1 unit per hex. Poll

[Varelse]

I voted for, but I think it would be more accurate to say I'm for it but it needs to be modified a bit. Perhaps instead of 1upt, allow only 1 unit of a type per tile....meaning you could have an archer, a swordsman and a knight on the same tile, but not 3 knights. Or allow more than 1 unit but have a limit. Or only allow 1upt but allow units to retrain at cities where there are barracks in order to make the unit "bigger". If you look in the demographics you'll see that military strength is calculated by the number of soldiers, meaning each unit actually represents a specific number of troops(I like this). Perhaps if you could put money or production into a unit in order to make it larger or stronger, it would alleviate some of the problems associated with only having one unit per turn. If your unit is made up of 10k troops instead of 5k troops(for example) than your one unit is like having 2 units.

 

[phil9999uk]

All that needs to happen is the AI being able to use it and it is an awesome system

 

[MkLh]

Short of abandonment, I see no solution for this. Unlike so many others, I saw no problem with the SoD. Using that acronym for a stack (in this forum especially) seems to be a pejorative. More accurately, a stack is simply an ARMY. Why the idea of an army is so unacceptable is still, to me, a mystery. At some risk of flaming reponses, my speculation regarding this is that so many have been victims of a large enemy army. Association? Perhaps.

Because it's boring and lacks of any tactical depth. Besides it's unrealistic in modern warfare. In modern warfare, there are things like front lines. They are impossible to simulate with boring SoDs.

In historical warfare, it's actually realistic (The Grande Armeé of Napoleon was a SoD and so on), but I prefer 1UPT in ancient eras too. After all, game play is more important than realism.

 

[Squonk]

Against with all my heart.

 

[WastedEfforts]

Poll should be renamed to "Do you wish to return to the Stone Age?"

 

[phil9999uk]

Poll should be renamed to "Do you wish to return to the Stone Age?"

Incorrect

 

[lschnarch]

What seems to be funny is that quite some people on the one hand vote for 1upt and then say: But let workers stack, let me stack naval units, I don't have problems with stacking of military and civilian units (like a General ) and so on.

So I think, most people would like to have some kind of modest stacking.

 

[Kerosene31]

I love it. It makes the game so much more interesting.

Yesterday I was playing and trying to go semi-peaceful (had some cash flow problems) when suddenly two civs declare war on me. My army was in a sad state but at least I had some horse units with speed.

I got their units pinned into a tight area and managed to hold them off until my cities could build up an adequate army. They almost had one of my cities but my faster units were able to keep them from bringing their catapults into play. I ended up repelling a bigger invasion force without losing a city.

In Civ 4, this would have played out like this: Their stack of doom would have started steamrolling through my cities until I built up my stack and took them out. I would have had a few medic units healing. Once their stack was gone I would build another stack and go back and retake my cities.

I don't want non-combat units stacking either. I don't see why it is needed. I had a settler blocked by a worker for a few turns as I was building a road. I should have planned ahead better.

 

[ChaplainDMK]

Against. I was happy with it at first. But after 2 weeks, it is too shallow and bluntly, ridiculous to expect us to believe that a hex big enough to contain a city of hundreds of thousands can only have 1 military regiment in it. The epic battles for Civilization should be between ARMIES not a few skirmishers shooting arrows hundreds of miles over mountains.


After 2 weeks of no-brainer conquest with a couple of horses and archers, I've now found it very easy to go back

So having unlimited ammounts of troops on a tile the size of a city is superior to actualy having a authentic combat system?
In previus civs (thanks to the SODs) you didn't realy know what each unit accounted for, was it a single archer on that field, dozens of archers, or a division comprising primarely of archers...
In each case something was wrong because a single archer taking over a city is unrealistic, and having 999 divisions in one city is also unrealistic... So in each case it was dumb.
In Civ 5 you can just say that each unit is a large army group (division, battalion, company or whatever you wan't them to be) and it will always stay that way because the scale is now fixed, just like in real life you don't have 70 divisions in a 8 x 8 km area in real life, you can't have them in Civ 5.

