1 unit per hex: failed experiment

[db0]

I just finished a game on small map where America had well over 30 units at least (what I could see) attacking me so this is not true..

What difficulty where you playing at and how many units did you have? In the one game where I was playing a warmonger, in the end-game I had at best 8 ships and 15 land units. If don't know about you, but this is far from realistic for me.

 

[Franks]

I personnaly enjoy 1upt, but the AI needs improvement

 

[Sebed]

I personally think that 1UPT was the second best addition to Civ V (behind hexes), although the most important thing for them to add now is an optional zoom in for battles, where you can general your army with intense detail. This would be regardless of whether they allow stacking or not, although I would assume that they'd have to disallow unlimited stacking as that could and probably would get out of hand.

After all, for me at least, Civilization is essentially a war game. Yes I get to infrastructure, expand, build wonders etc. But I'm always operating in a warring mindset. 1UPT is the first step towards strategic fighting, and I'd like to see them take that further.

 

[Buccaneer]

One unit per tile might work well if the battles were resolved on a tactical map. You could have want enough units on the board for tactics, and at the same time a low piece density. It just doesn't work for the scale of the game as it is.

While I like 1upt, I agree with this. Look at many of the classical wargame, the scale (not time frame, but geography) is about 1/10 the scale of a typical Civ5. Going to a tactical map (which many games do, from CotNW and Imperialism II way back to the Total War series) from a strategy map can work for a turn-based game. There you can have more units and plenty room to maneuver, which are the advantages of hex-based 1upt maps.

But it still assumes the AI knows how to manage such a map, which I have always had doubts (even going back to old wargames).

 

[Zogar]

This 1 upt is a complete mess. I was very happy at the beggining about this system, but it was poorly done.


- Pathfinding 1 upt management horrible (you lose movements sometimes when units want to use all their points and are blocked, and go off the road or some crazy place just for the sake of moving)

- UI 1 upt management horrible (for example you get spammed when units are stacked, sometimes canceling you order and you have to make the exact same order to move again ...)

- AI 1 upt management horrible (chokes win the game. You can just abuse the AI in any number of ways)

- Workers 1 upt management horrible (they can't stack, and are only 2 moves. If you have a lot at a certain place, you can't put them where you want and lose movement. It also gets ridiculous with great persons if you don't use them at once, they keep blocking with the workers and you need to do extra microing all the time. As much as I somewhat understand the 1 upt for war units, WTH with workers ?)

- IA difficulty 1 upt management horrible (ok it's not a problem with the easier difficulties, but a game in emperor the IA starts to have an insane number of units, let alone in Deity. The IA is not affected by the higher gold upkeep, so the system is not well designed at all. It gets ridiculous when the AI has units in every tile in his whole territory, your end-turns are 2 minute long, and you can rush conquer victory and take the capitals by blocking the enemy troops)

- ...

 

[Venereus]

What about the War of the Ring mode from "The Battle for Middle-earth II"? You move a stacked army around the map and only get into tactical view during battles, where 1UPT can work with much more space.

 

[swornabsent]

@ohioastronomy

I started getting a little bleary-eyed a few pages into this thread and most of the responses that sprang to mind when I read your well-written OP have already been offered, so to sum up my $0.02: problems certainly exist, but I think you are unwittingly using 1upt as a straw man for them. The points you have outlined, valid as they may be, are not the fault of 1upt. In particular I wholeheartedly agree with the ridiculousness of hit-and-run tactics without consequences, and reactionary/opportunity fire is a mechanic that is sorely missing in this new system, but 1upt isn’t to blame for that oversight. AI problems are AI problems, that’s nothing new and is omnipresent in any system, although I will agree pathfinding in particular seems pretty awful. Again, though, this needs to be addressed as an AI problem, not as a detractor from 1upt. Some of your points re: realism, specifically point #5 re: gridlocked armies, are simply false. I won’t be so bold as to suggest 1upt makes for a completely realistic battleground - there might be room for improvement - but it’s much more realistic than an absurdly large number of units crammed into a single tile. Geography and land mass is most certainly an issue in real campaigns.

I’ll not get into the smaller issues like stacking civilians or blockades here. Suffice to say I respectfully disagree with your assessment of 1upt in general, but I would agree that the game developers failed to really think about and develop accompanying mechanics around it.

 

[OliverFA]

1upt is going from one extreme to the other. On one hand, you have the unlimited stacking, which is way too much. But the solution is not to fo to the other extreme and reduce it to just 1upt.

Specially, as some posters have said, the grand strategy scale does not fit with 1upt, neither the "archer shots over 100s of KMs".

In my opinion the logical thing would be to provide a base support value for each tile (more for grasslands, less for deserts and tundra) and a weight to each unit. Then, if the combined weight of units in the tile are below the support value, everything is ok. But if they are above support value, attrition takes place and they lose HP (how many would depend on how bad the limit had been surpassed). This would allow for a new type of technologies, that upgraded this support value.

