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. Fabien

    Fabien Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Only if you have enough surface area, which is not always the case, especially in the early eras (Forests, hills etc) and cavalary is usually worth it as well (1-2 Units). Some cities on Civ 5 cannot be taken early because of the surrounding Terrain and because it would funel your army in such a way that you'd simply loose. Even this aspect is completely missing in MUPT a la Civ4.

    My handling of Civ4 Sods was merely mechanical - you didn't have to react to anything but another sod (if there even was one - most of the time the AI was waiting inside the City, which is iornically exactly the place where Units were the most vulnerable). Atleast in Civ 5 I have to think some things through before attacking.
     
  2. TheGrumpyBuddha

    TheGrumpyBuddha King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Messages:
    823
    Vote for 1UPT. I like the fact that terrain matters for war, even if it can be frustrating sometimes and even if the AI isn't very good at it. The AI will only get better, I think it'd be foolish (and boring) to go back to Stacks of Doom.
     
  3. Chaos Blade

    Chaos Blade Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    52
    Started with Civ 1, yeah I am that old. and I think I prefer Stacks of doom, I like the 1upt, but it is obvious that the units need more movility and bigger maps for it to work and then you have the way the AI manages the carpets of doom or rather the jams of doom to little effect while my ranged units start dealing their deadly cargo.

    No, without AI improvements, bigger maps, X64 architecture and a few other things I rather go back to stacks of doom.
    Though like somebody mentioned Call to power here, the army system is interesting and a solution to the mupt AND 1upt.
     
  4. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I started with mupt (specifically Civ2, which allowed you to stack to defend, but you still had to do it carefully because they could get wiped out when the top unit was killed). I was relieved in Civ3 when they stopped doing that. However, I got really bored of stacks of doom. To me, 1upt is a vastly more interesting approach. It makes combat actually fun.

    Obviously, it's too early to tell how the AI will handle his system. It uses a different balancing system for stacks of death (a supply/foraging system instead). We haven't seen multi-unit combat displayed just yet. It may be tedious. More likely, the game isn't going to have enough units for it to matter.
     
  5. Greizer85

    Greizer85 Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,210
    I'll give you this, but it's mostly because in Civ V mountains are impassable. If it were the case in Civ IV, too, then your stack could get similarly annihilated, if it was forced onto unfavorable terrain as a result of a narrow passage. The strength of numbers would matter some, of course, but due to collateral damage from Catapults etc the difference between the two situations wouldn't be all that drastic.
    But it's just tedium after a while, unless the AI makes a surprising movement (mostly as a result of its sheer hare-brainedness, and on the higher difficulties the overwhelming 'carpet' of units). --Did you play Civ IV with Blake's Better AI mod? It made a real difference in the AI's combat performance (imo). While the problem you describe still remained to some extent, combined with its bonuses the AI was a force to be reckoned with, provided you played at the appropriate difficulty. Granted that I may have somewhat rose-tinted glasses... It's been a long while since I played a game of Civ IV. I should re-install it and give it a whirl one of these days.

    If the AI could be made to understand it, even semi-adequately, then I agree btw that 1upt would be vastly superior to stacking. To respond to actual *plays* by the AI would be a whole different ball-game than to shoot down the back-and-forth milling imbecilles we're currently facing. The question is whether that's an achievable goal, or, more to the point, whether it's something that Firaxis is willing to do in Civ VI. I'd vote 'no' on both accounts, which is why I'm hoping for a return to stacks in some form. It's the lesser of two evils (strategically challenging yet 'boring' combat vs. tactically fun but brainlessly-easy-after-a-while combat).
     
  6. Lord Tirian

    Lord Tirian Erratic Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,724
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    You can get around that by adding more units as, in Civ 4, it had a damage limit and was only applied to a limited amount of units. As a result, it's beneficial to have one stack of 20 units over two stacks of 10 units.

