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. Bowman in a Bad Mood

    Bowman in a Bad Mood Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2016
    Messages:
    16
    I did not like like or dislike the evolution to 1UPT. I accepted it as a new challenge to building an empire in Civ, one of my favorite games.

    Whenever I think of 1UPT and the challenges to the AI, my mind drifts to chess (1UPT too). It is challenging to build chess AI that sees things well two moves in advance to move a single unit. How much harder is it when there are 1) so many types of units 2) different types of terrain and a variable playing field 3) the moves of multiple units need to be computed for multiple units 4) so many factors to determine whether you are winning or losing.

    I can understand why it's so hard to build an AI with long term strategic thinking. I imagine even 2-3 turn tactics are difficult. Which makes me wonder whether 1UPT was the right decision for now.
     
  2. @Rob76

    @Rob76 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2010
    Messages:
    50
    Gosh, did you really go through all the time and trouble of digging up and posting these statistics w/o realizing how misleading they are?

    Yours are Steam stats. That means they are accurate for civ5 & 6, but Civ4 predates Steam. There are millions of disc copies of Civ4. I play Civ4 off a disc, and so do all of my friends. Steam stats don't even begin to tell the story of the Civ4 community. And the fact that a legit copy of Civ4-BTS will set you back 30 bucks when Civ 5 can be had for a paltry $12.50 should tell you all you need to know about the staying power of Civ4. And why is that? Many reasons, but certainly one of them is the high quality (IMHO) of the AI--an AI not handicapped by 1upt. But even if we had accurate sales figures, that doesn't tell us what we need to know. It doesn't tell us how many players have bought Civ6, but have left for Civ4 or Civ3--at least until the next major DLC--because of 1upt and because of the helpless AI. As I mentioned in a previous posting on this thread, there is a Civ6 mod available that allows multiple upt. I've play tested it extensively at 2upt. And the improvement in play quality is dramatic. Warmaking becomes much more interesting and more complex tactically w/o the logistical headaches of 1upt. Problem is that the mod only gives a taste of the potential improvement. The AI can't use the mod and continues to plod along at 1upt. My suggestion is that anyone interested in this issue should try this mod.

    My experience is probably typical of many who feel as I do about 1upt. I play civ4, civ5 (although rarely lately), and I play civ6. Civ4 is a deep game and its AI gives the steepest competitive challenge at the higher difficulties. But I also play civ6, and with considerable relish. It still has a certain shiny newness to it; and it's exciting to be anticipating what Firaxis will do next w/ a game that--when you think about it--doesn't seem to have been play tested before release. I am enjoying playing civ6. With proper modding, it can be a rewarding gaming experience. But it will always be less than it could be were it not handicapped by 1upt.
     
  3. Thormodr

    Thormodr Servant of Civ Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2005
    Messages:
    4,886
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    1UPT has been an unmitigated disaster for the Civ franchise. It's not fun to use (very tedious), it affects so much of the game and the AI is utterly bamboozled by it, anyway. It was a bad idea to begin with and it remains a bad idea.

    If there is to be a Civ VII, they should do the sensible thing and ditch 1UPT.

    Sensible stacks/armies for Civ VII, please!
     
    ThERat likes this.
  4. Furycrab

    Furycrab King

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    914
    Short answer IMO, no.

    Longer one is trickier. I like the strategic depth of decisions you can make with one UPT. Some of it was there with the stacks of doom, but it wasn't quite as satisfying. I think as they add layers to it, it's been getting better, and the AI has been getting better at it (although it's nowhere near what I would call good). I think it's a nice middle ground between stacks of doom, and other games doing stacks but having combat take away the player from the main screen.

    I like how it has the strategic combat aspect, but it's not separate from the main game. Played way too many 4xs where you stack armies and then meet on a strategic map only to want to Auto-calc every single fight later in the game.

