1upt

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Back to topic.

 

[Aristos]

same reason as him, and you, probably... because the game is boring. And I need a rest.

Are you saying you can't post if you don't like the game because you need to always bend to those who "love" it?
Moderator Action: Don't troll around.

EDIT: Agreed. Back to topic. I will not respond anymore.

 

[Becomedeath]

The point is largely empty anyway.

They're not about to give up on 1upt, the improvements in the AI's understanding of it over the past 6 months have indicated that there is work going on to improve this.

The entire shape of the game has changed to facilitate this and it will ultimately prove itself to be more of a game because of it.

I strongly suspect that those who have extreme objections are playing on difficulty levels that are too high for them and need to pull back on the throttle a little to gain a better understanding, and respect, for the intelligence of the new design. It's clear to see how people aren't capable of using it properly if they are falling victim to clouds of AI units amidst their own unorganised defence, which has only become disorganised through a general lack of interest in using the mechanism to thier own benefit.

This is not aimed in any direction, it's simply a statement that there are plenty of people for whom this style of play does not present a problem, which indicates that the issue does not lie with the game, but with the perceptions of the player relating to how it should work.

The case of unit micro management is being highly overstated, either you have far too many units, or you just want to clog them together and move them about. As said before, if you want stacking, Civ 4 is where that ended.

Civ 5 is geared entirely towards this, the build of the units, the layout of the map, the way terrain lays itself out, the capability and availability of resources, tech, and diplomatic relations are all built around the idea that you can have a finite number of units within a given space.

They are not going to suddenly undo it all so I kindly suggest that the conversation moves more in a "how does it work and how can it be used well" direction rather than derailing itself into a battle of the Big-enders and the Little-enders. (Literary reference to Gullivers Travels that suits this debate rather well, if you haven't read it, I strongly recommend looking it up in this instance).

The only thing that is becoming boring, is the headbutting-a-wall-ness of indignant groundstanding and refusal to accept reality as it is and will be.

 

[Gort]

I wish air units didn't completely invalidate 1 UPT the moment you get into the industrial era.

 

[Truronian]

1 UPT really comes into it's own on Fractal maps. Lots of chokeholds, navy becomes significant and multiple front wars make it an extremely fun mechanic. The only thing holding it back is the AI's stupidity when embarking.

 

[Stratti]

Let's not forget when this game started (I am older yes) it was one 1upt . From memory Civ3 was as well but could be mistaken it was a while ago. Either way the military side of the game is significantly better including the new mechanic associated with City defense. There is real strategy now , not just battering with a SoD. Good Job.

 

[CoolLizy]

Civ, Civ2, and Civ3 all allowed stacking. The only difference in the first game was that if you killed the defender in a stack, the entire stack was destroyed.

 

[bitula]

1) You don't like 1UPT the way it works.

Yes.

2) If the main map was SOD and then there was a different map with 1UPT, that would be okay.

Yes.

How these two maps would work together is something that only you understand.

Whats the problem? Cant you imagine a sub-level combat map, like in HOMM, POD etc?

3)You would have been fine with Civ 5 taking more time to program, being more complicated and requiring higher spec machines to run, thus making it less accessable to the majority of the population.

Yes, except for the higher spec.

[IQUOTE] think most everybody who has read this topic understood what you said previously.[/QUOTE]

Im not sure, I think this part: 1UPT is a simplification of SOD is not well understood, so let me elaborate:

First let us see what is 1UPT? 1UPT is One Unit Per Tile. As a feature it implies that you have these:
1) Units.
2) Tiles
3) The ability of a unit to occupy a single tile or move onto a tile in a way that it partially hides the terrain characteristics.

SOD has all these, and additionally (these are all features):
4) Yoy can move more than one unit to a tile thus creating a stack. The stack is not just a notion but a human and AI managable feature.
5) Units of a stack are displayed and are managed in a seperate control panel.
6) On the control panel you can select one unit, multiple units, or a group of units of a given type.
7) Any selection can be activated in for example combat, like you can attack with single units, with arbitrary multiple units or with a chosen group.
8) Collaterate damage is distributed accross enemy stack units in a scriptable way. In Civ5 1UPT collatarate damage doesnt even make sense...
9) There is difference between defending and attacking units during combat, since for example strongest defender is chosen to defend when you are attacked.
10) Marksman units attack the weakest unit in a stack.
11) Several actions, like healing, take into account not just a single unit, but all units in the stack, which means that it has a limit of units being
affected and strength of the effect per unit.

