Downside of 1upt

[mi6agent]

1upt discourage massing troops ? Because if I going to take the world by brute force like the way we do in Civ IV, for example a grand army of 40 rifles and 20 trebs/cannons. So I need a whopping 60+ tiles for my force ??? lolz.
or how an AI Monty attack us with 50+ outdated units now ? It will be a mess and I dont think AI can handle it!

My solution : 1upt , but different quantities ! For example, you can merge 4 unit of 1,000 warrior into 1 unit of 4,000 warrior, thus save lots of spaces and a lot of time too! (there will be a cap how many man you can have in 1 tile, obviously)

Your thought ?

 

[Lillefix]

If everything works the way it's supposed to be, wou will never be able to attack with 60 units in civ5.

 

[ddd123]

1upt discourage massing troops ? Because if I going to take the world by brute force like the way we do in Civ IV, for example a grand army of 40 rifles and 20 trebs/cannons. So I need a whopping 60+ tiles for my force ??? lolz.
or how an AI Monty attack us with 50+ outdated units now ? It will be a mess and I dont think AI can handle it!

My solution : 1upt , but different quantities ! For example, you can merge 4 unit of 1,000 warrior into 1 unit of 4,000 warrior, thus save lots of spaces and a lot of time too! (there will be a cap how many man you can have in 1 tile, obviously)

Your thought ?

your logic fails

you dont take the world with 60 cannons etc

you take the world with *WHAT IS REQUIRED* to take the world

and "what is required" in civ4 was 60 cannons and stuff
"what is required" in civ5 is probably going to be 10 strong units

 

[Aeon221]

I doubt you'll need sixty units on a single front, but I also doubt that you'll only need ten soldiers on a single front.

Based on the mechanics as they have been described, I get the feeling that most wars will end up being limited, with maybe a city changing hands before both sides need to retire due to war weariness.

 

[Adjutant]

Well, the number of units that your empire will have at a given time will also be reduced what with limited resources and all that so you can rest assured that a global clusterf*ck of units is less likely. You'll be concentrated more on managing a smaller (but in many ways more valuable) set of units.

 

[mi6agent]

If that the case, it will be totally boring , for sure.
OMG a Diety lvl Monty attack me ... with 5 unit :facepalm
I'll better stick with Civ IV

 

[Louis XXIV]

Or perhaps you could wait until it is released and see how it actually works before judging it.

 

[em jay]

I doubt Monty will attack you with so few units, but maybe he will have 10 'modern' units (for whatever age you're in) and an assortment of older units that are too expensive to upgrade and can be used as bait. However, you could possibly defend from this army with 5 or so modern units used well with the landscape in mind (ie. ranged units firing over hills fortified melee units). Both sides would become v weak, and to attack you would need overwhelming numbers and good use of the surrounding terrain.

 

[Schuesseled]

1upt discourage massing troops ? Because if I going to take the world by brute force like the way we do in Civ IV, for example a grand army of 40 rifles and 20 trebs/cannons. So I need a whopping 60+ tiles for my force ??? lolz.
or how an AI Monty attack us with 50+ outdated units now ? It will be a mess and I dont think AI can handle it!

My solution : 1upt , but different quantities ! For example, you can merge 4 unit of 1,000 warrior into 1 unit of 4,000 warrior, thus save lots of spaces and a lot of time too! (there will be a cap how many man you can have in 1 tile, obviously)

Your thought ?

They have already said, there cutting back on the troops you can have, resources, maintenance and initial cost will prevent you from building too many troops.

 

[Desertsnow]

As I said in a previous thread, setting a limit is reasonable, but setting that limit to one is not reasonable. I see no flaw or fault in allowing n units per tile, if n is a reasonable compromise.

 

[Gamemaster77]

As I said in a previous thread, setting a limit is reasonable, but setting that limit to one is not reasonable. I see no flaw or fault in allowing n units per tile, if n is a reasonable compromise.

This is a very good explanation by aziantuntija on why that would by a bad idea as found in this thread.

"You should really understand that for example 3upt (or any other stack limit bigger than 1) WOULD NOT just be an tactical option, it would be A TACTICAL MUST, because now IF YOU ARE HAVING just 1 unit inside a hex, it is going to be ran over by enemys 3upt SSoD (SSoD=Small Stack of Death). So basicly, 3 units in hex are NOT 3 units in a hex at all, it is a one (1) full unit and anything less than 3 units in a hex (1 or 2 units in a hex) is an incomplete unit wich will be ran over by enemys full unit SSoD wich is goint to be 3upt or 4upt or whatever you might want it to be. In SSoD (lets say 3upt) civ game, you wouldnt even be moving your three different units one at a time, you would select all the 3 units that are occupying that tile, and move them all at once. So basicly, you would be ALWAYS treating them like being 1upt! And i really mean ALWAYS cause you CANT break your full 3upt SSoD unit in a combat because then it will just be picked up by a enemy SSoD. So it doesnt really add anything to tactical decision making in battle.

The only thing that 3upt brings to 1upt gameplay is micromanagement. After all, you dont wanna put 3 Modern Armours in the same hex cause then enemy can easily run them over with 3 Gunships, you would always have to manage what units you are having in your SSoDs, so 3upt, 4upt or whatever, would just be a micromanagemental hell compared to 1upt where you DONT have that kind of MM problem. You dont have to be constatly checking what stack needs what kind of unit right now to stay alive.

