Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Deep_Blue, Oct 9, 2010.
yes yes yes .. thank you
this is the core point that conclude everything that is wrong with 1UPT
Well, the collateral damage system (suicide catapults) of Civ4 was its biggest weakness IMO and the only thing about Civ4 that I didn't like. With ranged artillery that could bombard without dying you could deal with stacks much more easily and like the guy above said you could use your ships (and of course planes) to finish off enemy units without having to constantly rebuild your stock of artillery.
And at least in my games of Civ5 I rely quite heavily on bombarding enemy units to death, so it works out kind of the same as Civ3 in that respect.
And another thing was that in Civ3, when you bombarded cities, you could destroy buildings, improvements, kill population, etc too.
I was never fond of the idea of having 50 divisions fortifying a single hill. It was absurd. I dont know that a strict 1upt was necessary, but I vastly prefer it to the ridiculous stacks.
That are things that could be programmed into a SOD game system:
No sir, you cant go there, the Hill is FULLY loaded.
I never say SOD is perfect, it was not. But 1 upt is the other extreme. They should develop a more 'intelligent" system; instead of going back in the 'stoneages" (aka PG style).
mhh..so you prefere really the SoD? and what the sense of had an only Archer army (army???) on stategic map? it's realistic ?
Civ ever had a sort of confusion between tattical and strategical concept regards the military part of the game, this is a fact, you have the single specialized unit visible nor whole armys or corps o other big mixed unit ......in V i think they tried to bring the combat of a different level, a more complex level, and they choosed to insert tactical concept on the strategic maps...i like it, but is mine point of view..
this is a matter of semplification, they cant create a big civilization game including a great strategic game and a great tactical game...not at the moment and surely in 90' when civ I come out.....so they choose to use a mix, because the mass (including most of the hardcore fans) dislike a civ with NATO tactical mark on maps instead the the figure of a bald knight......
the best mix of the tac and strategic things i had found till now is the Total war series...but you cant found your first city and guide your civ for the full lenght of history...plus i have serius doubt that the Total war way can function after the musket era...
civ+Total war battles °°°°°°°
I like stacks of doom....If you can muster up such an army I say you too deserve to have stacks of doom.
That's why 1upt sucks and limits strategy. You no longer have the option of concentrating your army in 1 tile and breaking through enemy lines but have to find a way to position your most powerful units using an even more limited tile set than in previous civs. Would have been more intelligent to just give the option of how many units per tile the player wants instead of just default...1.
I won't dispute things look great now. It does. You'll see all the bits and pieces.
Lovely. The point is, those bits and pieces do the game more harm then good. Thanks to the way they have implementend it. On a strategic scale, you fight on a strategical lvl. Meaning, it makes perfectly sence, you stack unit types together; that makes a good army, right ?
On a tactical lvl, it makes perfect sence to give each type it's own place, and you see that perfectly in TW realtime batte: all troops lined up, arty in the back...you can smell the grass.
Exactly, what you say in your last paragraph is what i am telling all week now:
The only good way to implement tactical warfare in CIV 5, is to make it happen on another scale, another map. Doing it the way they do it now, ruins it.
On a strategic lvl; like the CIV 5 map is now; they shoudl have sticked with SOD. And my wish should be, that they made it more "user friendly". Like it was a pain it the butt, to order your 20 bombers to bomb a city, that was 20 times give the bomb command and 20 times give the go to command. Very annoying. Easy fix: Order a bombing option, the Intelligent "ai" notice you have 20 bombers, with a slider you adjust how many bombers you need for the task and given ONE bomb command. Then ONE for the go to command. Such things would helpout enermously, and i bet; alot op people who disliked SOD before; will be not so upset anymore or better; even gonna like it.
but in civ4 you had the option to select multiple units together (press shift?), and I remember that I was able to give bombard command to several bombers in the same time .
lines? this the point...i can agreed on the matter that Sod can fit best the Stategic view of a conflict...but the lines...where are the lines in civ? front line, supply lines comunication lines, front, rear , flanks...really important things of strategic warfare in the whole history ,with sod you break no lines because no lines are here, you only have a giant army that can trash the basic aspect of strategy and smash the enemy piece by piece...this is why i never like it...
be carefull, i dont say that the CivV method it's the best one, i say i like it...and i never like the giga stacks...probably we find a good solution in the middle...or probably in others thinks...dont know..let we see where patch and the expansions bring Civ V...im hopefull...
