Kill 1UPT, add city maintenance, and we have a winner

[jjkrause84]

OMG, more unit micro-management? Please no. Just no.

Stacking would vastly increase the number of units....but would actually reduce the number of 'moving parts'. It is why I can move a stack of 25 Infantry and 12 Artillery in Civ IV with a single mouse click, whereas navigating a 3 Infantry and 1 Field Gun in Civ VI is far more time consuming.

Also, with stacking you'll have to garrison cities which means sorties will become a realistic tactic....just as they always have been in siege warfare.

 

[wiggawuu]

I always wanted more choke points and importance and tile importance. I've never had any of that in Civ 5.

 

[jjkrause84]

Therefore there is no need to ditch the 1UPT system, which forces more strategic warfare, in favor of uninspired doomstack mechanics.

It forces tactical warfare, not strategic. Indeed, it makes player tactics so powerful that one has little need for strategy. Build your one small army and conquer the world.

In previous Civs I used to attack along multiple axes, maybe a main assault and also a naval assault elsewhere. This would take SO long to organize in a 1UPT system that it just never happens.

Limited stacking take the strengths from both the tactical side of 1UPT with the ease of movement and scale of unlimited stacking. Corps are a cute way of doing the same, but aren't really good enough (to my mind).

 

[skyclad]

I would strongly be in favor of bringing back some stacking features. I like the way it worked in civ 4, yes the first few games with 1upt is exciting and fun. After that, especially in late game its just a nightmare trying to move everything around. And the AI was good at using stacks but terrible at 1upt.

 

[Ranbir]

I'd the "corps" concept to be standard from the start. Forming multi unit, but limited armies.

 

[MistyRonin]

It forces tactical warfare, not strategic. Indeed, it makes player tactics so powerful that one has little need for strategy. Build your one small army and conquer the world.

Or I'm really bad, or that's simply not true. 1UpT makes both strategy and tactics really important, just check how many military strategy games use this formula.

For instance, yesterday I had a huge war with Greece (Pericles). He sent me two armies of about 4-6 hoplites with some support units (one from the north, one from the south), trying to surround my troops. And that was with Prince difficulty. I had to use all my money buying new units, decide which geographical positions would be best for the defence, how to replace injured units, etc. You really have to think which units will you need, and what regions defend more or less.

There's simply no way that with a small army I could have conquered the World, to take one Greek city I needed 6-7 units plus reinforcements from a City-State levy. Unless of course, you meant that a small army is composed of 10-20 units.

 

[TruthfulCake]

I'm not sure I see the distinction between tactical and strategic. Might be my English, but I wouldn't mind an explanation. Although I see where you're coming from with the little player tactics that the player can employ. But when assessing the value of 1UPT, I don't think the AI can ever up against humans, and so comparing the AI's efficacy with the tactics to that of humans isn't really the best comparison. The small tactics would not work against human players.

The limited stacking in VI sounds good to me, although I haven't tested it enough. Mind telling me why you think they're not good enough? Is it because you can only stack 3 at most?

 

[MistyRonin]

I'm not sure I see the distinction between tactical and strategic. Might be my English, but I wouldn't mind an explanation.

Tactics would be most of the decisions taken during a battle (how to achieve a simple goal).

Strategy is the "big picture", what kind of units are you gonna create, which parts of your empire are you going to defend better, etc. So the long term approach of how your armies should look and be distributed, and to what goals are you going to focus them.

Examples:

Tactic: To conquer a building you besiege it.

Strategy: To conquer UK, you have to bomb their production centres, prepare an amphibious army, build submarines to isolate the isles. Etc.

 

[Gorbles]

So, because you personally didn't like unlimited stacking we should not even consider limited stacking? Far better to have an enemy missionary blocking you from upgrading some wheat in your own territory? Really?

The game already has limited stacking.

If you don't want to be misinterpreted, maybe define what you mean by stacking and how it could apply to Civ 6, instead of going on broad generics and reducing this thread to a repeat of every single 1UPT vs. MUPT thread that's happened in the past.

 

[TruthfulCake]

Tactics would be most of the decisions taken during a battle (how to achieve a simple goal).

Strategy is the "big picture", what kind of units are you gonna create, which parts of your empire are you going to defend better, etc. So the long term approach of how your armies should look and be distributed, and to what goals are you going to focus them.

Examples:

Tactic: To conquer a building you besiege it.

Strategy: To conquer UK, you have to bomb their production centres, prepare an amphibious army, build submarines to isolate the isles. Etc.

That makes sense. Thanks! I always thought of it in "game strategy" and "battle strategy" terms, but I can understand this distinction.

I still believe that AI issues and civilian blocking are things that can be ironed out in future patches, if they took a page from what the guys over at Vox Populi did. I wouldn't like them to ditch 1UPT since it allows for more creativity than infinite stacks.

 

[MistyRonin]

I've to say that my "wet dream" would be mini stacks/armies of 3 units tops, that could be mixed. For instance using the melee, anti-cav, ranged and artillery types mixed. Even if it means that they lose a bit of power, like how corps/armies are in-game.

Or as it is now, but having at least the option of having the ranged units as support units.

 

[Nefelia]

In previous Civs I used to attack along multiple axes, maybe a main assault and also a naval assault elsewhere. This would take SO long to organize in a 1UPT system that it just never happens.

???

