Downside of 1upt

[NKVD]

oh c'mon it's the same game. you're making a point on maps we're not even sure if they were build with a world builder or a game even more not final version. in scenarios cities always have been really close to each other. they are way less crowded on games I choose the settings. Try Pangea, Huge, 8 civs + new world...

on another point how big is the fat cross in civ 5 ? because based on that screenshot it seems to me the AI is overlapping fat cross like hell. They should introduce the AI to the optimum city placement article

 

[Commander Bello]

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.

And we see the exact same distances.

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.

Allow me to come back with the example of the "stack-killing" suicide siege weapons.
We were told at those days that they would render the SoD's obsolete. They did not, although at the same time we were told about "massive play-testing".

I will provide you with an enlargened screenshot:

Now, tell me, how much space there is between Xochicalco (red city in the north) and Xalictlamuaca (white city in the south)?
And how much options for movement will you have if there are 10 units on both sides?
And I would even doubt that it makes much sense to deploy units in the assumed firing range of long-range weapons.

There isn't much left for tactics.

 

[RickInVA]

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?

Hey aziantuntija, don't misrepresent me so badly, please!

The "imagination" you say I admitted to not having was the "willing suspension of disbelief" that the Stategic and the Tactical maps were the same map. I don't like it. You do.

Yes, I do believe that Tactical combat is out of place with the strategic scale and scope of Civ. I believe that 1upt is turning Civ into more of a wargame, which is not the experience I look for in Civ. I play wargames, lots of wargames. I understand Strategy and Tactics. Tactical combat is not what I turn to Civ for.

As a result I believe that SODs much better represent pre-WWI combat, and I have always admitted that they do not well represent WWI or later combat. As you know I have provided numerous examples of pre-WWI battles where SOD accurately represents the combat. No one has ever even tried to prove that incorrect.

You may recall that I suggested a compromise system, where there is a "stacking limit" of say 10 "unit size" per hex. In this scheme ancient units may have a "size" of 1, Medieval units 2 or 3, etc., up to modern units which could only stack 1. This would represent many things including the evolution of "front" warfare, and the evolution of modern military units as self-contained, having elements of all arms intrinsic to them, while preserving the Ancient times reality of concentrated armies. You don't have to like it, but it is a reasonable suggestion.

Lastly, I am not sure I would characterize our discussions as me trying to "prove you wrong", but akin to some other posters, it seems to me as well that some folks are so sold on 1upt that they will not admit that there is anything ill to be said about it. One prior post said something like, "Some people are determined not to like the game, and it isn't even out yet." I would reply, "Some people are determined that everything in the game is perfect, and the game isn't even out yet."

 

[Commander Bello]

oh c'mon it's the same game. you're making a point on maps we're not even sure if they were build with a world builder or a game even more not final version.

And you, Sir, are making a point upon the assumption that in the real game it might be different. You don't have any proof for this except your hope.

These screenshots are what we have at the moment and frankly, they don't seem to strengthen your points.

Of course we can always assume that "it will be no problem later on". If it is, the better.
But what if it is not?

 

[RickInVA]

To aziantuntija: RE: Rock Paper Scisors

If the R/P/S function is reduced, then what is the difference between units? If a spearman/pikeman does not have superior defense against cavalry, then why name the units at all? Just have Static Unit, Mobile Unit, and Ranged Unit. If you want the Tactical Combat that so many wish, wouldn't you want a stronger R/P/S function to make those tactical decision more meaningful?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Bello, I *did* try & post the images, but unfortunately they didn't come up-so I was forced to post the link instead. Seriously, you're attitude is bordering on petulance right about now!
As to what a unit in the game represents, I think its *very* important. Your primary assertion seems to be that 1upt works for PG, but not for Civ5, because the tiles in PG represent a much smaller area of terrain-& I'm pointing out that this argument is *irrelevant*, because the units in Civ5 probably represent a *much* larger number of men-& so a 1upt system can still work in spite of the larger terrain area represented by a single tile.

As I said before, we don't even know if the map represented in these Strategic Views are average size, because they're maps from one of 2K Greg's play-test games. The most likely thing is that even these maps are small, yet we're already seeing some cities more than 5 spaces away. You claim that 3 spaces doesn't allow for much tactics-but that is just a sign of 1-dimensional thinking. Even on these small maps, the point is that you'll spread your units out *across* as well as deep-& its here where tactics will come into it. Do you honestly expect us to believe, though, that 1upt will provide *fewer* tactical opportunities than Stacks of Doom? The only tactic there was "churn out the biggest stacks you can". Wow, how exciting!

