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 No So Cool

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by katipo, Oct 26, 2010.

  1. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    9,899
    MoM or chess? :p

    The franchise has to move on in some way. I for one would have no problems with Civ introducing a tactical element in the proceedings and changing the core concept a bit.
     
  2. Camikaze

    Camikaze Administrator Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2008
    Messages:
    27,227
    Location:
    Sydney
    MoM. :lol:

    Well again, I think that some tactical innovation is fine, and needed in some cases (I prefer 1upt to SoDs, although I think a compromise between the two would be best), but I also do count it as a reasonably large consideration (my usertitle is more due to the frequency at which tactical ideas come up than the importance that I give to it tactics v strategy as a consideration).
     
  3. TrailblazingScot

    TrailblazingScot I was kittenOFchaos

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    6,865
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighouse, England
    Exactly, and I've given this quite abit of thought.

    CiV could be easily modified to prevent the rout of AI archer and artillery units - units that in real life would always be supported. It would also prevent these support units preventing the AI deploying their forces effectively - archers preventing the deployment of swordsmen etc.

    The solution, is to give support units such as archers, crossbows, artillery, anti-tank etc the same stacking ability as Great Generals.

    Then these units can be easily protected by spears and such instead of being destroyed easily. These support units would no longer road-block the AI offensive units and the AI would stand a chance - it would also stop us just riding down countless archers and artillery with our cavalry.

    Such a simple change, could significantly improve the game. I may even look to make a military mod at some time to fill this 'need'. I'd rather it be in the game as I love STEAM achievements.

    Another way this change would improve the game is by bringing back combined arms, even in a limited fashion. Anti-tank guns, being mixed up with infantry makes sense. Not having them operating separately. Anti-aircraft guns deployed with infantry or tanks, makes sense. Having them deployed on their own and entirely vulnerable to ground forces makes no sense. The AI can't protect these units and countless numbers are easily destroyed - it is daft.


    One simple change to certain classes of units could make a vast difference.


    But, I'd also apply it to naval units. Naval units such as aircraft carriers should stack with AEGIS cruisers/CiV equivalent which would form a close escort. It should be possible to actually have a destroyer in the same tile as a embarked unit to provide close support - in convoy. As it is, it makes no sense and military concepts such as the convoy are not a feature of this game as any significant movement of ships or units takes up half the ocean because each vessel or embarked unit takes a tile.


    1UPT has some nice features, but I think it is overkill ultimately and makes the game worse as by preventing combined arms, it allows the AI to be slaughtered as single player moves aren't simultaneous - at least in mp you can counter-attack, or move units immediately in response. Enforced as it is, just doesn't make sense as military history is about the concentration of force at a particular point, god help anyone trying to simulate WW2, you'll need a vast map if D-Day is going to be represented in any meaningful fashion.

    If it was me, I'd also change the 1UPT for certain terrain. I wouldn't have it apply to naval units. I would have it relaxed in certain terrain types such as grasslands and plains, I would have it relaxed in tiles containing roads/railroads that would allow more units to deploy and be supplied.

    I'd keep 1UPT for forests, hills, jungle, ice and desert etc. Terrain types that limit the deployment of units, but, in grasslands where large armies could deploy easily. It would encourage invasions along open terrain types and limit invasions across more tricky terrain - as in history.


    1UPT was brought in as stacking was an issue, but it was overkill and makes for major pathfinding issues, makes the AI even more ineffectual and is even less realistic. It needs tweaking to allow limited stacking/escorting at the very least.
     
  4. Zachriel

    Zachriel Kaiser

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    Jovian System
    Then you couldn't flank the spearman and pick off the archer unit from the rear. With 1upt, you have to position your units properly, anticipate the enemy, and protect your ballistic force. That's what combined arms means.

    And as for mixing of the strategic and tactical, great leaders have done that throughout history. Alexander not only planned the invasion of Asia, but directed the tactical placement of his units before and during battle, then fought at great personal risk. Caesar not only planned the invasion of Gaul, then directed the siege at Alesia, but also placed himself at great personal risk to repulse attacks on his defenses. In later history, Napoléon's experience with the tactical use of cannon allowed him to innovate new battlefield strategies which were essential to his conquest of Europe. Wellington understood that subjugating India meant finding enough Oxen. Grant rose up the ranks as a quarter master and discovered how to win through logistics.

    “The art of war is simple enough. Find out where your enemy is. Get at him as soon as you can. Strike him as hard as you can, and keep moving on.” — Ulysses S. Grant.
     
  5. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,877
    Not really logistics. It's more of the fact that he knew that his side outnumbered the Confederate Army greatly and he was the only one who used that to effect. Other Generals held back in fear of losing men. :confused:
     
  6. Zachriel

    Zachriel Kaiser

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    Jovian System
    Numbers only count when you can deliver them to the field. Grant certainly had numbers, but numbers didn't win at Cold Harbor. The Army of Northern Virginia, though outnumbered in whole, often outnumbered the Union where it counted, both tactically and strategically. Grant had a great deal of experience during the Mexican American war with logistics over very long supply lines. You win battles by being firstest with the mostest.

    You may be a big hulking guy, but if you flail while your opponent keeps landing his fist on your nose, you may be going down.
     
