MeteorPunch
#WINNING
Agreed 100% OP. I've been saying this as well. A limit of units per tile (somewhere between 3-5), lowered bombard ranges for archers and such, and artillery that is a "hard anti-stack counter," would help this game immeasurably.
1 unit per hex: failed experiment
- Thread starter ohioastronomy
- Start date
DalekDavros
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 303
This is only a problem on high-difficulty levels, and is caused by the fact that the AI bonuses for production are absurdly unbalancing. They need to tone down the production bonus: a larger research bonus so that the AI could field better (but fewer) units would probably work better. But this isn't a problem of 1upt.
Don't build roads through neutral territory then. Or if you do, plop one of your own units down on it before the AI gets a chance. Seeing as you're the one building the road, you'll know about it first and thus get first chance to occupy the choke points, so the AI beating you to the spot should never be an issue.
I agree that it chances the balance of the game, but I'd say that things are balanced for this new paradigm. (Aside: If you're playing with the mod that increases production from tiles back to Civ 4 levels, it's obviously going to be unbalanced.) I kind of agreed with the boring charge at first, but I've come to like the new pace now that I've become accustomed to it.
Totally agreed. The 1upt implementation could have been done better and I hope it will be improved by incorporating these ideas.
Modest stacking has the same problems as unlimited stacking (it destroys tactical combat by encouraging stacking in cities until you reach the limit and stacking the rock-paper-scissors units together so that the best one always defends with no thought on your part). The second problem is the more severe, so the only way to make modest stacking work is if you limit it to "only one type of unit per tile," so that a swordsman could stack with another swordsman but not with a pikeman, for example. Of course, in this scenario, everyone would just wait until they had the maximum stack possible (since an opponent would be doing so and a smaller stack would just get massacred). So, to avoid all the extra clicking from producing the same unit over and over again until you have a full stack and from selecting the "all units on tile move" option every time you want to move, they should make it so that when you produce one unit, the city just keeps producing more units until you have enough to fill the tile completely (no need to notify you about the production of units--just let you know when the stack finishes), and when you move one unit, the game automatically moves all of the units on that tile. So, you know, basically make in 1upt.
Going back to the excluded middle fallacy, just because you don't like this particular 1upt implementation doesn't mean that 1upt is the problem.
Archwizard
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2010
- Messages
- 72
One thing that I think would make a lot of the 1UPT gripes go away is the ability to stack during the turn, but requiring that the 1UPT be honored before the turn ends. This means that you can only enter a tile if you have sufficient moves left to get back out to an unoccupied tile. If you are stacked, you can only attack if that would leave you sufficient moves to get to an unoccupied tile. This way you could do things like move up, attack, move back.
I also agree with the idea that moving by people with ranged attacks should trigger attacks of opportunity (didn't civ2 have that ability?)
I also agree with the idea that moving by people with ranged attacks should trigger attacks of opportunity (didn't civ2 have that ability?)
I don't want the return of stacking units. Infinited or limited is for me the same.
What i'm ready to accept (but it's needed to develop a new entire part of the game) is to stack units on the general map for easy mass move but make a big zoom to manage the fight on a real battle field each time two stack of units are on the same tile. In this battle field, 1UPT, for sure.
What i'm ready to accept (but it's needed to develop a new entire part of the game) is to stack units on the general map for easy mass move but make a big zoom to manage the fight on a real battle field each time two stack of units are on the same tile. In this battle field, 1UPT, for sure.
Archwizard
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2010
- Messages
- 72
This is an interesting idea as well. Reminds me of the Heroes of Might and Magic series.
I think it's quite prudent to exclude the argument that it's simply "Better then previous combat." It's too much of a fallback position that doesn't really mean anything. You might as well say "I hate the civ 4 combat, but I love the color pink." That statement holds as much weight to the conversation.
However, I think you go to far in saying that the system is a failure.
This is strictly technical, and by no means determines whether or not a system fails. Tons of factors go into this ranging from patchable programming concerns, to the simple statement that perhaps your computer isn't up to snuff.
I will admit that I find the game to be slightly on the slow side, but I look forward to the fact that as my computer improves, the game will remain the same for years to come.