So now I hope everyone agrees, that SOD is more complex to manage, has more management facilities implemented within, and finally this is why 1UPT is a
simplification of SOD or as to say so a simplified management of unit-tile relations. Im really surprised why do I have to explain this at all? it should have been self evident.

 

[Becomedeath]

8) Collaterate damage is distributed accross enemy stack units in a scriptable way. In Civ5 1UPT collatarate damage doesnt even make sense...

It doesn't make sense because it isn't there. Civ 5 has ranged attacks, whereas Civ 4 had units which could pound all of units in a stack, no stacks, no collateral damage. Something which is not there is bound to make no sense.

So now I hope everyone agrees, that SOD is more complex to manage, has more management facilities implemented within, and finally this is why 1UPT is a
simplification of SOD or as to say so a simplified management of unit-tile relations. Im really surprised why do I have to explain this at all? it should have been self evident.

1upt is not a simplification of stacks, it's the absence of them. Something you seem determined to universally ignore.

And how are you coming to the conclusion that stacks are more complex to manage?

1. Build stack.
2. Kit stack out with collateral damage units and high damage giving units.
3. Move to melee range
4. Attack with stack

Sheesh, I could teach my 2 year old to use stacks. 1upt warfare is more dynamic and tactical. And I can assure you that Friaxis are not going to rewrite the entire game to make SOD warfare possible again.

1upt is a fundamental part of Civ5, then entire game is built around that style of combat, so I would recommend you get used to it.

 

[bitula]

It doesn't make sense because it isn't there. Civ 5 has ranged attacks, whereas Civ 4 had units which could pound all of units in a stack, no stacks, no collateral damage. Something which is not there is bound to make no sense.



1upt is not a simplification of stacks, it's the absence of them. Something you seem determined to universally ignore.

And how are you coming to the conclusion that stacks are more complex to manage?

1. Build stack.
2. Kit stack out with collateral damage units and high damage giving units.
3. Move to melee range
4. Attack with stack

Sheesh, I could teach my 2 year old to use stacks. 1upt warfare is more dynamic and tactical. And I can assure you that Friaxis are not going to rewrite the entire game to make SOD warfare possible again.

1upt is a fundamental part of Civ5, then entire game is built around that style of combat, so I would recommend you get used to it.

Are you joking? Im not saying that 1UPT is easier to manage. What I say it lacks a whole dimension of management aspect because it lacks the additional
vertical dimension. And yes, in 1UPT the stack is removed, since it is removed overall it is a simlification of the feature. Where do I say that it is
not a removal??? Exactly, it is removed and thus simplified, the 1UPT contra SOD, not the AI or tactical aspect of these two.

 

[Becomedeath]

I think you'll find you did.

So now I hope everyone agrees, that SOD is more complex to manage, has more management facilities implemented within, and finally this is why 1UPT is a
simplification of SOD or as to say so a simplified management of unit-tile relations.

 

[bitula]

I think you'll find you did.

Yes in its context. You shouldnt read it out of context. That statement is true in its own, but not for any meaning of the word management. Again the context is the context of 1UPT and SOD and not AI or tactics.

 

[TM Moot]

Civ, Civ2, and Civ3 all allowed stacking. The only difference in the first game was that if you killed the defender in a stack, the entire stack was destroyed.

This worked for me.

No SOD or COD. Easy to implement and easy to manage.

 

[Becomedeath]

Yes in its context. You shouldnt read it out of context. That statement is true in its own, but not for any meaning of the word management. Again the context is the context of 1UPT and SOD and not AI or tactics.

But this is the point that you're almost purposefully avoiding.

The 1upt design is symbiotic with the AI and tactics. Civ 5 takes the strategy element of the game and merges it with tactics like never before. It simply wouldn't function as the same game with stacking units.