The bigger the SSoD gets, lets say 8upt, it will just get more closer to the infinite SoDs in civ4, wich are horrible. Also, to occupy more hexes effectively, you need more units (9 units to occupy 3 hexes when 3upt), this encourages unit spam wich also increases micromagent.".

 

[AriochIV]

The new resource model automatically limits the number of units you have, but it also provides incentive to the warmongering civs to get more resources so they can have bigger armies. So resources like copper and iron can be much more common than they are in Civ IV, and you're less likely to be completely screwed by not having any in your territory, but you might have a short supply and have to be clever about using your few units to acquire more. And because you can only have a limited number of units, there's better incentive to make sure those units are up to date, instead of keeping obsolete units around forever.

Depending on how they implement this unit cap, protracted war could be complicated (in which you need to replace units as they are lost, to get back up to the cap). If you aren't allowed to begin construction of a new unit when you're at the cap (which seems most likely), then there's going to be a long lag time between loss of a unit and production of a replacement. So there's most likely not going to be a steady stream of reinforcements coming to the front; wars may become more of a "come as you are" kind of affair.

 

[Aeon221]

As I said in a previous thread, setting a limit is reasonable, but setting that limit to one is not reasonable. I see no flaw or fault in allowing n units per tile, if n is a reasonable compromise.

There is no possible compromise.

Any stack size of size n (where n>1) reduces your frontage (where frontage is defined as width of the minimum {tile space} your soldiers require to fight effectively) by (frontage/n).

It should be obvious that the greatest absolute drop in frontage size is the change from n=1 to n=2.

Frontage and reaction costs (where reaction cost is defined as the time and expensve of moving a unit from one extreme of a formation to the other, and then responding to the attack) are directly proportional -- as one rises, so does the other. Both frontage and reaction costs are inversely proportional to concentration (where concentration is defined as the number of units able to fit in a single tile).

By definition, the defender gains from lower reaction costs -- the attacker has already concentrated and committed their troops for the attack, and the defender must react by concentrating their troops after the fact. As reaction costs plummet and concentration rises, the defender becomes stronger and the attacker weaker.

cIV is a textbook case of the effects of an unbounded positive n. Defense was a trivial task for a force roughly equivalent to the enemy ( If(location == forest hill) {defender wins}), while offense was something that the AI was, practically speaking, incapable of even in AI on AI wars. They could win offensively if they overwhelmed the defender through tech or numbers or both, but not against an equally matched foe.

The player, on the other hand, was able to offensively dominate through strategic concentration (stacks on the border before wars start), rushing and a refusal to engage in offensive action on a target not currently occupying a city unless the odds of winning were better than 80% -- thereby forcing the AI to eat the costs of field warfare.

While n=2 is not nearly so bad as a positive unbounded n, it is still significantly worse than n=1 for the reasons described above. Which is why, as I said, compromise on this subject is impossible.



tl;dr
The player should not have a monopoly on offensive action. n>1 reinforces that monopoly (see above for why). Therefore n>1 is bad.

 

[Old MacDonald]

I think the main drawback of 1 unit per tile is simply going to be that moving units is suddenly going to get a whole lot more complicated. Most games that feature 1upt use smaller scales than the worldwide scale in Civ, and you're often going to want to move units through heavily defended areas, but as they can't stop on an occupied tile there will be problems. Especially since building roads everywhere isn't going to be a viable strategy any more.

 

[mi6agent]

IMHO if thing stay like this, CIV V will be in too favour the peace teaching or wonder spamming strategy because the warmonger AI no longer have overwhelming forces you have to fear.

 

[Lillefix]

IMHO if thing stay like this, CIV V will be in too favour the peace teaching or wonder spamming strategy because the warmonger AI no longer have overwhelming forces you have to fear.

Considering they've said several times they have focused on war this time, I find that hard to believe. And since the cities protect themselves this time, it frees up a lot of units.

 

[Aeon221]

I think the main drawback of 1 unit per tile is simply going to be that moving units is suddenly going to get a whole lot more complicated. Most games that feature 1upt use smaller scales than the worldwide scale in Civ, and you're often going to want to move units through heavily defended areas, but as they can't stop on an occupied tile there will be problems. Especially since building roads everywhere isn't going to be a viable strategy any more.

I actually found the opposite to be the case. Usually the grognardy games will have oodles of boring units to move around, because they're obsessed with having every last one represented. And you're right, that's massively irritating.

CiV's dev team has made it very clear that they understand that that's an issue, and that they were putting mechanisms in place to prevent unit sprawl from taking over.

Which is a positive sign, but I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been thinking about how to implement a maintain formation group move functionality.

 

[Schuesseled]

yes a group move will be massively helpful, if its not in the game ill be suprised, ill be even more suprised if its not moded in by christmas

 

[AriochIV]

IMHO if thing stay like this, CIV V will be in too favour the peace teaching or wonder spamming strategy because the warmonger AI no longer have overwhelming forces you have to fear.

The whole idea is to upgrade to a combat system where victory is not determined by overwhelming numbers, but by skilled use of the units you have. I'm really looking forward to it.

Honestly, I expect competent human players to totally dominate the AI in Civ V combat, because it's going to be very complex, and the AI has to play competently to challenge you, because it can't any longer spam mega stacks of doom. They're promising better AI, but that's something that's always promised and rarely delivered.

 

[Ricci]

The whole idea is to upgrade to a combat system where victory is not determined by overwhelming numbers, but by skilled use of the units you have. I'm really looking forward to it.

Overwhelming numbers should be a determinant for victory, clearly not the sole determinant but still. This is one factor which, if not handled wright, will surely subtract strategy from combat.