1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Has 1UPT Completely Destroyed this Franchise?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by CD7, Jan 13, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gehennas

    Gehennas Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2011
    Messages:
    147
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Okay... After all this years I still don't get why everyone references 1upt AI as something impossible to fix at all. It is really looks like some players just love doomstacks and blame 1upt for everything. Of course, doomstack "AI" is better because there is no tactical AI is actually required, but thad doesn't mean that 1upt is doomed.

    First of all, CivV BNW has much better AI and rules are almost the same. The only notable change is in movement rules, but it simply provides a smaller set of possible paths for units.
    Secondly, there are other games with quite similar tactical layer. Endless Legend for example. Of course, it is not the same, but at least AI is able to target most valuable targets, exploit weaknesses etc. and provide some challenge.
     
    DWilson likes this.
  2. rschissler

    rschissler King

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    790
    Location:
    So. Cal, USA
    It's interesting how it always comes down to stacks vs. 1UPT, which really isn't what people (pro stackers) are complaining about. It's the movement frustration of 1UPT, and that the AI can't handle 1UPT. Why is compromise not an option?
     
  3. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,803
    While V's AI was better than VI's AI it still made me cringe every time it put a landunit into the water right in front of 4 of my battleships when trying to attack a coastal city.
     
  4. liv

    liv Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,394
    I have done this when defending on civ5 to buy some time and save my city
     
    DizzKneeLand33 and whyidie like this.
  5. Stringer1313

    Stringer1313 Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2014
    Messages:
    1,126
    Agree with this 100000000%. Ranged units are way too powerful right now - they should be able to soften, not kill.
     
  6. rezaf

    rezaf Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    179
    The fact that it hasn't been fixed after all these years should give you an indication.

    That's probably because 1upt can in fact be held responsible for many of the games weaknesses. Especially Civ6 suffers from the game being massively slowed down due to having to micromanage every single unit - this holds true for both for the human player and the AI, and in the latter case makes turn resolution very slow.
    The designer(s) of Civ5 realized this problem and tried to rectify it with various methods, for example strongly discouraging large empires and very long building times for units.
    Civ6 threw many of those limitations overboard and now encourages going wide (building many, many cities) instead of discouraging it.
    So yeah, it IS pretty bad. And it destroyed the franchise - for some of the players. And by that I mean when they see the AI struggle like a beetle that has fallen on it's back, it's just not that entertaining for them.
    But of course there are others that don't mind this at all. I might be mistaken, but I picture semi-casual gamers firing up the game to wind down after a stressful day, beer in hand.
    There's nothing wrong with that, too. If Civ5 and Civ6 had been called CivRev 3 and CivRev 4 (the CivRev games are already made for such an audience), I can't imagine there would have been a strong reaction to it. But as a matter of fact, this stuff was introduced into the main series - and that part of the Civ audience has nowhere to turn except the older games.

    Also, yeah, maybe many of the 1UPT haters are a little overzealous and put a little too much blame on the system (though I often read people suggest a compromise system) - but the 1UPT lovers are often no better. They write how they love the system, barely acknowledge that the AI is incapable of dealing with it and instead hope for this to be, somehow, magically fixed which is of course never going to happen. If someone points out flaws, they go all la-la-la-fingers-in-the-ears or just accuse their opposite of not having a valid opinion in the first place.

    It's like in the old joke that asks, if you were on a lonely island with a mermaid, would you rather have her upper body fish and her lower body human or the other way around? Firaxis made their decision (for now), and those of us that wanted the other part human has a hard time coming to terms with their pick. Is that so difficult to understand? ;)
     
    lp60068, Ron West, HF22 and 1 other person like this.
  7. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    City walls obviously do include a garrison, because the walls can open fire on enemies within range, and I don't think that's being done by robotic automatic guns programmed to recognize enemy uniforms. Certainly not in ancient times.

