historix69
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,402
There are similar games like "Master of Magic" (1994) from SimTex/Microprose or "Age of Wonders" where you use army stacks on worldmap but do combat in 1upt on a tactical battlefield.
I can only speak for myself.it will not matter if there are stacks or 1UPT
Don't worry, that's what I do.I don't believe it has "destroied the franchise" as much as "turned it into a different kind of game".
the fact that the AI was not up to snuff in this new game is an unrelated problem.
but hey, if so many people here don't like the 1UPT, why not go back to play civ4? There is still a small community of players gathering together to play it. I say, put your gaming time where your mouth is.
How old are you talking? I only recall the term being used with Civ 4, which did have counterplay: each attack with a siege unit would damage half a dozen or so units, and anytime cavalry survives an attack in the field it would damage every siege unit in the stack.As I've said, you can make Stacks, no Stacks, it does not matter, as long as you balance it. As long as there is Counter-play
The old Stacks of Doom, with no counter other than your own Stacks of Doom, is just bad gameplay.
Adding a line or 2 of units that are basically "stack killers", IE, do less damage vs. a single unit, but significantly more damage to an enemy the more units are stacked up, would add more strategy and depth.
I think for me the Civ 3 combat was just fine, once you could move 100 pieces of artillery with 1 click. (As far as I remember (16 years back) in vanilla Civ 3 it was not possible, it came with an addon.)each attack with a siege unit would damage half a dozen or so units, and anytime cavalry survives an attack in the field it would damage every siege unit in the stack.
but hey, if so many people here don't like the 1UPT, why not go back to play civ4? There is still a small community of players gathering together to play it. I say, put your gaming time where your mouth is.
I didn't like those Civ 4 mechanism
I think for me the Civ 3 combat was just fine, once you could move 100 pieces of artillery with 1 click. (As far as I remember (16 years back) in vanilla Civ 3 it was not possible, it came with an addon.)
but hey, if so many people here don't like the 1UPT, why not go back to play civ4? There is still a small community of players gathering together to play it. I say, put your gaming time where your mouth is.
well, if you want to go technical, it wasn't much of a counter to stacking as it was a way to ensure the victory for the attacking stack - everything else being equal, that is. Because stacking was still the only reasonable way to play in the vast majority of situations.How old are you talking? I only recall the term being used with Civ 4, which did have counterplay: each attack with a siege unit would damage half a dozen or so units, and anytime cavalry survives an attack in the field it would damage every siege unit in the stack.
Some of us have 1000's of hours in civ 4, don't necessarily mind 1 UPT, but want a functionally decent implementation of it. The civ franchise has yet to provide a complete, soundly-implemented 1 UPT experience. It's possible to do, Firaxis hasn't done it. It's a slugfest to play turns (I do not recall a time in civ's history where unit cycling worked well and the controls are broken in 5 and 6 even more so than 4, which also had broken controls...) and the unit tuning needs a lot of help with how upgrades/tech apply to them.
But it CAN be good, in principle.
That's normal. Warfare sucks in a game where defenders always come out ahead, or even just on average.Basically in civ4 the attacker always won, and so the only defence was to stay in your ground, where you were the only one who could use roads and therefore you could always attack first.
Even on the offense against the AI, there is a lot of value to be had in picking off defenders moving through territory -- which results in having units on many different tiles.the only strategy was about how you move your stack, using hills and rivers for defence bonus, and especially knowing when you had enough to go in. At least for games with reduced front lines.
Yes, the AI could sweep out and pick off those smaller groups of units -- and if you've done it well, that's a very good thing, since you get to return the favor. Acceptable losses to draw enemy units out of their fortified position.if you have an isolated unit, the opponent can attack it with a similar unit; 50% he wins, so he kills a unit for free, and even if he loses, it will damage your unit enough that the second unit will win almost for sure ... sending a small group of different units to counter everything also does not work: let's say you send one knight, one mace and one pike, for example. ... [the opponent] can attack with 5 knights; the first will have some 30% against the pike, the second will have 50% against the knight, and the others will have easy victory. So you're losing 1.5 knights to killl 3 units. Or you could attack with 4 crossbows, the first one will die against the knight, but it should damage it enough for the second to kill, and then it's easy game; statistically you lose 2 crossbows to killl 3 more expensive units. Or you could send a catapult and 4 knights.
Yes, search through TMIT's posts, he has said a lot about that.maybe for some ffa where you had large borders it was better to spread your army.
I'm talking about warfare among humans here. AI was generally too stupid to go about it efficiently; in my experience, the best way to deal with it was to stack your army into a fortified city and let AI lose everything while throwing its troops at your city a few every turn, then move your stack and camp it outside of enemy city and let AI attack it with a few units every turn.That's normal. Warfare sucks in a game where defenders always come out ahead, or even just on average.
Even on the offense against the AI, there is a lot of value to be had in picking off defenders moving through territory -- which results in having units on many different tiles.
Yes, the AI could sweep out and pick off those smaller groups of units -- and if you've done it well, that's a very good thing, since you get to return the favor. Acceptable losses to draw enemy units out of their fortified position.
Yes, search through TMIT's posts, he has said a lot about that.
Civ 6 is tilted towards the attacker. Bigly.
In every iteration of the game prior to this a big chunk of your infrastructure was inside your city making it essentially invulnerable until conquered. Civ 6 moved almost everything out onto the map and thus vulnerable. In the past it was definitely damaging and annoying to have your improvements plundered but holy hell is it aggravating now. You can really mess up a civilization without even taking a single city. Just run around killing units and plundering districts and you can easily stymie them to the point where you gain a whole era on them.
Civ 6 works so differently from prior versions that you really need to re-think approaches. Kick 'em in the nuts, take your protection money, and then come back in 30 turns and you'll likely have a tech advantage and a better army.
It could be due to my lack of playing MP and still trying to master King (I've beat Emperor but with cheesy civs). The AI doesn't do anything like that.