1UPT - final verdict?

[ariefbud]

What if MUPT based on terrain. Maybe like:
grassland, plain 4upt
Hill marsh 2upt
Junggle 1upt

 

[santoo]

it's a big part of moving civ towards a more casual crowd and is a big part of civ5's big success.

Now, I've read this several times - but is this really the case? Is civ5 doing really well amongst casuals? Did it draw (and keep) lots of non-4Xers? Because if so, it looks like they didn't make the jump to BE - currently the poll suggests that only 13,5% of players started out with CIV5. Then again, this might be greatly misleading - most casual players would probably mostly play the game and not read/post/theorycraft?!

 

[kirbdog]

Now, I've read this several times - but is this really the case? Is civ5 doing really well amongst casuals? Did it draw (and keep) lots of non-4Xers?

I don't have any proof, but I do believe that Civ is a gateway drug to 4X and turn-based strategy. It's going to be hard to find a lot of *other* strategy fans who haven't touched Civ. Very few strategy franchises (e.g., Starcraft) have similar reach.

That pretty much by definition means that Civ attracts the "casuals" *of* the strategy game market. The non-casuals need to get their fix with lots of different variety and experimentation, while the casuals pick up a handful of strategy titles over the years, perhaps returning to iterations of Civ, perhaps skipping a whole # or the DLC/expansions.

So, for example, a "casual" gamer might have played SMAC first (skipping the expansion), Civ 4 BTS (purchased as a whole later on), Civ 5 G&K (skipping BNW), and maybe just now decided to try Civ:BE. A less casual gamer is more likely to have played a lot of the DLC/expansions and to play a lot of other, less popular strategy games.

Unfortunately for strategy gamers, FPS / RPG / MMO get the big bucks.

 

[pezit]

Now, I've read this several times - but is this really the case? Is civ5 doing really well amongst casuals? Did it draw (and keep) lots of non-4Xers? Because if so, it looks like they didn't make the jump to BE - currently the poll suggests that only 13,5% of players started out with CIV5. Then again, this might be greatly misleading - most casual players would probably mostly play the game and not read/post/theorycraft?!

I mean I have no statistics or anything to back it up it's just the impression I've gotten, I think people who have been fans of civ games for a long time are very much overrepresented on these forums while new players don't visit any at all or go to reddit.

 

[kirbdog]

What if MUPT based on terrain. Maybe like:
grassland, plain 4upt
Hill marsh 2upt
Junggle 1upt

Supply systems are both confusing (if you don't get them) and frustrating (when you do - and then you have to plan around the tedium of going through a jungle chokepoint). Of course, 1UPT is a sort of supply system in itself, but I'd rather a simple replacement over a complex one.

This is also why removing naval transports was a brilliant decision.

 

[sammoraj]

Some thoughts on the matter.
1UPT does not work
The AI sucks at it
The maps are too small
The resource balancing fails
The feeling of grand empires clashing is gone
Way too easy for the human player to exploit
The AI SUCKS at it

MUPT is so bad people want to leave it
The stack of doom is the only effective method
There is no front line
There is no variation & most units are unusable
Fortifications are pointless(besides a few rare situations)
Un-realistic (I know its a game, but come on, 200 units in one pile?)

An idea came to me while reading replies on here.
Why not seriously improve flanking/unit-in-adjacent-tile bonuses?
Sure have the ability to stack to huge levels.
BUT, give flanking bonuses when units are in adjacent tiles, AND make those bonuses stack. More units in the other tile = greater benefits.
Implemented properly 1 giant stack would lose if facing 3 smaller stacks (but equal in total numbers). This would create a true frontline as the stacks spread out to get the important flanking bonus. At the same time it would allow a massive concentration of resources if you so choose.
Zone of Control should also be implemented

 

[Talcove]

Do not misrepresent stack combat. What I have quoted is strictly beginner play and the assumption of it is based on the AI's inability to fully take advantage of the stack model, too.

Moving a giant stack into a human's territory without regard to his own forces was a suicidal recipe, far more situational than implied here.

