Downside of 1upt

[aMoralAtheist]

Excuse me but I read all of that and not one of my observations has been addressed and in fact, they cannot be as they are created by 1UPT itself.
Trading one set of problems in return for another set of absurdities is not logical when a reasonable compromise was available that would retain good features of both approaches while eliminating many problems. A stacking limit of 2 or 3 would allow for tactics while retaining logical unit mixes while still being very compatible with a lower number of units and more use of frontages. There is enough collective experience in computer gaming to see the logic in that without waiting for this particular game to be released.

All it does is mean unit has three custom parts. As stated, this means anything < 3 us an inferioir situation.

 

[aziantuntija]

It all depends on how it would be implemented. If implemented in a horrible manner, then you are correct.

But you wouldn't want to allow any unit to stack in a limited stack, you would have it so only units of different 'types' can stack together. So you could stack cavalry, archers and spearman together; which e.g. would be a full army.

Well i suppose couple of people would love the must to build custom armies (limited stacks), but what about those who would just want to build one unit and fully occupy a hex with it and not to first build one unit and then try and repair it with some other units to make it stay alive and fully occupy a hex. Limited stacking would be absolutely ridiculous, even more ridiculous than unlimited stacking because now you MUST think what kind of stackS you are building so that they stay alive instead of just one big stack where you would have ALL of your units that are going to war.


But first of all i must say that i dont even belive we are having as strong rock, paper, scissors thing in civ5 as we had in civ4 because of the 1upt rule. This means that we are basicly allready serving the people who want to stack units to patch their weaknsesses, exept that this 1upt is easier for the AI and its also WAY less frustrating for the player.


If there would going to be rock, paper, scissors thing ala civ4, then limited stacking would be horrible MM to build and manage them, and as i allready said it would propably be much worse than unlimited stacking. Also, it doesnt remove the stack combat problem where the best possible defender always defends from the attacker and i dont see any solution to that problem.

If rock, paper, scissors are NOT as strong as in civ4, then as everyone can see then there is no point whatsoever of making stacks in the first place. Unless of course we have so many units that we must stack them, but then i would say that more units really doesnt add anything to the game.

 

[aziantuntija]

I think it would make more sense to add in an attrition feature.

For instance, a grass tile can support 4 units, plains 2, desert/tundra 1 etc. Including the need for supply lines and the possibility to mix units of one tile into militia regiments.

Nothing personal but i would say that your idea would be a somewhat disaster for a civ game.

If you think it for a moment yourself, you should propably realize that it would most likely be even worse than pure limited stacking, and as i said in my previous post that limited stacking is MM hell, pointless or both (well it does encourage unit spam though) depending on the power of rock, paper, scissors effect.

 

[tom2050]

Limited stacking equals anything less than the maximum is not a full unit, so if you want to win battles you will have to stack to the maximum to make a "full unit" this is not good strategy, it will take so much away from the game.

And Arioch is right, they arent going to do it, if someone wants to try and mod limited stacking in, go for it, I for one won't even bother looking at it.

You are thinking in too simple of terms. It is easy to make it so the thought of 'not having 3 units is bad, because it's not a full army'. If someone does this against another player that doesn't always do this, but uses their pieces according to their strengths, the 'stacking all stacks to the fullest' player loses.

You could at least in these circumstances defend a castle with swordsmen and archers. You could keep an AA gun with your tanks, etc.

No one expects them to change anything, but it sounds to me like you just go along with anything the company does as the absolute and only way to do it, and therefore it must be the absolute best way; and everything else is a bad way.

Right now, as Civ 5 is, there will be pretty much 1 Single best strategy for moving your troops around to defend or attack; depending on the troops you have. The best strategy will change as time progresses and you have different units; but this is how it has to be.

 

[aMoralAtheist]

You are thinking in too simple of terms. It is easy to make it so the thought of 'not having 3 units is bad, because it's not a full army'. If someone does this against another player that doesn't always do this, but uses their pieces according to their strengths, the 'stacking all stacks to the fullest' player loses.

