Downside of 1upt

[brianshapiro]

To match the historical deployment of troops, we would have to have zoomed-in combat screens.

Actually, I would prefer such a thing, but I am fully aware of the fact that many other would not like it, as it would be time-consuming and effort.

Nevertheless, it would be fun.

Yea, it was in Imperialism, and it was fun there, but I still always turned that option off just because it slowed down the game too much.

But I don't understand why people in this thread are so resistant to the idea that limited stacks aren't more realistic. "Stacking" units isn't realistic, its an abstraction, but the point is they match realistically the effect of unit formations.

 

[Commander Bello]

But I don't understand why people in this thread are so resistant to the idea that limited stacks aren't more realistic. "Stacking" units isn't realistic, its an abstraction, but the point is they match realistically the effect of unit formations.

Well, we have to admit that Civ4 in a way "burned" the idea of stacks - stacks in Civ4 were just a crap like the whole combat system there.

Therefore, I can understand that people are hoping for the best, now that a new system has been announced.
As I said, I was enthusiatic about it in the beginning, too.

 

[Songkok]

To match the historical deployment of troops, we would have to have zoomed-in combat screens.

Actually, I would prefer such a thing, but I am fully aware of the fact that many other would not like it, as it would be time-consuming and effort.

Nevertheless, it would be fun.

This happens in Masters of Magic. Oh, and it also has a limited stack, which cannot goes more than 9 units. and when two stacks meet, it zooms into a "strategic battle scene". Although if ciV implement this, it will be a troublesome and interesting feature... what ciV are now trying to do is to have things perpertually in the "strategic battle scene".

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I have no more of an issue with 1upt-in scale terms-than I do with units taking 200 years to get from 1 city to another. Sure it isn't "realistic", but for a game which exists on multiple levels of scale at once, some sacrifices need to be made.

As I've said before, I've seen much older AI's handle 1upt combat *better* than even the best Civ AI can handle stack combat. That is why I believe that 1upt is going to be a massive boost to the combat side of the game-a side I've usually tried to ignore before now-*because* of how lame it is!

Aussie.

 

[brianshapiro]

I have no more of an issue with 1upt-in scale terms-than I do with units taking 200 years to get from 1 city to another.

I don't like the movement issues either and I don't think its necessary to build these scale distortions into the game.

Not enough thought has been given imo to get rid of these. While its a game and not reality, I think the game would do best by modeling reality. We enjoy the game, after all, because its based on a real thing.

 

[AriochIV]

I loved Masters of Magic, and Age of Wonders, and many other games with separate tactical modules. But Civilization does not use that model, and probably never will. I like to play games that take weeks to finish, but a lot of people don't, and a lot of the people who play Civilization (and have made it the most successful computer strategy game of all time) would never touch a Total War game.

 

[aziantuntija]

That actually seems to be part of the problem.

So its a problem that i dont spend my days playing and studying games? Man youre even more hardcore gamer than i propably first realized! Werent you also against the steam because it ruins our lives or something?


Lets get to the point. There is one thing you can do about 1upt in civ5, you can ask someone to make a mod wich shows multiple units inside this one unit when you click on it, would that make you feel better? ..Im serious, would it make you feel better even just a little bit? Im pretty sure it would make you feel better


EDIT: So the main reason for Commander Bello to be up against 1upt is a lack of imagination for the scale. Thats sad. But how can the scale be that wrong if your not playing on world map? Or how do you know how big the world map is even going to be? Im not saying that it is going to be perfectly scaled for 1upt but im sure there are TON of things in a civ game that do not have the "right scale". I mean, its not like you must make a imaginary friend for yourself here.

 

[Commander Bello]

So its a problem that i dont spend my days playing and studying games? Man youre even more hardcore gamer than i propably first realized! Werent you also against the steam because it ruins our lives or something?

No, the problem is that you're unwilling to learn, as you've stated.

EDIT: So the main reason for Commander Bello to be up against 1upt is a lack of imagination for the scale. Thats sad. But how can the scale be that wrong if your not playing on world map? Or how do you know how big the world map is even going to be? Im not saying that it is going to be perfectly scaled for 1upt but im sure there are TON of things in a civ game that do not have the "right scale". I mean, its not like you must make a imaginary friend for yourself here.

I honestly think that the one who lacks imagination is not me.
Have a look at pictures issued so far:

You're seeing the distance between cities? They are damn close to each other.
There is not much space left, and this very limited space makes for very limited options for a 1upt system.

