1 unit per hex. Poll

1 Unit Per Hex: For or Against?

  • For

    Votes: 796 76.0%
  • Against

    Votes: 252 24.0%

  • Total voters
    1,048
What is not hard for me is to know that the stack of doom we had in Civ 4 was killing some fun.
Now, if you propose: "do you want bread or butter?" I think it makes sense to say sometimes that you would prefer butter on bread.
free speech.;)

I completely understand this, but that was not the question asked.

As having said already, I am not a fan of unlimited stacks either. But your vote and your explanation contradict each other.

And it's the same for many other posters, too.

I think the poll is flawed in such way that the question raised should have been:
Do you prefer unlimited stacks (SoD)?
Do you prefer limeted stacks (explain your idea of the limitation)?
Do you prefer a strong 1upt (with not exceptions)?
 
Boring; composing my army/SoD isn't simply an exercise in quantity. Firstly, I have to consider what type of troops my enemy is using. If cavalry is predominant in my opponent's arsenal, then spearmen/pikemen are necessary, in numbers, for stack defense. How large does the stack need to be? It depends on how large my opponent's army is. Is his army turtled up in a border city? Then I might want to hit it first, making the rest of the conquest quicker and easier. If that's the case, then it might be advisable to include a larger siege component. Is speed essential? Then my army should be primarily mounted. I don't find this kind of problem-solving boring at all.

Stupid; see above. Not an overstatement to say that intelligence is required to increase the probability of success.

Unrealistic; Not at all. Prior to the Napoleonic era, I can think of only two exceptions to this rule--a nation/empire's military might was marshalled into one large force, and operated accordingly. Whether we are talking about Frederick the Great or Assurbanipal, an army was the operative element in military activity. The two exceptions were the Mongol toumans and the Roman legions. The Mongols invaded Kwarism and the Sung state with 3 armies on both occasions. The Romans divided their legions into small armies very often, however, when the Romans fought a prolonged war, they combined many legions into a large army. Trajan used 10 legions when he invaded Dacia. Marcus Aurelius used 8 to fight the Marcomannic War.

In military theory, Concentration of Force is a well-known concept, and the army/SoD exemplifies it well.

Infinite; exaggeration. Historically, there have been VERY large armies created, even in the pre-modern periods. Darius' force at Arbela was immense, yet Alexander defeated this giant army with a skilled deployment of a combined arms force--see the first paragraph above. Or read a translation of Arrian. Penguin copies are inexpensive.

All that said, the idea of limitations is good. Terrain and habitation seem to be the primary limiting factors in pre-modern warfare. The Roman legions had no real logistic apparatus, allowing the soldiers to either forage or purchase their grain from local people--but there had to BE local people with grain to sell. Look at any map of Imperial Rome at its height and then apply this idea. The border stopped where food supplies stopped. Germania being the only exception. Terrain absolutely should be a limiting factor. Taking a large stack across an expanse of desert tiles IS certainly unrealistic. The solution would be to assign a support factor to specific types of tiles, augmented by habitation levels. Heavily populated grasslands/floodplains/plains should be able to support high military concentrations, whereas empy deserts should NOT be able to do so, with unit attrition, either hit points, or outright unit elimination, being the result of an attempt to cross such. Following out this idea, techs called "Plunder" and "Depots" in the early modern era (1500-1800) would allow armies some flexibility in terms of support, the former negative, impacting populations and economies, with the latter positive, with no adverse effects, but more limits. After 1800, industrial techs (Steam power, Assembly line, etc. and possibly a "Logistics" tech) would allow greater flexibility still.

I understand the rancor regarding stacks, but see further refinement of the idea as a solution, not elimination in favor of a wholly inadequate and inapplicable tactical system in its place. MO.

All that said, there is another element that I see missing from these polarized discussions; the middle ground. These discussions, more especially the theoretical discussions regarding possible fixes to the current state of CiV combat, seem to be a typical false dilemma fallacy--EITHER SoD, OR 1upt. In most of my late game wars, I do not use SoD at all, but instead build a very large military and invade on a broad front. Units do often coalesce around enemy cities when they turtle up, concentrating prior to the assault, but often move in 2 unit stacks, often with inf/art as a combined unit. Used carefully this approach can and DOES work, and it avoids the peril of a single cat appearing and hitting the army/SoD thereby doing lots of damage to lots of units. Identifying WHERE the enemy stack is located and disposing adequate force to counter it is necessary as well, but using the Broad Front strategy has proven very effective. Late game wars, including continental domination campaigns can progress with extraordinary speed. (I play habitually on Noble, huge continental maps, marathon speed)

I voted against, but agree completely with this post. To expand slightly, it is only in the industrial age that we have seen historical examples of armies deployed in a 1UPH manner. This has largely been due to the danger of high casualties resulting from too much mass at one point, and greater grand tactical flexibility allowing wide flanking movements, forcing an army to extend to protect its lines of communication. Prior to this armies were "stacked", combined arms groupings wherever technology/the economy allowed.

And I couldn't agree more about the futility of the either/or debate surrounding the SoD vs 1UPH.
 
For the concept.
Against the implementation.