Could be, i was more into CIV III. Was it just that simple to select, with 50/60 unit in a hex ?
Would you say SOD interface was perfect in CIV IV ? (meaning, not much repetative actions)
Could you point a "assembly" hex , where all you just builded MA gathered. Intstead of manually gather them yourself (very annoying with 100+ MA's in the later ages in CIV III)?
The "lines" where you speak of, should evolve dynamicly; when the AI not only use the shortest way to you, but also the landscape, for outflanking and pillaging purposes. With a enforced defence in the centre afcourse. That is what makes a good AI.
I remember i made frontlines, in CIV 3, later stages. Because i was not the strongest at that point, two other CIV's were stronger. So i made a frontline at my border, preventing the AI to bypass, and take out weaker units in the rear. In the mean time, building up my own panzer-army; capable to make a decive blow to the enemy.
I surely had to diplo also, to prevent those two superpowers, both neighbours, would gangup on me. That would had become painfull. So i did just that.
And then took at one, and finished of the other later on.
Afcourse, i could have taken one or maybe two cities earlier; but that would stall my advance. A mistake, made my many. Attack too soon, with too little. You never come far ;-)
I dont say that SOD interface was perfect in CVI IV but it was very smooth. you can select multiple units, you can give same order to multiple units at once, you just hold shift pick units u want and give them one order (move,attack,heal...) , also there was a wait button , you can select/deselect all units (hold ALT) in the stack. In general there were no problems in the interface itself.
about hexes I dont know if you can give multipe orders in CIV 5.
yep...but i discuss about a large concept from the view of the human player...i only search a better combat sistem in civ not an useless fight pro or anti Sod or stacks, the truth? stacks , sod ecc tired me...i'm really tired...im searching a better and more enjoiable warfare in civ series, Civ V provide an alternative...a broken till now alternative...but , i repeat...i like it.
yeah...me too..i've created a sort of alp wall on the border with the persian..fort and back artillery...only for take the enemy along the sea shore using marines and puwerfull fleet...Civ 3 was prolly the best warfare..
Well, if they can fix 90% of the current 1upt issues and the AI puts up a better fight. With that i mean more intelligent instead of more numbers. Then i will like CIV 5 alot more.
Civ 3 was prolly the best warfare..
Under CIV's? Sure. That must be the nr1. reason i like CIV III above CIV IV, despite CIV III's shortcomings.
Politics's? Culture? , nice additions but for me nothing more then that. But if they are there, should work properly.
I won't say 1UPT is the best solution, but anything is preferable to the SODs! I don't think I'll be able to go back and play the old civs any longer, which trust me is an incredible thing in my case; my hatred for SOD runs that deep..
I dont know about you but many people who hate SODs are afraid from them, were never able to master SODs by themselves, cant compete with the AI SODs at higher level, or they just like the simplicity of what you see is what u get (dont have to look inside a huge stack). and sometimes people hate SODs because they had experienced being demolished to the grounds by huge AI SODs many times in the past.
I would say if 1UPT will stay so trivial and if the AI will stay so dumb with 1UPT, then going back to SOD is much better.
Presumably you duplicate history & build the world's largest navy to protect against invasion.
That said, I agree that having a limited stack size would help. I feel 10 is too high, perhaps 5?
Sorry mate, don't really fit the formula you've got going on there..I've won every single civ on almost every level (higher than ~monarch, don't bother with lower levels), and when I say every single civ, I do mean every single civ..even the CTP spin offs..
Doesn't change a thing though. I still to this day hate SOD, and the military shallowness it brings with it. Civ is my favorite series as you might have realized, but military strategy has never been it's strength. You might ask if CiV's approach is the perfect solution for this? I'll say no. Maybe I should start a thread analyzing this issue. But I still do believe it's better than SOD.
Had the OP asked if "1upt is good/bad?" I wouldn't have had a definite answer, but with SOD the answer I have is pretty straightforward.
Edit: Hah! You're the OP! Well reword your question, and I won't have an answer for you
1 unit per hexagon can be fun for certain games, but just not for Civilization where a single hexagon can represent hundreds of miles.
Civilization is more of a Grand Strategy game so therefore it needs to allow more than 1 unit per hexagon.
Bad, really bad. A failed attempt to shoe horn tactical combat into a strategic level game.
Separate names with a comma.