Arioch's Analyst Thread

[12agnar0k]

Arioch is right, limited stacks, the main problem with it is it is still 1UpT with none of the benefits, if you use anything less than the maximum of the stack in number of units then you will lose fights.
All the benefits of added strategy and less simplification on positioning and more tactical combat all goes out the window as your trying to maximise your stacks, aka Stacks of Doom. (Where doom is limited)

* Less believability (only 1 troop of soldiers in a XXX mile radius)

No less believable than Infinite soldiers in a X mile radius, its not a disadvantage at all.

* Unrealistic scale (...unless the maps are Gi-NORMOUS)

Nothing about Civ shouts "To Scale", so again, irrelevant.

* Unit Micromanagement to the extreme (no more moving groups at a time, unless they somehow made a function that lets you move units in groups)

A move function to group move is in, (however for only units of the same type, so you can move several warriors together in your army, however your archer you just built will need to be moved seperatly or with other archers.

* Dragged out games while "moving into position" (they would have been just as well having limited stacks with seperate tactical maps)

Not really, I think you'll find you won't be spending as much time moving around as you think, sure you may need to think longer before moving to choose the correct placement, (added tactical elements) but in general you'll be moving far less units than in Civ4 which could get tedious even with group move. So the amount of time spent moving units about won't be like excessively more than you would spend in Civ4, if more at all.

....

I am confident, that when you play Civ5 you will either immediatly love the new 1UpT system, or grow to love it, or atleast grow to tolerate it. (Some people will hold onto their complaints about it, but will definitely still be playing the game, though modding it to a more preferable gaming style is also a fine choice, its what your supposed to do if you want something different I guess )

 

[MisterBarca]

How are limited stacks worse? (How would we know anyway? They just completely skipped over it!) Make a limit of, say, 3 at the start of the game, which can be increased through various techs, socail policies/civics, etc. There would still be tactics and a more complex strategy then unlimited stacks. Plus less micromanagement then OUPT.



So, a city that holds a million people, only has enough room for a single rank of archers (or whatever unit that you put in)? Any additional units ranks of soldiers that you train have to go out and sit in the open field and await orders? It just doesn't make sense! Mark my words, no matter how great the system is, OUPT is going to lead to unit micromanagement HELL!!!

To break it down...

OUPT Benefits

• Increased tactics and strategy
• No Stacks of Doom (if your one of those cryb... err, people who dislike that feature)
• Great for (very specific) Scenarios (think, Battle of Gettysburg)

OUPT Disadvantages

• Less believability (only 1 troop of soldiers in a XXX mile radius)
• Unrealistic scale (...unless the maps are Gi-NORMOUS)
• Unit Micromanagement to the extreme (no more moving groups at a time, unless they somehow made a function that lets you move units in groups)
• Dragged out games while "moving into position" (they would have been just as well having limited stacks with seperate tactical maps)

Limited Stack Benefits

• Increased tactics and strategy (over unlimited)
• No Stacks of Doom
• Less micromanagement then OUPT
• Reasonable scale

Limited Stack Disadvantages

• Scale still unrealistic (when compared to limited, but still reasonable as stated above)

Well, I could break it down even further, but that is a discussion for another thread and I have to be getting to bed. This news just reminded me of all of the reasons that I don't like the idea of OUPT in CIV. I was just getting used to the idea (note, not liking it, but accepting it). Personally, I really don't think that it was thought out completely no matter what they say. IMO, they just came up with the idea and those that were in favor of it got it pushed through! It seems like they never even considered the idea of limited stacks as an alternative. But, that is just how I perceive it!

I agree with you wholeheartedly. A compromise between unlimited stacks and a single unit per tile system would have been best. A stack limit of 3-5 would have worked well, I think, and would have conferred even more tactical options without creating a micro-management Hell.

 

[matt112986]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. A compromise between unlimited stacks and a single unit per tile system would have been best. A stack limit of 3-5 would have worked well, I think, and would have conferred even more tactical options without creating a micro-management Hell.

This would likely remove tactical play since you can remove weaknesses through stacking. If you put a swordsman and a cavalry unit in the same tile you have removed your weakness to pikemen, if I attack with a swordsman I lose to your cavalry. This brings more micromanagement since I have to reform my stacks with the proper balance.

Then you have to figure out how bombardment will work, as well as the implications from multiple bombardment weapons on a single hex.

With 1upt I can clearly see what you have on the field and formulate a strategy to attack with the correct units.