You could at least in these circumstances defend a castle with swordsmen and archers. You could keep an AA gun with your tanks, etc.

No one expects them to change anything, but it sounds to me like you just go along with anything the company does as the absolute and only way to do it, and therefore it must be the absolute best way; and everything else is a bad way.

Right now, as Civ 5 is, there will be pretty much 1 Single best strategy for moving your troops around to defend or attack; depending on the troops you have. The best strategy will change as time progresses and you have different units; but this is how it has to be.

Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they just take what the company says as gospel. I think 1upt will work better because in my personal analysis thats how I see it.

Moderator Action: Warning for inappropriate language

 

[tom2050]

You are an ***. Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they just take what the company says as gospel. I think 1upt will work better because in my personal analysis thats how I see it. Don't be an elitist ****.

What kind words.

The point is, if Firaxis made it with limited stacks, then there would be those saying limited stacks are terrific, great and the only best way to do it. Then instead of this thread, there would be a "Downside of Limited Stacks" and some would be saying: "I think 1 unit per tile is better".. but others would reply "1upt is dumb because the strategy just isn't there".

The point of this thread is to discuss thoughts on the subject; and that's what I'm doing.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Limited stacks would work only as an anti-SoD measure. It doesn't dramatically change things like one unit per tile. And I don't think there will always be a consistent strategy to use with the new set-up because terrain changes things dramatically.

 

[aziantuntija]

tom2050 i understand what you are saying that some people will just "go along the company" with almost if not on everything.

BUT!

Limited stacking in civ game would still be a awful idea, i have allready told in many threads how limited stacking in civ would just simply suck, i have told it in so many ways and so many times, it would be stupid if i once again must copy paste my old posts to a new thread. Nobody, i mean NOBODY hasnt REALLY answered to my posts and showed me how limited stacking would be better in a civ game than 1upt.


Couple have argued, but there has been nothing to prove limited stacking better overall than 1upt.


I did have conversation with RickInVA and he really tried hard to prove me wrong but in the end he admitted that he just didnt have enough imagination for 1upt system in a world map scale and that he didnt want ANY tactical warfare whatsoever in civ game.


He also said: "I honestly don't know why people didn't like SOD." So he didnt even see a problem with SODs in the first place.


So tom2050, are you saying that as a good civ fans we should all be yelling for limited stacking with RickInVA now? Even though it would most likely make the game suck?

 

[aMoralAtheist]

What kind words.

The point is, if Firaxis made it with limited stacks, then there would be those saying limited stacks are terrific, great and the only best way to do it. Then instead of this thread, there would be a "Downside of Limited Stacks" and some would be saying: "I think 1 unit per tile is better".. but others would reply "1upt is dumb because the strategy just isn't there".

The point of this thread is to discuss thoughts on the subject; and that's what I'm doing.

You are asserting that people would say mini stacks are good because firaxas alone says so, but of course some people would think it was a good idea, based on their belief about how the strategy would work. And I stand by what I said about you. Don't make stupid assertions about people you don't even know simply because they disagree with you. Its rude, and if you want to be rude, I will return the favor in kind. You don't get to imply people can't think for themselves and just regurgitate what a company says, and then get all butt hurt because somebody disparages you. You know what they call that? Being an ignorant hypocrit. Dispense with the personal attacks, and we can stay on topic.

Moderator Action: We have no tolerance for flaming here!
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Commander Bello]

Limited stacking equals anything less than the maximum is not a full unit, so if you want to win battles you will have to stack to the maximum to make a "full unit" this is not good strategy, it will take so much away from the game.

And Arioch is right, they arent going to do it, if someone wants to try and mod limited stacking in, go for it, I for one won't even bother looking at it.

All it does is mean unit has three custom parts. As stated, this means anything < 3 us an inferioir situation.

Not necessarily correct in both cases.

