Exception to 1UPT Rule

[Atwork]

I suggest that 1 ranged unit should be able to stack with 1 melee and certain gunpowder units....however, ranged units could not stack with other ranged units.

In other words, units such as warriors, spearman, swordsman, longswordman, pikeman, musketman, rifleman, infantry, marines, and mech infantry should be able to act as escorts for ranged units....mounted units, armor, and gunships could NOT act as escorts.

BUT, if the escorting unit is killed, then the ranged unit is also killed.

The reason I suggest this is because 1UPT sometimes presents tactical impossibilities -- sometimes there is simply no possible way to move ranged units into attack positions because of terrain or other non-player controlled units...it too many situations involving ranged units, the 1UPT rule is too restrictive IMO.

I also think that it would help when it comes to city defense -- right now, taking cities is far too easy.....it would be better (esp. for the AI!) to have a little extra firepower present in the city.

On the other hand, I really like the 1UPT rule in general. It feels like playing chess but on a grand scale.....love it! But I'd love it even more if the above exception were implemented What'cha think?

 

[Camikaze]

This sounds quite similar to an idea I had a while back- make siege unit attachments akin to great generals in Civ4 (not sure how they work in Civ5). I think the best way to do this would be to simply make ranged units powerless on their own, needing another unit to be used.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I suggest to make 5 UPT.

 

[Camikaze]

I suggest to make 5 UPT.

Why? Such a cap seems rather arbitrary. The OP's suggestion is not particularly arbitrary, as it takes the minimum possible value of two types of units, and effectively makes them one.

 

[Tee Kay]

Better suggestion: get rid of UPT

 

[V. Soma]

It could be good, yes.
Snipperrabbit! has already suggested this: give ranged units another layer: AUXILIARY,
that would go like we have now for COMBAT and CIVILIAN.
So thus a melee/horse/tank, whatever could go with a ranged "arty" unit on one tile...

 

[Johan de Witt]

The reason I suggest this is because 1UPT sometimes presents tactical impossibilities -- sometimes there is simply no possible way to move ranged units into attack positions because of terrain or other non-player controlled units...it too many situations involving ranged units, the 1UPT rule is too restrictive IMO.

These aren't tactical imposibilities, these are challenges. It seems to me you just don't like the way battles are fought in Civ 5. Part of the challenge in this game is to get the tactical movement right.

By placing ranged units on top of melee units, you take away the weakness of ranged units... Their low strength when attacked in melee. If you are going to do this, why not just make melee units with ranged attacks?

 

[Atwork]

Johan, it seems you don't read to the end of a statement.

I really like the 1UPT rule in general. It feels like playing chess but on a grand scale.....love it! But I'd love it even more if the above exception were implemented

 

[Atwork]

These aren't tactical imposibilities

Actually, in the situations I'm thinking of, it was an impossibility and NOT a challenge. Sorry, I have no screenshot for you.

By placing ranged units on top of melee units, you take away the weakness of ranged units...

The drawback would be that if the melee unit is destroyed, then so is the ranged unit.

If you are going to do this, why not just make melee units with ranged attacks?

Why not? Well, the obvious answer is: because that's NOT what I'm proposing!

 

[Atwork]

Soma, has Snipperrabbit set about to make a mod? If so, has he done any testing? Have a link to the thread? thanx...

 

[V. Soma]

Soma, has Snipperrabbit set about to make a mod? If so, has he done any testing? Have a link to the thread? thanx...

As far as I know, it is only an idea at the moment...

 

[Atwork]

sounds quite similar to an idea I had a while back- make siege unit attachments

Sorry Camikaze, I forgot to reply to your post. I went to the link you posted and read your idea. Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page. I too envisioned great general behavior as far as stacking ranged with escort melee/gunpowder units, but I was thinking C5 great general.....in other words, I wasn't considering making the attachment permanent.

Have you considered creating a mod or pitched the idea to modders out there?

As far as I know, it is only an idea at the moment...

Soma, do you have a link the thread where Snipperrabbit pitched his ideas?


I think that I'll collect as much of these discussions as possible and then take the ideas to the modding forums and see if I can find any takers. I myself do not mod -- but one of these days I think I need to learn!

 

[snipperrabbit!!]

Soma, has Snipperrabbit set about to make a mod? If so, has he done any testing? Have a link to the thread? thanx...

What do you expect, my modbuddy doesn't even work !

 

[Atwork]

What do you expect, my modbuddy doesn't even work !

Must be nice!

So, I'm assuming then that there's a mod on the way? May I be so bold as to inquire what the changes will be?

 

[Camikaze]

Sorry Camikaze, I forgot to reply to your post. I went to the link you posted and read your idea. Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page. I too envisioned great general behavior as far as stacking ranged with escort melee/gunpowder units, but I was thinking C5 great general.....in other words, I wasn't considering making the attachment permanent.

Have you considered creating a mod or pitched the idea to modders out there?

I'm not attached to the modding community in anyway, and my technological skills are virtually non-existent. So I can only hope the idea has been picked up (it was discussed on a PolyCast episode- 83), but it hasn't that I know of!

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between Civ4 and Civ5 Great Generals. Your post implies that in Civ5 they can be detached?

 

[Johan de Witt]

These aren't tactical imposibilities, these are challenges.

Actually, in the situations I'm thinking of, it was an impossibility and NOT a challenge. Sorry, I have no screenshot for you.

By placing ranged units on top of melee units, you take away the weakness of ranged units

The drawback would be that if the melee unit is destroyed, then so is the ranged unit.

