1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

1UPT - final verdict?

Discussion in 'CivBE - General Discussions' started by santoo, Oct 27, 2014.

?

One unit per tile (1UPT) or multiple units per tile (MUPT)?

Poll closed Nov 10, 2014.
  1. I started out with 1UPT (e.g. CIV5) and prefer 1UPT

    44 vote(s)
    10.0%
  2. I started out with 1UPT (e.g. CIV5) and prefer MUPT

    6 vote(s)
    1.4%
  3. I stated out with MUPT (e.g. SMAC) and prefer 1UPT

    244 vote(s)
    55.2%
  4. I stated out with MUPT (e.g. SMAC) and prefer MUPT

    148 vote(s)
    33.5%
  1. Senethro

    Senethro Overlord

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    4,800
    Location:
    The cutest of cephalopods
    Funny that, I thought it was supposed to be a game intentionally designed to be fun, rather than a sandbox in which you have to find your own.

    Maybe its the presence of roughly symmetrical players all competing to achieve victory conditions that create this illusion.
     
  2. vandyr

    vandyr Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    Messages:
    351
    Have to absolutely agree with this.
     
  3. Aeson

    Aeson orangesoda Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,686
    My standard (on Apollo) is that whatever victory condition I'm going towards, the world is also mine. The victory conditions themselves are all cheesey and with no real meaning outside the game mechanics.

    You don't have to play that way, but claiming I'm "doing it wrong" in regards to offensive warfare because my empire is much larger than your's is rather absurd.

    It has to be a very large bonus to have any chance at working. A small percentage is going to be just that ... a small effect.

    I didn't say it was a slog. I said it was repetitive and boring because there's no risk or challenge to it.

    I've already explained in other threads how you can remain Utopian Health even while conquering AI cities like mad.

    I haven't said I'm not having fun. I have said the opposite several times on this forum.

    And you are now trying to twist what you said. You said having more than 10 units meant you were doing it wrong tactically. Then you spend pages trying to "prove" that, failing completely. Now you want to pretend you never meant it was tactically wrong, but only in regards to fun ... by making up statements that are the exact opposite of what I've said.

    Not that what you're trying to twist your statement to mean is any better. If you are trying to say that the game cannot be fun with more than 10 units ... you are horribly wrong.
     
  4. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    I'm having trouble parsing the idea that you think that the warfare is both boring and fun at the same time.
     
  5. Aeson

    Aeson orangesoda Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,686
    That is because you are confusing part and whole. A game is not one giant binary switch where everything that comprises it must be all uniformly either fun or not fun.

    When I say the tactics in Civ 1UPT are shallow, repetitive, and boring ... that applies to tactics. Civ is a strategic game much more than a tactics game. The higher level strategy can still be fun even if aspects of the tactics/micromanagement to implement that strategy are tedious.

    Having to click on a unit each turn to ensure it gets from point A to point B efficiently is not fun. There is no real thought or strategy to it, it's just additional clicking. That's because for a human, pathing is rather simple.

    Having an AI that cannot compete is also not fun. It doesn't mean that developing the overarching strategy to build the largest empire fastest isn't fun ... it's just less fun than it should be because one aspect of the gameplay is failing.

    Avoiding these things is also not an option for me, since sitting in 5-10 cities and hitting end turn is even less fun.

    What I would hope is for a Civ game which gives a strong AI opponent, interesting choices, and minimizes senseless repetition. 1UPT takes the game in the opposite direction though. It cuts the choices down, devastates the AI, and increases senseless repetition.
     
  6. Kutuzov

    Kutuzov Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Messages:
    362
    And so it goes on, and on, and on.

    I think we've registered by now that some folks don't like 1UPT and that others do and that we are absolutely NEVER going to convince the other side that our side is better no matter how detailed and thought out our posts are. But it's fun to argue I suppose.

    FWIW, I really doubt that Civ 6 will have 1UPT. I'm going to put my money on Armies.
     