 

[gunburned]

Am I the only one who doesn't hate stacks of doom and like the strategy involved picking them apart?

 

[vendur]

I fall into the "other" category.

I'd rather they kept it, but that cities were allowed to stack one of every unit type. ranged(or a siege engine), melee (spears or swords), and one mounted unit lacking a ranged attack.

 

[Camikaze]

I voted 'against', simply because I don't think 1UPT is the best solution to the problem of stacks. Also, it edges perhaps a little too close to completely tactical warfare, which is really not what civ is about.

I certainly don't think it's an abomination, though, and it's probably better at 1 than any other randomly chosen number.

 

[Ripped]

I think it's excellent, a brave change, and they pulled it off nicely.

 

[goatofdeath]

As one who hates stacks but also finds 1upt limiting, I think Civ I & II had it right. Allow people to stack but at great risk. If one unit in the space dies, they all die. Yes, it requires some suspension of disbelief. However, it created an incentive to spread out, and have more tactical battles. It also allowed you the freedom to stack when needed.

With the SoD I really missed being able to seige a city by surrounding it with units and starving them out. This tactic was really cool in Civ I & II when the city also provided the production for the military defending it. Blocking all the production also blocked support for the units in the city meaning you got to starve the garrison out as well. Something VERY historically realistic and awesome that it worked in a game mechanic.

It's been kind of nice to see my cities starving again when surrounded by enemy units in Civ V rather than one space being blocked by the SoD in Civ IV.

 

[Flyingdwarfzz]

If they can fix the AI later in a patch, then im all for it.

Heck, im all for it now, anyway!

 

[Jediron]

I am truly surprised how many people voted for 1 UPT

I wonder why. Frankly, i think they like it for the ease of use, if anything else. It's quick, simple, you see what you got. You name it.

I personally want SOD back, because i strongly believe, that's the only way to overcome te poor AI's battle performance. But not the old SOD, but a more developed one, more flexible. Something like they do in TW . Much more user friendly. I think that would lure alot of the 1upt "believers" (if they ever saw it in action).

As one who hates stacks but also finds 1upt limiting, I think Civ I & II had it right. Allow people to stack but at great risk. If one unit in the space dies, they all die. Yes, it requires some suspension of disbelief. However, it created an incentive to spread out, and have more tactical battles. It also allowed you the freedom to stack when needed.

No,no,no. That was also ver annoying. No. If they were brave they should have RE-invented the SOD based system, and make multiple units more managable. That would take away alot of the disquise against it.

I am perfectly happy with the unity managment in TW, and i think alot of the TW players. Why? Because they have made it so easy, to handle it.
That's the strenght of TW's battle system (beside the tactical 3D warfare).

 

[Arlborn]

I had no problems with stacks.

I have problems with this.

I did vote for though because I think if done right it can become very fun, but it is not done right right now, because of such issues as bad AI and allied issues, for example.

In hindsight perhaps i shouldn't have voted just yet. This poll is too black and white.

 

[Nico_Davout]

1 unit per hex is great, but still not enough. There should be no type of units at all, just 'an army' which strength depends on size of our population, technology level, gold spent on it, gold spent on upgrades of the army, our 'army idea' and so on. Then we should be able to divide an army on as many units as many armies we need to move. Maybe in Civ 6.

And delete those workers for God sake, do it like in Call to Power argh

 

[Jediron]

Well exactly; Armies will do (which are SOD in its own way). That's what i keep telling; make the SOD system better (like armees).

1UPT in it's current state s*cks.

 

[MadRat]

1UPT in it's current state s*cks.

Yes at the current state of the AI, the game sucks. But it isn't because it is 1UPT, it is because the AI is subpar. As a mechanic 1UPT is fine. Once the AI is improved I think that it will be a very interesting system. It is silly to blame "the first person shooter" mechanic just because one shooter plays badly; just as blaming 1upt because one AI cant handle it well.

Rat