  7. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,877
    Ah. Makes sense.

    Though, compared to other Union generals, he certainly knew how to use the rule of large numbers to his advantage when he could.
     
  8. Eskel

    Eskel Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    233
    Location:
    Poznań, Poland
    Solution is very simple:

    Spoiler :
    C:\Program Files\Steam\SteamApps\common\sid meier's civilization v\Assets\Gameplay\XML\GlobalDefines.xml

    You have to find correct field and change do desired number:

    <Row Name="PLOT_UNIT_LIMIT">
    <Value>3</Value>
    </Row>


    Have a fun. BTW, It doesn't change other flaws Civ5 IMO has.
     
  9. vandyr

    vandyr Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    Messages:
    351
    That seems to be the standard by which everyone thinks around here, so yea...that's the only convincing argument :)
     
  10. TrailblazingScot

    TrailblazingScot I was kittenOFchaos

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    6,865
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brighouse, England
    Thank you Eskel, a useful post!

    As for Zachriel, pikemen would form squares, with the archers in the middle to deal with cavalry, they wouldn't remain separate and vulnerable. During Waterloo, when the French cavalry threatened, our gunners would enter the square and leave once the cavalry were driven off. Keeping support units separate is not combined arms and reduces its value.

    Your point is invalid.
     
  11. Zachriel

    Zachriel Kaiser

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    2,294
    Location:
    Jovian System
    Yes, squares were sometimes used on battlefields to repulse cavalry. But squares tend to be less maneuverable than infantry lines, control less of the battlefield, hard to form in the heat of battle, susceptible to ballistic attack, and of being severed from the rest of the army and destroyed in detail. That's why they have a less frequent role in history than the infantry line.

    In game terms, a slow moving pike/arquebus unit could be used, but it would be skewed to represent every army in such a manner.
     
  12. Invader3K

    Invader3K Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Messages:
    32
    I love the 1upt feature. In fact, it was one of the main features that made me decide to buy the game. I hated in Civ 4 how you could sometimes send 20-30 unit stacks, and it was still not enough sometimes. It just got to be ridiculous how you had to mindlessly manufacture huge numbers of units. I hated going to war just because it was so tedious. This is all just my opinion, but I feel having only one unit per tile increases the strategy quite a bit.

    I do wish you could stack settlers with military units, though. Just seems like it would be logical since the unit usually ends up garrisoned in the city the settler founds anyway (at least that's how I do it).
     
  13. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    This pretty much sums it up.
    Exactly.
    May I add that "support" and "retaliation" fire both would be needed?
    And that is just the worst point. Firaxis really hired an amateur, claiming that he loved Panzer General and did not even slightly understand the gameplay of PG.
     
  14. DalekDavros

    DalekDavros Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    303
    If you keep clicking on the city tile (not on the unit icon), it'll cycle through the units on the tile.
     
  15. NukeAJS

    NukeAJS King

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    830
    I enjoy 1upt. It makes the game more chess-like and less "Mongolian horde of destruction"-like.

    One negative aspect is having to move each unit separately; however, this is mitigated by there being a lot fewer units in Civ5 compared to Civ4. Heck, my early conquests usually consist of ~5 units. The game definitely favors a small number of highly promoted, high teched units over mobs due to combat mechanics and unit maintenance.
     
  16. sav

    sav Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Messages:
    596
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    What if you COULD stack units, but if you did, only one could attack per stack, per turn? That eliminates the sprawl in peace time, the transportation issues, and the stacks.
     
  17. sketch162000

    sketch162000 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2010
    Messages:
    221
    Exactly...
     
  18. Peregrine

    Peregrine The Swift

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2001
    Messages:
    433
    Location:
    The Nether Regions
    For the attack dog in question; Yes, I played the demo. I've played the thing on other people's computers. They don't like it and didn't want to play it either. Any more questions? :rolleyes:
     
  19. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    you still don't get it , do you ? Combined arms, in history, worked sight by sight, acting simultaniously. Now, can we do that in CIV, any CIV ? NO! It always comes down to, one fight at a time, any given time, the rest must wait. There goes your GRAND tactical wargame; down to the toilet.

    Positioning is very important too in warfare, true. But army's behave dynamicly, ALL units could ACT at the same time. None of that is true in CIV, again it's a handicaped system of one by one.
    So don't speak of "tactical" warfare in CIV 5, it does not exist. It never has, btw, in any CIV.
    The bad thing is, with 1 upt, it's all to clear hoe handicapped the system really is.

    You speak for example, of good positioning. Very solid argument. But then i ask: how many times you have enough space to position your army as you like ? I know from experience, most of the time you are fightinh the map, with cramp spaces most of the time. Far from realistic and very gamey. And still, even then you lack the dynamics of true tactical warfare, on the battlefield, where every second counts.

    They should have sticked with the strategical approach, instead of going with this "semi tactical" nightmare. That's my idea of CIV 5.
     
  20. vandyr

    vandyr Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2007
    Messages:
    351
    After playing 1upt in Civ 5, i could never go back to the sod style of gameplay in Civ 4. To me this far and away better gameplay when it comes to combat and warfare.
     

Share This Page