    The whole Civ series has obviously never been a simulation of reality, it's just a game very loosely inspired by reality, which I personally think is rather a pity. I'd be interested to try a better simulation of history -- though not as designed by the sort of person who thinks that realism means representing every little detail. It is possible for a game to be broadly realistic without becoming a hell of micromanagement; but unfortunately this design option never seems to occur to computer game designers, although some board-game designers are aware of it.
     
    f1rpo and HF22 like this.
  8. teks

    teks Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Florida
    Honestly, I don't find combat fun at all past ancient. Its just a chore, and that's a problem. The current system is a logistical nightmare and that drives away any tactical strategy they intended to see in combat. I can't really see this 1upt thing ever working out. The maps are too small for combat of this scale, and moving units to different positions within the army is far too difficult.


    While I may not know exactly what you want, since you've contradicted yourself a bit (Civ is loosely inspired, I want realism, but I want it...loosely inspired? Where do we draw the line?) But the Realism Invictus mod for civ 4 is about as close as anyone is going to get to realism in a civ game. All the civilizations have a full unit roster from ancient to modern. Its beautiful, incredible, and quite accurate as well.

    If you prefer more realism in combat. The total war series has all sorts of amazing realism mods. I'm fan of Stainless Steel for medieval 2, but the newer iterations have their own as well. I believe in Attila Total War someone recreated the Late Roman Tetrarchy. A very interesting period of history.

    I mean, if you really want a historically accurate strategy game that is highly immersive and rich in detail, they have them a plenty, and they are amazing.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
  9. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    Making the process of embarkation and disembarkation automatic is a nice, elegant piece of design that enables me to avoid a boring chore, and I'm all for it. I have no interest whatsoever in spending my time loading land units onto ships. It's been delegated now, as it should be, and I can happily let my subordinates get on with it. It wasn't an interesting part of the game.
     
  10. dagriggstar

    dagriggstar King

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2006
    Messages:
    628
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    I always hated moving stacks around the map (so tedious). That was always the thing I hated most about the game earlier in the series. In V and VI though, it's more the poor tech tree design that makes certain beelines too powerful (uhhhh yes I would like research labs before I get cavalry in every single game) and the stuff that doesn't make sense (Hey great leader, we just developed something called an Anti-Tank crew, don't ask what a tank is though, we can't seem to even figure out this cavalry thing yet). So I guess that means I like 1UPT, or at least I don't hate it as much as old style stacking....

    I wish it wasn't a hard rule against stacking, but instead a series of soft rules. A light cavalry class that always attacks the weakest defender. Siege units being able to range attack a stack and deal unlimited collateral damage (Instead of being suicide units with limited collateral damage). Higher maintenance costs (Whether civ II style units require production (shields then, cogs now) to maintain or gold style is a separate discussion).
     
  11. TehJumpingJawa

    TehJumpingJawa Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2008
    Messages:
    204
    Can you explain this further? To me it seems completely backwards.

    100 unit stack: click->drag->release; path finder will generate the optimum route, stack arrives in X turns. (the only exception being an interruption by hostile units)
    Typically 5 seconds of work for the user, regardless of distance moved.

    100 units no stacking: Oh God, please, NO!
    Prepare yourself for >X turns of micro-managing the individual moves of 100 units.
    Depending upon distance moved, that's anywhere up to 30 minutes of work for the user.

    In terms of seriousness, the usability lost with 1upt is just as critical as (and intrinsically linked to) the AI's inability to handle it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2017
  12. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    I don't think I contradicted myself. The Civ series is obviously loosely inspired by real history, because it has all the historical ingredients. However, the way they're used is grossly unrealistic. A unit of archers can hang around for thousands of years and fire arrows across the width of a city. Combat as a whole ought to be grand-strategical (the clash of armies) but it's represented as tactical (the clash of squads). The scale of the game in terms of time and distance is all crazy. Ancient wonders last forever and can't be destroyed.

