So, what I'm interested in is reasons why 1UPH is so fantastic (beyond "love it", which whilst valid as an opinion doesn't really explain its appeal). So, does 1UPH make gameplay easier? Do you think its more "realistic"....
The above questions are not intended to insult, or inflame opinion. I am genuinely interested in hearing from some 1UPH fans as to why they feel 1UPH is superior to SoDs.
I'll preface my opinion by saying that I'm not really for or against any system - in the context of a civ GAME virtually anything COULD be made to work but ALL civ games so far have had pretty lame combat.
That Civ5 IMO failed wasn't an
innevitable result of adopting 1UPT, but rather doing so with a cut and paste mentality of importing concepts from other games without putting enough planning as to how to properly integrate the entire game into a single coherent concept.
Arguably the reason 1UPT is so popular is not a question of realism (as neither is particularly realisitc), but rather more gamers find tactical/operational warfare more interesting than they do the strategic side. The differences between weapon types, how weapons were used on the battlefield, how generals won or lost, maneuvering units on the field of battle, elite units, stories of dramatic victories against overwhealming odds, etc appeal more directly to a great many gamers than the strategic side - production, logistics, geo-politics, etc. The actual invasion of Normandy for example is probably of more interest than the politics of when and where to open a second front and the logistics behind the invasion.
Civ until Civ5 was orientated more towards the strategic side - wars were won by logistics and production but the actual battles themselves were dull. While the rest of game was rich with narrative the wars had little narrative value as one SOD battle was no more interesting than another. For all the attempted trappings of tactical interest (unit types, upgrades, combat bonuses) Civ4 was ultimately very unstatisfying because the there was no such thing as a meeting battle, or making use of terrain, or elite units - everything revolved around throwing stacks of units at each other. And there lies the problem of every civ until Civ5 - when you throw stacks of units at each other you've got the design challenge of how to abstractly represent the tactical combat assumed to be happening between the stacks in a way that returns believable results, that make the tactical trappings relavent, and that involve the player in *meaningful* decision making.
Civ4 failed in most respects. Unless you had suicide siege weapons standing by combat always favoured the defender. Instead of fighting stack against stack which would have been realistic, 1 attacker would venture out into no mans land, unsupported, and issue a challenge which in turn would be answered by the single unsupported defender best equipped to defeat him. Given all the complaints about archers shooting over the channel I'm surprised that knights who ALWAYS impale themselves on a pikewall... even if there's only 1 pikemen in a stack of 50 catapults doesn't generate similar scorn. Such gladitorial style combat mechanics remove meaningfull design making, aside from ensuring your own stacks always have a mix of units, they make meeting engagements between two equal forces impossible as whoever attacks the other first is at a huge dissadvantage, and they remove the relavence of elite units, unit types, etc - as combat is purely throwing in as much canon fodder as possible until the opposition is finally overwealmed.
In *theory* 1UPT along with more durable units *should* have added more flavour to battles. The match ups would still be 1v1 but now players could make meaningfull decisions as to when and where and between whom those matchups would consist. The result of battles would then be influenced by a players tactical decision making abilities which, aside from stroking players egoes would add an additional level of narrative to the game - as now wars would be decided by battles, as opposed stack resolution. "Not only did I hold Monty off when he stabbed me in the back but it was due to the EPIC defense my elite 7th, 8th, and 9th divisions fought holding him back along the banks of the Black River."
Is playing out tactical battles on a strategic map realistic? No. But in the context of a GAME where one warrior walks from one end of the world to the other over 4000 years beaming back satallite accurate maps of what he sees ultimately realism can be relaxed if the resulting mechanic is somewhat enjoyable. Again look at the popularity of RTSs or the Total war series - All civ 5 has really done is overlaid the tactical combat of the later directly onto the strategic map to save fighting meaningless battles over meaningless generic terrain.
That Civ5 doesn't live up to it's promise has more to do with the half assed job they did implementing the concept rather than the concept itself.