And now you may want to compare that with a screenshot from Panzer General:

In the latter, you are having tactical options - in the first, they are limited to a degree which renders 1upt almost pointless.

1upt is all about scale, and the scale of Civ-games seems not to fit in any way.
This has very little to do with "imagination".

I would be all for 1upt in a proper scale as being delivered by zoomed-in combat screens. I would love it.

But 1upt on a map which by defniition is made for strategic, not tactical deployment of your troops is moot.

I may have the advantage over you to know both sides and being familiar with both. Therefore, I think that my estimation is based on some kind of "having studied it".

 

[12agnar0k]

I dont think "scale" is the problem, more the fact that all the civs on the map, which arent that far from each other even on the biggest map sizes, all want to build as much cities as possible, so you have a city every few tiles across the whole map. Its no different than in other civs. I don't see it as a problem, it should be fun attacking someone elses city while your own city is close enough to provide ranged fire power against enemy defenders .

 

[aziantuntija]

No, the problem is that you're unwilling to learn, as you've stated.

Ok lets try this once again, read this again and really try to understand what im saying here: "Im sorry im not really a gamer myself (exept civ) and i do not even know what is CtP II and i must say that i dont really care to study." Do you now get it?

So i said that i dont care to study or play Ctp II and i dont see a point why i should.

You just took this part: "and i must say that i dont really care to study."

Not very mature my little friend, not very mature.

I honestly think that the one who lacks imagination is not me.

Yes it is Because if everything has to be brought straight under your nose so that you can see/understand it, then there is no, or only little room for imagination. Just like we can all see in this scale case wich you are so annoyed about, so everything has to be clear as a cristal to you and well explained even after that (yes i have noticed this also), otherwise you dont like it

I may have the advantage over you to know both sides and being familiar with both.

I really dont care about what you know and what you dont know. Limited stacking is still a bad idea for civ game because it would be pointless. And as you said it yourself, pretty much the only thing bothering you in 1upt civ is the scale, so most likely the only potential problem found in 1upt civ game will be inside the players head. That said, maybe its not about imagination at all, maybe it is an attitude problem


I suppose it might be good thing for you that your studying games , at least if you like studying games. But i dont have any particular need to study games, i just dont, im sorry.


Now we have 1upt to look for, IMO its way better than SOD, but what we dont need is any complicated limited stacking system to shuffle up the gameplay wich btw only serves those few who are somehow disturbed by the scale. It would be terrible price to pay just because some are a bit disturbed by a somekind of non gameplay issue wich many "basic" users wouldnt propably even bother to think about.


EDIT: Any thoughts Bello?

 

[Commander Bello]

Ok lets try this once again, read this again and really try to understand what im saying here: "Im sorry im not really a gamer myself (exept civ) and i do not even know what is CtP II and i must say that i dont really care to study." Do you now get it?

So i said that i dont care to study or play Ctp II and i dont see a point why i should.

You just took this part: "and i must say that i dont really care to study."

Not very mature my little friend, not very mature.

Well, talking about "maturity"...

As you just have repeated, you don't have any interest in "studying" CtP, which is ok so far. Yet, in the context of this "discussion", the reference to CtP was made because of a special feature related to combat systems in a "stack environment". Knowledge about this feature would have allowed to continue the discussion based on some information.
Unfortunately, this seems not to be in your interest.

Yes it is Because if everything has to be brought straight under your nose so that you can see/understand it, then there is no, or only little room for imagination. Just like we can all see in this scale case wich you are so annoyed about, so everything has to be clear as a cristal to you and well explained even after that (yes i have noticed this also), otherwise you dont like it

I've read this paragraph now several times and I still don't have a clue what you want to express.
I can only assume that you are blaming me for my assumed attitude to have proper and clear explanations, examples and demonstrations of what one is talking about.
In case somebody is not giving such explanations (except for "my idea is good and your's sucks"), he has the advantage of being allowed to blame me for missing "imagination" if I cannot follow his not expressed thoughts and ideas.

I really dont care about what you know and what you dont know. Limited stacking is still a bad idea for civ game because it would be pointless.

Because of?
Ah... because for you the "best defender defends all the time" is natural law for stacks, right? Or would there be other options for stack systems?
Leads us back to something which you are not interested in to have to study.

Quite convenient for you, as I have to admit.