    It's interesting that you seem to think (as many game designers obviously do) that 'realism' means 'lots of detail'. No, I don't want a game that is "rich in detail", because such games are a chore to play. In fact, the Civ series already has too much detail. I'd like a game that is poor in detail, representing reality with a broad brush, but nevertheless representing reality and not conflicting with it.

    In the original Civilization board game designed by Francis Tresham and published in 1980, there were no military units at all. Each player had units of population, all of them exactly the same. Military units are an unnecessary level of detail, the game was sufficiently interesting without them. In fact, I'd be interested to play that game again, but I don't know of a current computer implementation of it. There was a computer game of it once, back in 1995, but at that time the program took too long thinking about its next turn.
     
  13. teks

    teks Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Florida
    There's a limit to what you can do in a civ game in how you are describing. I say its contradiction because you do want more detail. Your laying out some very specific and nuance things here. Its not a problem, its just that I can't possibly tell where you want more detail, and where you want less detail. However, what you are describing with armies clashing. That is Total War. They have that. You may want to check out that series if that's your thing. They have great realism mods that allow you to use the real armies they would have used during those times under the real leaders of those times in a world that matches those times.

    Is this not what your asking for in combat in this link?
    This is Fallen Eagle for Atilla Total War.
     
  14. TruthfulCake

    TruthfulCake Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    While I agree to certain points that the OP perceive as "problems" with the game (such as a garrison-less city being too powerful), I think that said problems have little to do with 1UPT. You can have 1UPT and make the city attacks weaker, and then players will start putting more units for garrison. I will give my 2 cents on issues that I think are directly relevant to 1UPT.

    Namely, the mobility of the units. I am one of the players who believe that the inefficiency in moving big armies is intended, and for a good reason. If you have an army of 100, you better expect moving it to be harder than mobilizing an army of 10. Otherwise, it becomes a game of numbers that puts too much importance in "who has the higher production" (and as it is, production is already very important). Unit and city positioning is something that the developers want the players to think carefully about, and in Civ 6 it is more evident than ever with the districts and adjacency bonuses.

    Placing a city strategically (with choke points, hills, surrounding mountains etc.) with the purpose of making it hard to capture should be rewarded. If I relinquish higher yielding tiles or resources in favor of militarily strategic locations when I settle, I expect the decision to stymie the enemy progress significantly. Allowing a doomstack means such a decision is pointless, as it doesn't matter whether the enemy has 100, 10,000, or 1 million troops - they can all fit on one single tile and knock on my city's door simultaneously, as if my city's door is even big enough for 1 million knocking hands. But it is because 1UPT dictates how many troops can fit in the same tile at once that I can adjust my defensive strategy accordingly. Infinite stacks "completely destroys" that, upon which it becomes a battle of sheer numbers.

    Which is why Hannibal's crossing of the Alps was such a big deal. If he could compress all 38k infantry, 8k cavalry, and 38 war elephants (thanks Wikipedia) into one giant entity that could blaze through the most difficult of terrains and raze all oppositions, it would not have been a compelling achievement at all. That is what I feel infinite stacks represent - a very dumbed down game.

    So 1UPT necessitates you to take your time to control your sizeable army? Good. You are mobilizing to take over a civilization that an opposing player took hundreds of turns to build from the ground up. What makes you deserve to expect it to be "easy"?
     
    whyidie likes this.
  15. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,395
    Thankfully you shouldn't ever have to move 100 units at the same time.

    Unless you're really, really, really working towards domination victory on a huge map maybe, at which point you maneuvered yourself into that position.
    Well, if you wanted to make it sound as boring as possible... good job!
     
  16. Tabarnak

    Tabarnak Cut your lousy hairs!

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2010
    Messages:
    5,968
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Québec
    Groundhog Day!

    Let's revive the Thread! 155 pages of pure pleasure.
     
  17. Dale

    Dale Mohawk Games Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,128
    No you will never have to move 100 units in civ 6. You only need 10 units to take over the world with this incompetent AI.
     
