1UPT - final verdict?

[santoo]

I expect most players of CIV:BE come from 2 different (though overlapping) directions:
1) people who come via CIV5 and have mostly started out with the 1_unit_per_tile rules
2) people who come via SMAC/X (or at least other older CIVtitles), who started out with multiple_units_per_tile rules.

After the initial controversy over 1UPT with the release of CIV5 has died down, and seeing as it seems to have become the new standard, I'd like to know what the current opinion on stack of doom vs carpet of doom is - and, whether it relates to earlier gaming experience
If you could share the reason for your preference, that'd be great as well!

 

[manu-fan]

I like 1 unit per hex. I got used to it in Civ 5, and like it in BE.

 

[chrisbk88]

ONE unit is not enough. People who like it are basically enjoying joke combat. The problem isn't the system, the problem is the AI can't do it. Anything that makes the AI a joke should be scrapped. I'm definitely not getting into CIV6 if it stays.

Moderator Action: Please do not troll, "enjoying joke combat" is trolling. Please stick to the topic and do not taunt others who may differ with you.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

I'm primarily a SMAC player.

Stack of doom is less than ideal but manageable with collateral damage/artillery (anything that damages the whole stack cheaply). AI can use it with some competence.

1UPT is non functional in its current state. The small maps undo the only supposed advantage of the system, which is the ability (and necessity) to maneuver and use careful unit placement. Fun/not fun is besides the point here - the system simply doesn't work to its full potential. The AI can't handle it.

The hypothetical map that would allow for decent maneuvering would upset all other Civ map traits by its sheer size. You would need about three times as much blank terrain, which would totally screw resource placement, distances between cities, etc. etc. Ultimately it would also make the game a massive hardware hog in fancy full 3D but it could, maybe, work in 2D.

The basic Civ design wasn't made for Panzer General combat and it shows. A drastic overhaul to make 1UPT work or ditching it altogether is the only way to go from here.

One thing I would not like to see, ever, is cities being able to fire on units.

 

[rastak]

If you have to have MUPT then go back to Civ I....you lose you lose it all.

I much prefer one unit per tile.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Started with MUPT a long time ago (CivII) and nowadays, I prefer 1UPT.

Yes, the AI has issues with it, but after hundreds of games across Civ generations, I just can't be bothered by the tedium of giant stacks: in the end they reduce the game to nothing but a numbers game, make warfare feel small (no proper frontlines) and tedious (though Civ4 had decent handling of groups so it wasn't too bad).

I'd like some unit customisation, though, as that was a cool aspect about stacks - the composition had some impact (but less than numbers). And, again, the AI needs to be improved and perhaps the scale needs to be changed.

 

[chrisbk88]

Started with MUPT a long time ago (CivII) and nowadays, I prefer 1UPT.

Yes, the AI has issues with it, but after hundreds of games across Civ generations, I just can't be bothered by the tedium of giant stacks: in the end they reduce the game to nothing but a numbers game, make warfare feel small (no proper frontlines) and tedious (though Civ4 had decent handling of groups so it wasn't too bad).

I'd like some unit customisation, though, as that was a cool aspect about stacks - the composition had some impact (but less than numbers). And, again, the AI needs to be improved and perhaps the scale needs to be changed.

Civ3 and Civ4 had the same group controls for the most part, and I can't even fathom how you think moving each individual unit is less tedious than stacks.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

I wanted to commit seppuku with a rusty fork when I had to move the colonists to the only uncolonized strip of land 1 hex wide for the promised land victory.

 

[AriochIV]

The problem isn't the system, the problem is the AI can't do it. Anything that makes the AI a joke should be scrapped. I'm definitely not getting into CIV6 if it stays.

Like you said, it's not the system, it's AI. The requirement should be that Civ6 has better AI, not that it drops 1UPT.

There are plenty of problems with the AI in Civ5/CivBE that have nothing to do with 1UPT. The diplomatic AI sucks... does that mean that diplomacy should be scrapped? Will you refuse to get Civ6 if it has diplomacy?

 

[Greizer85]

I've played Civ since Civ II, and while the AI in that and Civ III was horrendous in retrospect, it got a little better in Civ IV (thanks to Blake's AI mod). I should revisit Civ IV one of these days, as undoubtedly some progress has been made there after I switched to Civ V.

