All that matters for Civ 7: Remove 1 UPT

[Countmonte8242]

I will not even try the game unless 1 UPT is removed. Before all the "stack of doom" whiners come in to defend 1 UPT:

Civilization 1 - When a unit was attacked and destroyed in open field combat, every unit in its stack was destroyed as well. HUGE deterrent to creating stacks of doom. Just one possible alternative solution (i don't expect we'd go all the way back there, get creative..)

Limit units in a stack. 8? 10? 15? 20?

Civ IV stacks of doom weren't really that bad. Gameplay balance may have just been off, especially in expansions (BTS) where inflation allowed for crazy unit production. Stacks of doom were actually fun to a lot of players because they give you a sense of danger that is totally absent in Civ 5 (I skipped 6 due to 1 UPT.)




AI is the number 1 complaint (from all I've read) for Civ 6, the reason I didn't buy Civ 6, and the number 1 cause is obviously 1 UPT. Get the franchise back on the right track, make it the first major design decision of Civ 7, please............................................................KILL 1 UPT.

 

[dagriggstar]

The problem I had with stacks of doom was never the mechanics of it, the problem I had was with moving so many units. Like my IV rule was early game need 5 archers per city. And it isn't fun to open with that many military units because if I don't then I will lose the city.

Really I want unlimited stacking back but discourage it with other mechanics.
An extreme example might be to expand on the old civ 2 home city mechanic - a city produces a unit and that city has to also support that unit (in civ 2, this was done by taking -1 production away from the city per turn, I would rather the military unit cost population and negative food based on how far away the unit is from "home").
Increasing the gold per turn cost would be the simplest.
Anti-stack units - Like Heavy cavalry the breaks up enemy stacks, light cavalry gives the attacker free choice of which unit in the stack to attack, ranged units bombard stacks and deal damage to all units in said stack (without taking damage themselves, suicide catapults both did not do enough damage and also died too easily in 4).

 

[Fippy]

The problem I had with stacks of doom was never the mechanics of it, the problem I had was with moving so many units. Like my IV rule was early game need 5 archers per city. And it isn't fun to open with that many military units because if I don't then I will lose the city.

Stacks can be moved with 1 click if you group them together. Early game (and honestly also later in many cities) you need 1 warrior / city in Civ 4, there are mechanics like spawnbusting and not guarding cities that are in no danger of being attacked. Peoples are surprised how 4 can be played when they come into the S&T forum and seek advice, i have no problems with unit movement

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm actually rather fond of how it is done in Humankind.

They have limited stacking, initially 4upt, but up to 8upt later. And when you engage in combat, the units unstack to 1upt for tactical deployment.

It's fairly close to being the best of both worlds. You get the satisfying tactical combat without the hassle of moving a carpet of units across the map.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm actually rather fond of how it is done in Humankind.

They have limited stacking, initially 4upt, but up to 8upt later. And when you engage in combat, the units unstack to 1upt for tactical deployment.

It's fairly close to being the best of both worlds. You get the satisfying tactical combat without the hassle of moving a carpet of units across the map.

I'm fine with limited stacks but not with Humankind-style tactical combat. It doesn't make sense on Civ's scale, and it's tedious to manage.

 

[criZp]

hearts of iron has both unlimited stacking and no doom stacks. they just limit the number of units that can attack/defend, per territory, per turn. they call the mechanic "combat width". a simplified version of this would be easy to implement in a civ game.

 

[duckstab]

I've long thought that some combination of stack-based strategic movement, switching to 1UPT on a tactical map, was nearly the best of both worlds, and I've seen it work well in other games. The very best of both worlds would be to make the tactical combat optional so you could do a quick-resolve for less important battles or if you just didn't want to be bothered with such details.

 

[Zaarin]

I've long thought that some combination of stack-based strategic movement, switching to 1UPT on a tactical map, was nearly the best of both worlds, and I've seen it work well in other games. The very best of both worlds would be to make the tactical combat optional so you could do a quick-resolve for less important battles or if you just didn't want to be bothered with such details.

And "optional" also has to mean "viable."

 

[Leucarum]

I don't dislike the stacking as much as I dislike the separate battle system in a lot of games which allow it. 1UPT has the advantage of letting you play the terrain a lot more which makes it more strategically interesting.... though the AI in Civ6 is not exactly programmed to take full advantage of it (understatement alert!)

On balance, I prefer 1UPT for the added ability to play terrain just making combat more interesting. I can see why people pine for unit stacks, and wouldn't be furious to see unit stacking - I'd just prefer it not to come with tactical battles

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I'd say limited stackings. and combat resolves should includes 'reinforcements' rules but with more zoomed in combat tactical map than in HK.
But more important matters is that RPG-skill promo with class constrain is VERY silly. it should be domain (or type) -based constrains. IRL Pikemen and Swordsmen actually shares many tactical formations. compared to more fluid HK level ups (too bad no skill promo in that game)

Stacking slots limits are determined by
1. Eras. (More advances, more slots)
2. Techs and Civics
3. Leading Generals (Great Generals are best useful in this matter, this system is akin to Heroes of Might and Magic series (one of my fav) )

 

[civac]

You could absolutely have limited stacking and tactical combat.

Above all the silly annoyance of not being able to move units because some city state warrior is on the tile needs to go. That's a failure of game design. It inflicts pain on the player for absolutely no good reason since there is no tactical combat going on.

