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

[Marquis Mark]

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).

This is the exact difference - good call out. I prefer tactical combat personally (and like the new combat system as a result) but the tradeoff is strategic vs tactical here.

I do think we need something to reign in ICS more effectively. I appreciate being wider than Civ5, but this is a place (with gold-based City Maint) IV really had the sweet spot.

 

[dexters]

At the end of the day, I feel like this is a concern Moderator Action: <snip> discussion as it has nothing to do with the game itself , but a continuation of an ongoing complaint by a small minority about 1UPT. And you see a lot of the stock arguments against Civ5 repeated here from people who haven't bought the game.

So, it's kind of hard to discuss reasonably when the other side is dug in and is nursing a grudge. The OP title says it all and roughly translates to 'I wan't Civ4 in HD'

Moderator Action: Please do not characterize another poster, post or thread as trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[PreLynMax]

The more I think about it I think that if we can just get rid of 1UPT Civ VI has enormous potential. The building game is really fun...probably the best it's ever been. The governments are great, and religion is pretty good (but could be improved). 1UPT, however, has a few really grating implications that hold the game back.

- The AI can't handle it

- Civilian/foreign units can block mundane processes of building, settling, exploring in a way that is never fun

- 1UPT keeps armies small, which means that once an army is built (8-9 units) no more units need ever be built which means:

- There is not a whole lot of impetus to expand. Extra cities are a hassle, not a help

So, here's what I'm thinking. If we have unit stacking (say growing from 3 to 6 units per tile over the course of the game) then everyone will have to build far more units to hold choke-points, garrison cities, and have enough weight to launch an attack. This will mean having a larger manufacturing base will be a huge advantage, which is good: we need incentives for players and the AI to expand. More units should also mean deadlier combat, so the human has to keep building units in war (to say nothing of the need to build garrison forces as you advance and take new cities). As it currently sits it is easy to get through the entire game and only lose a tiny handful of units. This shouldn't be the case.

If we add military unit stacks, and allow unlimited stacking of civilian units and units of different nations not at war (i.e. you can have multiple full stacks from different nations on a single tile as long as none of those nations are at war with each other) then all of a sudden there will no longer be any roadblocks, ever. The only time units will be barred passage is by units in war-time or barbarians. The AI will be able to handle this much better, reducing turn times, and you'll never have to sit with a settler one tile away from where you want to found a city because an enemy missionary is just sitting there....

With this expansion all of a sudden becomes very appealing...perhaps too appealing. So, if we add a monetary cost to expansion, in addition to happiness penalties in captured cities, we have a nice balance. Yes, you can and should expand, but do so too quickly and you'll bankrupt yourself. You'll have a good reward for expansion (broader industrial/scientific/monetary base), with a more competent military opponent to stop your expansion, and a degree of friction in the form of maintenance which will force you to balance military expansion with having some way to pay for it (wars are very expensive, after all....a reality not reflected in the current game).

All of the other issues (warmonger penalty too high, roads are kinda pointless, etc. etc.) are minor and can be patched pretty easily. 1UPT, in my mind, is the only fundamental stumbling block that will hold Civ VI back from truly being great.

So... make it just like Civ 4. Why don't you just ask to revive that horrid slider system as well?

 

[gaiko]

+1 absolutely. And it's not a question of 1UPT vs. "SOD". Nor are the alternatives "genius AI" vs "brain-dead AI". These are all straw man arguments to convince you to settle for a less-than-optimal result given the well-known business conditions. There are other alternatives, please refer to imagination. For example, it is easy to seen that the AI is unnecessarily saddled with a logic processing load when it has to track the movements of individual units spread out over 2D hex space. Not to mention how 1UPT slows the game for the user.

 

[gaiko]

At the end of the day, I feel like this is a concern Moderator Action: <snip> discussion as it has nothing to do with the game itself , but a continuation of an ongoing complaint by a small minority about 1UPT. And you see a lot of the stock arguments against Civ5 repeated here from people who haven't bought the game.

So, it's kind of hard to discuss reasonably when the other side is dug in and is nursing a grudge. The OP title says it all and roughly translates to 'I wan't Civ4 in HD'

Moderator Action: Please do not characterize another poster, post or thread as trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I think by now the irritation revolves around a refusal to think or use imagination. Is this a majority or minority? I don't know.

 

[dexters]

I think by now the irritation revolves around a refusal to think or use imagination. Is this a majority or minority? I don't know.

There are polls out there that show 1UPT is not really a chief complaint with Civ5 and from what I've seen of 6, tactical level decisions are better.