 

[AriochIV]

The unrealistic aspect of stacking is that a stack can ignore anything except another stack. You can simply walk by normal defensive "lines" or punch right through them, because nothing affects you except another stack. Most tactical play becomes irrelevant; combat becomes a contest between stacks and between stacks and cities. This holds true whether the stack limited or unlimited.

 

[Semmel]

I dont understand how people dont like 1upt until they tried it. Is it the fear of change? The very least that can be done is have an open mind about it. If you play it with the idea it must be bad from the start, you neglect your self to have fun with something new.. If you tried it out and come to the conclusion that its bad, well.. thats ok.

 

[Michelangelo]

Looking at the tech tree (and understanding it correctly), I find it very simplistic, if not uninteresting. Just a linear relation between techs (no pre-requisites to jump across the tech tree, but sometimes multiple required techs), same cost for all techs in a certain era. By the look of it, you need basically all techs in order to advance removing strategic choices.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Looking at the tech tree (and understanding it correctly), I find it very simplistic, if not uninteresting. Just a linear relation between techs (no pre-requisites to jump across the tech tree, but sometimes multiple required techs), same cost for all techs in a certain era. By the look of it, you need basically all techs in order to advance removing strategic choices.

Disagree. There are plenty of choices. For example, early:
- Pottery - Writing - Philosophy way giving you research.
- Bronze working - Iron working - Metal casting - Steel for military focused on infantry.
- Sailing - Optics - Compass for conquering ocean.
etc.

And you have this type of choices through the whole game.

 

[lietkynes]

Mark my words, no matter how great the system is, OUPT is going to lead to unit micromanagement HELL!!!

There are less units then in Civ4, so you are probably wrong.

Also there's hundreds of people who have played Civ5 by now, if 1UPT was flawed is such a dramatic way we would have known.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Offtopic: from the first sight I've read OUPT as "Zero Unit Per Tile". Great solution for removing micromanagement hell!

 

[EmpireOfCats]

The unrealistic aspect of stacking is that a stack can ignore anything except another stack.

This.

The last few games of Civ IV, I have been thinking about things that are going to change, and the combat will make the biggest difference. Bismarck came last night with a SOD, and I'm thinking, I've got to assemble my stack there, and then I think, wait, what will I be doing in about a month? Where is the next hill, where are the rivers.

If done right, 1upt and ranged combat could add a whole new level, I recognize now. But I'll have to play it myself to see if I like it.

 

[SJSerio]

Arioch is right, limited stacks, the main problem with it is it is still 1UpT with none of the benefits, if you use anything less than the maximum of the stack in number of units then you will lose fights.
All the benefits of added strategy and less simplification on positioning and more tactical combat all goes out the window as your trying to maximise your stacks, aka Stacks of Doom. (Where doom is limited)

* Less believability (only 1 troop of soldiers in a XXX mile radius)

No less believable than Infinite soldiers in a X mile radius, its not a disadvantage at all.

* Unrealistic scale (...unless the maps are Gi-NORMOUS)

Nothing about Civ shouts "To Scale", so again, irrelevant.

* Unit Micromanagement to the extreme (no more moving groups at a time, unless they somehow made a function that lets you move units in groups)

A move function to group move is in, (however for only units of the same type, so you can move several warriors together in your army, however your archer you just built will need to be moved seperatly or with other archers.

* Dragged out games while "moving into position" (they would have been just as well having limited stacks with seperate tactical maps)

Not really, I think you'll find you won't be spending as much time moving around as you think, sure you may need to think longer before moving to choose the correct placement, (added tactical elements) but in general you'll be moving far less units than in Civ4 which could get tedious even with group move. So the amount of time spent moving units about won't be like excessively more than you would spend in Civ4, if more at all.

....

I am confident, that when you play Civ5 you will either immediatly love the new 1UpT system, or grow to love it, or atleast grow to tolerate it. (Some people will hold onto their complaints about it, but will definitely still be playing the game, though modding it to a more preferable gaming style is also a fine choice, its what your supposed to do if you want something different I guess )

This would likely remove tactical play since you can remove weaknesses through stacking. If you put a swordsman and a cavalry unit in the same tile you have removed your weakness to pikemen, if I attack with a swordsman I lose to your cavalry. This brings more micromanagement since I have to reform my stacks with the proper balance.

Then you have to figure out how bombardment will work, as well as the implications from multiple bombardment weapons on a single hex.

With 1upt I can clearly see what you have on the field and formulate a strategy to attack with the correct units.

The unrealistic aspect of stacking is that a stack can ignore anything except another stack. You can simply walk by normal defensive "lines" or punch right through them, because nothing affects you except another stack. Most tactical play becomes irrelevant; combat becomes a contest between stacks and between stacks and cities. This holds true whether the stack limited or unlimited.