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

If the R/P/S function is reduced, then what is the difference between units? If a spearman/pikeman does not have superior defense against cavalry, then why name the units at all? Just have Static Unit, Mobile Unit, and Ranged Unit. If you want the Tactical Combat that so many wish, wouldn't you want a stronger R/P/S function to make those tactical decision more meaningful?

Who says the R/P/S function has been reduced? From everything I've read, some units will still be superior/inferior to other units, & in-game promotions will help to enhance these superiorities/inferiorities. In Stack Combat, though, the R/P/S effect was heavily diluted-mostly for the attacker-because the strongest defender always rose to the top. This won't occur in a 1upt system because the attacker has more power over which units he/she can attack. This of course means that the defender has to seek advantage from terrain-another factor which played very little role in Stack Combat (except, to a limited degree, the defender). So already we see two areas where 1upt might actually *improve* elements of the game that were in Civ4-but which were of little benefit in a stack-based combat system!

Aussie.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As a result I believe that SODs much better represent pre-WWI combat, and I have always admitted that they do not well represent WWI or later combat. As you know I have provided numerous examples of pre-WWI battles where SOD accurately represents the combat. No one has ever even tried to prove that incorrect.

You may recall that I suggested a compromise system, where there is a "stacking limit" of say 10 "unit size" per hex. In this scheme ancient units may have a "size" of 1, Medieval units 2 or 3, etc., up to modern units which could only stack 1. This would represent many things including the evolution of "front" warfare, and the evolution of modern military units as self-contained, having elements of all arms intrinsic to them, while preserving the Ancient times reality of concentrated armies. You don't have to like it, but it is a reasonable suggestion.

Rick, even in pre-modern, units were arranged in a number of fronts-with ranged units being at the back & melee units being up the front. As to your fix for SoD, talk about adding needless complexity to the game. 1upt may not be perfect, its too early to tell, but its a much simpler fix than the one you propose, or even the suicide siege units of Civ4. Both approaches are not only complex, but inherently "Gamey" too. As I said above, Stacks dilute the importance of terrain & R/P/S. It also makes it much, much easier for an opponent to dodge combat altogether-until they choose-& makes turtling a much too effective strategy. If 1upt can solve these problems, then its already won points in my book.

Aussie.

 

[RickInVA]

So "units" are NOT bunched together in modern times and they were NOT bunched together in ancient times.

Are they all standing in the same 2 foot x 2 foot square? No. But for the pre-WWI battles they were all in the same 5 mile x 5 mile (generally more like 2x2 miles, Borodino was the largest I could find at about 5x5 miles) area.

So this comes down to "how big is a hex". From your posts I conclude you think a combat hex is 100 yards or so. Thats fine, that works for you. Many of us find that a "suspension of disbelief" that is too much to believe. For one reason, the smaller the scale the more units one should have. If I am to believe that my Roman Civ can only support 5 Legion units then each of those should be 10+ historical Legions and should have a frontage of miles! If they have a frontage of miles, then the hex is big enough to also include the arches and slingers and cavalry that would accompany the Legions. If my Legion unit only covers a couple of hundred yards then maybe it represents 1 Legion, in which case I should be able to build scores of them. And scores of the Archers and Slingers and Cavalry that then would occupy a separate hex.

I don't see that you can have it both ways. Fewer units means that they represent a larger number of men, which would mean that a hex is a large space, which would leave room for support units behind the line unit. If a hex is a small space then the unit only represents a small number of men, and there should be lots of them.

 

[NKVD]

And you, Sir, are making a point upon the assumption that in the real game it might be different. You don't have any proof for this except your hope.

These screenshots are what we have at the moment and frankly, they don't seem to strengthen your points.

Of course we can always assume that "it will be no problem later on". If it is, the better.
But what if it is not?

ok and you are not making assumption the same way i do ? the proof i have is that using Civ 4 and can put settings in the pre game lobby to have cities close like that. I can also put settings at Huge, Marathon, 8 civs (or being 4!) and new world. You know what it will looks like ! I dont see why it wouldnt be the same in civ 5 just like i know that in Ea Sports' NHL11 releasing in september which i plan on buying there will be settings sliders so the players are more quick, shot more or less precise and hits harder or easy i will modify to my likings like each nhl game i bought because it have been the case since the last 10 versions of the game !