    That's the issue with the Stack of Doom: the answer to every problem is always "stack more".
     
  7. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,886
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I started with MUPT and it's still infinitely better than 1UPT, IMHO.

    1UPT creates so many other problems with the game to avoid the dreaded carpet of doom that it utterly destroys the pacing for the game. Also sliding tactical puzzles to move you units around is flat out not fun. Not to mention the absurdity of not being able to have civilian units like great people stack with, say, a spaceship part. SMH.

    1UPT worked fine in Panzer General, which I loved, and Jon Shafer's intentions were good (he's a good guy and meant well) but it just doesn't work well in Civ games. It's like pounding a square peg into a round hole.

    I do hope that Firaxis understands this and comes up with a creative solution for Civ VI. I'm not a big fan of Stacks of Doom, trust me, but at least the AI can use them correctly. It is hopelessly lost with 1UPT. So, to avoid SOD, I'd like to see limited stacking of some kind in Civ VI. Perhaps needing a great general for an incrementally larger stack and have stack size limited by terrain.

    If 1UPT is eliminated for Civ VI then I'll happily play it. I'm sure it won't be perfect but anything else can very likely be changed by mods. Especially if they go to a 64 bit game engine which will make life substantially easier for modders.

    Finally, Jon Shafer made the statement that making a great AI was simply not profitable for the game company. 1UPT is much, much harder for the AI to understand then unit stacking. So we need to be realistic here. Go with unit stacking and be creative about it.
     
  8. Greizer85

    Greizer85 Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,210
    Isn't that the case irl, too, though? 'Quantity has a quality all its own'? The countries with the better production base prevailed in WW II, after all, even if it took some time for them to bring that power to bear (amassing their stacks, as it were ;)). That Civ IV and especially Civ III embraced this truth always seemed rather pleasing to me (even if it wasn't a conscious choice by the developers). Having a hundred cities and building 200 tanks feels better to me than having 5 cities with 10 tanks; it gives the game the feel of a grand sweep of history-in-the-making, instead of a small scuffle. In Civ IV I'm a general or an emperor; in Civ V I feel like a small-town traffic police. :p
     
  9. santoo

    santoo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    Messages:
    83
    While I think you are right, I think the more important question is, whether deep, strategic combat is something players would really want:
    I think there's a perfectly valid option to have both 1UPT's and MUPT's advantages at the same time that I haven't seen mentioned so far: just have a global map with MUPT or "armies" and a separate, tactical "battle map" with 1UPT to fight on - kind of like the heroes of might and magic series' "combat map".
    You could keep resource placement, city distances, tech/building/unit-costs, pacing, etc, while also having a more strategic combat experience (if the AI could handle it, of course).
    The big problem I see with this approach is that - like in HoMM games - you would probably spend ~80% of your time fighting, which I think works well for e.g. HoMM, but probably not for CIV-title - or would it?
     
  10. gunnergoz

    gunnergoz Cat Herder

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Messages:
    2,307
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southern California
    Personally, I like games to have multiple units per hex but with limits and rules on how this works...not just a hodgepodge stack of doom that lumbers forward.

    The combinations should include some melee, some ranged, some support/logistical/HQ and the different units will give the stack different characteristics and abilities.

    Of course, the scale of combat matters. Are these equivalent to small tactical units like battalions, or more like grand operational units like corps and armies? This should matter and make a difference.

    Getting an AI to use such combinations is the trick, but I believe it can be done...with enough budgeted programmers to throw at it.

    Until then, best we have is compromises. Civ V/BE is entertaining and that is enough for my money at this point.
     
  11. Lord Tirian

    Lord Tirian Erratic Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,724
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    What, no love for the battle of Thermopylae? ;)

    I don't know, I always assumed that a unit represents an army anyway, not literally three tanks or ten dudes.