I dont understand how people dont like 1upt until they tried it. Is it the fear of change? The very least that can be done is have an open mind about it. If you play it with the idea it must be bad from the start, you neglect your self to have fun with something new.. If you tried it out and come to the conclusion that its bad, well.. thats ok.

I wish that I had more time to respond right now, but unfortunately, I have to drive out to Virginia today for work, and I am going to have a busy weekend as it is. Still, I cannot let the morning go without throwing in a couple points. First, several have stated that the problem with limited stacks is that it makes smaller stacks irrellevant. Not true, if they maintain the "Anti-Thunderdome" (as someone put it earlier in this thread... or elsewhere, don't remember) aspect that is in Civ V. That Cavalry unit may get its punch in on the Swordsman, but the swordsman can still hit the pikemen.

That is just one aspect! Again, if I had more time, I am sure that I could come up with several mechanics that would prove limited stacks to be better than unlimited or OUPT. So far, the only arguments that I have heard against LSs have been little more than excuses and not really reasons. I mean no offense, but with a little creativity and thought, it would be easy to overcome the concerns with LSs. That is much harder to do with OUPT.

When it comes to realism, I know many argue that Gameplay trumps realism. As I have said, though, many times before... That is only so true! Suspension of Belief has its limits. Otherwise, once you are pulled out of the believability, the game becomes less fun. That said, while USs may allow for infinite number of units in a single tile, which pushes the boundaries of believability, I have NEVER seen it get to that point (without using the WB, anyway). What many fail to consider is that each tile represents miles and miles of space. Each unit represents a number of units (I have always placed it at about 50 to 100 (with less for certain units like ships)). It is perfectly reasonable for a stack of 10 units to occupy one tile. What I don't find reasonable is having an army of 4 to 5 units covering the entire country of Spain, while your enemies army of 4 to 5 units covers the entire country of France. This REALLY pushes the boundaries of believability.

Honestly, I could go on and on forever! Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, I cannot see myself enjoying the game to the maximum with OUPT mechanics. That mechanic, to me, is best suited for more specific scenarios or Tactical Battle Maps! What I don't get is how people can slam me (and others who remains skeptical) when blindly praising it is just as bad. In the end, we will see. Unfortunately, I've gotta go now. I will still get the game and, at the very least, hope that it is either easily moddable, or somebody more advanced than me can make the mod... especially should I find the default method to be unplayable.

 

[Michelangelo]

Disagree. There are plenty of choices. For example, early:
- Pottery - Writing - Philosophy way giving you research.
- Bronze working - Iron working - Metal casting - Steel for military focused on infantry.
- Sailing - Optics - Compass for conquering ocean.
etc.

And you have this type of choices through the whole game.

I might have posted a bit too fast. After looking more closely you could basically get from pottery to biology without needing the other pottery-era techs.

But as pointed out in other threads, bee-lining might not be feasible to such an extend as you would miss very lucrative techs for a long time due to the steeply increasing costs. But you are right at pointing out some relatively short term focus points throughout the game.

 

[SJSerio]

There are less units then in Civ4, so you are probably wrong.

Also there's hundreds of people who have played Civ5 by now, if 1UPT was flawed is such a dramatic way we would have known.

To your first point... "Less units" has little to do with the argument. There may be less units (there are still a lot) but that does not mean that the player will be building less units. Much of that depends on mechanics. Even with less units built, believe me, unit micromanagement will be an issue.

To your second point... where are these hundreds of people? Most that I have heard from either work for the company (Firaxis/Take 2), or are game journalists. I put little value in the opinions of game journalists as they often either don't know what they are talking about or are often swayed by PR. I have little respect for them. That just leaves the average gamers who play it at a convention. Very few people get to attend these conventions where the game is playable and the amount of time that they get makes it difficult for them to form a good opinion and to really analyze what they have played.

That said, until the game is available for the masses, your second argument is moot. I will guarantee there will be people who love the new system, hate it with a passion, or at the very least gripe about it (I am hoping to fall into this category over the previous one. At this point, I doubt that I will fall into the first category... please prove me wrong Firaxis). We will have to see!

 

[stealth_nsk]

OK, not touching unlimited SOD at all. Let's compare 1UPT with limited stack (LSOD). Also, we assume LSOD has rather small limit (3, for instance) - otherwise it will not be different from SOD.

1. Tactics.

LSOD have less objects on map and there only 2 types of them - fast and slow. Some variations are possible, but not critical.

2. Micromanagement.

Let's measure micromanagement here with a simple value - time needed to make your turn. In fact you need MORE time to make moves with LSOD, because it adds additional map layer. You need to check each LSOD to see who are inside, while with 1UPT you could see everything you need to make decisions on one map layer.

3. Realism.

In civilization both time and distance scales are relative. And since we don't know how many kilometers is a tile, we can't say how many units it may host.

 

[12agnar0k]

Realism/Scale,

Thornburne, what you are doing is assuming a tile represents thousands of miles squared, why do you assume so, Civ is a fictional game, whos to say its landmass of the entire civ planet will be anything like ours, perhaps Civ is based on pocket universes with planets of much smaller dimensions, perhaps the only thing "too scale" in Civ are the humans that have setteled there, which if you look at them, appear to tower over the landscapes like giant monsters.

As I have said, nothing about Civ Shouts out "To Scale", the Units are (according to you) a thousand miles squared in size, (yeah because thats believeable), The cities are equally stupendous, the rivers in the game can be walked over like a puddle, Infinite units in a X amount of land is unrealistic, whos to say the tile doesn't represent 10mm of land, you only assume it represents thousands of miles sqaured because you want to try and fit the landscapes into your idea of reality, Civ has barely any basis in reality, I mean we arent seeing landscapes that defy laws of physics or anything with some really cool looking mess on the map like a bunch of wiggly squiggly lines, but thats about as far as it goes in reality. It tries to simulate a game where humanity can develop over some 6,000 years in a 4 hour game span, quite an accomplishment that this is achieved, however "Realism" and "Scale" goes right out the window, and argueing your points based on what would be believeable or not is entirely pointless. Half of Civ is unrealistic but you may not yet throw your PC out of the window because of it, Civ still brings fun and enjoyment to the table, just because games aren't "realistic" doesn't make them unplayable, I play plenty of sci-fi games which really try to be as unbelieveable as possible, sometimes the fictional stuff is fun too .

Also as for "Surely LSOD is better than both SOD and 1UpT, I could prove it if I had time right now" We dedicated an entire thread to Limited Stacks, discussed the implications on mechanics and gameplay, and no It really would not, take our word for it, or search "Limited Stacks" to find the thread. Arioch, I and a couple others have already explained the basic reasoning, none of us wants to discuss the point in huge detail, at least not in this thread, please find the original topic about "Limited Stacks" and read that, and then if you haven't changed your opinion at all, make a post there and I will discuss it further,

 

[Churchdown Yank]

... Bismarck came last night with a SOD, and I'm thinking, I've got to assemble my stack there, and then I think, wait, what will I be doing in about a month? Where is the next hill, where are the rivers.

...

This is why you must stop playing Civ IV now forever. You are damaging your prospects for V.

 

[Louis XXIV]

There's always a learning curve when switching games. I remember when I first started playing Civ3, I had a small force that I spread out around a city (being careful not to have two units overlap because of stacking penalties). I also relied heavily on horsemen or swordsmen. After my attack failed miserably, I switched to swordsmen and slowly learned the value of bombardment for catapults.

Of course, I think it's even harder to unlearn tactics when you switch back to the old game (as my failed attempts to mine grassland in Civ2 will testify).

You might as well enjoy the old game while you still remember how to play it. Stopping now isn't going to make you play Civ5 better.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

This is why you must stop playing Civ IV now forever. You are damaging your prospects for V.

Give me the demo now and I promise I won't play anything else until the full version is out .

 

[Churchdown Yank]

Give me the demo now and I promise I won't play anything else until the full version is out .

I know what you mean. Joking aside though, I've been thinking about the "skills" I've honed on Civ IV and they're pretty much all completely out the window. It's interesting how they can make a game that we'll all recognise as Civ, with so many of the same concepts, but different enough that we'll all have to master it all over again - the combat being I think the major one. 1 UPT and hexes along with limited strategic resources will necessitate a huge, huge difference in tactics.

Forget everything we learned in Civ IV. It'll be like the first day of school all over again.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Unit Stacking in Cities: Though you can temporarily have two units in a city (one garrisoned, and another sitting on the city tile), according to Greg one of them has to move out before you can end the turn. (relevant 2K forums thread)

I really like this because it allows (doesn't say that it is true but allows for) removal of Cities acting like "BC Panama Canals"

If the only way to get a second unit in a city is to build it there, it is possible that the only way to get a Naval unit in a city is to build it there. So Ships can't reenter friendly cities... and if you want a Panama/Suez type Canal you need a special Tile improvement/Building.