1UPT - final verdict?

[Teproc]

- This might seem somewhat arrogant, but I get the impression that we get this whole discussion because the tactics are much more apparent in Civ5/BE than in Civ4/SMAC, so the "casuals" get to feel like real armchair generals without having to learn a lot of combat mechanics - while with only a superficial glance they fail to see the tactical possibilities of SMAC (and Civ4?). (And people that don't like warfare can almost ignore it and focus their efforts on empire building.)

So, what's wrong with that ? How dare they makea mechanic that is fun for everyone, not just for people who dive hours upon hours into the game !

- The general "dumbing down" was a big factor in attracting so many people to Civ5... while the (pre-Civ5) Civfanatics (sadly, for us) are just not Firaxis target group anymore (weirdly, BE's tech web is probably one with the most strategic possibilities / the hardest to get into among 4X games)=

The famous "dumbing down" argument again. Please back that up. How is CiV dumbed down ?

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Because there are few important decisions to make overall and less things to keep track of. Inept AI removes a lot of the challenge too.

A simple example dumbing down is tying science to population, so the optimal strategy is a no brainer: more pop = more beakers. In Civ IV science is a derivative of commerce and commerce is a competing priority with growth, military and production. Commerce impedes expansion in the early game so you're always juggling the need to expand with the need to tech and grow, produce and maintain an army.

In Civ V the only relevant balancing act is between growth and happiness. Get those two values in sync (and its trivial because happiness is not based on tiles or clever play, but mostly on buildings and social policies anyone can take/build) and you're done. The game does much of the work for you because trade routes compensate for bad city placement. Military is not a concern most of the time.

 

[mnf]

Then you're just talking about how to manage stacking.

I see what you're saying. The moment we want more granular control, we're essentially using a MUPT system.

Stalingrad equals a city.
Fit 300k German troops into the battle, plus the Russians. If you can do that with 1UPT, let me know. Let me know if you can do that with 20 tiles. Fact is 1UPT is a failure as a strategic concept.

The problem is what I said before. The city is abstracted at a much higher scale than military units. In terms of the current unit scaling, it's more like the whole 3-tile radius of each city forming the city itself, and invading forces need to take each tile. What Civ is doing, is forgoing all that process and just use the combat results of one tile (the city tile) to represent the whole battle.

Take the scale of 1 tile representing 1 city, then I accept that MUPT (given current unit designs) is more realistic. At least it's more fitting to how the Civ game uses 1 tile to represent a whole city.

In this case I would be against MUPT for gameplay reasons. Yes the SOD style is realistic (that's exactly how modern wars are won) but if things get down to that, we might as well simplify that SOD down to one unit because there's nothing tactical about SODs, and there's no longer any strategic decision after you've got the SOD produced. (Well, where to send it is a strategic decision.)

Although there really is nothing tactical about Civ battles, if we really look at it. The one who has more resources eventually wins the battle, and that is a purely strategic concern.

Besides realities regarding scaling, what else make the MUPT battles more preferable to 1UPT battles?

 

[BlueTemplar]

So, what's wrong with that ? How dare they makea mechanic that is fun for everyone, not just for people who dive hours upon hours into the game !

Really, nothing... except that one could hope that a game called Civilization is going to go farther than just provide mindless fun.
There's also the issue that I'm pretty sure that Alpha Centauri's MUPT combat mechanics provide fun for a wider variety of people than Civ5/BE's 1UPT.

The famous "dumbing down" argument again. Please back that up. How is CiV dumbed down ?

I've already did, regarding combat, especially compared to Alpha Centauri. Your turn.

 

[Teproc]

Calling CiV "mindless fun" is so incredibly tone-deaf it's just hilarious.

1UPT is certainly not dumbing down, it's just different. The AI is bad at it, yes, but that's not dumbing down, I would argue it's more difficult for the average player to figure out combat in 1UPT than with stacks.

As for Drowsy Emperor's argument about science being tied to population making it an obvious strategy... that's not dumbing down either, that's a balance problem.

Dumbing down is taking mechanics and making them simpler, losing srategic depth in the process. You might not like CiV because it made very significant changes and that's fine, but it's not a "dumbed down" game, just a different one.

 

[Civking5]

Because there are few important decisions to make overall and less things to keep track of. Inept AI removes a lot of the challenge too.

A simple example dumbing down is tying science to population, so the optimal strategy is a no brainer: more pop = more beakers. In Civ IV science is a derivative of commerce and commerce is a competing priority with growth, military and production. Commerce impedes expansion in the early game so you're always juggling the need to expand with the need to tech and grow....

You are totally wrong here, and it shows that you really don't understand the mechanics in civ5.