 

[Aneurism]

How about allowing 2 UPT. When units are stacked in 2 the highest defense rating defends, and if it dies they both die. This would resolve all of the path finding issues, and crowding in most battles, while still not allowing stacks of doom. The penalty for stacking 2 is that you risk both, so not a major advantage. The only thing this would significantly change is people would stack a defensive melee unit over a range unit... but not really a serious exploit.

I did not read the entire thread, so I apologize if someone else came up with this idea before me.

 

[Alter Hase]

1UPT is a big improvement compared to stacks of doom, is it perfect, no, but far better.

Honestly civilization needs a "combat screen", meaning you move a certain army/division or corps, to another army, and start a fight.
Just look at the last "Sid Meiers Pirates" when you attack cities from land, so simple, but so tactical, it has everything, terrain advantage/bonuses, flanking, morale etc. thats what civilization needs.

 

[swornabsent]

How about allowing 2 UPT. The only thing this would significantly change is people would stack a defensive melee unit over a range unit... but not really a serious exploit.

I think it is. As I think has been mentioned, stacking an archer with a spearman renders horsemen pretty ineffectual. Allowing it removes any fear of reprisal for deploying fragile units.

That said, I can grant that 2upt would solve other problems, so a radical solution off the top of my head that might be crazy/stupid is to allow 2upt and completely flip-flop the Civ 4 stacking mechanics by giving unit selection advantage to SOME attackers. Ie, add a "maneuverability" trait or something to mounted units and the like that will allow them to attack the unit in a 2upt stack that it has a better chance of success against. This will alleviate the above concern, and is plenty realistic: a group of knights aren't going to charge through a line of spearmen to get to the archers behind when they can skirt around, whereas advancing infantry on foot don't have that option and are forced to contend with the spearmen first.

 

[gingerbill]

Sorry but the OP seems to be just a theory and not an analysis of the game's mechanics.

agreed .

I dont agree with OP it was a failed experminent , i find combat far far better in CIV5 , no way i could go back to SOD . And i assume it will get better with patching.

I dont like the attitude of not trying something because its difficult. They had to change the combat and im glad they did.

 

[LDiCesare]

I don't like within civ V the fact that you are pretty much obliged to build at least a dozen of cities ( small maps ) to have a solid empire.

I would have simplified this aspect, too many stuff to manage or micromanage when you have 10 to 20 cities to take care of.

I won on King and built only something like 8 cities. I then stomped the Arabs because they didn't want to give me wine, but most of their cities were razed or made into puppets. So I didn't build a dozen cities. And this was on a normal map, not a small one.

 

[zomg]

Once you get embarking theres few reasons a neutral army should block you anywhere.

Granted the AI needs to play better (at least to be able to fight a war of attrition where losses are more or less equal), but this is the problem with more intelligent gameplay is you need a more intelligent AI. The 1up system I enjoy a lot.

 

[ohioastronomy]

@ohioastronomy

I started getting a little bleary-eyed a few pages into this thread and most of the responses that sprang to mind when I read your well-written OP have already been offered, so to sum up my $0.02: problems certainly exist, but I think you are unwittingly using 1upt as a straw man for them. The points you have outlined, valid as they may be, are not the fault of 1upt. In particular I wholeheartedly agree with the ridiculousness of hit-and-run tactics without consequences, and reactionary/opportunity fire is a mechanic that is sorely missing in this new system, but 1upt isn’t to blame for that oversight. AI problems are AI problems, that’s nothing new and is omnipresent in any system, although I will agree pathfinding in particular seems pretty awful. Again, though, this needs to be addressed as an AI problem, not as a detractor from 1upt. Some of your points re: realism, specifically point #5 re: gridlocked armies, are simply false. I won’t be so bold as to suggest 1upt makes for a completely realistic battleground - there might be room for improvement - but it’s much more realistic than an absurdly large number of units crammed into a single tile. Geography and land mass is most certainly an issue in real campaigns.

I’ll not get into the smaller issues like stacking civilians or blockades here. Suffice to say I respectfully disagree with your assessment of 1upt in general, but I would agree that the game developers failed to really think about and develop accompanying mechanics around it.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. On the matter of scale, I actually think that "stack of doom" is actually a better simulation of combat prior to the modern era - it certainly describes conflict in the ancient world (e.g. the Persians marching on the Greeks, or Hannibal rampaging through the Roman Republic, or the Mongol Horde). The practical implementation of how it was done in Civ 4, however, is far from what you'd think of in a simulation (banzai catapults!) Modern war is better fit by limited stacking. I played a lot of wargames, and I can't think of any with no stacking at all - and the ones with low limits tended to have a lot of room to move around and lots of movement points.

I think your last point is the key one: it really seems as if they just had a decree that there would be no stacking, and it was made well before they understood what they'd have to do to make it work properly. I'll bet that things like the mechanics of movement took an enormous amount of programming time. They kept on running into things which needed to be overhauled for the new system to work and ran out of time to smooth out the inevitable glitches.