Civ 5 has introduced a strategic element that depends on 1upt as a baseline for production, terrain, science, victory conditions and a lot more that I don't have time to type.

It can't be simply unplugged and the introduction of stacking units would make both the AI and overall game virtually unplayable. It simply can't be introduced as the foundation level concepts prohibit it.

What you had before was checkers, where the rules are pretty basic and your strategy is almost preset. What you have now is chess. If you can find a way for chess to work with stacking units without utterly rewriting the game and making it something entirely different then I salute you.

I wasn't taking you out of context, I took you at exactly what you meant. You mean that the so called "carpet of doom" has replaced the "stack of doom". You've neatly avoided the fact that those concepts are utterly different in their execution. Their management styles are completely different and comparing them is like comparing a pineapple to a walrus.

As you've said previously, you're a builder not a warmonger, so building lots of units and sending them off to do a job will naturally make more sense. But what you've got now is a mix of building and premeditated strategy. You can't just mass produce units to the point of near invulnerability and get away with it. You need to plan what you're doing in advance and adapt to a nearly live situation. You're not supposed to build dozens of units and the focus on building libraries. The game makes you make a decision.

If you want to build, deploy and forget then you're playing a passive game, but you'll still need the standing army as a deterrent if nothing else. 1upt doesn't prevent that, it actually works a lot better as you are almost required to line your borders. But the stack is dead. IMO it was a rubbish concept anyway which Civ 4 made more than apparent as late game city capture was a nightmare of unit mass production.

That's not the game anymore.

 

[Trias]

Yes.
SOD has all these, and additionally (these are all features):
4) Yoy can move more than one unit to a tile thus creating a stack. The stack is not just a notion but a human and AI managable feature.
5) Units of a stack are displayed and are managed in a seperate control panel.
6) On the control panel you can select one unit, multiple units, or a group of units of a given type.
7) Any selection can be activated in for example combat, like you can attack with single units, with arbitrary multiple units or with a chosen group.
8) Collaterate damage is distributed accross enemy stack units in a scriptable way. In Civ5 1UPT collatarate damage doesnt even make sense...
9) There is difference between defending and attacking units during combat, since for example strongest defender is chosen to defend when you are attacked.
10) Marksman units attack the weakest unit in a stack.
11) Several actions, like healing, take into account not just a single unit, but all units in the stack, which means that it has a limit of units being
affected and strength of the effect per unit.

Of all of those only 4) is an intrinsic feature of stacks. (And several of them were not even features of civ4)

If you count those, then the following are features of 1UPT:
4) Because all units have geographic separation, the attacker has control over which unit is attack first.
5) Because having single units in a tile is not suicidal, you can use units to block enemy movement.
6)As a consequence you can geographically protect your units.
7)Geographic features become relevant in a 1upt design.
8)Due to logistical obstacles, peacetime unit placements become relevant.
etc.

So now I hope everyone agrees, that SOD is more complex to manage, has more management facilities implemented within, and finally this is why 1UPT is a
simplification of SOD or as to say so a simplified management of unit-tile relations. Im really surprised why do I have to explain this at all? it should have been self evident.

Why do you fail to understand that adding an obstacle can add complexity?

 

[bitula]

But this is the point that you're almost purposefully avoiding.

The 1upt design is symbiotic with the AI and tactics. Civ 5 takes the strategy element of the game and merges it with tactics like never before. It simply wouldn't function as the same game with stacking units.

Civ 5 has introduced a strategic element that depends on 1upt as a baseline for production, terrain, science, victory conditions and a lot more that I don't have time to type.

It can't be simply unplugged and the introduction of stacking units would make both the AI and overall game virtually unplayable. It simply can't be introduced as the foundation level concepts prohibit it.

What you had before was checkers, where the rules are pretty basic and your strategy is almost preset. What you have now is chess. If you can find a way for chess to work with stacking units without utterly rewriting the game and making it something entirely different then I salute you.

I wasn't taking you out of context, I took you at exactly what you meant. You mean that the so called "carpet of doom" has replaced the "stack of doom". You've neatly avoided the fact that those concepts are utterly different in their execution. Their management styles are completely different and comparing them is like comparing a pineapple to a walrus.