Yes, science is linked to population in civ5, but population is also linked to happiness, and happiness doesn't come easily, and needs careful balancing...

 

[BroOfTheSun]

Has anyone brought up the concept of limits to MUPT? Like a single tile can only support 2-3 units. Maybe have it so that terrain determines how many units can be on a single tile. It's not so much stacks of doom, or limited to just one unit per tile.

I feel like you should be able to mod this into the game. If only I had a machine that can stop time, so I can spend it modding instead of being at the office...

 

[_hero_]

I don't like either system. I'd prefer a more realistic system where population is a factor in your military, not just production. That would pave the way for having your military form armies rather than stacks. Armies would require more than just gold/energy to maintain. They need supplies as well. Armies that are too big have limited mobility and if you combine everything into one mega army you lose the ability to flank your enemy and to control territory.

 

[Antilogic]

So I've been intending to do a longer post here for awhile, mostly to flesh out the criticism I posted before on the combat and unit design as lazy and to address some of the apparently common defenses of 1UPT/MUPT. Instead of a mass of confusing quote-responses, I'll sort the thoughts by heading here:

Strategy, Operations, Tactics

At heart, Civ has always been a strategy game. You set a long-term objective, and leverage your starting position, resources, units, etc. to reach it. There are specific tactics that can be used in service of that goal, but it's not a tactical game, whether a tactical wargame or a tactical trading game, etc.

When you fight a war in Civ, you are basically working the operational level--you allocate resources and troops to a front, you oversee the marching campaigns, you promote your units with a particular doctrine in mind, but you don't fight the battles; you just see the odds and the results afterwards. The "tactics" people talk about, whether 1UPT maneuvering or MUPT stack positioning, aren't. There's not a more polite way to put it.

Lazy Design/Problems with Prior MUPT

Thus, this brings me to the core problem Civ has. It is a strategic/operational game series that religiously refuses to implement or improve upon game mechanics in this direction. The only serious rule I can think of is Civ2's zone of control, which was an interesting step that was initially removed then added back into Civ3 in a very confusing fashion. Bombardment has been handled in a schizophrenic way over the course of the series, from suicide cats to WW1-style tile barrages to superhuman archers launching arrow barrages 100 miles away.

The ideas they have never explored would have naturally limited stack sizes like supply chains. Farmland and railroads can support more troops passing through than the Alps, that should be reflected in an operational game. The units have always been of ambiguous size and any sort of army organization has been missing in all but Civ3 where you had armies formed out of multiple units. There is no reason why Civ shouldn't try to model at, say, the brigade level for a manageable number of units, and then allow players to build command structures that simplify their warmongering. There's no reason why we shouldn't have simultaneous turn execution--you give your generals orders to carry out, then everyone starts moving at once and you see if your attack was well-placed. The stacking doesn't necessarily take into account frontage, which is a Thing. Oh yeah, why don't stacks fight as one instead of the silly gladiator model we have been stuck with for years? There is not even a separate consideration for the number of troops (unit strength) and how ready those troops are to fight (i.e. cohesion, organization, morale, Bueller, Bueller?)...

I can go on, nearly forever.

1UPT

So much to write here... the first is about scaling. Awhile back, I did the calculations for what a tile on a Civ4 map represented when scaled to the globe (it was on the order of hundreds to ten-thousands of square miles depending on map scale), which is a huge chunk of land that could fit millions. The spatial crowding argument is frankly a load of bull that over-corrects the frontage problem. So is the idea of limiting stacks to sending out one gladiator per turn. Which is why it pains me so much to see it, because there is a real thing that could be addressed here but instead it's done in a ham-handed way.

The ramble-comment zone: Aeson addressed some of the abstraction issues here already, I'm in agreement there. The argument against limited units per tile (LUPT?) in favor of 1UPT basically ignores the solution to Civ's real problems for imagined shuffling problems, Santoo appropriately notes that you don't have infinite units and resources to shuffle optimally before combat every time. Lucius's note on soft units needing to be squishy can be accomplished in different combat models than the gladiator system and positioning is important outside of 1UPT system. At least some vets like TMIT made that point. Same on the luck v. skill thing.

Abstraction

This leads me to my final point: I understand the Civ systems are abstracted, and I advocate for abstracting real-world phenomena in games like these because you can only fit so much in before it becomes confusing and unplayable. It's not realism for realism's sake, it's not abstraction for abstraction's sake, it's abstractions that are intuitive and fun. 1UPT and the prior-implemented MUPT don't meet this standard.



Also:

One note though. 1 unit IS an army, likely representing an entire platoon. Some people here apparently think a swordsman is only representing 10 guys or something.