I also tend to roll my eyes a little bit about people bragging about how great the AI was before 1UPT. It was mostly pretty standard stuff that is predictable and can be beaten with a different set of strategies. I tend to get into trouble her for ascribing motive for certain complaints, but I think we're long past the point where we can blame bad AI to 1UPT considering what came before wasn't that great, and 1UPT tactics have improved a lot since 2009 when the developers legitimately struggled to implement it as well as they could have.

I see a lot of straw men and rose colored glasses being applied. So it's not so much the lack of imagination but unwillingness to move on. If they had botched 1UPT in Civ6 and somehow made it worse than in 5, that' a legitimate whine , but this is just ref-litigating old battles that was settled. At this point people who like SoD aren't going to change their minds and the majority of players who are fine with 1UPT or like it will continue holding those opinions.

All this thread is achieving is group therapy for people who agrees with the OP, which I guess is fine, but the nastiness is back and it really don't need to be. There's no reason for this thread to be here tbh.

 

[wiggawuu]

your not gonna get a majority of people on these forums wanting SODs back. Most poster are immature young kids that think Civ 5 is the greatest game ever. Just go to civ reddit.

Moderator Action: Please do not troll in the forums. leif erikson
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[PhilBowles]

(And of course, another minor feature of Civ IV's expansion limiting mechanic is that it made sound conceptual sense. Global happiness makes zero conceptual sense.)

That's not really true. The real world doesn't have city establishment supported from central funds held in coffers in the capital, and the 'distance from capital' modifier doesn't really have any sensible justification unless you imagine it as the impacts of corruption. Never mind that cities in the real world evolve from existing settlements and only grow to become cities if that's economically viable.

As for Civ V, the only real issue is semantic. "Happiness" works even less well as a name for what the mechanic wants to represent than as a name for the public order mechanic in Civs I through IV. It's not even closely related to that mechanic. In concept you have a pool of resources that you can expend either supporting the growth of a population in a few cities, or spread more widely at the cost of inefficiency (the extra penalty for settling new cities). If conceived as a maintenance cost for supporting the population ir makes a reasonable degree of sense, at least as much as the Civ IV system.

 

[Slayan]

If you want more unit micro-management Paradox has some games for you

 

[Kozmos]

There are polls out there that show 1UPT is not really a chief complaint with Civ5 and from what I've seen of 6, tactical level decisions are better.

I also tend to roll my eyes a little bit about people bragging about how great the AI was before 1UPT. It was mostly pretty standard stuff that is predictable and can be beaten with a different set of strategies. I tend to get into trouble her for ascribing motive for certain complaints, but I think we're long past the point where we can blame bad AI to 1UPT considering what came before wasn't that great, and 1UPT tactics have improved a lot since 2009 when the developers legitimately struggled to implement it as well as they could have.

I see a lot of straw men and rose colored glasses being applied. So it's not so much the lack of imagination but unwillingness to move on. If they had botched 1UPT in Civ6 and somehow made it worse than in 5, that' a legitimate whine , but this is just ref-litigating old battles that was settled. At this point people who like SoD aren't going to change their minds and the majority of players who are fine with 1UPT or like it will continue holding those opinions.

All this thread is achieving is group therapy for people who agrees with the OP, which I guess is fine, but the nastiness is back and it really don't need to be. There's no reason for this thread to be here tbh.

You are missing the point. The AI was never great in civ, can't be realistically given the lax standards of the industry and consumers in general. It is that in previous games, AI was actually dangerous or challenging at times. Here and in Civ V it is just a tedious obstruction. Case in point, after I fought off a dual declaration of war while 3/4ths of my army were 10 turns away exploring I instantly realized nothing has changed from V.

 

[dexters]

You are missing the point. The AI was never great in civ, can't be realistically given the lax standards of the industry and consumers in general. It is that in previous games, AI was actually dangerous or challenging at times. Here and in Civ V it is just a tedious obstruction. Case in point, after I fought off a dual declaration of war while 3/4ths of my army were 10 turns away exploring I instantly realized nothing has changed from V.

No I understand it. I think your anecdote misses the point. Go back to the Civ3/4 Stories and Tales forums and there's tons of stories with exactly the same situation you've described. I think that is exactly the kind of experience the devs want to recreate.

My point being if you're going in with an unrealistically high standard being you don't like 1UPT , you're just seeking confirmation bias. I mean, some of the SoD exploits against the AI were so ridiculous that I have a hard time believing you actually believe what you typed.