First of all, stacking (whether it may be limited or not) is a good thing at least for unit movement.
Second, under the assumption of a stack limit of say 4upt, anything less is just not different to a wounded unit under the rules of 1upt.
Third, a stack of proper compositon, yet not at full strength equals something like a today's division not being at full strength. Yet, put in the right terrain, it may still serve it's purpose.
Fourth, if you lose one unit under the rules of 1upt, you lose that hex. If you lose one unit under the rule of 4upt, you may still hold that hex.

 

[hk2717]

Not necessarily correct in both cases.

First of all, stacking (whether it may be limited or not) is a good thing at least for unit movement.
Second, under the assumption of a stack limit of say 4upt, anything less is just not different to a wounded unit under the rules of 1upt.
Third, a stack of proper compositon, yet not at full strength equals something like a today's division not being at full strength. Yet, put in the right terrain, it may still serve it's purpose.
Fourth, if you lose one unit under the rules of 1upt, you lose that hex. If you lose one unit under the rule of 4upt, you may still hold that hex.

First, that is true only when the number of the units are on the same level in the two systems. Let's say we have 16 units in the 1upt system, will there only be 16 units so 4 stacks of troops for your entire empire in the limited stacking system? I think that is really unlikely. If we also have 16 stacks, will movement be simpler or more convenient in the latter system? Will you feel more efficient simply because you move four units at a time?
Second and third, how do these make limited stacking better than 1upt? If the two systems are more or less the same from such perspectives, then what's the point of limited stacking with its micromanagement hell?
Fourth, in the new 1upt system, it is no longer "one attack, one kill". So in 1upt, after your unit lose a combat, it probably still holds the hex, just the same as in limited stacking. So again, this is not something make limited stacking better.

 

[Commander Bello]

First, that is true only when the number of the units are on the same level in the two systems. Let's say we have 16 units in the 1upt system, will there only be 16 units so 4 stacks of troops for your entire empire in the limited stacking system? I think that is really unlikely. If we also have 16 stacks, will movement be simpler or more convenient in the latter system? Will you feel more efficient simply because you move four units at a time?

Yes, since in an (assumed) 4upt-system I woiuld move 64 units with just 16 commands.

Second and third, how do these make limited stacking better than 1upt? If the two systems are more or less the same from such perspectives, then what's the point of limited stacking with its micromanagement hell?

The point is that small stacks still allow for "combined arms", whereas 1upt means single unit > single "weapon system"

Fourth, in the new 1upt system, it is no longer "one attack, one kill". So in 1upt, after your unit lose a combat, it probably still holds the hex, just the same as in limited stacking. So again, this is not something make limited stacking better.

Therefore, I wrote "if you lose one unit". And in the case of losing one unit, in terms of keeping control over the formerly occupied hex a limited stack is "better" - since you will still occupy that hex.

1upt is very meaningful for low-scale military operations as in Panzer General (and even there, organizing the march and deployment of your troops easily takes half an hour per turn). Whether it will be meaningful at the scale of Civ5 is questionable.

 

[Ricci]

... having a limit of say 4 units per tile, actually means that anything less than 4 units per tile is simply not a "full" unit, and the only strategy in limited stacking will be to maximise each stack to its limit or be destroyed in combat. ...

I know this will be difficult to digest by some of you who were already convinced. But the above statement is necessarily and absolutely untrue.

One situation in which the statement is functional would be if a battle is defined primarily, if not solely, between two opposing/rival stacks. This is the case with CIV IV, thus the bigger SoD generally prevails (numerous considerations apart.. keeping it simple).

Combat in CIV V is so different because of limited Units Per Tile & Zones of Control. So a better deployed army of incomplete stacks can perfectly prevail over a more bulked rival. I will even assume that most of the times this should be the case. The bigger the limit of the stack the more combat will resemble to that of CIV IV.

I personally would like to handle stacks of a couple of units, swapping the front line with reinforcements after loosing a division of rifles for instance and defending my very strong/strategical position would be nice, instead of having to attack to regain that Hex. I believe a stack limit of 2 adds combined arms to the Hex (which is great actually, in so many ways), and keeps the tactical deployment of troops in the battlefield almost intact.

