I really, really hate 1upt.

[criZp]

I love being able to keep the other civs from settling/converting my lands while staying peaceful. I would hate any of those proposals - barring maybe the advance column.

Just close borders to civilians like missionaries, and make a civilian open borders thing. Bam, done. Easy.

 

[Kwami]

Civilian units should be able to stack because there is no 'stack of doom' concept there. I see exactly zero reason that Builder units need to be prevented from walking over the same tile. Similarly religious units need their own layer. Try it in the CBP. Makes a world of difference.

What happens if an enemy lands on a tile with multiple civilian units? Do you lose all of them? I could see that being especially problematic for the AI since its already pretty bad at losing civilians to barbarians.

Also in terms of "stacks of doom" wait for the first time the AI sends a swarm of religious units at you and you are unable to move or build improvements because they are occupied by missionaries.

Kill them.

The thing with stacking is you don't have to stack, so I don't see what the exact arguments could possibly be other than "War Games do it!"

If stacks are available, then you have to stack. Otherwise, you'll lose every fight.

 

[isau]

What happens if an enemy lands on a tile with multiple civilian units? Do you lose all of them? I could see that being especially problematic for the AI since its already pretty bad at losing civilians to barbarians.

The same thing that happens in any civ game prior to Civ 5 or that happens in the CBP. You lose them. But this is hardly an issue because the inability to stack results in them being easier to steal anyway, because they can't run from you and hide together beneath a unit. Works out much better for the AI because any time AI has to consider manuevering around other units its performance degrades. It has a much easier time beelining. Enforcing 1UPT rules on Builders and Settlers makes the AI much worse at using them and enables cheese tactics like blocking in AI Settlers so they can't reach their destination without actually declaring war.

 

[cephalo]

This is 3upt, not 1upt.

 

[steveg700]

I really, really like 1upt. This discussion was over years ago. I expect a modified version will be part of all Civ games going forward. I would like to see a change, though. Allow a ranged unit to stack with a melee unit. When it attacks, the ranged unit fires first and the melee unit follows. On the defensive, the ranged unit fires at the attacker before the melee combat. If the melee unit is defeated, both units are lost. When an enemy ranged unit attacks, it would hit the melee unit first.

"I really, really like 1UPT. This discussion was over years ago...."

"I would like to see a change, though...."

"Allow units to stack."

Maybe it's just me, but....LMFAO

Ranged units are already too strong. Being able to stack them with a melee unit basically just makes them ranged units with a beefy defense. It would mean you couldn't outmaneuver defensive screens using cavalry or other high-mobility units.

 

[sonicboom12345]

I love being able to keep the other civs from settling/converting my lands while staying peaceful. I would hate any of those proposals - barring maybe the advance column.

Maybe it's just me, but if the answer to:

"I hate having to actually play a religious game to prevent my cities from being converted"

or

"I hate having to actually settle the countryside to prevent other countries from claiming territory"

...is simply to line your borders with military units and block the AI -- which is not only wholly unrealistic to the real world, but still seems to me to be an oversight in the 1upt system, which was designed expressly for warfare purposes and never intended to hamper things like religion -- then that's pretty bad game design. You're taking advantage of a flawed system and using it to recuse yourself from aspects of the game that you personally consider troublesome or un-fun. Whereas if the game were better designed, these aspects would be well-integrated and seamlessly blended.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

This is 3upt, not 1upt.

3 is still not enough.

Actually i think this topic is Even more relevant now than 5 years ago. 5 years and still no improvement? Or rather the contrary? Time for change! Yes we can!

 

[Biz_]

... the devs still think it's a clever idea to sacrifice gameplay for the sake of some historic parallelism ...

this is so true that it hurts

so much stuff in civ5 expansions and civ6 makes sense for an empire simulator game, but is so awful for the strategy gameplay

 

[steveg700]

Maybe it's just me, but if the answer to:

"I hate having to actually play a religious game to prevent my cities from being converted"

or

"I hate having to actually settle the countryside to prevent other countries from claiming territory"

...is simply to line your borders with military units and block the AI -- which is not only wholly unrealistic to the real world, but still seems to me to be an oversight in the 1upt system, which was designed expressly for warfare purposes and never intended to hamper things like religion -- then that's pretty bad game design. You're taking advantage of a flawed system and using it to recuse yourself from aspects of the game that you personally consider troublesome or un-fun. Whereas if the game were better designed, these aspects would be well-integrated and seamlessly blended.

Elements of the above smack of false dichotomy, but maybe I'm just inferring the wrong meaning.

Not wanting to spam religious units or have to deal with the constant AI spam of religious units isn't the same thing as recusing yourself from playing a game with religion. Because having a religion is not the same thing as trying to aggressively pursue a religious victory. Maybe that's sort of what you're saying?

The game badly needs some passive defense against religious conversion that doesn't require having already converted a clutch of cities that exert pressure for your religion.

Doesn't even have to be baked right in. Could be effected through civic cards, for instance.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Yeah this so much. The last thing I need is for the AI to be able to bypass my unit blockaids to settle in the middle of my territory.

Unit blockades are immersion-breaking, and usually not as worth the gpt as we imagine, and reflect the inadequate efficacy of diplomacy and warfare. This, from one who has used such blockades on every game since G&K. The game would be richer if we merely had to decide between a more effective diplomacy and warfare to counteract the game's "civilian warfare" element, rather than void that element completely with a few warriors next to a mountain

 

[Magil]

I can understand liking 1UPT. I don't agree with that line of thought, 1UPT brings the game down on every level and makes it worse in every way, but whatever. People like it, it sells, fine. I get that.

What I don't get is why it's considered acceptable for the AI to block me from working my own terrain because we have open borders and they're parading their units around inside. Seriously. Why defend that? It's utter stupidity.

 

[sonicboom12345]

1upt's implementation in Civ is so stupid it hurts. In my current game, there's a single road that spans the continent and connects East and West, rather like the Silk Road.

And nobody can travel on it because it's crammed full of traders and missionaries and foreign military units just bumbling around.

I can't send my own units to make use of it. I can't even improve any of the hexes the road straddles, because they're blocked. If the Silk Road worked like this in real life, people going in opposite directions unable to brush shoulders with each other, I'm pretty sure mankind would've never made it out of the Dark Ages.

But if you make a thread on Civfanatics complaining about things like this, asking "Why is this considered good gameplay? Why is this fun? Why can't this be better?" then of course, a dozen people have to chime in to tell you "/deadhorse! At least it's not stacks of doom!"

 

[dexters]

I think foreign units, especially the religious units not blocking path will be something the team should look into changing.

But the rest of the tirade is a dead horse. 1UPT is not going away in Civ6. /deadhorse etc.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

The lack of peaceful civilian unit stacking is just horrible. Especially since they wanted to make civilian units much more important this time by creating the religious victory. Trying to maneuver apostles and missionaries through an endless stream of blocking units is the opposite of fun.

But I'm sure this won't get fixed, because this was a glaringly obvious problem in Civ V as well, and they never bothered to fix it.

If people prefer the "tactical" combat that 1UPT supposedly provides (although really tactics are only happening on the human side of the equation, but whatever), that's fine. But there's no need to sacrifice so much other gameplay and create so many other annoyances on the altar of strict 1UPT. Loosen it up a bit.