I abstain.
 
1upt for military units makes war far more fun and interesting. This is one of the few things Civ5 does better than Civ4, where every war was the same: spam enemy stack with collateral, clean up, repeat.

For civilian units though, it's just an annoyance. Unlimited stacking of civilian units with each other and with non-hostile military units should be allowed.
 
Stacks for strategic movement.
1upt for tactical battles.

Its not rocket science. Christ on a bike, Total War had that figured out ten years ago!
 
For civilian units though, it's just an annoyance. Unlimited stacking of civilian units with each other and with non-hostile military units should be allowed.

It gets REALLY ANNOYING when you have to juggle Generals, Great People, and normal workers around. I can understand 1UPT for military units but why 1UPT for workers? Or any civilian unit for that matter?
 
(...)
I think the poll is flawed in such way that the question raised should have been:
Do you prefer unlimited stacks (SoD)?
Do you prefer limeted stacks (explain your idea of the limitation)?
Do you prefer a strong 1upt (with not exceptions)?

Exactly.
"Is the door open or closed?"
So, if the door is open but only by , say, 1 cm, and is stuck in this position, would you say it is open? "Come on in friends! Oh you can't? Sorry: my control board says it is open, deal with it.".
It is open if you work on a binary system. As we are human beings and not machines, there is always a need for a TRUE / FALSE / NEUTRAL-OTHER condition...
 
One UPT can work for tactical level games, but Civ is a strategic level game so one UPT is the wrong way to go. Scrap the one UPT idea.

Stacking should be limited by the "space" a unit takes up and can still operate. This concept is already in place in Civ IV (Example: you can only base 4 air units in a city unless you build an airport, after which 4 more air units can be accommodated). The concept is partially implemented in Civ V with the ability of military and non military units to co-occupy a tile.

Going from limitless stacks to one UPT is too radical a change in direction. Something in between is called for. Assigning a 'stacking value' number to each unit type, with a maximum 'stacking value' allowed per tile would be a better solution.

Terrain should also affect maximum stacking value allowed per tile. You shouldn't, for instance, be able to stack the same number/type of units in mountainous jungle tiles as you could in open terrain.

Just as crossing a river or entering a swamp slows movement in Civ V, moving combined (stacked) units into terrain that has a lower stacking value allowed would cause the unit to stop until the player broke up the stack (or breaking the stack could, optionally, be handled by the computer).

Adding complexity while letting the computer handle the difficult mechanics and rules is the beauty of the Civ franchises' evolution. The decision to simplify the game's mechanics was taken to broaden the appeal of the game to less hard core players. It was poorly implemented and has resulted in angering the the established player base while not impressing the desired new players.

I look at the vanilla release of Civ V as something of a "Vista Moment" for Fireaxis. There are some very ambitious concepts in play, but it has been poorly executed and is really in need of some basic design changes. One UPT should be abandoned in favor of the more classic wargaming approach of limited stacking.
 
Going from limitless stacks to one UPT is too radical a change in direction. Something in between is called for.

To this, I agree.


Assigning a 'stacking value' number to each unit type, with a maximum 'stacking value' allowed per tile would be a better solution.

Terrain should also affect maximum stacking value allowed per tile.(...)

Just as crossing a river or entering a swamp slows movement in Civ V, moving combined (stacked) units into terrain that has a lower stacking value allowed would cause the unit to stop until the player broke up the stack (or breaking the stack could, optionally, be handled by the computer).

Adding complexity while letting the computer handle the difficult mechanics and rules is the beauty of the Civ franchises' evolution. The decision to simplify the game's mechanics was taken to broaden the appeal of the game to less hard core players. It was poorly implemented and has resulted in angering the the established player base while not impressing the desired new players.

To this, I cannot agree anymore.

Of course, from a "reality" point of view, you are right.
Nevertheless, these concepts would make pathfinding for the AI very complicated.

Let us assume you have a sequence of Plains - River Crossing - Plains - River Crossing

Based on our current experiences with pathfinding issues it seems to be likely that a formerly well composed stack after the last river crossing has been completely distorted (once again, I am talking about the AI, here).

Unless Firaxis proves to be able to develop a really good pathfinding and priorization algorithm, there shouldn't be too much "in between" rules added.

Any concept is only as good as the AI can handle it.
 
Unless Firaxis proves to be able to develop a really good pathfinding and priorization algorithm, there shouldn't be too much "in between" rules added.

Any concept is only as good as the AI can handle it.

Absolutely, I agree that AI must be able to handle any change of this nature. I am convinced that the most important and compelling aspect of a Civ game is the ability of the AI to be a challenging opponent in single player (without cheating or appearing to cheat too obviously).

If breaking stacks of units is too difficult for pathfinding then an alternative would be to assign maximum speed of a stack to the slowest unit in a stack adjusted by terrain type. This is already part of the game so I am assuming it could be reproduced with the stacking limits concept.

I believe this would have much the same results if the AI was also set up to mass units to maximum stacking limits prior to engaging the enemy - that having moved stacked units, for instance, through rough terrain, the faster moving units would arrive sooner, but would then wait and reassemble with the slower moving units in order to reassemble into stacks with maximum values.