 

[ShadowWarrior]

I will not even try the game unless 1 UPT is removed. Before all the "stack of doom" whiners come in to defend 1 UPT:

Civilization 1 - When a unit was attacked and destroyed in open field combat, every unit in its stack was destroyed as well. HUGE deterrent to creating stacks of doom. Just one possible alternative solution (i don't expect we'd go all the way back there, get creative..)

Limit units in a stack. 8? 10? 15? 20?

Civ IV stacks of doom weren't really that bad. Gameplay balance may have just been off, especially in expansions (BTS) where inflation allowed for crazy unit production. Stacks of doom were actually fun to a lot of players because they give you a sense of danger that is totally absent in Civ 5 (I skipped 6 due to 1 UPT.)




AI is the number 1 complaint (from all I've read) for Civ 6, the reason I didn't buy Civ 6, and the number 1 cause is obviously 1 UPT. Get the franchise back on the right track, make it the first major design decision of Civ 7, please............................................................KILL 1 UPT.

I totally agree with you. I stopped playing Civ because of 1upt limitation. It just does not make sense to me. The decision to implement 1upt is the worst decision in the franchise history.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

This is an echo chamber thread...

 

[9gkj548hkm20vk79dj689bnj4]

this is my reply:

while I'm fine with grouping units to move them around in friendly territory, they should be forced to move independently when in enemy territory (or in attack range of them).

 

[criZp]

This is an echo chamber thread...

It's still more interesting than 1UPT combat.

 

[bartdanr]

I've pretty much stuck with Civ III and IV (and sometimes even II) because of I UPT (among other things).

I get how it's more "tactical", but keep in mind what scale we're talking here: in Civ VI, the "Huge" map is what, 106 x 66? The Earth's circumference is 24,901.46 miles. Dividing that by 106 means each hex/tile is about 235 miles across. That's about the distance of New York to Washington DC, or closer than Damascus to Jerusalem, or slightly less than Paris to Cologne. Having a "battlefield" of several of these hexes in area is ridiculous, and limiting such a vast area to a single unit (even something the size of a Division or even a Field Group) doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Civ is not a "tactical" game in any sense.

(Having cities sprawl across several hexes also is weird, too--no matter how pretty it looks. It's the wrong scale.)

I think having a bigger cost to supporting units is a good limitation (and some mods for Civ IV do this), but I find "stacks of doom" infinitely more realistic than to try to cram "tactical" maps onto the scale of Civilization.

Of course, all games are compromises between "realism" and "playability", so I can understand why some are attracted to the "playability" of 1 UPT. For me, though, it breaks the immersion so hard to see an archer unit, for example, have the ability to shoot an arrow 500 miles or more (depending on map size).

 

[ShadowWarrior]

I am personally boycotting any Civ or Civ style games that I have 1 upt mechanics. The whole idea is ridiculous.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

CIV VII should have no 1UPT. I also stick to Civ III-IV. Even If I have civ VI and sometimes I try some play just for fun.
I noticed that with time, Ai got worse and worse. At one point, devs decided to remove the ability of Ai to build up ARMIES.
This also happened to CIV III. The Latest patches removed completely the ability of AI to build up Armies...

To say, 1UPT makes no sense, and for some reasons, ARMIES are removed and should get back and STAY.

Early Armies are super important. In Civ III make an Army in Ancient Age, gives your civ massive cultural bonus, let you build
the Eroic Epic, and An Army with two Swordsman can conquer and defend enemy capitals, giving your civ a massive advantage.

In Civ VI armies are really just a stack of three units, of the same kind. And they are accessible only after Renaissance... i.e.
totally pointless. But at least, it did provide some challenge later on. We don't get to decide Army composition, AI ability to form armies,
and when is possible to create them,

Also, All African countries in Civ Vi, do not have a single War Elephant unit. Damn even the Roman at one point used War Elephants imported from the Atlas mountains
and Syria (Where Hannibal Elephant was born, the now extinct Syrian giant tusks sub-species). Civ IV and V has at least Carthage with War Elephants.
I really can not understand why Vi has none. Only Indian subcontinent and south east Asia has them. Not Africa.

Russian, Germans, French, Italians, etc, all have unique first and second WW units. that are only accesible through scenarios. Why?
Germany had the first rockets too. Rome also is not Italy. Etruscan are not Italiani. Sardinia, or the Sea people, is not Italy.
Venice. Catalonia is not Spain. the Basques were fierce as the Celts. Caelts is neither France, nor England, and so on.
Civ VII instead has two leaders for the same nation. It happens for both France and England. Totally nonsense. As if those
were two different nations. Instead of let US choose one of many leaders for the same civ, they made each LEADER a unique civ...

Verticality. HK has implemented verticality. CIV III had more verticality than Civ VI. It was possible to settle cities on mountains.
Tethurkan Tibet, Nepal, were completely built on top of the Himalayas. Cities distance of 1 tile was right for Giant Earth Map.
And the only flipper was culture. with Fascism city flipping was also removed.

All these things means replayability, what CIV V and VI totally lacks.
Let's hope they got their priorities straight. Barbarians can't upgrade to tanks is on the bottom
list, but there's so many on my list I can't make it in one post...


PS: A complete instruction book is also very much needed. A complex game starts with it. Not a lousy Hystoria of Great events concerning only
the MAIN PLAYER. Maps must get shared as techs. Not removed or shared by friendship or magic...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I am personally boycotting any Civ or Civ style games that I have 1 upt mechanics. The whole idea is ridiculous.

Agreed. I hoped Civ VI could be at least as fun as Civ V, which was bad but a little fun time I had with it.
I was left with nothing but frustration. CiV VII has to tick a lot of boxes for me too...