As you've said previously, you're a builder not a warmonger, so building lots of units and sending them off to do a job will naturally make more sense. But what you've got now is a mix of building and premeditated strategy. You can't just mass produce units to the point of near invulnerability and get away with it. You need to plan what you're doing in advance and adapt to a nearly live situation. You're not supposed to build dozens of units and the focus on building libraries. The game makes you make a decision.

If you want to build, deploy and forget then you're playing a passive game, but you'll still need the standing army as a deterrent if nothing else. 1upt doesn't prevent that, it actually works a lot better as you are almost required to line your borders. But the stack is dead. IMO it was a rubbish concept anyway which Civ 4 made more than apparent as late game city capture was a nightmare of unit mass production.

That's not the game anymore.

When talking about 1UPT I think of the word in its most strict sense:
one unit per tile. At this point I donot want to express my thoughts about related
issues like tactics and AI. Without involving these additional notions one
may still express his oppinion about the simple concept behind the meaning of the word. You cannot automatically involve every possible connotation and concequence of a word, doing so would render an argument sensless because you would need to say too much in a very generic, unspecific manner. This argument would be fruitless, because ignoring well defined meanings of the argued phenomenon leads to chaos. There will be no common ground of understanding, since you involve arbitrary additional meanings, which are not part of the base notion or expression.
What I said is a simple statement, which as well may not be of a grand importance. However if we cannot agree on simple semantics and syntax we cant even go on discussing subsequent topics like tactics. Note, tactics and 1UPT are two different concepts even if they coincide in civ5. If you are going to talk about tacticst use the word tactics. If you are talking about 1UPT, use the word one 1UPT. Using these in an interchangable way is just a poor way of argumentation and hinders any meaningful outcome because of all those connotations which may or may not belong to
the concept itself. Thus for any argument one must first have well defined notions and expressions so as to have something to build on.

 

[Becomedeath]

So you want to talk about the capabilities of fish without mentioning water...

...this has now passed beyond serious debate. You can't honestly expect to discuss a single mechanic in a program without considering it's implications, dependancies and impact on the whole. Programming is the very essence of the ripple effect and a mechanic such as 1upt in a game of this magnitude has big tsumani style ripples.

You cannot isolate and attack the 1upt structure without interacting with it's impact on the rest of the game, the game is structured around it. That's akin to saying "I don't like flesh, I just want a skeleton" and then trying to stand up without the flesh.

If I tried to do this at work with some single aspect of a program I'd taken issue with, I would be sat reading the wanted pages within an hour.

 

[bitula]

So you want to talk about the capabilities of fish without mentioning water...

No, I want you to understand fish before we talk about water... I hope this now clarifies everything for you. Or in an other way: we cannot go from A to B before we did not clarify what is A.

 

[bitula]

If you count those, then the following are features of 1UPT:
4) Because all units have geographic separation, the attacker has control over which unit is attack first.
-------------------------------
Geographical separation follows from the defenition of 1UPT itself. No additional mechanics are involved.
5) Because having single units in a tile is not suicidal, you can use units to block enemy movement.
-------------------------------
Blocking is a minor feature I agree. However collision detection is implemented at combat movements. Thus this feature is extremely minor, compared to the other points Ive wrote. Oh, and blocking is just a feature ok? It doesnt follow from anything. Its the other way arround: situations are altered by implementing blocking.

6)As a consequence you can geographically protect your units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, but this is a consequence, not a feature.

7)Geographic features become relevant in a 1upt design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
How is becoming relevant is a feature in itself?


8)Due to logistical obstacles, peacetime unit placements become relevant.
etc.
----------------------------------------------
How is relevancy a feature in itself?

Why do you fail to understand that adding an obstacle can add complexity?
-----------------------------------------------
I dont fail to understand it. Ive always agreed with this. So I fail to understand, why are you asking this question?

 

[Trias]

I dont fail to understand it. Ive always agreed with this. So I fail to understand, why are you asking this question?

If you understand this, why can't you see that stacking is a simplification of 1upt, because it removes an obstacle to think about?

(PS. please learn how to use quote tags>)