8 Frigates and 3 Caravel/Privateer in one battle group. Groups of 3 Longswordsmen, 2 Knights, and 6-8 Crossbowmen/Trebuchet for another 2 or so battle groups. The listing factor in Civ V was not how many battler groups you could make, but the fact that conquering more than one city at a time meant your happiness would drop to oblivion.

Yet even so, I was always a big fan of sending my Navy to mop up coast cities while my land army took care of the interior. Losses happened, but I had a steady stream of replacements coming in from core cities.

 

[Hyronymus]

So, because you personally didn't like unlimited stacking we should not even consider limited stacking? Far better to have an enemy missionary blocking you from upgrading some wheat in your own territory? Really?

Easy man . Just because you don't like 1UPT doesn't mean we all have to go stack of doom (you see the similarity in reasoning?).

 

[MkLh]

AI cant handle ANYTHING.
Get over it, you will never have a competitive AI(in any game, not just civ), if you want a though and balanced game... GO MULTIPLAYER.

And 1UPT is the best change ever, combat is so much better.

Or buy Civilization IV BtS where you need hundreds of hours before able to beat Deity.

 

[jjkrause84]

The game already has limited stacking.

If you don't want to be misinterpreted, maybe define what you mean by stacking and how it could apply to Civ 6, instead of going on broad generics and reducing this thread to a repeat of every single 1UPT vs. MUPT thread that's happened in the past.

In my OP I did: limited stacking starting at 3 and then progressing to 6 as time goes on (and those numbers are just ballparks). Units would still act as individuals. No need to form corps or anything like that.

The problem is that Civ VI only has very, very limited stacking (so limited that I'm not sure it is really helpful at all), and the game still has no stacking for units of different nations, let alone civilian units stacking with other civilians..

 

[Menzies]

So, because you personally didn't like unlimited stacking we should not even consider limited stacking? Far better to have an enemy missionary blocking you from upgrading some wheat in your own territory? Really?

That's a layering issue. This is one thing that is annoying in the current game, but unrelated to 1UPT, you should be able to stack different types of units with your allies, and religious units should be on a different layer to everything else.

Or buy Civilization IV BtS where you need hundreds of hours before able to beat Deity.

If you can find someone new to the series who can beat deity on Civ V after less than 100 hours, they're doing pretty damn well.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Stack of doom. That is all. 1UPT is infinately better than the alternative.

Why can't we dislike posts on these forums? It's the natural complement to likes, and very necessary in a case such as this.

EDIT: Civilians and allied units stacking is purely a quality of life issue; there is no reason not to allow it. I can't understand why they didn't allow it (like a lot of other things, it seems).

 

[GAGA Extrem]

With the new movement rules, 1UPT actually works a lot better. I am still not ENTIRELY fond of it, but at least it feels somewhat better.
On top of that, there is now limited stacking during the later stage of the game (if I understand that correctly).

As for city maintenance - the increased civilian and district cost is a pretty hefty tax.

 

[PhilBowles]

I'm with you--stacks and city maintenance combined to make the best Civ game ever, in my mind.

City maintenance had a flaw that was common to too many Civ IV mechanics: it wasn't a strategic choice, it was a flat penalty. Civ IV had no real 'tall vs. wide' dichotomy of the type Civ V attempted: you had to expand. You just got punished for doing so. While the series has scaled back too far on punitive mechanics, they shouldn't exist purely to punish when there are no alternative ways to manage them, as it makes the correct gameplay too binary and too obvious; 'expand or don't expand', 'manage health at point X or else'. It was really no different from Civ I-III's corruption mechanic in this regard. Civ V's much-maligned global happiness had the right idea as a mechanic that offered more varied ways to manage expansion and the game better-rewarded taller play, but it notoriously went too far in the latter direction and the former was never particularly well-executed. I haven't yet played enough Civ VI to know whether it would benefit from a way to constrain expansion, but if so it needs to adopt a different system from Civ IV.

 

[jjkrause84]

City maintenance had a flaw that was common to too many Civ IV mechanics: it wasn't a strategic choice, it was a flat penalty. Civ IV had no real 'tall vs. wide' dichotomy of the type Civ V attempted: you had to expand. You just got punished for doing so. While the series has scaled back too far on punitive mechanics, they shouldn't exist purely to punish when there are no alternative ways to manage them, as it makes the correct gameplay too binary and too obvious; 'expand or don't expand', 'manage health at point X or else'. It was really no different from Civ I-III's corruption mechanic in this regard. Civ V's much-maligned global happiness had the right idea as a mechanic that offered more varied ways to manage expansion and the game better-rewarded taller play, but it notoriously went too far in the latter direction and the former was never particularly well-executed. I haven't yet played enough Civ VI to know whether it would benefit from a way to constrain expansion, but if so it needs to adopt a different system from Civ IV.

Having to pay maintenance is not a 'punishment'. Things cost money to maintain, and distance makes this problem worse. It is a basic reality. Modelling it in the game (as opposed to treating Civ like a pure game, and not one that should at least casually reference reality) is a good thing. Besides, eventually cities became profitable, so it wasn't an issue. Are you genuinely arguing that you were 'punished' for going wide in Civ IV?

Tall v. wide is a debate that maybe we never needed to have. If tall is an option then it is almost inherently a better option since it requires no risk and very little effort. Why get rid of one of the four Xs?