Stacks or no stacks, the combat AI seems to be much harder to improve than the strategic one. In Civ IV imo the strategic AI (after Blake's patch) struck a good balance between direct bonuses and actual 'thinking' (I know, a bad word, but I can't think of any other atm to describe it). It was a tolerable opponent, given some suspension of disbelief. The same cannot be said for Civ V, where the combat AI is so bad as to be nonexistent, and the strategic one, too, leaves a lot to be desired. The trouble seems to be that Civ V is designed *around* 1upt, and consequently the problems inherent within it radiate to all other aspects of the game. The patches and BNW addressed this to a minor extent, but they also introduced a whole slew of new systems that the AI is equally or more clueless about (hello, trade routes!). The Civ V AI can only be a challenge if you give it truly ridiculous bonuses; I have trouble beating Deity because the AI can spam units just as fast as I can kill them. I consider this form of 'challenge' to be more tedious than fun, and so I refuse to play Civ V anymore. Sure, I could avoid combat in order to not expose myself to its flaws; role-play as a pacifist, if you will. You can only do that for so many times before it becomes boring though -- and all the while the great silent question keeps nagging away at your brain: 'Why not simply crush them, since they wouldn't stand a chance?'. After a while it's easier to hit 'retire' than keep making excuses and evasions. The combat AI in Civ V is broken beyond repair (it *could* be repaired I suppose, but Firaxis will never dedicate the resources to do it; their design philosophy is readily apparent from their latest cash-grab, a re-skinned Vanilla Civ V called Beyond Earth.).

I'm not holding my breath for a better AI in Civ VI; all I can hope for is that they design the game to be even more easily moddable than the previous ones, and release the source code/tools for that in time. Deciding to go with stacks, or perhaps 'armies' of some type, would certainly be a better starting point for modding than the disaster that is 1upt.

 

[tesb]

i don't like stacks of doom, but 1upt is worse:

-tons of micromanagement even for easy tasks like moving an army across the map
-messes up other game systems, especially production because the cannot afford for any player to build many units
-ai is unable to use it
-lack of immersion (i play a map on a whole planet, yet i can only fit a few units on it)

 

[TNM]

Verdict: "its dead, Jim".

Yes, thats my final verdict. Look, we gave Civ5 a chance...didn't work. We gave the DLCs a chance, 2 years of optimizing...it didn't work.

Firaxis gives us CivBE...and it didn't do anything to 1up OR combat-AI. What else could the verdict be then "its dead, its done, AI can't do it".

The question then is: should AI do it? Firaxis seems to think that Civ should move away from combat, combat basically just beeing a nuisance or a mild thread (no empty cities). Why i think that? Look at unit diversity in CivBE...there is none. I have never seen any combat in a game so neglected, in design, in stats, in presentation...

So, the question for Civ6 probably is not "1up or not"...but should Civ be about combat or not. If yes, then the combat system has to be redone. No 1Upt, but no stacks of doom either...maybe an army system, or a unit stance system (you move units in transportation stance, you build a front line in combat stance).
I don't even care anymore, i just want something the AI can do, even IF ITS STACKS OF DOOM, at least that the AI could do. Since Civ5 i NEVER, i mean i NEVER had any fear for my cities if i didn't leave them totally undefended. Thats not Civ for me...combat always was a main part of it.

 

[Lord Tirian]

Civ3 and Civ4 had the same group controls for the most part, and I can't even fathom how you think moving each individual unit is less tedious than stacks.

It was patched in later but enough to turn me off vanilla massively. CivIII is my least favourite iteration of the series. And, as I said, Civ4 was alright with respect to the movement.

As for "less tedious": There are more decisions about positioning to make. Moving them to the frontline is more tedious, yes (and that's where there is room for improvement - why does Civ5/BE not have a rally point system!?), but the actual warfare has more to it, forcing me to actually think about the move order and formation.

Armies also tend to be smaller, stacks usually consist of dozens of units (and by that, I mean at least 2 dozen).

Finally, 1UPT "feels" more realistic as it leads to frontlines, makes troop movements important, makes choke points useful. MUPT means you just move a single thing around and click at things until they die. And due to the way stacking mechanics worked (collateral), stacks worked best when they had the density of a neutron star.