Well played, buddy.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Calling CiV "mindless fun" is so incredibly tone-deaf it's just hilarious.

1UPT is certainly not dumbing down, it's just different. The AI is bad at it, yes, but that's not dumbing down, I would argue it's more difficult for the average player to figure out combat in 1UPT than with stacks.

As for Drowsy Emperor's argument about science being tied to population making it an obvious strategy... that's not dumbing down either, that's a balance problem.

Dumbing down is taking mechanics and making them simpler, losing srategic depth in the process. You might not like CiV because it made very significant changes and that's fine, but it's not a "dumbed down" game, just a different one.

They took a mechanic and made it simpler. Science managment is simpler in Civ V than Civ IV, and since that's such a big part of the game, the game itself is simpler. Its not just simpler because its easier (which adds to it) its simpler because there are less factors to consider and balance at the same time.

Civ IV

Science = commerce

Commerce = tile yields + trade

Tiles need to balance growth/production/commerce related improvements and all of this must be balanced with expansion.


Civ V

Science = population

Population = growth & happiness

Happiness does not depend on tile yields (it depends on finite, easily replicated rote building from game to game)

Growth does not depend exclusively on tile yields once trade routes are up, which are another rote building task that is a no brainer. Its not a strategic choice, if you're building them every game you play. And you're going to do that every time since its the only right choice.

=system that's much easier to manage with less decision making and much more forgiving


That is called removing strategic depth, which an apologist would call streamlining and a "hater" dumbing down. The terminology doesn't matter, but that's what it is.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Yes, science is linked to population in civ5, but population is also linked to happiness, and happiness doesn't come easily, and needs careful balancing...

How does happiness need careful balancing when half of the happiness improving modifiers are basically free (social policies, luxuries, religion, occasional natural wonder) and the other half are buildings available to everyone and practically obligatory due to the way the tech tree is designed?

 

[Antilogic]

The choice of whether to take a unit of commerce and invest it in science, gold, culture, or espionage does carry a significant opportunity cost. However, for most players, increasing population is a trivial decision until you reach the happiness limit.

 

[BlueTemplar]

Please, this is a thread about 1UPT/MUPT, if you talk about the Civ5/BE happiness/health mechanic, at least say how it relates to 1UPT (and don't talk about it here if it doesn't).

@Teproc :
Yes, I'm saying that tactical combat has been dumbed down in Civ5 (and specifically Civ:BE, we should probably be concentrating on it, since it's Civ:BE's forum) compared to Alpha Centauri. I've yet to see a single comment about how Alpha Centuri's MUPT mechanic makes for a tactically worse game than Civ:BE's 1UPT. I'm waiting...

@BroOfTheSun :
Limits to MUPT have been brought up multiple times, there's a widely-implemented Civ4 modmod that does it, but I'm not sure that's the best way to solve Civ4 MUPT-related issues.
AFAIK there's also a MUPT mod for Civ5, but I don't know how well it works.

@Antilogic :
Sorry, but I feel you're overthinking it. I'm using "strategy" to talk about how you produce units, and what units you produce (eventually how and where you move them before contact with the enemy), and "tactics" about what you do with the units during the contact with the enemy. Since in Civilization games combat takes place in the strategic map, the two can sometimes become intermingled, but I doubt I'm the only one using these terms that way.
Again, the fact that you didn't mention Alpha Centauri comforts me in thinking that the solution is there, it's just that most people aren't aware of it.
If you make stacks fight as one (IIRC some Civ4 mods kind of allow that), then you remove most of the tactics coming from the order of moving and attacking units.

 

[Antilogic]

@Antilogic :
Sorry, but I feel you're overthinking it. I'm using "strategy" to talk about how you produce units, and what units you produce (eventually how and where you move them before contact with the enemy), and "tactics" about what you do with the units during the contact with the enemy. Since in Civilization games combat takes place in the strategic map, the two can sometimes become intermingled, but I doubt I'm the only one using these terms that way.
Again, the fact that you didn't mention Alpha Centauri comforts me in thinking that the solution is there, it's just that most people aren't aware of it.
If you make stacks fight as one (IIRC some Civ4 mods kind of allow that), then you remove most of the tactics coming from the order of moving and attacking units.

I am a huge fan of Alpha Centauri, decided not to focus my post around that since other people are talking about it. I even saw a mention of AGEOD earlier in the thread, which has been my go-to for wargaming recently.

But I'm trying to use the terms strategy, operations, and tactics as a military historian would understand them to frame the discussion. The use of strategy is appropriate, but what you are calling "tactics" is an operational-level decision on how to carry out your campaign. Any real-world tactics is handled by Civ with a series of randomly-generated numbers that determine the outcome of gladiatorial combat.