    If I had to change something going forward is just fix the scaling. The units feel too big relative to the terrain. Makes for a lot of the problems we see. Fixing that would be huge and basically take an entire overhaul however. I'd rather they stick to what they are doing and tweak it however than go back to armies meeting in stacks.
     
  5. Countmonte8242

    Countmonte8242 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    177
    Yes - All I know is that it has destroyed the franchise for me. I probably will not buy another Civ game until they go back to stacks. I won't hold my breath on that, cause money talks. If Firaxis believes that they'll lose this new playerbase if they go back to stacks, they might not risk it. I don't think the success should be tied to 1 UPT but mostly to Steam, but Firaxis might view this as "if the money ain't broke, don't fix it."

    There are so many ways to alleviate the stack "problem" (I didn't consider it a problem, it was fun to have that feeling of danger) without going to 1 UPT, thus crippling the AI's ability to pose a threat and creating a lot of tedium for the player. Hell, I can go back to the very first computer turn-based strat I played, Warlords I. Stacks were limited to 8 units. Much less tedium than 1 UPT, no SoD's, AI could still compete. Civ 1? If the top unit in a stack died, the entire stack died. You had to be smart about how you moved units but there was much less tedium. Civ IV had collateral damage, which probably could have been made more effective. Somewhere between Civ 1+2 mechanics + Civ IV collateral damage would be a sweet spot.

    I hope people keep making threads like this. The voices of longtime fans who are displeased should at least be heard. Firaxis may or may not listen. Civ VII is probably 5 years away either way.
     
    man-erg, lp60068 and Zuizgond like this.
  6. Gub

    Gub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2016
    Messages:
    94
    The problem with stacks is that it was either you steamroll or get steamrolled, and the later almost never happened. Overall I found Civ4 to be rather linear, once you figured out the "best strategy" every game is like playing a historic WW2 USA campaign from 1936, just hours of busy work.. Then you marshal your stack of doom and can often conquer the whole world without loosing a single unit.. with your heroic ever glorious army.. :sleep: This why I only comeback to Civ4 when new mods are released. Also as part of the 1UPT rant, Civ4 AI competency is widely exaggerated.. I often forced to handicap myself to avoid exploiting various issue and use the editor to give the AI a better chance.

    Overall I think that Civ6 many mechanics that focus on the situation is a great improvement. Sure can be more difficult and/or tedious to some bu
     
    c4c6 likes this.
  7. Matthew.

    Matthew. Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,179
    I was fine with it in Civ 5 mostly because it was "new and they will sort it out". But after Beyond Earth and now Civ 6, my interest in 1UPT is all but gone.

    Instead of polishing the system and making it more manageable, Civ 6 has only made the problem worse. There isn't much to build any more since improvements are locked behind districts and you will only have a few districts in most of your cities, so both AI and player ends up spamming more units and carpet of doom is real. Add in the additional bonus layer of carpet of doom with religious unit spam, and it is unbearable.

    I don't think I will ever finish a religious victory. Well, partly because I'm not sure I will ever load up Civ 6 again, but also because of the tedious micromanagement of 1UPT. It was tedious for domination games, but at least there, you could get 8 or so units and push them across the map. Once they were across, you were done. If you needed more, you could always rush-purchase them out of a conquered city. With religion, you micromanage 8 religious units across the map through various carpeted carpets of doom, use their charges, then later need to send 8 more again... through more carpets of doom. A boring game of just shuffling civilian units across the map.

    The point is always mentioned about AI and "ability to become a threat" but the problem runs deeper than even just that. With 1UPT, you don't need as many units, which means you no longer need to try and balance an economy between unit maintenance and improvements, money loses value, and you just rush-purchase everything. They can't balance the money too tightly, else you could never field an army. But since players don't actually need armies, it is just free gold building up. We can't even throw excess gold at city-states anymore, so now it is just rush-purchasing improvements whenever a district finally finishes building.