    Think of them as "stack in a box", now pre-packaged for maximum convenience! :p
     
  12. Greizer85

    Greizer85 Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,210
    I sort of addressed this above, although I didn't intend to. There are good and bad sides to both approaches... I'd prefer 1upt if it were to be well done, but I'd still miss the 'grand sweep' that I describe above. The solution you propose could combine the two approaches; a tank figurine on the tactical map would move as a single unit, but have a number under it to indicate how many tanks there are, affecting its strength (just like in HoMM). Best of both worlds! :D The issue is, as you state, how much time the fighting would take on the new 'tactical' map, and also of course (oh no! :eek:) if the AI could be made to handle it, which sort of brings us back to square (or hex? :p) one. Granted that if you had a limited amount of different tactical maps, with more space on them, then it could be done, probably.
    EDIT: Oh, you mentioned the AI, too. I just didn't see it. Anyway, that's the crux of it: the first and final rule of designing *any* game should be: if the AI can't be made to handle it, don't do it.

    The Persians prevailed, my friend. ;)
     
  13. Antilogic

    Antilogic --

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2006
    Messages:
    15,602
    A million times this. The Civ developers have religiously avoided making a good supply, logistics, OOB, and control system for their games and thus have resorted to cheap gimmicks to solve stack problems, going all the way back to the beginning. 1UPT is only the most recent and brazen example of this.

    I've been around on the forums since the Civ4 launch but have played since Civ2.
     
  14. chrisbk88

    chrisbk88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    32
    AFAIK terrain has always mattered. Terrain bonuses are in every game. People are just noticing it more because you have fewer units. I can't speak for 4 but Civ3 has significant terrain bonuses especially for rivers and mountains.
     
  15. sherbz

    sherbz Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,798
    Location:
    London
    I would prefer 1UPT. But the AI sucks at playing it so im choosing stacks.
     
  16. TheGrumpyBuddha

    TheGrumpyBuddha King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2013
    Messages:
    823
    Terrain bonuses are much less interesting than having to negotiate a mountain pass or having to fight a city surrounded by hills on most sides.
     
  17. chrisbk88

    chrisbk88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Messages:
    32
    It's only more "interesting" because you can only move 1 unit at a time. The terrain is not inherently better designed in Civ5.
     
  18. Kutuzov

    Kutuzov Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2006
    Messages:
    362
    I have to say that this thread has a very optimistic title. :D 1UPT v SoD is one of the the most persistent topics of discussion on Civ discussions boards.

    I voted "I stated [sic] out with MUPT (e.g. SMAC) and prefer 1UPT " but there is not really enough granularity in the selection to state my feelings accurately. I do prefer 1UPT to the old MUPT but I'm open to a return to some form of MUPT in the future as long as the AI can handle it.

    I honestly doubt that there would have been this ongoing controversy about 1UPT v SoD had the AI been able to handle 1UPT. If it had been able to, we'd all be very happy with it except for that small group of folks in any community who would prefer it to be 'like it was in the good old days'. The AI can't handle 1UPT and it's that simple.

    At the moment, we're all hoping that the AI will be improved but I don't really feel that optimistic that it will. There's no actual evidence to suggest that they are going to make it significantly better. If Firaxis are not going to be able to put together an AI that can make 1UPT work, then they need to come up with a new system that works for their next game. If it does, then I will no doubt gladly say goodbye to 'boring old 1UPT'.
     
  19. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    8,488
    This is my take as well.

    I really do love 1UPT. Combat is more engaging, tactics more interesting. I just don't have anyone to use them on, because I am beating up a child.

    If AI could be made to make 1 UPT work I would take it hands down...but reality has to be served at some point. I will take a game with a worse system (M UPT) that is significantly more challenging than one with all the bells and whistles that is run by a buffoon.
     
  20. Theodorick

    Theodorick King

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2006
    Messages:
    624
    There really needs to be an option that says 'I like both', because that's what I'd select. I find pros and cons to both, and am fine with either.
     

Share This Page