... Their low strength when attacked in melee. If you are going to do this, why not just make melee units with ranged attacks?

Why not? Well, the obvious answer is: because that's NOT what I'm proposing!

The point that I am trying to make is:
Tactical impossibilities don't exist. If you come to a situation that is impossible, then your tactic is wrong. For example, you want to use archers to take a city that is surrounded by hills on which you need to put melee units to protect your archers, so your archers can't reach the city anymore. This isn't an impossibility, you just need to use your melee units to attack the city then.

Part of the challenge of having units with drawbacks if trying to make up for those drawbacks. That's what makes it tactical. If you would be able to place archers on melee units, your archers and melee unit would in a sense become the same unit. Together, they defend with the strength value of the melee unit and they shoot with the ranged value of the archer. The only thing that would set them apart is that you have to build two units. But then again, who would send a lone melee unit into the field if it couldn't shoot or a lone archer if it isn't defended by a melee unit.
Thinking about how to move your melee units to make use of the zone of control so your archers are safe is what makes the moves feel chess-like. I know the 1upt is flawed as in the AI can't cope with it, but the system itself is working. They just need to make it possible to disable simultaneous turns in multiplayer so we can see 1upt in all its glory.

Johan, it seems you don't read to the end of a statement.

Of course I read the entire post, but saying that you like the 1upt rule and saying that you want archers and melee to stack is contradictionary to each other in my opinion.

 

[Atwork]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference between Civ4 and Civ5 Great Generals. Your post implies that in Civ5 they can be detached?

Yeah, in Civ 5 the great general moves about as you please. The GG benefits your units (+25% combat bonus) by being in close proximity during combat (within 2 tile spaces). The GG can bounce around from one combat zone to another as needed.....unlike C4 where the general was permanently attached to to a unit.

The only thing that would set them apart is that you have to build two units.

They are two units -- there are many situations when a player would not want to utilize the stacking option.

Thinking about how to move your melee units to make use of the zone of control so your archers are safe is what makes the moves feel chess-like

I agree, but it isn't 'using the ZOC effectively' that I'm having a problem with. What I don't like are the many situations where my archers are unable to contribute to a battle because of fairly unrealistic restrictions -- such as a neutral AI scout sitting in a tile that prevents my archer from moving into position......It's that sort of thing.

In the end, it's a personal preference. It just feels natural to stack an archer with my pikeman, have the archer take a shot, and then move the pikeman forward for the kill. Rather than trying to persuade you that I'm right, I'm really more hoping to find others who want to make a fairly conservative exception to the absolute 1UPT rule.

The other change that I would be willing to support is, rather than the exception I support, would be to simply make the 1UPT rule read, "no two military units may END their turns in the same tile." That way, an archer could move on to the same tile as another unit, take a shot, and then the other unit could move off of the tile and in for the kill. To me, this would simulate battlefield tactics in a more realistic way....I might even like this rule change better!


In the end, I'm hoping for a mod -- if it is a good change, then maybe it would carry over to the game, but that's not my immediate hope.

 

[Johan de Witt]

What I don't like are the many situations where my archers are unable to contribute to a battle because of fairly unrealistic restrictions -- such as a neutral AI scout sitting in a tile that prevents my archer from moving into position

Now that's something I agree with, but perhaps there is a better way to solve this.

In my opinion, it is completely unrealistic (even more so than a lot of other things in this game) that you would allow military units from another nation within your borders. The only realistic way I could see a nation allowing this is when you are allied with that nation and currently at war.

So if they would make open borders only work during war-time, you wouldn't run into neutral troops anymore. Furthermore, I think the AI shouldn't be programmed to run scouts (or any unit for that matter) through neutral lands indefinitely. I don't know if any human player does that, but I find it kind of useless to keep running back and forth through neutral lands when I am not at war. I would much rather keep my troops close by in case of a surprise attack.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Why? Such a cap seems rather arbitrary. The OP's suggestion is not particularly arbitrary, as it takes the minimum possible value of two types of units, and effectively makes them one.

I don't think having 5 UPT is more arbitrary than having a ranged unit + melee unit; nor only 1UPT. Plus, 5 UPT is a lot more simple to play, the aforementionned idea seems very confusing as to what units can go together:

mounted units, armor, and gunships could NOT act as escorts.

Why? Not very logical and confusing...

These aren't tactical imposibilities, these are challenges. It seems to me you just don't like the way battles are fought in Civ 5. Part of the challenge in this game is to get the tactical movement right.

By placing ranged units on top of melee units, you take away the weakness of ranged units... Their low strength when attacked in melee.

The problem is that with 1UPT which is VERY restrictive, you find yourself in the position NOT to be able to place a ranged units 2 tiles away of an enemy city. Add to that the fact that ranged units needs to be set up before shooting, and you get wars where artillery is nearly never used. (staying backward everytime while your mech infrantry go from cities to cities)

If you are going to do this, why not just make melee units with ranged attacks?

You know, that's not a bad idea: make units less effective ranged than melee, but making bottled units useful...

 

[Camikaze]

I don't think having 5 UPT is more arbitrary than having a ranged unit + melee unit; nor only 1UPT. Plus, 5 UPT is a lot more simple to play, the aforementionned idea seems very confusing as to what units can go together:

Yeah, you are right in that the qualification offered in the OP are not entirely clear (although I assume it just means that stock standard units can stack to the extent mentioned), but I would still think that having any set number as a hard cap is more arbitrary than sticking with a minimum end point (being 1). Qualifying that you can only have one of two certain types of units is not entirely arbitrary in its numbering.