Depending on how much complain or acceptance there is regarding 1UPT after the game releases I can see 2 UPT implemented with the first expansion.

 

[aziantuntija]

Did anyone read this?

But first of all i must say that i dont even belive we are having as strong rock, paper, scissors thing in civ5 as we had in civ4 because of the 1upt rule. This means that we are basicly allready serving the people who want to stack units to patch their weaknsesses, exept that this 1upt is easier for the AI and its also WAY less frustrating for the player.

Did anyone who is asking for limited stacking so that they could patch units weaknesses read this? Or do they even care? Or is your goal only achieved when you can dumb 2, 3 or 4 units inside one tile to get somewhat same result as you get in 1upt by building just one unit? I just cant belive some of you guys! It is starting to look like stacking units is like somekind of religion and the ultimate nirvana can only be reached by stacking units!?

Can anyone answer me?

 

[JonoLith]

I think what most people are failing to recognize when it comes to the 1upt argument is that land, itself, is a resource. It's limited, and you can only do so much with it.

What is sorely lacking in Civilization 4 is the idea that terrain matters at all. Yes there are some conflicts that happen outside cities, but, by and large, combat in Civ 4 involves bringing a huge stack of units up to a city and attacking it. Forget forts, enemies walk right on by them. Forget the natural choke points that land can provide, infinite units on a single tile render that pointless.

The only way that you can ignore that 1upt is going to be a vast improvement is if you simply hate the idea of positioning your troops in a superior way, on superior terrain. The example I love to give is forts. Forts in civ4 are largely pointless. Oh sure, everyone has one story of when they built a fort in a great spot, but largely, pointless. Now, change nothing about the fort, and just put it into the combat system of civ5, and they become amazing. A fort, on a hill, with a ranged attacker on it becomes DEVASTATING if you attempt to attack it, doubly so if you can't surround it because of mountain ranges and such.

My guess is that combat is going to become what combat actually is; a fight for land. When you win a tile, you won't want to give it back. The city is the end goal, certainly, but the land is what's far more important. That's never actually been reflected in the civilization franchise in the military game.

Oh, and to the people who're terrified that the game will always devolve into a bunch of units mashing into each other. Imagine a few well-entrenched forts with archer-style units inside of them creating a series of kill zones. Enemy unit moves into the tile directly in front of a fort, cannot keep moving because of the Zone of Control, next turn, gets obliterated by ranged units. Repeat ad nausium. You can add in some mounted units in there just to clean up any kind of mess that might occur. They can't run past your stuff because of the zone of control, and they can't safely assault your stuff because it's suicide. Glad they have a ton of units behind the line to replace the ones that just got slaughtered.

 

[aMoralAtheist]

I think what most people are failing to recognize when it comes to the 1upt argument is that land, itself, is a resource. It's limited, and you can only do so much with it.

What is sorely lacking in Civilization 4 is the idea that terrain matters at all. Yes there are some conflicts that happen outside cities, but, by and large, combat in Civ 4 involves bringing a huge stack of units up to a city and attacking it. Forget forts, enemies walk right on by them. Forget the natural choke points that land can provide, infinite units on a single tile render that pointless.

The only way that you can ignore that 1upt is going to be a vast improvement is if you simply hate the idea of positioning your troops in a superior way, on superior terrain. The example I love to give is forts. Forts in civ4 are largely pointless. Oh sure, everyone has one story of when they built a fort in a great spot, but largely, pointless. Now, change nothing about the fort, and just put it into the combat system of civ5, and they become amazing. A fort, on a hill, with a ranged attacker on it becomes DEVASTATING if you attempt to attack it, doubly so if you can't surround it because of mountain ranges and such.

My guess is that combat is going to become what combat actually is; a fight for land. When you win a tile, you won't want to give it back. The city is the end goal, certainly, but the land is what's far more important. That's never actually been reflected in the civilization franchise in the military game.