And as you said it yourself, pretty much the only thing bothering you in 1upt civ is the scale, so most likely the only potential problem found in 1upt civ game will be inside the players head. That said, maybe its not about imagination at all, maybe it is an attitude problem

I note that you are carefully avoiding any reference to the pictures in my posting, which clearly indicate less space in Civ5 for making use of units than in a tactical combat game like Panzer General.

Actually, I wonder if this may be a problem of attitude?

I suppose it might be good thing for you that your studying games , at least if you like studying games. But i dont have any particular need to study games, i just dont, im sorry.

At least one of us knows what he is talking about, hm?

Now we have 1upt to look for, IMO its way better than SOD, but what we dont need is any complicated limited stacking system to shuffle up the gameplay wich btw only serves those few who are somehow disturbed by the scale. It would be terrible price to pay just because some are a bit disturbed by a somekind of non gameplay issue wich many "basic" users wouldnt propably even bother to think about.

So, the available space to move your units for you seems to be a non-gameplay issue?
Then, I don't really get why you're thinking that 1upt would be better than a stack system?

Since after all what we know warfare will - at least - still be a major component in Civ5, I would not regard that as a non-gameplay issue, but if it serves your argumentation....

Whether the "basic" user will be bothered to think about this - we will learn about this after release.
Of course both of us can only speculate about this right now, but based on my experience with both systems I would expect that people won't be too happy with that limited space, because it inevitably will limit the tactical options to a minimum.

Since you seem to blame the "stack system" for exactly such limited options, I am a bit confused that other limited options seem to be quite ok for you.
Might it be that you never managed to get a good production and therefore always were steamrolled by "SoD's" and therefore are praysing the 1upt?

At the moment I hardly find any other explanation for your line of argumentation.
Praysing Civ5's 1upt for "frontlines" and whatnotever, when actual screenshots indicate that such "frontlines" will hardly exist seems to be a bit strange.

But I am pretty sure you will be mature enough to explain a bit more.

 

[NKVD]

it seems to me there is enough place on a Huge Map . Even if cities are close enough. I always went to war with neighboors anyway when their cities were too close of mine and wanted my full fat cross. like someone else said here, the object of war is not to take cities but destroy the other's army

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Bello, I think its you who is having the problem with *scale*. Problem #1 is that you use the absolute *smallest* possible map for Civ5 to make the point of how small the space between cities is. Check out some of those maps for the Strategic View to get a better idea of what kind of city distance we'll be looking at for most *regular* games.

Problem #2 is in regards to the unit scale we're looking at for Panzer General vs Civ (&, more specifically Civ5). In a game like PG, which deals in time units of weeks to years-at best-you're almost certainly looking at units which represent anything from a Squad (an average of 10 foot units) up to a company (an average of 150 foot units). In a game like Civ-which covers a much grander sweep of history-I'd postulate that units represent anything from a Regiment (an average of 4,000 foot units) up to a Corps (an average of 40,000 foot units). In my mind, a game like Civ3 or Civ4-where units are more common, & the majority of your units *always* die if they lose-I'd say it's closest to a Division (around 10,000 foot units). By contrast, the relative rarity of units in Civ5-coupled with their increased survivability-suggests to me that they represent a Corps (anywhere up to 50,000 foot units). Which is exactly why I have no problem accepting 1upt from a scale point of view. The unit scale seems more epic to me than in previous civ games.

Also, I did play CTP & CTP2, & I personally didn't think much of their tactical level combat screen-because left almost no room for actual *tactics*! This is coming from someone who *has* actually played all of the games, & knows their upsides & downsides.

Aussie.

 

[Commander Bello]

. like someone else said here, the object of war is not to take cities but destroy the other's army

Well, destroying the other's army is kind of pointless, as it will be the city which gives the opponent his strength, power, influence, whatever.
The ultimate goal of civ's warfare is always to get control over the other's cities.

it seems to me there is enough place on a Huge Map . Even if cities are close enough.

I humbly disagree.
If there isn't enough room between cities, it comes down to smashing any unit into any other one.

This doesn't seem to allow for much tactics, does it?

 

[NKVD]

+1 for Aussie . There are games for each level of scale.

what really catch my eye in Bello's screenshot is more that the artillery is directly on the front line. Thats what i thought he was trying to demonstrate...not that cities are close...

 

[Perfection]

Progress said that.

Progress doesn't say things

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, destroying the other's army is kind of pointless, as it will be the city which gives the opponent his strength, power, influence, whatever.
The ultimate goal of civ's warfare is always to get control over the other's cities.