Of all of the points raised here, I'm intrigued by the idea of having battles resolved in a tactical minimap, similar to the fun old boardgame Titan. You could have one map per tile type (perhaps with improvements thrown in) and some automated abstract fight system for those who don't like the tactics. The scale of the tactical maps, and movement, could then be set to make more limited/nonexistent battle stacking sensible. One attack per hex direction per turn could govern how much you could toss at a defender, etc. Hmmmmm...

 

[Jediron]

1 UPT is easy to manage your units and excludes units cluttering. True. But don't tell me it is better. It's different, but it has as much downfalls just like the old stacking 100+ units a tile.
Both are wrong. The thing is you cannot implement "tactical & strategical" fightting onto the main 3D map. It is simply impossible to do both, without hurting one of them. In this 1 UPT case, tactical is seriously wrecked.

-Sure you can block a road with militairy, as someone pointed out.
*is that "realistic" ?
*Look at the scale of things, people!
*A hex represents hundreds of miles, right !?
*Do you think there is only ONE road ?

And that is just one example.

The best way to tackle this, is already done; the Total War series.
In my book, the best CIV expands and explores like it is now, but when it comes to unit managment and city managment, they should implement some good things from TW.

-City development > a new 3D landscape, where you can walk through your beloved city and enjoy the wonders and improvements you builded there. Watch people wlaking around, maybe even talk with them (ala Caesar 1,2,3) and hear about their concerns or other things that are on there mind; like they want more luxury or protection. Work ? Whatever, you name it. You get the idea...

-Militairy action > Just like TW, give a option to auto battle or manual, with, just like TW; a complete, real-time battlefield. And, if friendly forces are in the neighbourhood; re-inforcements at some point.

Much, much, more realistic. Much more involvement and atmosphere, if implemented right; you could really get "sucked into it".

And, thanks to the "TW-like" army merging, growing, splitting" feature; solves all of the stacking issue's and 1 UPT issue at the same time.

That's exactly what i like about TW. Not that it is perfect, but on this they have the best solution from anything i have seen over the years.

Maybe it all comes together with CIV 6. Who knows. Meanwhile, i am still running my firt, huge, marathon "prince" game and sofar i am not really enjoying it. Too many "little" annoying things that ruins my pleasure, i won't list them here; most have said already, by one and the other.

ps: just another thing that crossed my mind: Why does CIV involves so much "unit" managment ? Since you are ruling a "empire" , why not approach units more like armies ?
Instead of "build archer, warrior, horse, whatever....go for a Army route: build a defensive "Army" , Mixed Army, Offensive Army, etc.etc.
That alone would also fix alot of the units horror on the map and at the same time is much more realistic. You engage wars with "armies", not a few silly warriors, right ?
So build the militairy up around Armies, instead of single units. Fleets, instead of a silly single cruiser, sub whatever. It doesn't fit the CIV map, single unit approach.
What do you think ?

 

[Aneurism]

I think it is. As I think has been mentioned, stacking an archer with a spearman renders horsemen pretty ineffectual. Allowing it removes any fear of reprisal for deploying fragile units.

That said, I can grant that 2upt would solve other problems, so a radical solution off the top of my head that might be crazy/stupid is to allow 2upt and completely flip-flop the Civ 4 stacking mechanics by giving unit selection advantage to SOME attackers. Ie, add a "maneuverability" trait or something to mounted units and the like that will allow them to attack the unit in a 2upt stack that it has a better chance of success against. This will alleviate the above concern, and is plenty realistic: a group of knights aren't going to charge through a line of spearmen to get to the archers behind when they can skirt around, whereas advancing infantry on foot don't have that option and are forced to contend with the spearmen first.

Good idea,
so if the attacker has higher mobility rating then the ideal defending unit, then the weaker defending unit must defend. Pretty straight forward.

 

[Iberian]

A lot of the 1upt problems stem from the AI. Especially on the higher difficulties. It is ironic but the AI actually plays better on the lower levels because it doesn't have too many units. Only problem is you out tech them so easily it doesn't matter.

The AI should not be coded or able to run an -1800 gold army that covers every tile on his continet.

 

[Eddogegr3]

Actually makes strategy a must when you try to capture a city rather than the mindless stack attack.

Moderator Action: Merged into the already existing 1 unit per hex thread.

 

[Oneluv]

1UPT is a big improvement compared to stacks of doom, is it perfect, no, but far better.

Better how? I agree SODs were getting a little cumbersome but the A.I. was able to use them to good advantage. (In large part due to the amazing work done in THIS community.) While I agree 1upt has potential and with VAST improvement may be the way of the future but this, this is a joke.

I eat this games lunch. I abuse it's stupidity in ways I never could have CivIV. And while it's different and I really like some of the new additions the A.I. is just stoopid.

At least with SODs the A.I. could cover for it's lack of finese with brutality. What does the current A.I. have now to cover for it's glaring defects. A $50 price tag, some slick promises and a maginot line of concretions called the "fanboy," that's what.

Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.