    Ron West and Zuizgond like this.
  18. rezaf

    rezaf Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    179
    It's statements like these that just boggle my mind. It's, in other words, saying: Yeah, I do recognize moving big armies around is tedious, but that's an intentional design choice to prevent players from ever building them!
    This is "I don't even...." territory.
    But ... wait, maybe you're on to something. Maybe you're right. So many things in Civ6 are so tedious because the designers would secretly rather have us become fed up with the game, turn off the computer and maybe do something more productive, like working, doing the laundry or assembling ballpens! Yeah, that's probably it!

    Preventing stacking, however, utterly de-emphasizes army size and industrial capacity. Whether your chokepoint city faces 5 units or 500 units, it matters little - you can hold them off indefinately. Even at thermopylae, they eventually had to yield. Sucked for the greek that the Civ6 ruleset wasn't in effect, else they would still be fighting over there today. With the same units, too, because nobody would have bothered to upgrade their units.

    Take a close look at any Civ6 world map. Ready? Now count the tiles depicting a pass through the alps. You can do that on one hand - with fingers to spare. Now take a look at how many years one Civ turn in the time of Hannibal takes. Heh. Yeah, ok, let's be very generous and use 1 year/turn like in the modern age. Assemble Hannibals army - let's say 4 units of infantry, one unit of cav and one elephant. Put it into any kind of formation. Now move it through the pass and reassemble the formation on the other side of the alps. Count the turns. Now compare this with the time Hannibals campaign actually took. Consider where Hannibals battles were actually fought and that, yes, taking Civ's scale into consideration, his army was actually stacked on a single tile for the most part. Consider that the entirety of his campaign would fit into a single Civ turn. Start to see a pattern?

    In the scale of a civilization games, such logistical issues are to be abstracted. Abstraction! Google it, it's a fascinating concept. You're playing the immortal leader of an entire civilization. That's already fairly abstract, if you ponder it for a second.
    What makes you think this leader should have to make a call whether to move that archer or that swordsman first? For all his units in the world. Individually. Every. Single. Turn. ?

    I don't get it, in case that wasn't obvious. :p
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2017
    lp60068, Ron West and DutchJob like this.
  19. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    9,831
    Location:
    France
    That small mantra could have killed a lot of potentially good games for me since it has been corrupted by most developers and translated to "realism can't be fun" and firmly opposed in that sense to anyone proposing a more immersive approach to a gaming mechanism.

    Luckily for players like me, some company still want my money and release games with a modding framework, I would not buy an Elder Scroll, Fallout or Civilizations game this days if they weren't moddable.

    But it's not relevant here, a gameplay that make the AI even weaker in a franchise which is known to have an already bad combat AI is simply not a good gameplay, realist or not.

    If Firaxis had the resources to program an AI that could decently use all the features added to the game to make it potentially more interesting for the player, there wouldn't be hundred of threads about 1UPT on the forum. I don't blame them for not having those resources to make it handle every features, but we have to deal with the result here.

    So to answer OP, no, 1UPT has not destroyed this Franchise, and IMO it couldn't by itself, in fact I think civ6 is going in the right direction with limited stacking, it just need a few more tweaks like preventing stupid decisions on automated multiple-turns move and a bit of work on civilian/religious units.

    But the (lack of) AI may, and if they can't have programmed an AI that can use 1UPT + range 2 attacks since 2010, maybe it's time to change the gameplay to something easier to manage for a computer.
     
    Ron West likes this.
  20. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    No, no, no, definitely not! When I talk about armies clashing, I mean like you have one unit that represents a whole division or a whole corps, and it's not hordes of little people in action on the screen, it's just a counter that represents all those hordes of people. Like the generals would see on their screens when directing a real war. Each counter can represent a thousand or a million people, whatever you like, without making any demands on your graphics adaptor.

    Hell's bells, people these days seem to think that a 'game' means interactive cinema. It doesn't have to be that way. In Tresham's Civilization game in 1980, each unit of population represented thousands of people of all kinds and was just a cardboard counter.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page