This is a funny statement to me, as it implies that what is happening is a flaw. You know it can happen, and you know that it will happen, and yet what do you do to prevent it? Solutions can be as simple as using gold to purchase the land that the road is on. Don't sign Open Border Treaties with offenders. There is always the option of war. And let's not forget that just because a single unit is on a single tile, that doesn't shut the road down. Units can go over neutral units. They just can't stop on top of them.
The long and short of it is that once you start building roads outside of your territory you are taking a risk. You're welcome to complain about how annoying you personally feel about it, but it doesn't change the fact that that's how it is, and there are alot of solutions available to you to mitigate it.
3) It distorts the rest of the game. Civ was designed around a different paradigm, and the changes needed to avoid unit overpopulation made the peaceful game imbalanced and boring (e.g. weak production and high costs for large empires, both driven largely by the need to avoid massive unit production.)
sgrig
Comrade
Great post by the OP! While I wouldn't say 1 unit per hex is a failed experiment, I agree that it created lots of new problems. While I like the battle dynamics in large open spaces, I absolutely hate the micromanagement involved in moving units. Many of the restrictions imposed by the 1 upt rule seem to be very artificial and contrived.
However I liked a few of the ideas presented by above posters:
1) Allow stacking of civilian units - this is simply a must. Without this the whole system is doomed - and while there are some advantages to 1 upt in combat, for civilian units it's only a logistical nightmare which takes away the fun.
2) Allow military units to switch into a "caravan" or "convoy" mode. This turns units into non-combat units that can be stacked. Perhaps can also give a movement bonus. Such a convoy could be protected by a single combat unit. This would get rid of gridlock problems on roads. If necessary, there could be a limit to the number of units in a convoy - say 6 units, so that once they deploy in combat mode, they could spread out into neighbouring hexes. Similarly, embarked units should be stackable together with a combat unit for protection.
3) As one poster mentioned above, 1 upt works well in war games when cities are really spread out, and there is more open space between them. Currently, the spacing between cities is only marginally greater than in Civ4. Perhaps what should be done is that each city starts off with 2-hex culture radius, and each citizen works two hexes. This will encourage to place cities further away from each other, creating more room for military manoeuvres. Also for this to work, maintenance costs for roads and rails should be decreased.
However I liked a few of the ideas presented by above posters:
1) Allow stacking of civilian units - this is simply a must. Without this the whole system is doomed - and while there are some advantages to 1 upt in combat, for civilian units it's only a logistical nightmare which takes away the fun.
2) Allow military units to switch into a "caravan" or "convoy" mode. This turns units into non-combat units that can be stacked. Perhaps can also give a movement bonus. Such a convoy could be protected by a single combat unit. This would get rid of gridlock problems on roads. If necessary, there could be a limit to the number of units in a convoy - say 6 units, so that once they deploy in combat mode, they could spread out into neighbouring hexes. Similarly, embarked units should be stackable together with a combat unit for protection.
3) As one poster mentioned above, 1 upt works well in war games when cities are really spread out, and there is more open space between them. Currently, the spacing between cities is only marginally greater than in Civ4. Perhaps what should be done is that each city starts off with 2-hex culture radius, and each citizen works two hexes. This will encourage to place cities further away from each other, creating more room for military manoeuvres. Also for this to work, maintenance costs for roads and rails should be decreased.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
Bottlenecks are real and could be interesting. The features that I'm talking about, however, are unfortunately more generic and crop up all over the place. If you're going to favor small empires with few cities, and you're going to make roads expensive and rare...well, those precious roads should at least be able to have two lanes. The change from many roads to few was a very nice idea which doesn't play well with the new combat system. It would work better if units could move farther (so leapfrogging would be more graceful), but changing the scale of the map would be a massive undertaking.
And, speaking as a game player, I find that it leads to exasperating micromanagment in practice, exactly the opposite of the design goal. The glitches may drive me to distraction, but I'd prefer if they didn't make my armies turn around in disgust when faced with a bottleneck, or throw themselves into the ocean in despair.
the Wahoo boy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 38
OH MY GOD...