I disagree with the assertion that stack combat eliminates the movement-attack aspect, especially if you look at games with turn-based simultaneous-execution mechanics like AGEOD's line. I'm also emphasizing the ideas at the strategic and operational level because I think the focus on the "tactics" of moving and attacking units in a particular order is misplaced, and the attention heaped on to this vestigial element is inhibiting real innovation on the strategic/operational levels where this series should shine.

 

[Ghpstage]

I would argue it's more difficult for the average player to figure out combat in 1UPT than with stacks.

This thread would suggest otherwise. Afterall, almost all of the technical criticism of stack combat that has been made here has amounted to bigger stack = win, an argument which displays a total failure of understanding stack warfare.

 

[Antilogic]

This thread would suggest otherwise. Afterall, almost all of the technical criticism of stack combat that has been made here has amounted to bigger stack = win, an argument which displays a total failure of understanding stack warfare.

There's also a self-selection problem, as with most internet polls and discussion threads.

 

[BlueTemplar]

Ok, you got me, now I'm the one that doesn't feel competent enough for the discussion...

I'll try using th term "operations" instead of "tactics", but I fear that it's mostly going to cause confusion in non-wargaming circles.

I'll have to believe you about AGEOD and simultaneous-execution mechanics, if you say it works there, then it would at least be interesting to see a different system like this tried in a 4X game (in a game with no separate "tactical" combat) (we already got a lot of other ideas coming from wargames, latest being hexes and 1UPT, why not this?)

 

[Antilogic]

Ok, you got me, now I'm the one that doesn't feel competent enough for the discussion...

I'll try using th term "operations" instead of "tactics", but I fear that it's mostly going to cause confusion in non-wargaming circles.

I'll have to believe you about AGEOD and simultaneous-execution mechanics (in a game with no separate "tactical" combat), if you say it works there, then it would at least be interesting to see a different system like this tried in a 4X game (we already got a lot of other ideas coming from wargames, latest being hexes and 1UPT, why not this?)

It might cause confusion, and I don't especially begrudge the use of the word tactics because it does have a different meaning for regular gaming that is appropriate to use for Civ. But thinking about the Civ game temporarily in a different language gives you a different perspective on what it could be.

AGEOD is rockin'. I might put together an AAR on this forum for the Civil War game in the near future. The simultaneous execution is awesome because you plan marches, assaults, etc. over a 15-day period and then let the generals you assigned try to carry them out while your opponent does the same. I've had cases where I've issued assault orders and taken the fortress, only to have my troops exhausted when the enemy shows up four days later and whips me far worse than I would have liked. I've had cases where both of sides try to seize territories with a river border to build good defensive lines. Building a proper chain of command can also let you spread out troops and have them "MTSG" (march to the sound of the guns) so they concentrate for a major battle, with the strategic ratings for your generals determining who gets their reinforcements in time. It can also cause massive battles where you may not have intended--I sent a cavalry corps into an unoccupied territory the same time my opponent marched in with over 80,000 troops, and of course all my troops came to support and we had a Gettysburg-like battle on our hands.

It's a masterwork of building tension and then releasing it in a wave of elation. Or despair. Usually despair.

 

[Thormodr]

It might cause confusion, and I don't especially begrudge the use of the word tactics because it does have a different meaning for regular gaming that is appropriate to use for Civ. But thinking about the Civ game temporarily in a different language gives you a different perspective on what it could be.

AGEOD is rockin'. I might put together an AAR on this forum for the Civil War game in the near future. The simultaneous execution is awesome because you plan marches, assaults, etc. over a 15-day period and then let the generals you assigned try to carry them out while your opponent does the same. I've had cases where I've issued assault orders and taken the fortress, only to have my troops exhausted when the enemy shows up four days later and whips me far worse than I would have liked. I've had cases where both of sides try to seize territories with a river border to build good defensive lines. Building a proper chain of command can also let you spread out troops and have them "MTSG" (march to the sound of the guns) so they concentrate for a major battle, with the strategic ratings for your generals determining who gets their reinforcements in time. It can also cause massive battles where you may not have intended--I sent a cavalry corps into an unoccupied territory the same time my opponent marched in with over 80,000 troops, and of course all my troops came to support and we had a Gettysburg-like battle on our hands.

It's a masterwork of building tension and then releasing it in a wave of elation. Or despair. Usually despair.

AGEOD is indeed excellent as far as a decent portrayal of warfare goes. Firaxis could definitely learn a thing or two from them and implement them to the betterment of the series.

 

[Antilogic]

The post-turn activation check is particularly challenging with the harsh activation rule, I think I'll play with it pre-turn right now.