You enjoy winning and losing based on luck?
Please, do not simplify my argument. All i am trying to say is, there is too little randomness anymore and that's boring. It is also not realisctic, while in history, there were numbers of occasions that a lesser force "crushed" the stronger opponent. While in Civ III randomness was a little too much, with CIV 5 you have the opposite.
What is more "exiting": knowing all the times that your unit A will 100% crush unit B or knowing, that you never can be 100% sure; you will succeed ?
I know what i choose
I love the 1 upt because it allows you to put your strong melee units on your frontline and your ranged/siege units behind the line to protect them and you can actually fend off invasions (if you set up well) where youre outnumbered or push your lines ahead (more like a real war)
Same can be done with the other CIV's. I see no advantage. Ow wel, one. Archers that range 2 hexes away. Hexes, that in contrast to the map; must be dozens of miles. Funny? Maybe. Realistic ? Hell no. You are playing a tactical gamestyle on a Strategic Map. It doesn't make sence.
Like the whole idea of making tactical warfare 1upt on a strategic map lvl is dumb.
A hex represents dozens of square miles, yet; you can defend it only with 1 "army" (i rather call it regiment, whatever) of one type of unit.
It is so unrealistic, it makes me cry.
the hex with limitated stacks option like the Steel panther series
Ehmm, you can stack unlimited in SP. Atleast the last SP:WOW i played. They understand concepts of Blitzkrieg, chokepoints etc.
It's all about building up spearheads, from which to launch a "blitz" for example. They took that option away in CIV 5, with 1 upt.
You are mostly forces in a "wide fronline" warfare type (later on in the game/with enough units). If the space is there, afcource.
Anyway:
On a strategic level 1upt is crippled (see examples above)
On a tactical level 1upt is FUN for the mass, but very unrealistic and a meagre substitute of games like PG.