  7. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Excellent, excellent post. Let's hope Civ VI is that game. :)
     
  8. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I sincerely hope that you are right. Armies seem like the right choice. :)
     
  9. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    I wouldn't be so optimistic. The reason the AI still needs a gigantic stack is that it's no better at stack combat than it is at 1UPT. If it were any good, it could compete on an even level. To me, at least, it presents a more interesting obstacle as a 1 UPT target, but it appears some people find stack attacking more interesting. For reasons.

    Civ3's AI was infamously bad at Armies. I'd expect about that level of stupidity from any new AI involving Army combat.
     
  10. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,241
    Location:
    Indiana
    Why was that? Was it because the AI did not know how to create a strong army so it would often move stacks of single units around that could have been more powerful if it were an army? If armies were created automatically, would this help the AI?
     
  11. Kutuzov

    Kutuzov Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Messages:
    362
    Oh, I'm not expecting the AI to be better at using armies. I just don't think they'll stick with 1UPT as it stands. But I could be wrong. It's been known to happen. :cool:

    As you said earlier, I think the best way to make the AI more challenging is to give it actual combat bonuses either as a replacement for, or to supplement the production and tech bonuses it receives. Say +50% modifier to combat stats per difficulty level above standard.
     
  12. Aeson

    Aeson orangesoda Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,686
    The biggest problem with Armies in Civ III was that there was a switch in the AI where it wouldn't attack full strength Armies. This was the key to beating Sid most of the time ... since as long as you kept a full-strength Army on the stack you were invincible.

    The other key to beating Sid was the AI needed to destroy it's economy with unit maintenance. Which it often did.

    The AI itself did silly things with Armies (2 Knights, 1 Archer), but those were less important.
     
  13. Syailendra

    Syailendra Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    420
    Location:
    south east asian jungle
    this problem is managable using great generals system. Imagine that you must create an army under a general and he got maximum UPT (maybe 3 units then more when the general levels up). No general means that stacked unit will receive attrition (also applied when too many units is stacked under a general). Later, the AI must understand that a general is a hot target.
     
  14. Chinese American

    Chinese American Hamtastic Knight

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Messages:
    432
    Location:
    Chinatown, USA
    I play Civ because it's an empire building game, not a tactics game. Especially disgusted when they build the game around this subpar tactical subsystem (Civ 5) but ruin every other empire building subsystem just to cater to the weakest link.

    Frankly, most 1UPT games I've played (incl. FFT, Advance Wars, Battle of Wesnoth, etc.) were pretty dull even when they executed it much better than Civ 5. The worst part in Civ 5 is that most units can move only 1 or 2 hexes. It became I spent more time micro-moving my units just to make sure they're not wasting moves. Obviously, I can't move many of them together as a group. :rolleyes: Don't even get me started regarding sending an army across water. Loads of fun there.

    Meanwhile, I totally lost interest in managing my cities, because frankly, cities aren't remotely as interesting or important as previous Civ games. Heck even in Civ Rev, city management is more interesting and crucial.

    Besides, there are many much better, much funner alternatives to 1UPT. For that matter, one of my favorite combat system is Warlords series (not Battlecry). Each tile can hold up to 9 units. You can group or stack them in any number of subsets (i.e. so they move together). Two stacks fight until one stack is annihilated. Units had all sorts of different attack values, abilities, modifiers, bonuses and maluses, etc. So group composition was very important.
     
  15. taxguyz

    taxguyz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    Milwaukee
    This is my second post to civfanatics (my first post was to civBE - Ideas & suggestions today on 11-15-2014 which was also on the 1upt topic). I have not been on this site except for yesterday (11-14-2014) since 10-7-2010. I have played civ 1&2&3&4&5&civBE.

    I believe that civBE could use 1UPT better if it would allow the purchase of single unit promotions (or other single unit improvements) with energy, especially allowing a single unit to be healed at a cost of 100 energy. Another "minor promotion" (which would cost 100 energy) would be to allow a single unit that is completely healed to increase its combat or ranged strength by 10 percent. This promotion already occurs in civBE when a unit gets enough experience in combat.