    Gold loses value, which in turn means production loses value. All because of 1UPT. We are no longer managing an empire, making interesting choices between building queues, balancing an economy, preparing against potential border threats. It is merely clicking next turn with no meaningful interaction. The franchise has become this weird sort of sandbox where you just kind of shuffle units around until you get bored. It is no longer a strategy game, nor is it a good builder game. I'm almost hesitant to even call it a game of any sort.
     
  8. Ferocitus

    Ferocitus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    4,409
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    It has only been an unmitigated disaster for those who want to go back to 1upt
    because their pleas have been completely ignored.
    The franchise itself is doing quite well in terms of number of players and sales.

    It's hard to see why would they even give a moment's thought to returning to 1upt
    given the very good sales of Civ5 and Civ6.
     
  9. FurballRocker

    FurballRocker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2016
    Messages:
    77
    Gender:
    Male
    Actually it took a very small effort just to find and post the figures i found much as it took very little effort to find another set of figures which contradicts your claim.i.e. And the fact that a legit copy of Civ4-BTS will set you back 30 bucks where with a simple google search the top posting came to amazon selling it for £4.58 and with another quick google that comes to $5.63. And with a quick search of amazon itself i found the complete civ iv collection including expansions for £6.23 (£4.20 + £2.03 delivery) for a second hand but very good condition copy which is $7.65. This took me about 2 minutes to find.

    Now the figures i have found may not provide a full picture of the situation but they do at least provide some testable evidence instead of just stating feelings and guesses and making them out to be fact and we all know where that leads...

    My experience is probably typical of many who feel as I do about 1upt. I play civ4, civ5 (although rarely lately)
    But I also play civ6, and with considerable relish.

    I do find it interesting though that you seemed to be making out that 1Upt has ruined the play experience yet you relish playing civ 6 even in it's far from perfect form, having played previously and still occasionally playing civ 5 also, so you have experienced the 1Upt experience before purchasing civ 6 and bought it...

    So you are arguing 1Upt has ruined the franchise yet you still buy it and play it...Now that to me says 1Upt is not destroyed the franchise as a 1Upt advocator has bought it fully knowing the 1Upt experience from civ 5 and is relishing playing it.
    If 1Upt is so disastrous for the game why did you buy civ 6 after playing civ 5? Why are people who think 1Upt is so rubbish buying civ 6 and then coming here and moaning about it?
    The fact that you bought it tells firaxis you like it. If you want to change things then vote with your wallet and don't buy the game.
    e.g. i decided to give watch dogs a chance and thought it was rubbish now i wouldn't buy watch dogs 2 and wouldn't even play it even if it was free as due to the interconnected world of gaming that would still be seen as another person who played it.

    Civ 6 has it's problems but 1Upt in of itself is not the cause and it certainly hasn't ruined the franchise and if people wish to prove differently they need to provide evidence not just personal feeling.

    As 1Upt is the way things are and as the issues with civ 6 in particular are not at root caused by 1Upt discussing the merits of 1Upt serves no real purpose other than to distract from the real issue which is essentially poor balance and programing along lack of clear information in game.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2017
  10. King Rad

    King Rad Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    274
    Location:
    Pensacola, Florida
    While a long-time gamer [back to the Avalon Hill board games of my youth] and computer/video gamer, I came to the Civ franchise relatively late - Civ IV, then BTS (skipped Warlords). I found the game to be a "ton of fun" with only two things that really bothered me - unit stacking and the squares [vs. hexes]. I thought the 1UPT wa a great improvement in Civ V and even better done in Civ VI [also like the buildings moving out of the cities to the districts]. To me, and apparently to a lot of others including long-term gamers, the 1 UPT [and the hexes, which I think was a related decision] is a great addition to Civ. Are there changes that need to be made? Yes, especially the builder [or in V worker] not being able to occupy the same tile as a friendly military unit [last night I had to send a builder off on another project because a friendly unit kept occupying the space I wanted to work]. But I personally like the 1 UPT and based on the sales figures as noted by others, I don't really anticipate Firaxis ever going back to the stacks.
     