GUYS: The 1UPT thing is brilliant and an excellent solution, without a doubt. The AI issue will be solved anyway with a patch or mods.
Suggesting crazy stuff like the quoted text is simply ridiculous. That would require a complete re-write of the game, something I doubt many hard-core fans understand.
charon2112
King
any other number per tile besides one would ruin the system and render Civ V pointless. 3 -5 upt is a horrible idea.
Teodosio
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2002
- Messages
- 292
This is not only the best argument I have read against stacks, limited stacks and similar.
This is probably the most intelligent thing I have read lately in this forum
I believe the stack issue is settled now.
MeteorPunch
#WINNING
Could you explain why it would ruin it? Seems bad as it is.
Jolly Rogerer
Prince
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 402
Excellent OP, and I agree completely.
A question for those who seem to be in love with the idea that traffic jams are realistic: How long is a turn in Civ 5? Don't you think that a unit which occupies a road tile could move to the side of a road in order to allow another unit to pass through the hex in the length of a turn? The whole movement and combat system fails for similar reasons. How many years do you have to sit and watch enemy forces move through your lands and attack your forces before you are allowed to respond?
The truth of the matter for the Civ series is that it set wargaming back 30 years when it came out. We had a great game in terms of scope, a good game in terms of economics, technology, politics etc. But we were sent back to the late 1950s in wargame design. Tiny movement allowances, I move all my units and attack and then you can respond sometime next year (in the modern era, much worse earlier), etc.
Civ 4 had the best simulation of warfare in the series because it realistically benefited the extreme concentration of force which was the paradigm for combat through most of history until firepower forced dispersion. It had two major flaws however. It forced the attacker to attack piecemeal which negated numerical advantages in terms of flanking and overwhelming the defender's line, and it forced the attacker to make the worst attack possible for whichever unit he chose to throw away. The problem wasn't stacking, it was sending one unit into the meat grinder at a time.
A better solution is to have the combat resolved stack to stack, either instantly via an algorithm, or via a tactical combat subroutine. Concentration could still be made more risky via bombardment attacks which would do more damage in a target rich environment. An auto-bombardment / opportunity fire feature by any artillery in the defending hex on the entire stack of attackers prior to any in-hex combat resolution would work nicely here.
An even better solution is to eliminate individual (sword, spear, horse) units entirely as map entities and use them as points that can be assigned to leaders which together would form an army, which would appear on the map. Movement allowances would have to be increased significantly (say 100 mp) so that historical movement rates could be achieved. Wars would typically be concluded in one strategic turn, at least until the modern eras. Movement would be simultaneous for all players, and done in one hex pulses, with armies moving through clear terrain and / or with faster subunits moving more often as they arrive at their next objective sooner and are available for further instructions.
(E.G. every unit on the map for every side could be given an order to move on pulse 100, on pulse 99 any opposing armies that were in the same hex would resolve combat, any units that had not moved on turn 100 could be given orders, as well as any units that had completed their orders.)
In my scheme there would be few armies on the map during peacetime. City garrisons and a few small units watching the borders would be all that would be active normally. Units active on the map would pay 1gp per turn per point of strength in maintenance. Units that moved would pay 2gp per turn per point. Most empires in peacetime would keep a majority of their strength in depot / port at a cost of .5 gp per turn per point. During the movement phase you could create and army / fleet by placing a leader unit in a friendly tile and assigning forces to it at a cost of -10 movement points to the army / fleet (and the higher maintenance until such time as you disbanded that unit).
Armies would be important not only for their composition, but for their leaders and the doctrinal bonuses learned through technology that could provide situational or non-situational bonuses to strength. I realize that this is a system for Civ6 and has no chance of being adopted at this late date, but it would be superior and honestly it (or any of 100 better systems) should have been done many years ago. It's ridiculous to keep trying to implement 1960s wargaming paradigms in a game that is so extremely poorly suited for them.
A question for those who seem to be in love with the idea that traffic jams are realistic: How long is a turn in Civ 5? Don't you think that a unit which occupies a road tile could move to the side of a road in order to allow another unit to pass through the hex in the length of a turn? The whole movement and combat system fails for similar reasons. How many years do you have to sit and watch enemy forces move through your lands and attack your forces before you are allowed to respond?