    A "major promotion" (which would cost 500 energy) could include giving a ranged unit (for example, the ranger) a weak melee attack so that it could capture a city that has already been reduced to zero hit points. Another "major promotion" could include giving a melee unit (for example, the soldier) a ranged attack with the minimum possible range of one hex. The machine gun in civ 5 brave new world has this one hex limited ranged attack. In additon, the cruiser ranged naval unit could be given a weak melee attack with a "major promotion" so that it could capture a city already reduced to zero hit points.

    This change would allow a military unit to be more useful in more kinds of situations, but not change it so much so that it loses its identity completely. A melee unit will still be the best with melee attacks. A ranged unit will still be the best at ranged attacks.

    In a civ 5 brave new world scenario (the american civil war), with the right technology, a usa infantry division can be upgraded (at a cost of money and a american civil war resource called "manpower") into a usa infantry corps which more than doubles its combat strength. Therefore, this upgrading has already worked before and can work again.
     
  16. santoo

    santoo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    83
    A question for those who have played both civ5/be, as well as earlier iterations of civ somewhat extensively: is there a difference in scale?
    I had never really thought about it that way until my last game, but in earlier civs/smac, I often have empires with hundred(s of) cities. I have not played as much civ5/be, but I think it feels... smaller?
    I'm not sure whether that was true for the game itself - I couldn't fathom 100+ cities without several/distinct build-queues, I couldn't imagine managing unit-pathing across sprawling, civillian-filled empires, so I may have adapted my playstyle/mapsize-preference and get an unfair impression of the games respective "sizes".
     
  17. kirbdog

    kirbdog King

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2005
    Messages:
    898
    Civ IV and Civ V attempted to encourage the player to think carefully about the tradeoff involved in founding new cities. CivBE has essentially returned to the old "land grab" model where space is to be consumed if it exists and can be settled.

    There were many grumblings about the stale gameplay involved in ye olde settler spam early game, so the Civ IV/V attempts can be seen as a response to player feedback. So can CivBE, from the people who liked it how it was.
     
  18. Quintillus

    Quintillus Archiving Civ3 Content Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2007
    Messages:
    6,340
    Location:
    Columbus
    The other problem with armies (the army unit, that is) in Civ3 is that there's a bug in the final Conquests expansion where the AI essentially doesn't build them due to not knowing how to cope with the army move bonus. So it winds up being at a disadvantage due to not building any armies as well. In Play the World, where the armies don't get a movement bonus, the AI will build them, and thus is on a considerably closer-to-even playing field. It's among the reasons that some Civ3 players prefer Play the World to Conquests.

    Although you may know more about the nuances of it than I do, as I've never won at a level above Emperor. But the point being, the army concept could be done considerably better with a few relatively minor tweaks to the AI, whereas it's far from clear that 1 UPT could be done considerably better with a few minor tweaks.

    Personally I prefer the strategic elements of MUPT to the tactical focus with 1 UPT, with the tediousness of 1 UPT and the poor AI handling of it being compounding factors. But as for the poll, it's inherently biased by the forum it's in, so it's hardly authoritative. You'd probably have quite different results if it were in the Civ4 forum.

    The switch towards a more land-grab strategy in BE does make it somewhat more appealing to me.
     
  19. Recon Rover

    Recon Rover Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2014
    Messages:
    208
    Location:
    Canada
    I really dislike the one unit per tile system. It is one of the reasons I dislike Civilization 5 so much. I could accept a compromise on the amount of units per tile however one is annoying.

    I sometimes wonder if this idea of making the game tactically more in depth with one unit per tile, which is isn't, is some sort of cop-out for a game that can't deal with thousands of units in it without long loading times.
     
  20. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,807
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    The game engine can't support thousands of units or huge maps for that matter. It just bogs the game down horribly. So perhaps 1UPT was forced upon Jon Shafer and he took the fall for it. :sad:

    Hopefully with a 64 bit Civ VI, they won't have these constraints and they'll be able to develop a game with MUPT with certain limitations or 1APT (1 Army per tile).
     

Share This Page