 

[chrisbk88]

Like you said, it's not the system, it's AI. The requirement should be that Civ6 has better AI, not that it drops 1UPT.

There are plenty of problems with the AI in Civ5/CivBE that have nothing to do with 1UPT. The diplomatic AI sucks... does that mean that diplomacy should be scrapped? Will you refuse to get Civ6 if it has diplomacy?

There is literally no possibility of making a smart AI around 1UPT. We can have stack limits, 10 units, 5 units. ONE has to go, joe.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think it was a false logic back when civ5 was in development that 1upt was the only way to get rid of stacks of doom. There are many ways to solve stacks of doom without going to 1upt.

 

[Lord Tirian]

There is literally no possibility of making a smart AI around 1UPT. We can have stack limits, 10 units, 5 units. ONE has to go, joe.

Exactly the same problem. The main issue with the AI is that it basically causes blockades. With a 5 unit limit, you will get the same once the tile limit is reached - but instead of moving 1UPT you will be moving 1SPT (1 stack per tile). From a pathfinding point of view, it's a very similar problem.

Unless you heavily discourage stacking (e.g. 1 loss = loss of entire stack) but then you need to teach the AI that as well.

I'm not saying that 1UPT is the pinnacle of grid-based 4X games, but going to 2/5/10/XUPT isn't the silver bullet that fixes all problems.

 

[Drowsy Emperor]

Like you said, it's not the system, it's AI. The requirement should be that Civ6 has better AI, not that it drops 1UPT.

There are plenty of problems with the AI in Civ5/CivBE that have nothing to do with 1UPT. The diplomatic AI sucks... does that mean that diplomacy should be scrapped? Will you refuse to get Civ6 if it has diplomacy?

The system caused a lot of questionable design decisions regarding the speed of production, research, the map size. Its not just the combat and the AI that suffer.

The supposed goal of 1UPT was to make the combat more involved, more war-game like. It doesn't achieve that because:

1. the AI doesn't work
2. even if it worked the map size severely limits tactical options for human and AI alike

You can't simply increase map size for the reasons I've noted above.

Personally. the scale of combat is too small for a game depicting clashes of massive civilizations. Having half a dozen units to represent my military lessens the overall feel of the game.

 

[Greizer85]

At the very least, if they choose to keep 1upt, they must make it so that civilian units can stack infinitely with both military units and amongst themselves. There is literally no reason for this not to be the case, and yet you see people defending even this baffling decision every day ('It's not TRUE 1upt without that! DEAL WITH IT NOOB!' ). Even more priceless is foreign missionaries and the like blocking your lands... (Gotta sell those open borders treaties for 50 gold every 30 turns. Oh, the tremendous joy of tedious yet suboptimal-not-to-use tactics! )

 

[santoo]

There is literally no possibility of making a smart AI around 1UPT.

Why? Weren't the older strategic wargames, like the Panzer General series mostly 1UPT? IT's been a looong time, but their AI was fine, IIRC.

 

[rastak]

Verdict: "its dead, Jim".

Yes, thats my final verdict. Look, we gave Civ5 a chance...didn't work. We gave the DLCs a chance, 2 years of optimizing...it didn't work.

Firaxis gives us CivBE...and it didn't do anything to 1up OR combat-AI. What else could the verdict be then "its dead, its done, AI can't do it".

The question then is: should AI do it? Firaxis seems to think that Civ should move away from combat, combat basically just beeing a nuisance or a mild thread (no empty cities). Why i think that? Look at unit diversity in CivBE...there is none. I have never seen any combat in a game so neglected, in design, in stats, in presentation...

So, the question for Civ6 probably is not "1up or not"...but should Civ be about combat or not. If yes, then the combat system has to be redone. No 1Upt, but no stacks of doom either...maybe an army system, or a unit stance system (you move units in transportation stance, you build a front line in combat stance).
I don't even care anymore, i just want something the AI can do, even IF ITS STACKS OF DOOM, at least that the AI could do. Since Civ5 i NEVER, i mean i NEVER had any fear for my cities if i didn't leave them totally undefended. Thats not Civ for me...combat always was a main part of it.

Who is "we"? You play whatever version of the series that tickles your fancy but for sure you don't speak for me.