Has 1UPT Completely Destroyed this Franchise?

[Ryika]

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.

I'm almost 30, can't really call myself part of the young generation anymore."Living fossils" was not a jab at the age of the players though, it's a metaphor for the people who don't really connect with the current trends. That doesn't even have to be a bad thing, but what it certainly means is that you cannot expect games to be made for you, because there's a severe disconnect between you and what the mass market wants.

That thing about "goodwill" though... I don't need to generate goodwill in the first place, why would I? "Goodwill" is for people who want something from the establishment, but the Civ franchise already uses the combat system that I prefer. You're acting as if I have to be nice to you so you don't see me as this person who's just wrong and doesn't know what they're talking about, but really... feel free to think that. (Although again, "living fossiles" was not meant to be a jab in the first place.) What you're missing is that you're the ones who have to change minds and convince people that not improving the AI and solving the problems the 1upt system currently has is the solution, but a reversal back to the old system.

And I'm even in the same position that you are in other games. I would LOVE the Elder Scrolls Series to go back to how Morrowind did Quests and Factions, with decisions that matter, instead of the dumbed down nonsense in the otherwise great Skyrim. But I realize most of the current players just don't like that. At the same time I realize that it would be nonsense to create threads like: "Has Skyrim ruined the Elder Scrolls Franchise?!", because it clearly hasn't. What they created resonated very well with the target audience, and the only real difference between this and "Stacks vs. 1UPT" is that the Skyrim systems work very well, while 1UPT still needs a lot of work. But the fact that it's not the "perfect iteration" yet doesn't lead to "so let's get back to the system that people don't want!"

 

[Dale]

Because 30 is soooooo old. Besides, I don't advocate returning to SoDs. I've made that clear in a number of posts in this thread.

 

[FurballRocker]

Because 30 is soooooo old. Besides, I don't advocate returning to SoDs. I've made that clear in a number of posts in this thread.

It kind of is in gaming terms

I'm only 35 and my first gaming memory was a BBC computer where games came on tapes (cassettes), often multiple ones where i would put the tape in before being called down for dinner and hoping it was finished loading by the time i had finished dinner or came in a book where i remember having to type in pages of code just to play centipede.

And that wasn't like today where it can takes hours to install a game but then it is on your PC...you had to do this every time you wanted to play the game.

 

[Ryika]

Because 30 is soooooo old.

It's above the general gaming demographic for "core" games, yes. But in general, no, it's of course not that old, and it's probably in the average age for strategy games. Lucky me.

Besides, I don't advocate returning to SoDs. I've made that clear in a number of posts in this thread.

Yes, you have a point there. I responded to the content of your post, but the person I imagined saying it was the "Stacks are awesome, and 1upt is the worst thing that ever happend and killed the Franchise!"-person in my head.

 

[ltccone]

I much prefer 1UPT over 'stacks of doom.;

 

[Gub]

I'm almost 30, can't really call myself part of the young generation anymore."Living fossils" was not a jab at the age of the players though, it's a metaphor for the people who don't really connect with the current trends. That doesn't even have to be a bad thing, but what it certainly means is that you cannot expect games to be made for you, because there's a severe disconnect between you and what the mass market wants.

Yes and no. We can and should expect games made for us, there market is more diverse than the few most popular franchises, and there are few developers who even develop specifically for "Living fossils". With that said, the initial argument that tried to prove something through current sales\players numbers on steam is flawed. And IMO unlike multiplayer 1UPT isn't just something that the mass-market wants but is a better mechanic for Civ, in fact one of the main argument against it is extra micromanagement, which something that the mass-market almost never wants..

 

[isau]

IMO where things went wrong is they converted to a Tactical combat system that stuck closely to the the old rules that governed Civ VI instead of creating a tactical system with a greater sense of scale. Unit movement is the main culprit. I believe the base unit of movement should be 3 instead of 2 and a few other mechanics should have been adjusted. The decision in Civ 6 to round movement down is particularly frustrating in a 2-move system.

 

[DWilson]

The absolute worst design choice in VI was making the movement rules even more restrictive.

 

[PendragonWRB]

The absolute worst design choice in VI was making the movement rules even more restrictive.

Other than the horrible way the UI handles the left over movement points, I don't have an issue with the change in the movement rules. Sure, the tactics are different, but I think it makes things more interesting. Roads however do need to be improved.

 

[DWilson]

Other than the horrible way the UI handles the left over movement points, I don't have an issue with the change in the movement rules. Sure, the tactics are different, but I think it makes things more interesting. Roads however do need to be improved.

One of the very few problems I have with 1UPT (which I much prefer), is the difficulty of moving units, particularly long distances. The decision notably exacerbated this problem, for a small boost in tactical gameplay.

 

[rschissler]

The absolute worst design choice in VI was making the movement rules even more restrictive.

I agree. Even with isau's^ great Rocketboots mod, movement is still a slog, and makes 1UPT worse.

 

[PendragonWRB]

If they would make roads more effective, and add a layer for religious units, getting units around would not be that big a deal. The whole game becomes a slog the longer it goes on, mostly because of an extremely lackluster UI. Movement is the least of it to me.