The truth of the matter for the Civ series is that it set wargaming back 30 years when it came out. We had a great game in terms of scope, a good game in terms of economics, technology, politics etc. But we were sent back to the late 1950s in wargame design. Tiny movement allowances, I move all my units and attack and then you can respond sometime next year (in the modern era, much worse earlier), etc.
Civ 4 had the best simulation of warfare in the series because it realistically benefited the extreme concentration of force which was the paradigm for combat through most of history until firepower forced dispersion. It had two major flaws however. It forced the attacker to attack piecemeal which negated numerical advantages in terms of flanking and overwhelming the defender's line, and it forced the attacker to make the worst attack possible for whichever unit he chose to throw away. The problem wasn't stacking, it was sending one unit into the meat grinder at a time.
A better solution is to have the combat resolved stack to stack, either instantly via an algorithm, or via a tactical combat subroutine. Concentration could still be made more risky via bombardment attacks which would do more damage in a target rich environment. An auto-bombardment / opportunity fire feature by any artillery in the defending hex on the entire stack of attackers prior to any in-hex combat resolution would work nicely here.
An even better solution is to eliminate individual (sword, spear, horse) units entirely as map entities and use them as points that can be assigned to leaders which together would form an army, which would appear on the map. Movement allowances would have to be increased significantly (say 100 mp) so that historical movement rates could be achieved. Wars would typically be concluded in one strategic turn, at least until the modern eras. Movement would be simultaneous for all players, and done in one hex pulses, with armies moving through clear terrain and / or with faster subunits moving more often as they arrive at their next objective sooner and are available for further instructions.
(E.G. every unit on the map for every side could be given an order to move on pulse 100, on pulse 99 any opposing armies that were in the same hex would resolve combat, any units that had not moved on turn 100 could be given orders, as well as any units that had completed their orders.)
In my scheme there would be few armies on the map during peacetime. City garrisons and a few small units watching the borders would be all that would be active normally. Units active on the map would pay 1gp per turn per point of strength in maintenance. Units that moved would pay 2gp per turn per point. Most empires in peacetime would keep a majority of their strength in depot / port at a cost of .5 gp per turn per point. During the movement phase you could create and army / fleet by placing a leader unit in a friendly tile and assigning forces to it at a cost of -10 movement points to the army / fleet (and the higher maintenance until such time as you disbanded that unit).
Armies would be important not only for their composition, but for their leaders and the doctrinal bonuses learned through technology that could provide situational or non-situational bonuses to strength. I realize that this is a system for Civ6 and has no chance of being adopted at this late date, but it would be superior and honestly it (or any of 100 better systems) should have been done many years ago. It's ridiculous to keep trying to implement 1960s wargaming paradigms in a game that is so extremely poorly suited for them.
cavilier210
Warlord
I agree with this. I like the new system. Stacks of doom are for the lazy in my opinion.
skallben
Diplomat
I like it aswell but I still dislike the worker and scout blockades.
TheHarshax
Warlord
So many arguments I've seen regarding 1+UPT hinge on 'Why would you ever *NOT* stack units if you could'.
This is such a strawman argument, as the obvious answer is, 'Why would you ever be given the opportunity?', or 'Why is an argument against 1UPT hinged on the requirement of always being able to fight optimal battles?'
As such, I've never given much thought to naysayers of the 1UPT rules. The ranged unit rules however, seem to be a point of discussion worth evaluating in this paradigm.
1UPT is a better solution to SODs, but not the ideal solution. As a fan of 1UPT, the ideal solution would be to increase the size of the map, make cities 6 or 10 hexes in size, decrease unit build rate, and increase unit movement rate. But to do all that, would give warfare more attention than its due. War is only one aspect of managing a successful civilization, and its execution should be balanced against all the other options a player has at his disposal to win the game.
In that light, I think I'd like to see an implementation of 3rd Reich stacking rules applied. The map size in 3rd Reich is about the same as Civ, and the stacking rules work well for it, albeit for modern rifled units. The model could work well for pre-gunpowder warfare.