 

[Kozmos]

It's been a while, so remind me what exploits exactly? Early axe spam, arty scoot n shoot? I remember being overwhelmed several times by DoWs because you couldn't handwave away enemy stacks that easily if you were fighting on several fronts.

 

[BurnEmDown]

I've been looking for a place to post this...

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This is a Civ6 forum, can we please keep the discussion about what this means in Civ6 instead of dredging up old arguments concerning Civ5.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[kroket]

I still say a Total War like system of Armies would be ideal. Armies could get bigger through the ages. Like 5 units in prehistoric - 10 classical --- 30 in modern
They already have armies but it seems its 3 units max not 30... You d have to create armies with different max compositions. Like 20 infantry + 5 cavalry + 5 archers or something. Or 12 + 8 + 8 + 2 support
Certain cards + techs researched + civ bonuses could alter those things. Those limits means there is a limit to stack of doom and AI can still handle it better
The combined armies means less moving around the troops than now. I dont want to be moving around my units for 90% of playing time late game... If 30 is too much even 10 would be better. Just not making combined units weaker than they do now.
You d clean up the map clutter while avoiding true stacks of doom.

Another nice gameplay concept here could be each army is led by a captain - general (you have to build) or great general. Each great general could give unique bonuses to an army

 

[Nefelia]

These arguments about units per tile really miss the real fundamental flaw with Civ 5 and 6: lack of city micromanagement. Once they removed attention from the cities, all you're left with is unit simulator. That would exacerbate any unit/tile system flaws.

In older games, including 1-4 and Civ Rev, I would give so much care and attention to my cities. Every turn I would fret if they have enough yields and the right amount. Whether I should have extra food or extra production. This seemingly minute dilemma made a huge impact on how much I care about my cities and my civ.

This is a really odd complaint about Civ VI, given the introduction of districts.

Civ VI is unique, as your ditricts (and thus the buildings you can build) are a scarce resource. You need to put in a lot of thought about not only what districts a certain city should have, but the balance of districts throughout your empire as well. In this area, I feel that Civ VI is significantly better than both Civ IV and Civ V.

 

[Chinese American]

This is a really odd complaint about Civ VI, given the introduction of districts.

Civ VI is unique, as your ditricts (and thus the buildings you can build) are a scarce resource. You need to put in a lot of thought about not only what districts a certain city should have, but the balance of districts throughout your empire as well. In this area, I feel that Civ VI is significantly better than both Civ IV and Civ V.

Districts only happen scarcely. Sure you have some decision making with districts, but that's one-time thing per district. It's "fire-and-forget", very little involved.

 

[skallben]

I'm moving from the entrenched extremes here to what I perceive as the most pressing matter as illustrated above by @BurnEmDown:

Civilian units blocking everything. Less a problem since V as we have less workers around but still an issue.
Maybe the strongest argument for a limited type of stacking would be how the human player can abuse the AI by blocking units.

How would it work? Let civilian units move a layer under the military units. Like how domestic units can share space but allow it with allied units.

 

[Kozmos]

This is a really odd complaint about Civ VI, given the introduction of districts.

Civ VI is unique, as your ditricts (and thus the buildings you can build) are a scarce resource. You need to put in a lot of thought about not only what districts a certain city should have, but the balance of districts throughout your empire as well. In this area, I feel that Civ VI is significantly better than both Civ IV and Civ V.

District and unit costs are off kilter though. You can build around 4 or 5 military units while you get a single district off. It becomes much more profitable to simply 'steal' enemy districts rather than build your own. By the time those OP buildings with radius bonuses come into play you more or less have won the game.

 

[dexters]

It's been a while, so remind me what exploits exactly? Early axe spam, arty scoot n shoot? I remember being overwhelmed several times by DoWs because you couldn't handwave away enemy stacks that easily if you were fighting on several fronts.

Playing ping pong with SoD by emptying cities in order then trapping stacks with your own stacks/armies in Civ3;
Generally awful overseas invasion mechanics. The need for stacks and stacks of artillery to counter an enemy SoD, so the game devolves into how many artillery units you can build and spending 1 hour per turn whittling down those stacks.

Collateral damage didn't change that, as it still pays to throw a bunch of that at an AI stack while the AI is running pre-scripted combined-arms mix.

These are fairly commons strategies people have developed to counter AI SoD, there's probably more I don't remember since it's been about six years since i played Civ4.

District and unit costs are off kilter though. You can build around 4 or 5 military units while you get a single district off. It becomes much more profitable to simply 'steal' enemy districts rather than build your own. By the time those OP buildings with radius bonuses come into play you more or less have won the game.

How do you steal districts if they are not in range of your city radius?