Yes, that's how it would work against the AI. Multiplayer, naturally, is going to be far more varied. But look around in the thread, almost everybody who is denouncing 1UPT is doing it on the basis of, "Since the AI can't use it properly, it shouldn't be." Well, the AI can't take full advantage of the 1UPT model, nor did they take full advantage of the Stacks model. Why pick on the new system so much, especially when it works terrifically better in Multiplayer than Stacks?

Sure, in Singleplayer with 1UPT you can easily just surround a city, bombard it with farther away ranged units, and then take it with a melee unit or far away high movement unit, but back with Stacks fighting against the AI was even easier. 1UPT adds more depth both to Singleplayer and Multiplayer, and once the AI is updated, or made, to handle it appropriately, or even just better, nobody will even think to say that Stacks were better.

But my point is that battles still take place around cities, maybe not on the city tile itself, but always in the tiles adjacent to the city. I never face combat far from cities. But maybe this is an AI issue again where the AI is not able to meet my units half away between cities in an organized front to stop me even getting to the city in the first place. That is what I am talking about. With 1UPT, I never see frontlines like in WW2 where the units face off in the country side far from major cities.

That's mostly because of how cities are placed in Civ. Most people that I know place their cities, at maximum, ~6 tiles apart, with some placing them closer together. Naturally, most tiles are going to be very close to a city.

 

[Thormodr]

Yes, that's how it would work against the AI. Multiplayer, naturally, is going to be far more varied. But look around in the thread, almost everybody who is denouncing 1UPT is doing it on the basis of, "Since the AI can't use it properly, it shouldn't be." Well, the AI can't take full advantage of the 1UPT model, nor did they take full advantage of the Stacks model. Why pick on the new system so much, especially when it works terrifically better in Multiplayer than Stacks?

Sure, in Singleplayer with 1UPT you can easily just surround a city, bombard it with farther away ranged units, and then take it with a melee unit or far away high movement unit, but back with Stacks fighting against the AI was even easier. 1UPT adds more depth both to Singleplayer and Multiplayer, and once the AI is updated, or made, to handle it appropriately, or even just better, nobody will even think to say that Stacks were better.



That's mostly because of how cities are placed in Civ. Most people that I know place their cities, at maximum, ~6 tiles apart, with some placing them closer together. Naturally, most tiles are going to be very close to a city.

First of all, the AI is terrible at 1UPT. It is much better at MUPT/Stacks and it is much, much, much easier to program an AI to use MUPT. Jon Shafer said as much.

One of the biggest challenges unearthed by 1UPT was writing a competent combat AI. I wasn't the one who developed this particular AI subsystem, and the member of the team who was tasked with this did a great job of making lemonade out of the design lemons I'd given him. Needless to say, programming an AI which can effectively maneuver dozens of units around in extremely tactically-confined spaces is incredibly difficult.

Second of all, multiplayer is still unstable and buggy for Civilization 5. They don't seem inclined to improve it much, either.

If anyone is living under the delusion that 1UPT AI (if they make the massive mistake of using it in Civ VI) is going to be significantly better in the future, they need to snap out of it. It isn't financially worth it for the company and a waste of resources.

As Jon Shafer said:

Shafer immediately responded to Chick, saying, "I don't think it makes financial sense to make great AI," arguing that budgets can be more efficiently allocated to other areas of development.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/33374/GDC_2011_Strategy_Game_Veterans_Look_At_The_Genres_Biggest_Challenges.php

Anyway, Jon Shafer, who does actually know what he's talking about, admitted that 1UPT was a lemon. It just doesn't work with a Civ style game and that it is incredibly difficult to program one to work even if it was a good idea. It is nice to see that in Jon Shafer's upcoming game, At the Gates, he is not using 1UPT. Lesson learned. MUPT for Civ VI and be creative about it.

 

[Talcove]

Jon Shafer was just looking for attention for his new game and trying to differentiate it from his previous, vastly more recognizable and profitable project. "Yeah, Civ 5 was alright, but MY game is going to be totally different. Oh, and Civ 4 fans who can't get used to 1UPT and own't play Civ 5, check out my game, it has Stacks! You love Stacks, right? Because my game has tons of them!!!"

