How does 1UPT effect if you will buy Civ 7

[Eagle Pursuit]

Judging by the poll, it's not actually a contentious issue, but the few people who have a strong opinion on it just dominate the discourse.

 

[Krajzen]

If civ7 had as painful combat/logistics as civ6, it would be massive problem for me no doubt, unless the game had really amazing other systems. I don't expect that to happen though, since sheer inertia of combat system over past two games should motivate devs to change something just for the sake of change, and the probability of new combat system annoying me as much as previous one is very low.

The problem with 1upt unit movement and combat is - you cannot escape it whatsoever. It's not an optional mechanic you can just ignore, disable or mod out, it's not a secondary mechanic you can kinda ignore in the background, it's something you have to deal with all the time. Even playing as purely defensive pacifist you have to build dozens of them and waste time micromanaging them just to defend yourself, you have to slowly and painfully move units one tile after one tile because of rough terrain being everywhere. You also have to watch AI's crippling inability to manage the system (it never could and it never will), therefore making AI more tedious than challenging, and making the AI vs AI interactions worse, since they also struggle with taking land from each other and stagnate. You have to waste time waiting on turns loading, because it consumes a lot of processing power (meanwhile Humankind, with a different army system, has lightning fast AI turns in result). You have to spend huge % of the game micromanaging unit logistics just to move army.

 

[Ita Bear]

Moving 10+ units individually every turn (since the pathing AI is so terrible, it does practically end up being every single turn you have to adjust their movement) never has been fun and never will be fun. Old World makes 1UPT better by having a functioning AI and wider, more open spaces, but it's still not good. I strongly hope for a blend of the two; smaller army groups, so to speak, perhaps with slots for melee, ranged, cavalry and artillery and the player can fill as they see fit. I think this would provide some interesting strategic and tactical options.

 

[UWHabs]

If civ7 had as painful combat/logistics as civ6, it would be massive problem for me no doubt, unless the game had really amazing other systems. I don't expect that to happen though, since sheer inertia of combat system over past two games should motivate devs to change something just for the sake of change, and the probability of new combat system annoying me as much as previous one is very low.

The problem with 1upt unit movement and combat is - you cannot escape it whatsoever. It's not an optional mechanic you can just ignore, disable or mod out, it's not a secondary mechanic you can kinda ignore in the background, it's something you have to deal with all the time. Even playing as purely defensive pacifist you have to build dozens of them and waste time micromanaging them just to defend yourself, you have to slowly and painfully move units one tile after one tile because of rough terrain being everywhere. You also have to watch AI's crippling inability to manage the system (it never could and it never will), therefore making AI more tedious than challenging, and making the AI vs AI interactions worse, since they also struggle with taking land from each other and stagnate. You have to waste time waiting on turns loading, because it consumes a lot of processing power (meanwhile Humankind, with a different army system, has lightning fast AI turns in result). You have to spend huge % of the game micromanaging unit logistics just to move army.

Yeah, even stuff as simple as not being able to move a worker and settler together across your own terrain into an empty city spot, and having to constantly move them individually because otherwise your builder will block the fastest route for your settler.

Like, give me unlimited stacking, but stacked units get like -10 combat strength per unit on the tile, and can't attack if there's another unit on the tile, and the game is probably 2x better than it is now. You still need to be strategic when you're actually ready to fight, but you could at least like create convoys en route. It would probably hurt the AI even more since they would end up stacking units and always being penalized, but it would certainly solve a lot of basic logistics for the user.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I think Humankind's approach is good: multi-unit armies with a set number of slots that increase with technological advancement. You have to think carefully about which units you put in and how many of them, movement is easier and less tasking (though Humankind's elevation system makes pathing a headache) and battles are resolved within 1-3 turns.

 

[Nikolai II]

I'd hope for a mix solution of some sorts.|

 

[HktkNban]

The problem in Civ5/Civ6 is not 1UPT, the problem is too many units on the map.
Like trade route capacities, military unit capacities should be introduced to limit unit spam.

Limiting the number of military units a civilization can have to a maximum of 10 would greatly reduce the amount of time players have to operate their units.
If you only need to operate a mere 10 units, even 1 UPT takes little effort.

 

[pokiehl]

Judging by the poll, it's not actually a contentious issue, but the few people who have a strong opinion on it just dominate the discourse.

You also see this phenomenon a lot in discussions of which civs or leaders should be included.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

The problem in Civ5/Civ6 is not 1UPT, the problem is too many units on the map.
Like trade route capacities, military unit capacities should be introduced to limit unit spam.

Limiting the number of military units a civilization can have to a maximum of 10 would greatly reduce the amount of time players have to operate their units.
If you only need to operate a mere 10 units, even 1 UPT takes little effort.