But really RICKINVA hit the nail right on it

As a result I believe that SODs much better represent pre-WWI combat, and I have always admitted that they do not well represent WWI or later combat. As you know I have provided numerous examples of pre-WWI battles where SOD accurately represents the combat. No one has ever even tried to prove that incorrect.

no one has tried because you're totally right on that one

You may recall that I suggested a compromise system, where there is a "stacking limit" of say 10 "unit size" per hex. In this scheme ancient units may have a "size" of 1, Medieval units 2 or 3, etc., up to modern units which could only stack 1. This would represent many things including the evolution of "front" warfare, and the evolution of modern military units as self-contained, having elements of all arms intrinsic to them, while preserving the Ancient times reality of concentrated armies. You don't have to like it, but it is a reasonable suggestion.

that's how i'd program it too...

 

[NKVD]

As to your fix for SoD, talk about adding needless complexity to the game. Aussie.

its as complex as a galley have a cargo space of 2 , galleon of 3 and transport ; 4. But since they went also off the game, must have been because it was too complex for some people!

 

[Commander Bello]

As to what a unit in the game represents, I think its *very* important. Your primary assertion seems to be that 1upt works for PG, but not for Civ5, because the tiles in PG represent a much smaller area of terrain-& I'm pointing out that this argument is *irrelevant*, because the units in Civ5 probably represent a *much* larger number of men-& so a 1upt system can still work in spite of the larger terrain area represented by a single tile.

Once again, I have to disagree.
What is important is the number of options I am given.

It is not the size of the hexes in PG per se which make 1upt work there, it is the fact that we have much more of them, thus giving us much more options.
It is not that complicated to construct small maps in PG, which would restrict the options to the same as in Civ5 and yet the PG-hexes would represent the same amount of km².

As I said before, we don't even know if the map represented in these Strategic Views are average size, because they're maps from one of 2K Greg's play-test games. The most likely thing is that even these maps are small, yet we're already seeing some cities more than 5 spaces away.

This implies that on bigger maps cities typically would be farther apart from each other, which for the beginning of the game will be true.
Yet, later on - as experience tells us from Civ4 - the empires will have "close borders" and it seems very likely that this will lead to such close cities.

And even if this would not be true, than still the problem would exist for small maps - which have their fans too.
I don't play small maps at all. Actually, all my games take place on modified gigantic maps, as only this gives me the "epic feeling" of controlling an empire. Yet, I nevertheless try to have open eyes for all consequences.

You claim that 3 spaces doesn't allow for much tactics-but that is just a sign of 1-dimensional thinking. Even on these small maps, the point is that you'll spread your units out *across* as well as deep-& its here where tactics will come into it. Do you honestly expect us to believe, though, that 1upt will provide *fewer* tactical opportunities than Stacks of Doom?

When we are talking about a frontline (I assume it to run in east-west direction now, and all own troops to be on one line) then any of our troops will have 2 adjacent hexes (NE, NW) where enemy troops could happen to be.
Since there seems to be feature like "assistance from adjacent troops" (or however it was called) it seems to be advisable to put our troops into such a frontline.
Behind our frontline troops there are assumed to be longrange troops.
Literally, to be provided for the combat to come, we will have to make use of any available field to protect our settlement. If we don't do so, the advantage will be with our enemy, who has done so instead of us.

And this will ultimately lead to any available hex being occupied between such two cities, thus restricting any chance to do manouvering with our troops. And actually, the fact that there will be the chance to "flip" two units seems to indicate that the developers have run into that already.

As soon as all the space will have been eaten up (maybe with an empty row of hexes between the two armies left, which nobody dares to enter not to expose his troops to enemy fire), our tactical options are reduced to either begin the battle by ourselves or wait for the enemy to start it.
That then will be WW1-style trenchline warfare, and that is not very exciting.

The only tactic there was "churn out the biggest stacks you can". Wow, how exciting!