 

[Gub]

The absolute worst design choice in VI was making the movement rules even more restrictive.

I actually like it. It forces you to pay attention to the terrain, instead of jumping from defensive bonus to another (which gave you a constant boost over the AI, unless they make it gamy)

If they would make roads more effective, and add a layer for religious units, getting units around would not be that big a deal. The whole game becomes a slog the longer it goes on, mostly because of an extremely lackluster UI. Movement is the least of it to me.

Agreed.

 

[PhilBowles]

Yes and no. We can and should expect games made for us, there market is more diverse than the few most popular franchises, and there are few developers who even develop specifically for "Living fossils".

In fairness, though, Civ isn't and never has been that series. It's always had a reputation for being somewhat lightweight among dedicated strategy gamers - it's the strategy genre's main flagbearer in the mainstream, and like any niche group strategy gamers love to look on the mainstream with condescension. Quite possibly Civ IV is less successful than, say, Civ III on Steam because a wider range of strategy games are accessible and well-promoted these days. In a world of developers like Paradox, the strategy diehards don't need to settle for a fairly casual strategy game trying to appeal to a more dedicated audience (while Civ III, like its predecessors and like Civs V and VI, didn't really have any pretensions to be serious strategy games the way Civ IV always seemed to).

 

[rezaf]

I dunno about that. In my opinion, that's the main thing that was changed in the transition from Civ4 to Civ5. The older games in the series had a (slight) ... I'll call it simulationist angle to them. There were always huge compromises to ease of play, (especially early on) computing power and ... enjoyment? For example the play as the Americans from 4000BC thing.
But the games got slightly more complicated as the series progressed, trying to simulate more things a little better.
Combat was a one-shot affair in Civ1, then unit HP and seperate attack and defense values were introduced in Civ2, Civ3 had armies and introduced real stack combat, Civ4 introduced unit promotions and tried to introduce ways to make stack combat better with stuff like bombardment.
Another example are the borders, Civ1 and Civ2 had the fat cross, Civ3 allowed you to expand your borders with outposts, Civ4 finally had proper border growth.
Production got more complicated, when all resources were bonus resources in Civ1 and 2, Civ3 introduced the strategic/luxury resource model and Civ4 further flashed it out.
You can see a clear trend there.

Civ5 jettisoned a lof of that heritage. Jon Shafer said in several interviews he wanted the games mechanics to be more boardgame like (you could also say casual). 1UPT is merely the one decision that had the deepest impact, since it ended up compromising many other systems that he later felt he HAD to change to make the 1UPT thing feasible - and to prevent some of the problems inherent to the system, problems that exist in Civ6 today because it failed to implement these things properly.
Even Shafer himself finally realized 1UPT wasn't as great and idea as he initially thought and is getting rid of it in the game he's currently developing.
There are other things though that were also simplified or even removed.
On the other hand, some other systems were added that fit this new approach better. Civ6 has cranked this up to eleven. How religions are "built", the government cards, great works and great people that can be "purchased", this is all very very far removed from the old simulationist angle. Some of the things I like best about Civ6 is amongst those things, mind you - I'm not panning these ideas to be universally bad - I'm merely saying they steer the series into a different direction, which is why, in my eyes, Civ5/6 are Civ games for people that don't really like the Civilization series (as it used to be).
There are overlaps, of course, and you can picture it like the color picker in a paint program. Earlier Civ games were "pure" cyan, and both people wanting blue and people wanting green could be happy. Ever so slightly, a little more blue was indroduced though - and there were those that would have loved the game to become mostly blue. Civ5 and Civ6 went the other way, and now we're leaning to the green. It's still cyan, but people actually leaning to green can now be much happier while people actually leaning towards blue are bound to be disappointed.

And as in color, the person loving blue better is not more right than the person loving green, it's just a matter of taste. I'm nostalgic for the blue days!

(Btw., admins, isn't it time to turn off the chrismas smileys?)

 

[Kwami]

Combat was a one-shot affair in Civ1, then unit HP and seperate attack and defense values were introduced in Civ2, Civ3 had armies and introduced real stack combat, Civ4 introduced unit promotions and tried to introduce ways to make stack combat better with stuff like bombardment.

Civ V further expanded upon combat with more in depth tactical positioning, 100 HP instead of 10 HP, and cities with built-in defenses. Civ VI then changed the city defense model to be less silly, improved the promotion system, and added unit groups and support units.

Another example are the borders, Civ1 and Civ2 had the fat cross, Civ3 allowed you to expand your borders with outposts, Civ4 finally had proper border growth.

Civ V then improved border growth by having the city grow one tile at a time, taking into account terrain, resources, and other factors to determine how a city grew. Civ V also allowed you to finally purchase new tiles sooner than you would otherwise get them. Civ VI expanded upon this by placing parts of the city on the map directly, using terrain and resources to determine where certain pieces can be placed.

Production got more complicated, when all resources were bonus resources in Civ1 and 2, Civ3 introduced the strategic/luxury resource model and Civ4 further flashed it out.