Oh, and to the people who're terrified that the game will always devolve into a bunch of units mashing into each other. Imagine a few well-entrenched forts with archer-style units inside of them creating a series of kill zones. Enemy unit moves into the tile directly in front of a fort, cannot keep moving because of the Zone of Control, next turn, gets obliterated by ranged units. Repeat ad nausium. You can add in some mounted units in there just to clean up any kind of mess that might occur. They can't run past your stuff because of the zone of control, and they can't safely assault your stuff because it's suicide. Glad they have a ton of units behind the line to replace the ones that just got slaughtered.

+1 for this post.

 

[brianshapiro]

Why is there so much discussion over the difference between the two systems? The only difference between 1upt and limited stacks is that with limited stacks you can have more than one type of weaponry in a tile. In every other way they're the same -- since units in 1upt are already composed of more than one company (represented as damage).

If we were going for realism, you would have to go for limited stacks, since, realistically, mixed units have existed. Sacrificing historical realism for some sense of superior tactical gameplay is strange. Its forcing everyone to be the type of general you would be because you think its more fun. The biggest potential downside is the micromanagement of limited stacks would be a pain. But that all depends on implementation.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Your killzone is flawed sir. Some good trebs and thins get interesting for those guys in the forts fast.

 

[__JR__]

This is not real. This is a game.

Besides, is Civ 4 supposed to be real? 2 huge stacks of doom. Then, they each send out 1 unit at a time, the attacker choosing first and then the defender choosing his best unit to counterattack. Is that 'real' ? No, its an abstraction which has positives and negatives.

So instead of thinking of your swordsman as one unit, think of it as its own SOD, or army, or whatever. Perhaps the rock-paper-scissors element will be reduced or nonexistant. In that case, a fully healed (another abstraction) swordsman unit basically represents the largest possible "army", or "SOD" that can exist on that square (oops, sorry, "hex") at a time.

Maybe instead of the civ 4 model where swordsman were good at taking cities, axeman vs swordsman, and chariots vs axeman, we will now have the case where the one unit army/SOD represented by a swordsman, which requires iron, will be stronger than the spearman, which requires copper, simply by virtue of the better equipment. Is this feasible or likely? I'd like to think so. That swordsman unit represents an army full of various units, all using superior iron weapons, not just entirely composed of civ 4 "swordsmen". In that case, why even call it a swordsman, lets just call it an "iron army".

Obviously that last paragraph is some speculation on my point.


In Civ 4, the squares had a finite amount of land area, but could support an infinite number of troops? Is that 'real' ?

Now, with 1 upt, we have a finite amount of land, and a finite amount of troops. Much more 'real'.

What 1upt basically brings to the table is a reduction of micromanagement in the construction of the unit itself, while increasing micromanagement elsewhere.

Civ 4 MM involved creating large stacks composed of relative numbers of units, and didn't require much tactical MM on the battlefield itself. Now, the MM isn't so much in creating the unit, but rather in using it effectively. In other words, you are basically creating the SOD all at once, and are allowed, or rather, required to have more than one if you wish to survive.

I truly believe this is good, because creating the SOD in Civ 4 was largely trivial and formulaic. Once you knew what a good composition was, you just replicated that game after game after game ... etc. Get x swordsman and y spearman and z axeman together, suicide some catapults and the city is yours. If a CPU foolishly left its city to counter attack your stack, you didn't even have to bother because you had the right counter units in case he attacked you. In other words, you could totally ignore the military presence outside the city, because it posed zero threat to you if your SOD was properly composed. I fail to see how that is more 'real' or 'tactical' or 'strategic' in any possible way.


One other thing I'd like to say in this post, JonoLith hit it right on the head. It's not even a +1 for his post, its a +100.

 

[Howard Mahler]

It is a large price to pay for a possible small improvement in gameplay.

It would be more realistic to have archers only able to fire into adjacent hexes, but in the new combat model this would make archers all but useless, since realistically archers can't stand up to a melee charge. So we have the small conceit of archers being able to shoot as far as trebuchets or cannon, so that we can stick a melee unit between them and the enemy. It's a small price to pay in terms of abstraction for a big improvement in gameplay.