I think it has been in this very thread where I pointed out that there were tactical measures to face SoD's.
Furthermore, I think I have pointed out that I am not a defender of SoD's at all cost, but that I am aware of the fact that it simplifies certain things like movement of troops.

What you have still not done is to explain how an interesting tactical combat will happen between the two displayed cities.
All what I can read from your lines is "It will be great!" and "Boooh, the other system was so bad!"

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Are they all standing in the same 2 foot x 2 foot square? No. But for the pre-WWI battles they were all in the same 5 mile x 5 mile (generally more like 2x2 miles, Borodino was the largest I could find at about 5x5 miles) area.

So this comes down to "how big is a hex". From your posts I conclude you think a combat hex is 100 yards or so. Thats fine, that works for you. Many of us find that a "suspension of disbelief" that is too much to believe. For one reason, the smaller the scale the more units one should have. If I am to believe that my Roman Civ can only support 5 Legion units then each of those should be 10+ historical Legions and should have a frontage of miles! If they have a frontage of miles, then the hex is big enough to also include the arches and slingers and cavalry that would accompany the Legions. If my Legion unit only covers a couple of hundred yards then maybe it represents 1 Legion, in which case I should be able to build scores of them. And scores of the Archers and Slingers and Cavalry that then would occupy a separate hex.

I don't see that you can have it both ways. Fewer units means that they represent a larger number of men, which would mean that a hex is a large space, which would leave room for support units behind the line unit. If a hex is a small space then the unit only represents a small number of men, and there should be lots of them.

As I said above-its not about just the size a hex represents, its also about the size that a unit represents. If we accept that a unit represents about 50,000 men (or the equivalent in horses, vehicles etc), then I see no problem with a single unit being limited to 1 hex. Its very important to remember that units will not be in as large supply as they were in Civ1 to Civ4-nor will they be as expendable.

Ultimately, the point is moot though. Like it or not, one of the major selling points of Civ5 is the 1upt system, so its *very* unlikely it will be changed-no matter how much you lot beg. If this is an insurmountable problem for you, then its unlikely you'll be buying the game. I'm not 100% sure I'm going to love it, but I'm not going to hate on the game without giving it a try first!

 

[NKVD]

hey Bello what if they divided each hex (or square) in 4. Cities would take 4 hex,4 times as much tiles for the same sized map giving way more opportunity to move.

 

[Celevin]

Hi, first time poster, long time player of Civ. I'm currently playing on Immortal, with the step up to Deity being a bit too much to handle. I play really aggressive war filled games, which probably hinders my ability to advance, but that's OK, that's the way I like it. I absolutely hate the SOD. I don't think having "n units per tile" is a decent solution either.

I've been following this thread for a very long time. I find myself in a weird position, because while I think 1upt is the best thing that could happen to Civ warfare, and I don't see many other solutions to the SOD, I find Commander Bello raising a better argument. Please note I'm sticking to gameplay only. I couldn't give a crap about unit scale for the scope of this argument. All I care about is the same point that Bello makes: Is there a good unit to tile ratio?

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.

I think that this argument of his hasn't been addressed well. I disagree with it, I don't think this is a problem at all. My reason is having cities within 1-2 hexes of the front lines is actually a good thing. The depth of the number of tiles decides the tension that the civs feel towards the front: If the cities were 5 tiles apart (the max while still using all tiles), while we would see armies fighting, there wouldn't be much tension about losing a city after losing a few of the combats. It would probably be a back and forth motion without anything falling except replaceable men. This hurts another key point that you made before, Bello, that I agree with: Losing cities hurts production per turn, and makes you lose ground, and losing men isn't nearly as severe. So in all honesty I would rather see opposing cities 3 tiles apart than 5.

Instead the part that worries me the most is the length of the front. Even if two civs are only 2 hexes away from each other, there could still be a large front. What might cause a "waves and waves and waves" feel is if the effective frontage between two civs is if the front that two armies are fighting is so small that there is a lot of units either waiting to get into combat, or if a player can replace units as fast as they are killed. The magnitude of this problem is shown by the number of cities each player has in danger of being attacked by the other player.