Civ V and VI largely retained the bonus/luxury/strategic resource model, though Civ VI uses them in more ways than did previous games.

You can see a clear trend there.

Yes, I can. You just don't like the new changes. That's fine. But, to say that Civ VI is somehow more "casual" and less complex than Civ IV is absurd.

You can argue that the AI sucks and that the game is too easy as a result, but that's an entirely separate issue.

 

[rezaf]

Cmon.

Going from stacks to 1UPT has not made the game more realistic in any way. Archers firing across the channel and all. It's a design choice, and one many like (blue vs. green, remember), but it is clearly a step away from a realistic simulation. Which stack combat was far away from as well, but it's more realistic to have a unit of archers and a unit of swordsmen sharing the same tile if so desired. Because no matter how big you imagine that stack to be, it makes zero sense for one to block off the other completely. It may make the game more "tactically involved" as you call it, but it's more unrealistic and gamey. Again, this isn't about better or worse, it's about (slightly more) realistic vs. (slightly more) ... abstract, for lack of a better term.

Same with the border growth. Organically growing borders was simulationish. Buying tiles undermining natural growth is gamey. Not better, not worse, but a different design philosophy.

The resource model was simplified a little only, yes, with 2 resources (or one with the right district) allowing you to build as many units as you want of the related type. Design choice.

I didn't use the word complex in my post. You brought that up. And it IS more casual. Claiming otherwise is what's absurd. It's not better or worse inherently because of it, but that's the case.
If the term offends you somehow (I don't really get why though), just consider my simulationist vs. ... mechanics-oriented argument.

I really tried to bring across that I consider these things to be just different approaches, where one is not superior to the other, just different. Yet you feel the need to pick my points apart and paint me a ****** for failing to understand just how ingenious the changes are. That's why these discussions are so difficult to lead.

 

[Ryika]

Going from stacks to 1UPT has not made the game more realistic in any way. Archers firing across the channel and all. It's a design choice, and one many like (blue vs. green, remember), but it is clearly a step away from a realistic simulation. Which stack combat was far away from as well, but it's more realistic to have a unit of archers and a unit of swordsmen sharing the same tile if so desired. Because no matter how big you imagine that stack to be, it makes zero sense for one to block off the other completely. It may make the game more "tactically involved" as you call it, but it's more unrealistic and gamey. Again, this isn't about better or worse, it's about (slightly more) realistic vs. (slightly more) ... abstract, for lack of a better term.

That really depends on what you mean by "realism". The one big thing that makes the system less "realistic" than stack gameplay is the scale, you're right about that. But other than that?

Stacks have ridiculous scaling with terrain as well. Are you really telling me that you can move a whole stack of 20+ units through a forest at the same time? That a whole army can travel through a mountain pass just as quickly as it can travel through a valley? That you can put a whole army into a city?

The way formations work is also a lot more "realistic" than the extremely simplified stack gameplay that relies on a basic rock-paper-scissors system without taking the surrounding terrain into account.

The point about "having soldiers and archers on the same tile" makes no sense to me at all. Why would any army realistically want a formation where range-focused soldiers and melee-focused soldiers stand next to each other?

 

[rezaf]

Consider the size of the "forest" or "city" you're referring to. On the world map, how many "cities" can you fit into the entirety of France? So yes, I think it does make total sense for an army to fit into a city. And a stack is an army. There are no entire armies consisting of catapults or archers, so these must be smaller elements than an army, the stack is a collection of those sub-elements into a fighting force. It's still far from being truly realistic - I already admitted that, but it's also much closer to reality than 1UPT. NOT BETTER! But slightly more realistic.

Formations are indeed much more realistic than stack combat - no doubt about that. However, taking the scale of the map into consideration, they're a - as discussed earlier in the thread - totally different approach to abstraction.
One approach assumes, considering the scale of the game, individual positioning of archers makes no sense. The other approach assumes that, in favor of allowing player to do said positioning, the scope of the game has to be disregarded.
NEITHER IS BETTER inherently. 1UPT is just - in my eyes - worse because the AI is unable to cope with it. And because it puts much more workload on the player. This is just a matter of preferrence.

 

[Dale]

I think the big change, in the Civ series, which is directly visible through 1upt changes, is where the "strategic" focus has moved to.

Civ 1 and 2 had strategic focus at the Empire level (it felt like you were managing an Empire). Tiles felt like they were 1000 km each and thus held armies.
Civ 3 and 4 shifted strategic focus to the Region level (it felt like you were managing a collection of States). Tiles felt like they were 500 km each and held divisions.
Civ 5 shifted strategic focus to the City level (if felt like you were managing a collection of Cities). Tiles felt like they were 100 km each and held a corps.
Civ 6 shifted strategic focus to the District level (if feels like you are managing "in the streets"). Tiles feel like they are 10 km each and hold a unit.

This is reflected not only in the movement/combat layer, but in many layers of the game. That is why people stop liking Civ at different versions. They like their strategic focus at a certain point, and then it's too tactical for them.