seasnake
Conquistador
I will try to explain this again, apparently it was too hard for some the first time.Wait and have a cup of tea.
As far as I remember, this has been promised at least once already (I think it was the 0.065 patch?) without them having delivered.
It *MIGHT* allow for more <s>strategy</s> tactical warfare, if the AI could cope with it.
As the AI is completely overcommited with that feature, all it does is granting an instant win to the human player. No wonder that many people like such a feature.
No, it is broken because the AI cannot handle it. And not only the AI can't handle it, it also abolishes any chance for the AI to cover its weakness with production bonuses.
In your example, not only the jelly is missing, it has been replaced with mustard.
So, out of a sudden Firaxis is assumed to teach the AI the principles of battle theatres, to interpret varying regions, the influence of approaching units to its battle plans and what not more?
And as almost always, "1upt is just fine, if it only weren't 1upt"?
You are disliking stacking, but just want to have some stacking to make non-stacking meaningful?
Sounds very convincing.
Again, there's a difference between something being broken and something being used improperly. Use a rake to sweep your house, and surprise, the rake is ineffective. But that does not mean the rake is broken, is means you don't know how to use it. Look at the comments from earlier, and the response was to the blanket statement "1UPT is broken" and that therefore Civ V cannot be redeemed. I argued the concept is excellent but needs to be better implementation by the AI
And yes, you can design AI that knows enough to make use of it. In the old Sid Meier's Pirates you fought town sieges on a tactical map, and the computer could position its troops on hills, take advantage of cover, keep it's weaker ranged units back behind stronger melee, flank with mounted, etc. This game came out in about the year 2002. It's not some pie in the sky dream.
As for as your confusion as to stacking of civilian units: 1UPT is designed make combat more tactical and battlefields and terrain more important. However, allowing multiple civilian units would not impact that and could have some other benefits, make it easier use your workers and great people, etc. It seems to me a reasonable suggestion I read on another thread could support.
And finally, why do you insult so many people by saying people like 1UPT because it makes the game easier? Why is it so hard to believe people enjoy a combat system that involves varied units with differing strengths and weaknesses, terrain positioning and chokepoints, zones of control, meaningful placement of forts and defensive structures? Forgive us for liking something that involves more thought than build a 100 units, march to city, crush city, rinse and repeat.
)