 

[Thormodr]

Jon Shafer was just looking for attention for his new game and trying to differentiate it from his previous, vastly more recognizable and profitable project. "Yeah, Civ 5 was alright, but MY game is going to be totally different. Oh, and Civ 4 fans who can't get used to 1UPT and own't play Civ 5, check out my game, it has Stacks! You love Stacks, right? Because my game has tons of them!!!"

Actually he didn't mention that he had stacks. He had an alpha gameplay video for At the Gates and you could observe that you could stack units.

Here is the video. It does look like a pretty promising game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do-RQpQ3rDI

I admire Jon Shafer's honesty that 1UPT is a lemon and a big mistake and that it is not feasible or reasonable for Firaxis to develop a competent AI to use it even half decently.

Hopefully the Civ VI developers will see the wisdom in that and devote much more resources to more important things.

 

[Vohbo]

There are a number of problems with that AI that should be extremely easy to fix, like unit shuffling and making poor trades. That would help a lot.

To be honest, 1 upt works fine in Civ 5 as long as the terrain isn't horrible. Once the terrain becomes horrible the system becomes a mess.
In Beyond Earth, the terrains is ALWAYS horrible, with the chasms, miasmi and so on.

 

[Iduakil]

Just to throw in my 2 cents. I`ve started out with the Civ franchise as a 10 years old kid on my Amiga CDTV with Civilization 1 - fun times, no saving option on that piece of equipment , just a rush to get as deep in the tech tree as possible. Civilization 1 and 2 MUPT were a bit brutal. Civ3 and 4 made it a bit better but ultimately this change lead to infamous SoD. I must say I`m kind of neutral on 1UPT, it is a possitive change, make no mistake SoD were terrible but as some moders have shown there are ways to make them better. For example in Realism Invictus (older version I played, I don`t know how the mod looks currently) you get a cap on the MUPT and also units in the stack itself provide bonuses to the stack making the composition of the stack a challenging and fun mechanic f.e. you can make siege stacks, battle stacks, ranged stacks.

I`m a realist (or a pesimist) that Firaxis won`t improve 1UPT AI to make it actually working as it should. On that basis I prefer they go back to MUPT but tweak it to make it actually working and fun. There are simple ways to do it!

My personal opinion of CBE? I`m dissapointed but like the game, the enviroment thus I give it a 6/10 ...... It just annyos me to hell that they had to bring back the vanilla Civ5 mechanics, ICS (no health bonus linked with city pop), diplomacy trade/instant declare war exploit. One thing I don`t understand also, if the tech web has some graphical tiers (I mean the rings that are clearly visible) why the hell you allow to pick techs from higher tier as free from various bonuses????!!!

 

[Thormodr]

There are a number of problems with that AI that should be extremely easy to fix, like unit shuffling and making poor trades. That would help a lot.

To be honest, 1 upt works fine in Civ 5 as long as the terrain isn't horrible. Once the terrain becomes horrible the system becomes a mess.
In Beyond Earth, the terrains is ALWAYS horrible, with the chasms, miasmi and so on.

Well, I disagree that it is an easy fix. If it was then you'd have a fantastic 1UPT AI. As it stands, it's like taking candy from a baby fighting the AI. It's been over 4 years and the AI is still poor.

Go with a creative MUPT. Besides having an AI that can actually use it effectively as another benefit, it'll take out the tedious unit shuffling/sliding puzzle abomination, which is about as much fun as cleaning up pollution in Civ I.

 

[glider1]

I think people should not focus so much on 1UPT or MUPT, but how to get combat to happen away from cities into the field. So far both 1UPT and MUPT experiments have been too city centric.

 

[telekinetic136]

I played all the games and I prefer 1upt to the old way however I hope they think outside the box and come up with new solutions that are different then what we have been presented with. I am happy with how civ V went and Civ:BE but I hope when civ 6 comes out we see something new and outside the box.