I may be mistaken, but I believe I have seen AI controlled units refrain from engaging while "waiting" for siege units to join up. If my observations are correct, then the existing pathfinding algorithm already exists and would serve the purpose (with some tweeking).

If the AI is incapable of breaking up stacks then reassembling them, the AI will be at a distinct disadvantage against the human player because humans will naturally break and reassemble stacks to maximize the speed of their forces' advance.

I'm speculating that the AI might be able to prioritize stack composition in order to optimize speed through intervening terrain and simultaneous arrival at their objective. This is NOT currently the way the AI works (at least not well) and IMO needs improvement.

I may be naive but I think that if a "doctrine" of attack and defense can be clearly defined and prioritized in a sort of logic tree then coding the AI to follow that doctrine would be feasible. I have seen CNC machinery software that has been able to optimize a process efficiency given a complex set of objectives following complex algorithms so I am not without hope that efficient and effective strategies could be handled by a well designed AI.
 
1upt is the future
SoD was horrible
 
I like 1UPT. I think it forces more value on each unit versus the creation of stacks of doom at will as needed for war.

I would disagree that proper assembly of a stack of doom is a skill. It was and always is about the numbers. At the higher difficulty level the challenge was living long enough to build your SoD, not the composition of it. On the contrary, the 1UPT approach places much higher importance on the content of your force if that is what we are going to consider true still as a general.

1UPT is just a different type of combat. I am not surprised a vocal minority don't like it. It is a major departure for the series from it's history, so I think it is perfectly valid to hate it.

It seems the vast majority though prefer it based on the poll.
 
No you simply don't understand that 1UP isn't for a game like civ, because Ai can't handle it and never will. Because it is designed for static scenarios and limited troops. Not for games that have random maps and troop production (and other things that Ai must handle). Think of it, Panzer General was based on instructions fixed, that were limited by the scenario. Same like a chess board (it doesn't change every game you start) the AI knows the tiles and the movement, and the troops involved, so it can handle tactics and be a good opponent.

That's impossible in Civilization cause the stamentes above (random maps. etc.)...

If you think it is better, than you like idiotic games, that can't handle any tactic at all. And that's not an offense, but a statement. Maybe you like to win easily, or you don't like strategic games, that's all...
 
honestly I'm not for or against it. 1UPT ads for a more strategic war but my problem is, is that once you crush the AI's army the rest is attacking cities. Units are produced far to slow for the AI to be able to retaliate in time. With the stacked units system the AI could at the very least harras you and maybe even force you back. Wars were almost more interesting with the SOD method especially in late game. I am actually almost more for SOD's than 1UPT. 1UPT offers tactical fun that can be very useful in multiplayer, but against an AI I just am not a big fan of it.
 
honestly I'm not for or against it. 1UPT ads for a more strategic war but my problem is, is that once you crush the AI's army the rest is attacking cities. Units are produced far to slow for the AI to be able to retaliate in time. With the stacked units system the AI could at the very least harras you and maybe even force you back. Wars were almost more interesting with the SOD method especially in late game. I am actually almost more for SOD's than 1UPT. 1UPT offers tactical fun that can be very useful in multiplayer, but against an AI I just am not a big fan of it.

Actually, although many people plainly deny this, I find this thread a confirmation for the thesis that most supporters of "1upt" (which isn't a true 1upt, btw) are actually against SoDs.
Which I can understand.

A SoD is one extreme of allowing troop concentration, and 1upt (a real 1upt, not the faked one of Shafer_5) is the other extreme.
But there is a meaningful bandwidth of options between both extremes. A bandwidth, within you can allow for mixing troops, allow for enough units amassed to make the AI competitive and still being manageable.

So, I would like to ask to avoid the comparison of "1upt" with SoDs. Both are bad solutions.
The problem is that in Civ we only have had the two extremes up to now.
 
Hmm... I still love 1 UPT for the tactical battles but I do have to agree with Peregrine, I always looked at the stacking concept from that point of view. Its much more realistic since we are dealing with tiles that represent miles of land. I would never actually create a full SoD but, instead, create two or three good sized "armies" to maneuver through my enemies territory. I must admit that if someone were to come up with the system MeatUnit2 mentioned (whether it be firaxis or a modder) I would be excited to try it out!
 
1UpT, imho, is detrimental to immersion. In a game such as Civ, one has to wonder, why couldn't an infantry and a armored unit stay in the same gigantic hexagonal area. The only answer is: to avoid SOD.

It goes in the same category as a great artist becoming a "cultural bomb" and a known civilization being "angry at you because you are trying to win the game".
 
I write as someone who likes stacks (although I can see a value to having them limited in some way - economic/social/terrain/etc).

I have followed this thread with interest, and whilst I see that those against 1UPH have been quite willing to offer coherent arguments in favour of stacks, most of those in favour of 1UPH seem to just write "love it", and "SoD was dumb". 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"? And why was the SoD "dumb"? And are you looking for a Civ type game where warfare is minimised/pretty much eliminated forcing the player to focus on other victory conditions?

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom