Civ IV anyone?

[Duuk]

To me that's the biggest problem with 1UPT: When the Civ team decided to do 1UPT they didn't think past "this will be a great game experience" to realize that it will require the game to have two different levels of AI. Prior civ games basically needed a strategic-level AI: Build cities, build armies, start steamrolling. Starting in Civ5, the AI had to be capable of winning a Civ-style 4x game AND a Panzer General style tactical game _at the same time_ which is clearly was not able to do. Civ6 is a little better at it but (hello mister no air forces) it's still not 100%.

When you make the game more complex and fun for the player, you have to remember that the AI is almost certainly not going to be able to keep up with what a player can, so you can either super-cheat or you can spend a pile of time making the AI really smart. The problem with a really smart AI? A really smart AI will *always* play to win, never make mistakes, always know how to min-max the game, and will utterly crush newer players, so now you have to reverse buff newer players...

...which leads to the players screaming that the AI is too "gamey" and doesn't "act like they should" when they try to win the game. It's a cycle of complaints that is circular.

 

[Arent11]

To me that's the biggest problem with 1UPT: When the Civ team decided to do 1UPT they didn't think past "this will be a great game experience" to realize that it will require the game to have two different levels of AI. Prior civ games basically needed a strategic-level AI: Build cities, build armies, start steamrolling. Starting in Civ5, the AI had to be capable of winning a Civ-style 4x game AND a Panzer General style tactical game _at the same time_ which is clearly was not able to do. Civ6 is a little better at it but (hello mister no air forces) it's still not 100%.

When you make the game more complex and fun for the player, you have to remember that the AI is almost certainly not going to be able to keep up with what a player can, so you can either super-cheat or you can spend a pile of time making the AI really smart. The problem with a really smart AI? A really smart AI will *always* play to win, never make mistakes, always know how to min-max the game, and will utterly crush newer players, so now you have to reverse buff newer players...

...which leads to the players screaming that the AI is too "gamey" and doesn't "act like they should" when they try to win the game. It's a cycle of complaints that is circular.

1UPT has advantages but also several collaterals many people don't realize:

(1) Archers need to have 2 range to make them able to stand in the second row
(2) Consequently, units need to have 2 moves, so that they can reach archers in one turn
(3) Infantry units having 2 moves necessarily means cavalry units need even more moves (4-5)
(4) Consequently, the map becomes much "smaller"
(5) Consequently, the city radius has to become larger
(6) Transport ships don't work anymore, because you would need to stack several units, so you
have to invent embarkation
(7) If you continue building lots of units your map becomes cluttered & you need to invent armies/corps
as an alternative to stacking

-> The solution would of course be to combine units into armies freely & give each "army" a ranged/melee/defense/attack/movement rating depending on the units inside. Then you could also go back to 1 move per turn & 1 range & transport ships.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I see where you're coming from, but I for one don't miss transport ships. The rest I'd be okay with a little experimentation.

 

[bonafide11]

I mostly like 1UPT, but there are some drawbacks to it too and I wouldn't be opposed to some limited stacking like maybe 3 UPT or so. Creating some army formations, or something along those lines anyway. But I do not miss the 30+ stacks of units that you rolled around from city to city. There was no war really outside of the city, it was all right at the city's door. Let's not forget how silly war was back then.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I will say one thing I miss about Civ 4 very much was a sense of need to observe what was going on in the rest of the world and to stick my foot in and intervene. It has a real sense of world politics that is lacking in the later titles. In both 5 and 6 I just generally don't care that much, and in 6 I can't even bribe players into wars at all outside of declaring a joint war.

That is kinda true. I usually put a great emphasis on exploring in Civ 4, and was playing legos in Civ 5 and stuck to my own corner since who cares about the best spots when you only need like 3? Civ 6 is sorta in between but probably for the wrong reasons since the AI is basically a pinata.

 

[historix69]

To me that's the biggest problem with 1UPT: When the Civ team decided to do 1UPT they didn't think past "this will be a great game experience" to realize that it will require the game to have two different levels of AI. Prior civ games basically needed a strategic-level AI: Build cities, build armies, start steamrolling. Starting in Civ5, the AI had to be capable of winning a Civ-style 4x game AND a Panzer General style tactical game _at the same time_ which is clearly was not able to do. Civ6 is a little better at it but (hello mister no air forces) it's still not 100%.
...

It is a difference if you use 1upt in multiplayer or in singleplayer against AI. 1upt for multiplayer is probably a nice idea.

The typical 1upt games like Panzer General have a completely different gameplay compared to Civ. Usually you start with a small army on a mission map against a superior enemy army with a turn limit and a list of objectives to achive in a minimal number of turns. The AI does not need to be good, it just needs to slow down the player's advance by a few turns so he misses his objectives and has to replay the mission. If you remove the turn limit (like in Civ), the human player usually can outmaneuver the AI.

 

[Arent11]

I mostly like 1UPT, but there are some drawbacks to it too and I wouldn't be opposed to some limited stacking like maybe 3 UPT or so. Creating some army formations, or something along those lines anyway. But I do not miss the 30+ stacks of units that you rolled around from city to city. There was no war really outside of the city, it was all right at the city's door. Let's not forget how silly war was back then.

Well, you could simply make archers & catapults "support" units that can sit on the same tile as melee or cavalry units. That would make sense historically, since archers or catapults usually didn't roam the countryside by themselves.

 

[historix69]

1UPT has advantages but also several collaterals many people don't realize:

(1) Archers need to have 2 range to make them able to stand in the second row
(2) Consequently, units need to have 2 moves, so that they can reach archers in one turn
(3) Infantry units having 2 moves necessarily means cavalry units need even more moves (4-5)
(4) Consequently, the map becomes much "smaller"
(5) Consequently, the city radius has to become larger
(6) Transport ships don't work anymore, because you would need to stack several units, so you
have to invent embarkation
(7) If you continue building lots of units your map becomes cluttered & you need to invent armies/corps
as an alternative to stacking

-> The solution would of course be to combine units into armies freely & give each "army" a ranged/melee/defense/attack/movement rating depending on the units inside. Then you could also go back to 1 move per turn & 1 range & transport ships.

One of the reasons for 2 moves per turn was probably to avoid traffic jams and allow units to overtake each other, since units could not end their turns on the same tile.
In many 1upt strategy games, basic infantry has 4 movement points.

 

[historix69]

I mostly like 1UPT, but there are some drawbacks to it too and I wouldn't be opposed to some limited stacking like maybe 3 UPT or so. Creating some army formations, or something along those lines anyway. But I do not miss the 30+ stacks of units that you rolled around from city to city. There was no war really outside of the city, it was all right at the city's door. Let's not forget how silly war was back then.

A limited stack was the army in Civ 3, created by a Great General. It allowed to combine different units into one stronger unit and I think to profit from the individual strengths of those units. The Corps and Armies in Civ 6 point into that direction but are too limited due to restriction on one unit type.

 

[ashendashin]

When you make the game more complex and fun for the player, you have to remember that the AI is almost certainly not going to be able to keep up with what a player can, so you can either super-cheat or you can spend a pile of time making the AI really smart. The problem with a really smart AI? A really smart AI will *always* play to win, never make mistakes, always know how to min-max the game, and will utterly crush newer players, so now you have to reverse buff newer players...

...which leads to the players screaming that the AI is too "gamey" and doesn't "act like they should" when they try to win the game. It's a cycle of complaints that is circular.

There's no such ultimatum on AI. Lower difficulties can handicap AI decisions and even the highest difficulties can still be influenced by the assigned personality. How bad the min-maxing is compared to humans depends on game design, which can be massively improved by having competent players to balance around.

 

[Mozzington]

I just don't care that France is trading Oranges to England. I DO care when they trade Iron Working, Machinery, and Civil Service.

This. End of story.

 

[Duuk]

There's no such ultimatum on AI. Lower difficulties can handicap AI decisions and even the highest difficulties can still be influenced by the assigned personality. How bad the min-maxing is compared to humans depends on game design, which can be massively improved by having competent players to balance around.

See, that's a terrible idea, because there you're saying that you would deliberately have the AI make sub-optimal decisions on lower difficulty levels. The AI needs to be separate from difficulty calculations, because the AI is "how the AI plays the game" and the difficulty level is a sliding scale of "how much of a challenge does the player have to overcome?"

 

[ashendashin]

See, that's a terrible idea, because there you're saying that you would deliberately have the AI make sub-optimal decisions on lower difficulty levels. The AI needs to be separate from difficulty calculations, because the AI is "how the AI plays the game" and the difficulty level is a sliding scale of "how much of a challenge does the player have to overcome?"

It's what's been done. Vox Populi AI weighs tons of variables and has the AI pick from the highest weighted choices. Deity picks the highest weight and lower difficulties randomly picks from 2-4 total options after weighing, depending how low you go. AI bonuses are mixed with this, of course. Even the base game has the base concept but doesn't really use it. Worked for me when I first started and it's still going strong for new players now that the AI is better than ever.

Besides, the opponent is the challenge to overcome in Civ. I wouldn't expect a total noob to win against someone with over a thousand hours put in.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

And I believe they actually used code from one of the community members who improved the AI, if my memory serves me correctly.

That's what I recall as well. However, it still wasn't as terrible as the Civ 6 AI even when BTS came out.

Vox Populi AI weighs tons of variables and has the AI pick from the highest weighted choices.

Would love to play this mod but it doesn't work with my Win10 computer. Can't 2K/Firaxis just license this code?

 

[ashendashin]

Would love to play this mod but it doesn't work with my Win10 computer. Can't 2K/Firaxis just license this code?

Can you specify what the problem is? Works fine for me so it's not the OS.

It'd take a lot of rebuilding to start copying anything worthwhile. Firaxis hasn't been working with modders like they did with Civ4. I've been told that the only known communication with DLL modders was with whoward, and it was for some small mods of his, not the DLL improvements that were necessary for any serious AI work to start.
For them to get anything done properly would require either opening up (see if their corporate overlords allow THAT), or starting some much needed restructuring/hiring for their own team.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

Can you specify what the problem is? Works fine for me so it's not the OS.

Takes forever to load. My user files are on a NAS so that may be the problem. There's no way to force Civ 5 to look for user files on my C drive.

 

[isau]

RE: the number of moves units should have in a 1UPT world where leftover moves are rounded down, IMO the base should be 3 moves. In the current system, a tile with Hills + Trees costs the same as just a Hill or just Trees. With 3 base moves it is differentiated. Units move too slow in Civ 6 IMO. Good thing this is easily modded.

 

[ashendashin]

Takes forever to load. My user files are on a NAS so that may be the problem. There's no way to force Civ 5 to look for user files on my C drive.

Hmm, I can see how that's a problem. You can try using a modpack so you don't have to go through the mod menu. The version in the main post is a year old, so check the latest posts for new packs. The latest ones just became outdated today though as there were some issues addressed.