 

[Magean]

I started playing the franchise with Civ IV. But I didn't enjoy the military system very much. I played, like, 90% peaceful builder.

With Civ V, as bad as the AI was with 1up, I finally found interest in building a military and waging war consistently during the game.

So... easy pick for me.

 

[Pyramid Head]

Every one who preaches about how 1UPT is awesome and two Civ failures with it is just an accident ignore the fact that Aplha Centauri handled MUPT without stacks of doom.
The answer is a simple mechanic - Collateral damage. From EVERY unit, not CivIV way with catastacks. Artillery is the only unit that could shoot 2 tiles.
CivV? Archers could shoot further than Mobile infantry.
With AC MUPT stacking is a risky strategy, there's no CivV-like severe dumbing down of combat mechanics and cutting the corners - you could stack, you could use one unit only, whatever you like.
Firaxis prefers simple and cheap solutions in a Electronic Arts style. Why design or invent happiness system just make on euniversal variable? Why design good AI when we can invest in better graphics? Why create automation system when we can force player to manually issue orders to his 20 cities? Why balance wide vs tall game styles when we can make some crude adjustments?

 

[Ikael]

I also started with Civ II all the way thru Civ IV BtS before jumping into 1UPT of Civ:BE (totally skipped CiV for many reasons) and I have to emphatically disagree with your assessment.

1UPT is extremely limiting in terms of strategic options and gameplay. And there will always be complaints about AI competency.

One of the Modders of Civ BtS who put 1UPT in his mod, and a well known mod at that, removed it when he came back to his mod after his stint of CiV. To me that speaks volumes over this debate (that will most likely go on forever ).

We have 1UPT in BE whether you like it on not ( I don't like it), but I'll still try to adapt my gameplay to it. But after 4 games started and none finished I'm having reservations over the holding power of the game.

JosEPh

We agree to disagree then I get your sentiment, because yes, 1UPT is limiting, but that's the point: since you are limited to employ one unit and one unit only per tile, you are forced to make choices and pick your batttles / scenarios.

I personally found war and the combat in Civ IV as downright tedious, if not boring. It was more of an industrial arms race of stack VS stack rather than any kind of meaningful military engagement. No maneuver, no positioning, only unit composition and arms race. Well, that, and lots of repetitive micromanagement with little to no decision involved :/

I think that the solution might be at a healthy middle point between the two options, like the one suggested by Civilization Revolution. Perhaps a maximum cap of 2 different units per tile coupled with heavy attack bonuses for surrounding stacks from several angles could be the answer to that.

 

[Aeson]

Supply systems are both confusing (if you don't get them) and frustrating (when you do - and then you have to plan around the tedium of going through a jungle chokepoint). Of course, 1UPT is a sort of supply system in itself, but I'd rather a simple replacement over a complex one.

Miasma is also a form of supply. As are various healing modifiers. The only difference is you'd have modifiers for stacking.

Any supply modifiers can be shown like any other modifier. (eg. Combat STR -15% for 3 units on tile). There is already this level of complexity in the game (many systems far more complex) so I can't see it as a problem. Not anymore than having terrain modifiers in general is a problem.

The Jungle chokepoint isn't a point in favor of 1UPT either ... with 1UPT, even unopposed it's a tedious clickfest ... and against any semblance of opposition, essentially impossible.

 

[jokii]

Yes, that's how it would work against the AI. Multiplayer, naturally, is going to be far more varied. But look around in the thread, almost everybody who is denouncing 1UPT is doing it on the basis of, "Since the AI can't use it properly, it shouldn't be." Well, the AI can't take full advantage of the 1UPT model, nor did they take full advantage of the Stacks model. Why pick on the new system so much, especially when it works terrifically better in Multiplayer than Stacks?


If Firaxis had chosen to improve MUPT, Civ would be much better game than now is, and more importantly, it would have a future.
They will never fix 1UPT AI. It is just to complicated. Maybe in 15-20 years....
Civ 6 will suck the same with AI. You can place safe bet on that.