No it doesn't. What would be the point of that? If you have 5 swordsmen in a stack, and are going against a guy with 5 crossbows or whatever if a good counter for swordsmen, that's pretty much still 1:1.
How does it reduce micro? It isn't like you're fielding hundreds of units like in CivIV
How do you know how many units you are fielding? Some may not field many, some may field a lot more. Personally, I am an army builder... I rely on my army to defend my nation. The larger my empire, the more troops I must field to cover all points of entry. With a good mix of unit types, that can grow to a sizable force. You will see when you play the game.
That is only true half of the time. When realism is completely removed, then you are removed from the game. You may like that, but I don't. I like to have some semblence of recognition. Otherwise, I never would have begun playing Civ to begin with. Seriously... I am really getting tired of that argument.
Seriously, 1UPT isn't going away.
No one is. Go play CivIV.
I never said that OUPT is going away. I am just making my arguments against it. Nonetheless, it is very arrogant and selfish to deny me my right to play the next game just because I don't agree with something. There are features that I DO like about CIV V. Features unavailable in CIV IV, making it, therefore, inferior. As a gamer and a fan, I have every right to complain when I feel that the franchise that I love (though it has never been perfect) is going in the wrong direction. In the end, we will see.
Limited stacks only work if they are limited further, if you throw in a "only same unit type" and "needs a great general to create the stack of 3" then bada boom you have your FLLSOD (Further Limited, Limited Stack Of Doom) or... General Army for short, like my explenation of how civ3's army could work, which would basically introduce rare limited stacks. Which could work okay. But as for Limited Stacks in general, you remove the "loss of tactical play" when you limit it to units of the same type, but you still don't get rid of the main point which is, anything less than the stack maximum would be pointless. So you may as well just have 1UpT, again, pointless.
Well, it seems that you are madly in love with the idea of OUPT and I can do nothing to even convince you otherwise. I do wonder, however, why so many people argue that I MUST keep an
open mind, yet they refuse to hear any other suggestions... Is it blind devotion, or just complete stubborness?
As for your imaginings of what scale civ land tiles are, you decide whatever helps you get through the day, but theirs no reason to tell everyone else "what the size definitely represents" when your just making it up, Frixasis didn't decide when making the game to section the game up in 732.67 Miles squared segements, and from this decision calculated the size of the tiles, no they just used a normal measurement to display the tile size on the computer screen and then stuck terrain features into it to make it look like a game world and not some cold deserted place, the fact that they decided to make Earth like maps on the game in no way dictates what they thought the game map would represent scale wise, infact I'm fairly sure they never cared much about it, we can see this from huge units in comparrison to cities, everything is just meant to slot into the tile, unit/cities/terrain and the tiles map a "board" anything you imagine to be true after this point like "Tile has XXX land value" is just your meanlingless imaginings. The game was not designed with scale in mind, this is clear in so many ways, if they wanted the game to scale properly then it wouldnt of been that hard to do something to make it so. Although it wouldn't of been the hit "board game like" turn based strategy game that it is. It would have been a different beast entirely, say like Heroes of might and magic which has towns and terrain and a guy on horse back all scaled quite nicely to look like they are all in the correct place, and then when it comes down to a army vs army fight, (the guy on horseback is the armies representitive) then you zoom in to a tactical field, but as I said, it wouldnt have been the same game if scale was thier focus, it wasn't and this is why the game is like it is. So no, 1UpT is no less believable than anything else, Civ is based very loosely on reality, its a game where you play through history as you see fit, and thats about all it bases on the reality of our world.
Do me a favor... boot up CIV IV, play a couple rounds of a game... then check the statistics page. Notice that the "Land Area" is given in Square Miles (or KMs)? Now, go back and count the number of land tiles within your borders. You may be surprised to find that the total land area is divisible by the number of land tiles you have. So, yes, it was Firaxis that decided the SCALE of the tiles.
You say scale doesn't matter, yet you reference it in your argument that CIV is not a game based on reality. You said that CIV is a game where you play through history. That is the grandest scale of a game ever. It is not like other games where you play during a specific period. Scale is important! Let me be clear... when I say scale, I am not referring to the size of the units on the map. Those units are representative markers. Just as everything else is representative markers. It appears to me, from your arguments, that you are taking the game literally. Each unit represents a number of troops. Each resource represents an abundant cache of that resource. I can use my imagination to fill in the game. But OUPT stretches the imagination thin. Beyond believable proportions.
1UpT will work fine, they are merging tactical (zoomed in normally on other games) combat with the normal workings of civ, why have armies (stacks) and zoom into fights when this will allow units to spread out on the terrain of the game map and introduce tactical combat directly without having multiple game layers like some other tactical games.
OUPT works great in small scale projects. I've said time and time again that it will be great in scenarios. But in full scale CIV... it will be a distraction. Let me give an example of how a distraction interferes with enjoyment. When I worked at EB (many moons ago), we had a Dreamcast demo unit on the floor. One game really bugged me when it was in the unit... NBA 2K. The graphics looked sharp, but I noticed a problem that really stuck out to me. When the players moved up and down the court, the reflection of the overhead lights on the floor moved with the camera as if they were attached to it. This was a glaring distraction that constantly pulled me out of any enjoyment of the game.
With CIV V, I can see having an army of 5 or 6 units spread out across the entire country of France. This would, too, be a glaring distraction that would just pull me out of the game. YOU may think it minor or petty... but, to me, being pulled into the game is a very important aspect. If I can't be pulled into the game, than the game is not enjoyable... plain and simple!
Post note: 12agnor0k - I edited my previous post, but in case you didn't catch it there, I did a search but could not locate the thread that you mentioned. Could you please provide a link?