 

[RickInVA]

Who says the R/P/S function has been reduced? From everything I've read, some units will still be superior/inferior to other units, & in-game promotions will help to enhance these superiorities/inferiorities. In Stack Combat, though, the R/P/S effect was heavily diluted-mostly for the attacker-because the strongest defender always rose to the top. This won't occur in a 1upt system because the attacker has more power over which units he/she can attack. This of course means that the defender has to seek advantage from terrain-another factor which played very little role in Stack Combat (except, to a limited degree, the defender). So already we see two areas where 1upt might actually *improve* elements of the game that were in Civ4-but which were of little benefit in a stack-based combat system!

Aussie.

aziantuntija did. Unfortunatly I quoted the wrong post of his originally. His point was that the reduction in the R/P/S funtion that he forsees makes combined arms less necessary.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

All what I can read from your lines is "It will be great!" and "Boooh, the other system was so bad!"

There you go being petulant again. The first thing that comes out from that screen-shot is that, regardless of side, they're going to have limited options to the North-West due to there being a good choke-point right there. In a SoD system, you'd simply move your entire stack via the hill & be done with it-but the 1upt system is already opening up new tactics, by being able to force the opponent to go the "long-way around" if he wants to bring his/her full army to bear. As far as I can see, the most likely combat will occur between the units at the border-between Nara & Osaka-where each side could arrange forces about 4-5 across & 2-3 deep. Each side would have some units gaining the benefits of different kinds of terrain-benefits that the other side will have to think very hard about in order to neutralize. Without being *in* the game, it's kind of hard to be more exact, but the primary point here is that the combat isn't *really* about taking the city(s)-but is about eliminating the rival army & gaining the land inside your opponents borders, before pressing home the advantage & surrounding the city you wish to take. For all we know, on a map this size, we might not have more than 12-15 units each to play with-but that's a separate matter. All that matters is that I *can* see how 1upt can be quite interesting on the map provided.

Aussie.

 

[RickInVA]

As I said above-its not about just the size a hex represents, its also about the size that a unit represents. If we accept that a unit represents about 50,000 men (or the equivalent in horses, vehicles etc), then I see no problem with a single unit being limited to 1 hex. Its very important to remember that units will not be in as large supply as they were in Civ1 to Civ4-nor will they be as expendable.

Ultimately, the point is moot though. Like it or not, one of the major selling points of Civ5 is the 1upt system, so its *very* unlikely it will be changed-no matter how much you lot beg. If this is an insurmountable problem for you, then its unlikely you'll be buying the game. I'm not 100% sure I'm going to love it, but I'm not going to hate on the game without giving it a try first!

I have no delusion that the system will change. No matter what cogent arguments I, or Commander Bello (excellent discussion btw), or others put forward 1upt is the way the game will be released. But I think aziantuntija (iirc) said it best, and I paraphrase, After SOD anything will be an improvement. That does seem to be the popular view, but it is not mine.

 

[RickInVA]

There you go being petulant again. The first thing that comes out from that screen-shot is that, regardless of side, they're going to have limited options to the North-West due to there being a good choke-point right there. In a SoD system, you'd simply move your entire stack via the hill & be done with it-but the 1upt system is already opening up new tactics, by being able to force the opponent to go the "long-way around" if he wants to bring his/her full army to bear. As far as I can see, the most likely combat will occur between the units at the border-between Nara & Osaka-where each side could arrange forces about 4-5 across & 2-3 deep. Each side would have some units gaining the benefits of different kinds of terrain-benefits that the other side will have to think very hard about in order to neutralize. Without being *in* the game, it's kind of hard to be more exact, but the primary point here is that the combat isn't *really* about taking the city(s)-but is about eliminating the rival army & gaining the land inside your opponents borders, before pressing home the advantage & surrounding the city you wish to take. For all we know, on a map this size, we might not have more than 12-15 units each to play with-but that's a separate matter. All that matters is that I *can* see how 1upt can be quite interesting on the map provided.

Aussie.

How exactally is 5 units across and 3 deep bashing at each other "quite interesting", but 2 stacks of 15 units bashing at each other is not?

 

[revengeofmakno]

I like the points being made by Rickinva and NKVD.
The inconsistencies and weaknesses of 1UPT cannot be overstated. I would be more impressed with the developers if they came out with a detailed discussion of why they had to go from unlimited stacks to non at all.
Yes, they have briefly mentioned what they see are the advantages of 1UPT but I have not seen them expound on why the obvious compromise of limited stacking would not retain those advantages while providing a lot or realism and logic. Those screen shots are not encouraging in the least.