways of maximizing these gem upgrades to get the effects you wanted.

Adding cavalry in a small stack would give you bonus to infantry. Adding spearmen a bonus to cavalry. But having a mixed force with cavalry would be less effective against infantry and slower than a specialized, fast-moving, exclusive cavalry force would be, but the decision to create specialist stacks would be dynamic and you could take a turn or two to reform stacks.

I'll investigate what modding something like this would involve, but I'm going to write it out in a design document for later and see what I can do about it. I like the small stack ideas, though, but I would want to add something more to it than just four units occupying the same hex to eliminate traffic jams. It would become a "one army per hex" system.

a guy on CFC with more creativity than the designer.

I especially like this comment:

It would become a "one army per hex" system.

Great armies have never fought as units, really, they were always combined, and the SoD tried to emulate this.

but it would be great if you could combine the units in a SoD into one mega unit, with the various units inside of it adding to the capabilities of the army. then the SoDs would fight each other every unit at once.

and this is not exactly a new complaint. It has been a complaint since civ I I think (at least me and my friends talked about it) that armies should clash at full strength. We thought it was ridiculous that an army of 10 riflemen had no advantage over an army of one rifleman.

So this is really a 20 year complaint/obstacle/immersion breaker, and it still has not been dealt with.

 

[polypheus]

After thorough analysis from observations from many other here, the conclusion is that 1UPT is clearly a "failed experiment". And it is a failed experiment simply because no matter what they do, they can never fix it!

Obvious fixes are larger maps but this can become impractical. Other fixes are to enforce smaller numbers of units to avoid clogging but this creates problems in too few units causing each individual unit to be too valuable. Lose a few units and you could lose all your cities.

But 1UPT also greatly distorts distances. Units can now shoot several tiles away which distorts distances way too much. And also now you have stuff like super-archers that can outshoot infantry???

But then there is the problem that 1UPT greatly favors initiative and offense due to IGOUGO problem. The offensive side can pick off the weakest units while the defensive side just stands there and has to die before having a chance to do anything. At least with SoD, the defenders could not be picked off like that as strongest defender defends thus making defense treatment much more evenhanded.

The AI can only never be programmed to be good at it.

And really it only increases micromanagement without really gaining much in gameplay. It seems cool at first but after a short while the 1UPT style fighting becomes just tedious and boring!

1UPT is broken but at a fundamental level. It does not belong in a Civ game only in tactical games like Panzer General with huge maps and small unit/tile ratio.

The experiment failed miserably and can never be fixed! SoD could have been fixed easily with max units/tile and more punishing design to make having too many units have huge costs.

 

[Mîtiu Ioan]

SoD could have been fixed easily with max units/tile and more punishing design to make having too many units have huge costs.

More could be added like :

- a new "army" ( meaning group of 2,3 up a limited established by age and/or presence of a Great General ) could be created only on cities with a specific building - like barracks and will take time to train this "combined forces";
- all other units other than old/medieval melee units will have a "ranged attack" for nearby hexes - but with counter-fire for enemy units if it's the case;

Etc. etc.

 

[boredatwork]

After thorough analysis from observations from many other here, the conclusion is that 1UPT is clearly a "failed experiment". And it is a failed experiment simply because no matter what they do, they can never fix it!

Again your bias is evident. Ok you don't like 1UPT in a Civ game, we get it.

But stop with the BS that the problems of the game are specific to 1UPT instead of poor design overall.

Obvious fixes are larger maps but this can become impractical.

Again your basis for saying a large enough map with the correct desinty of cities is impractical is what?

But 1UPT also greatly distorts distances. Units can now shoot several tiles away which distorts distances way too much. And also now you have stuff like super-archers that can outshoot infantry???

Again design decisions - the fact that they made archers shoot 2 hexes is NOT the fault of 1UPT but the designers who made it so. They could have been range 1, and made infantry range 1 and set it so when 2 units with range 1 fight each other they do so as melee. Any other criticisim about distance usually stems from a "realism" POV (whaaaa, whaaa my archers can shoot over lakes, whaaa) which, given the huge number of abstractions and gamey features of the series since it's inception seems like a somewhat inconsistant argument.

But then there is the problem that 1UPT greatly favors initiative and offense due to IGOUGO problem. The offensive side can pick off the weakest units while the defensive side just stands there and has to die before having a chance to do anything.

Again design decisions - insta heal, lack of support/opportunity fire, and no incentive to leave troops dug in creates the problem, not 1UPT.

The AI can only never be programmed to be good at it.

AI in the foreseeable future won't be programmed to be good at anything other than chess. Don't fool yourself - the AI wasn't good at SOD either - it won because it had production bonuses and SOD was easy to concentrate forces. If you have large maps (which despite your repeated contention are hardly 'impractical') the the AI can more effectively bring it's mass to bear in 1UPT, and present something of a reasonable challenge, despite the fact it will always do so in a half assed fashion.

And really it only increases micromanagement without really gaining much in gameplay. It seems cool at first but after a short while the 1UPT style fighting becomes just tedious and boring!

Your opinion. Personally I found SOD much more tedious and boring than I ever found a PG battle.

1UPT is broken but at a fundamental level. It does not belong in a Civ game only in tactical games like Panzer General with huge maps and small unit/tile ratio.

Disagree. You may not like 1UPT in a Civ game but the fact Firaxis botched its implementation in Civ5 does not mean the concept is fundamentally incompatible.

 

[tom2050]

Again your bias is evident. Ok you don't like 1UPT in a Civ game, we get it.

But stop with the BS that the problems of the game are specific to 1UPT instead of poor design overall.



Again your basis for saying a large enough map with the correct desinty of cities is impractical is what?

Actually, in a way, it is precisely one of the main issues... the game was designed directly after Panzer General, but they screwed up with the scale of 1upt (didn't think about it apparently). Because of the smaller scale, and the graphics they implemented, they cannot up the scale to any considerably larger size, because the game wouldn't be able to run on anything but the most powerful PC's. So they are stuck with not much of a way out in correcting the issue, unless they decide to make other drastic combat changes, which is unlikely with 2K riding shotgun.

But you are right, poor design and design not being thought out caused this. We can all thank Jon Shafer. Hopefully he can fix his own design issues.

 

[WuphonsReach]

Units can now shoot several tiles away which distorts distances way too much. And also now you have stuff like super-archers that can outshoot infantry???

That could have been solved if they had added in a mortar infantry unit as a natural upgrade from archers. Something with a bit of range, yet isn't a siege engine unit and retains the mobility, weakness, and agility of the original archer archtype.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

a guy on CFC with more creativity than the designer.

...

Great armies have never fought as units, really, they were always combined, and the SoD tried to emulate this.

but it would be great if you could combine the units in a SoD into one mega unit, with the various units inside of it adding to the capabilities of the army. then the SoDs would fight each other every unit at once.

and this is not exactly a new complaint. It has been a complaint since civ I I think (at least me and my friends talked about it) that armies should clash at full strength. We thought it was ridiculous that an army of 10 riflemen had no advantage over an army of one rifleman.

So this is really a 20 year complaint/obstacle/immersion breaker, and it still has not been dealt with.

Yes, and I'm one of those who made this complaint about Civ1 and every iteration since. Civ4 had the army concept and then screwed the pooch by having the units fight alone and sequentially. Army vs Army is the way to go, whether it is a simple algorithm that resolves that combat immediately, or a simpler tactical sub system like Master of Magic / HOM / CTP, or a more complex subsystem like the Total War series. The bottom line gain is that you get a lot more realism and better "AI" capability, in addition to less micromanagement of units on the map.