  11. Gub

    Gub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2016
    Messages:
    94
    I am confused. Assuming that you are not taken by the thread title likely hyperbolic and evidently false statement, are you saying that Civ6 still has a long road ahead in terms of polish (agreed) or that Civ6 is doomed because 1UPT is the root of all evil?
     
  12. PendragonWRB

    PendragonWRB Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2002
    Messages:
    311
    Gender:
    Male
    I always hated the stacks, long live 1 UPT. Religious units need their own layer for sure. Firaxis just needs to spend some money and hire some dedicated AI people because I have to believe the AI can get much better than it is. The fact that the AI cannot handle 1 UPT to me is not a valid argument for stacks.
     
    Ferocitus likes this.
  13. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    553
    The same, regretable, good argument used to aknowledge why Firaxis won`t ever go back to stacks, applies to the fact they won`t ever build a resemblance of an acceptable AI; i.e people already paid more money than ever before to play the latest iterations of the game (V & VI). This is good buisness and nothing else is needed to keep the cash flowing into their coffers... ...
     
  14. Pizzaspy

    Pizzaspy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Messages:
    77
    "1UPT" is fine. Plenty of wargames have 1UPT and solid AI with much deeper mechanics. How? It's a development priority.

    Don't people get that 1UPT (and by association Jon Shafer) is a scapegoat to cover for the lack of AI programming resources? Firaxis could dedicate more resources to AI but choose not to. Simple as that.
     
    Ron West and DWilson like this.
  15. rschissler

    rschissler King

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    790
    Location:
    So. Cal, USA
    So, 1UPT is fine with other games, just not with Civ 6? OK, thanks for that...
     
  16. Gub

    Gub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2016
    Messages:
    94
    I am fan of turn-base strategy games, often playing obscure titles, and I am having trouble of coming up with games with similar scope (not periodic limited scenarios) that has better AI.. -- Right now I am playing an RTS game from a company I seen often brought up here as an example of good AI.. Can you? lets just say that the AI there is sooo good that they created a mechanic where you are given control of your allies forces.. which plays nice to your ego until you realize that you play with your-self controlling the whole world.
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2017
  17. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,395
    See, that's the thing though. Civ 4 is held alive by living fossils like you. Today's gamers just don't play that game, it's completely dead to the Steam audience.

    If Civ 4 were this great thing that the people of today want, it would have already become popular among younger gamers. In reality it just looks outdated from today's perspective. What has to happen is for Firaxis to finally invest into proper AI, maybe redesign the game a bit so the AI doesn't have to struggle as much, and think about better ways to avoid insanely large armies.
     
    DWilson and whyidie like this.
  18. Gub

    Gub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2016
    Messages:
    94
    ^ The thing with games --music and pretty much everything else-- is that it takes time to develop taste, and young audience is often drawn to the shiniest thing.. Also IMO Civ4 still offers a better bang for my buck than new Civ6.. and yes he is correct many people don't use steam to play CIv4.
     
  19. Ricci

    Ricci Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2007
    Messages:
    553
    I concur completely. It is not what many impressionable youngsters want exactly due to the outdated look of IV. Which allows the, otherwise absurd, proliferation of lesser games as dubious sequels of a once great franchise.

    The same, regretable, good argument valid to aknowledge why Firaxis won`t ever go back to stacks, applies to the fact they won`t ever build a resemblance of an acceptable AI; i.e people already paid more money than ever before to play the latest iterations of the game (V & VI). This is good buisness and nothing else is needed to keep the cash flowing into their coffers... ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2017
  20. Dale

    Dale Mohawk Games Developer

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2002
    Messages:
    7,235
    You are not generating any goodwill for your generation from fossils like us by your post. All it proves to us is you are all shine and not much substance. ;)
     
    DutchJob and rschissler like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page