I humbly disagree.
If there isn't enough room between cities, it comes down to smashing any unit into any other one.

This doesn't seem to allow for much tactics, does it?

http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=2937&c=36

I doubt that even this represents the largest map possible-as its really only for play-testing purposes. Yet even here we see larger gaps between cities than what there is in the map you used. What I find so hilarious, though, is this idea that a host of programmers & play-testers have failed to account for map size when coming up with the 1upt approach to combat-but that you somehow managed to picked it up. I believe that's referred to as the Dunning-Kruger Effect-where people outside of a field think they have *greater* knowledge & expertise than those inside the field.

 

[kozzer]

Progress doesn't say things

If you really want to know, it's a bastardized Voltaire quote: "Perfection is the enemy of the good".

Edit: I don't really have an inherent preference between SoD and 1upt, except that I'm tired of the brainless SoD combat model and am looking forward to a change in that regard. Honestly, I find absolutely no strategy or tactics in building a SoD or two and them ramming them into successive cities with the same exact actions:

1) siege: destroy cultural defenses
2) siege: suicide collateral damage attacks
3) SoD: ram into city
4) Rinse and repeat

Don't get me wrong, it's been a lot of fun - and I'm STILL playing Civ4 and enjoying it, but I'm ready for a change.

 

[NKVD]

Well, destroying the other's army is kind of pointless, as it will be the city which gives the opponent his strength, power, influence, whatever.
The ultimate goal of civ's warfare is always to get control over the other's cities.


I humbly disagree.
If there isn't enough room between cities, it comes down to smashing any unit into any other one.

This doesn't seem to allow for much tactics, does it?

the goal is to make them capitulate. if there is no army in a city I will take it for sure! i'm not saying to not take them and go after the other civ's army in the antartic. if 2 armies would have to go at war against an ennemy the one aiming at destroying the other's army quickly would win before the one going for the capital and important cities. Sure cities are the source of power but once there are no more army to defend them they do not hold much power. So yeah, they are like you said the ultimate goal....the first goal though is to crush the other's army.

i dont get your last point though. What does a city (or two) in the middle of a war restricts movements or strategies ? you still can form a line. just like the screenshot you showed us of PG. the city is just a background image with troops over it. take it this way with a city you can put a unit on it in Civ 5. you have funny arguments too why would i smash any units into any other one ? you're assuming i wont chose the units i want to attack with because there is a city ?

 

[Commander Bello]

Bello, I think its you who is having the problem with *scale*. Problem #1 is that you use the absolute *smallest* possible map for Civ5 to make the point of how small the space between cities is. Check out some of those maps for the Strategic View to get a better idea of what kind of city distance we'll be looking at for most *regular* games.

Well, guys, it would have been an act of courtesy to provide proof for your statements by yourself, but that is another topic.
I will refer to this thread here, referring to official screenshots:

What I can see are cities just 2 or 3 hexes apart from each other.
Once again, this does not really make for "frontlines", especially considering the fact that Civ warfare is about to gain control over cities.

Problem #2 is in regards to the unit scale we're looking at for Panzer General vs Civ (&, more specifically Civ5). (...)

1 unit is 1 unit is 1 unit, no?
And 1 hex is 1 hex is 1 hex, no?

How much "men" a unit may ever represent, if I only have that 1 unit, I can only do that many things with it.
If this 1 unit has only 1 hex to move to, it only has that many movement options. Regardless, whether this 1 options stands for 10 km², 100 km² or 1,000,000 km². It is always just 1 option.

Also, I did play CTP & CTP2, & I personally didn't think much of their tactical level combat screen-because left almost no room for actual *tactics*! This is coming from someone who *has* actually played all of the games, & knows their upsides & downsides.

I agree that even CtP's combat system did not allow for much tactical combat, yet it proves that stacks/armies do not always have to come with "the best defender always defends", as was indicated here.

Bottom line:
Even the strategic maps mentioned by you seem to indicate that typically cities will be very close to each other - actually they seem to be even closer to each other than in a typicala Civ4 game.
That limited space between the cities inevitably reduces the space for tactical combat.

And that limited space makes me wonder whether 1upt really is such a good choice for Civ5.
Now, you may stick with your impression that it will be good for Civ5. Of course there is no earthly means for me to convince you about the opposite.

But, please, don't ignore obvious facts.