The problem is that units are produced via the Production resource, and is not in any way tied to a civilization's population, which is how it would be in a more historically accurate game. This is why I suggest a Manpower resource in lieu of Production; training time (for non-mechanical units like footsoldiers unlike tanks) is increased by military academies and barracks and such, but not by mines; this way civilizations will only be able to field a certain amount of troops at a time, won't be able to spam units even after you keep on wiping out their horde and won't be able to spam units in no time just because they have lots of mines and hills

 

[Lexicus]

I would probably not buy Civ VII if the ridiculous stacks of doom of Civ 1-4 were back - 1 unit per tile is a much better option, even if it is not perfect. Obviously though any rational person will be making the decision to buy the game based on many factors.

I have almost the exact opposite opinion, 1upt has been a disaster for the series and doomstacks while not perfect were far better for a STRATEGY game. 1upt is better for dedicated wargames where the number of units is too small to fill up all the hexes on the map.

I voted the third poll option but 1upt is probably the biggest single factor. If civ 7 continues in the style of 5 and 6 I won't buy it, just as I have not bought civ 6.

 

[Lexicus]

Civ IV's combat, for all the tedium inherent in the Stacks of Doom, meets both those criteria

What tedium? Civ 4 has UI tools that make controlling stacks incredibly easy, certainly far less tedious than the giant sliding-tile puzzle that civ 5 quickly becomes as soon as you have more than a handful of units.

 

[Leucarum]

Am I an outlier? I rarely find that I am struggling to find hexes to move units into in Civ6. I find it's quite rare that I'm trying to carpet a map with units. If I can convincingly beat the AI with a smaller force, spending my resources elsewhere always feels like the better option. But maybe I'm unusual in favouring that style...

 

[Lexicus]

Am I an outlier? I rarely find that I am struggling to find hexes to move units into in Civ6. I find it's quite rare that I'm trying to carpet a map with units. If I can convincingly beat the AI with a smaller force, spending my resources elsewhere always feels like the better option. But maybe I'm unusual in favouring that style...

Most people seem to prefer 1upt to stacking so I'd guess you're not an outlier.

 

[CPWimmer]

Where is the "I will buy Civ 7 on Day 1 because it is the next iteration of my favorite game!" vote option?

In all honesty there is nothing that would stop me from buying Civ 7: not civ choices, not leader choices, not design choices, not graphics choices, not price point, etc. I would buy a new gaming computer when Civ 7 comes out, if somehow my current PC didn't meet the specs.

For a game series that I have easily spent 10 (if not 100) times more play time in than anything else that comes close - it's a no brainer for me.

1UPT?!? Really, that would be someone's deciding factor on civ 7 in 2023/2024???
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You do you, I guess.

 

[AntSou]

@Lexicus The sliding puzzle issue is considerably reduced when using any mod that increases base movement by +1.

Not only that, the game actually feels as if it were meant to be played with that +1 extra movement. I can't go back to default movement.

 

[Lexicus]

@Lexicus The sliding puzzle issue is considerably reduced when using any mod that increases base movement by +1.

Not only that, the game actually feels as if it were meant to be played with that +1 extra movement. I can't go back to default movement.

I have sufficient other issues with civ 5 that I don't think I'd play 6 even with such mods.

1UPT?!? Really, that would be someone's deciding factor on civ 7 in 2023/2024???
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You do you, I guess.

My response to you declaring you will get the game on day 1 no matter what is similar, lol. As I see it, the attitude in your post is why the industry gets away with releasing games in an unfinished state.

 

[CPWimmer]

I don't mind beta testing for them. This attitude (from me) applies to a very small set of games. Civ is one of less than 5 games that has earned that right.

 

[Orango Nash]

I won't be buying it on release, if it has 1UPT. Will wait a year or two and pick it up on sale. If it goes a sensible route and has a compromise - say 4 units per tile, would definitely be interested in getting it on release. I am one of those old crusties whose played since Civ 1 and though I don't hate 1UPT, I don't like what it does to the game. Perhaps if we call them "armies" instead of loaded terms like "doomstacks"? The problem I have is that 1UPT slows the game down. Causes blockages as you move just 4 or 5 units. And I dont think this qualifies as an "interesting decision"! Its busy work. And completely wrecks the scale. Civ has always been abstract, which is fine. But only have 1 unit of archers, say, in a tile which must be several miles across, is kind of absurd. And when they start firing over hills...

Games like Age of Wonders are fine with a limit (6 units per tile, I think). This works so much better than both unlimited doomstacks and 1UPT. What would need adding is determining the battle outcome, based on the composition of those stacks. And that, I guess, is the challenge (not the tedious 1v1 string of unit battles in older Civs) . Especially at the abstract distance and time scale.

It's good to see that many are not specifically attached to 1UPT, at least. I always had the idea that if they changed it, they would lose most of the newcomers to the series since Civ 5.

 

[universecreep]

I personally like 1UPT. It is an upgrade to the stacks of doom from Civ 4.

Humankind and a few other games have shown that this can be implemented to be fun. Even Civ VI, for all it's faults, improved on the 1UPT formula from V.

If they changed it back to stacks, I'd hope that they limit the amount of units per tile rather than having it unlimited.

 

[pokiehl]

I genuinely don’t understand how limited stacks wouldn’t just be 1UPT but with an extra few steps.