Not excited...... not one bit

[Civking5]

I don't think you can say Civ V sold better because of 1UPT. Reviewers may have given it glowing reviews, but they also did for Civ IV, and they probably would have for either of them even if the games were much worse than they were. That's just how game reviews tend to work for AAA titles ... early access and inside info in exchange for glowing reviews.

Certainly we will see differences from Civ V in future titles. CivBE is using Civ V's engine, so 1UPT was already in place. It would have taken a much larger effort to take 1UPT out than to use it. So all it really speaks towards is that Firaxis is focusing resources on other areas of development rather than the "engine".

We won't know until Civ VI rolls around whether it's "here to stay" or not, and certainly fans of the series shouldn't give up on voicing their opinions (either way). All Civ games have had some pretty significant changes from previous iterations, even though usually their predecessors sold well (for their time).

I am not saying civ5 success is because of 1upt only, and I wasn't talking about civ5 good reviews either. I was talking about civ5 commercial success with selling close to 6 million units so far. Now, this success happened due to different reasons, but I bet 1upt contributed a lot in it.

Also keep in my mind that based on Sid's formula for every new civ game, there will be about 1/3 new features in the next civ game, so there is a high chance that 1upt stays.

Finally, I think 1upt still has a lot of room to improve, and it will be a pity if civ developers abandon it.

 

[Lights]

CiV is more newbie friendly than CIV, that why sold so much. I started playing CiV and i'm probably biased, but it was much easier to start playing CiV than playing CIV.

 

[Willem]

Also keep in my mind that based on Sid's formula for every new civ game, there will be about 1/3 new features in the next civ game, so there is a high chance that 1upt stays.

The actual formula was 1/3 new, 1/3 old and 1/3 modified. That formula wasn't used at all in Civ 5 judging by what I've read, which is one of the reasons why I didn't bother with the game. And how do you know that one of the next 1/3 new features might just be a whole new combat mechanism? You're making an assumption without any sort of facts to back it up. There's clearly enough complaints about the system that they might take a good hard look at it and come up with something different yet again in Civ 6.

 

[Nashoa]

I think they mess around with 1UPT a bit, the orbital layer thing in BE lets them try out the tech for a form of stacking. If you can make an orbital layer, and it works well, you can make "Siege Weapon / Ranged" layer too. They already have it somewhat with civilians and military units.

I'm more interested in seeing if they mess around with the tradition Civ ranges for combat since its a scifi setting. It does not make a lot of sense to stick with 1 tile range with high tech weapons unless we have Jedi Knight units.

 

[Aeson]

I am not saying civ5 success is because of 1upt only, and I wasn't talking about civ5 good reviews either. I was talking about civ5 commercial success with selling close to 6 million units so far. Now, this success happened due to different reasons, but I bet 1upt contributed a lot in it.

Selling units largely has to do with reviews and marketing. It has very little to do with the game itself.

Steam surely helped, since that gets the game in front of a ton of avid game players who otherwise might not have even considered it.

Surely 1UPT turned of some potential buyers, especially those who were avid IV players. Whole communities passed up on V because of it. Whether or not there were more who bought it (and wouldn't have otherwise) because of 1UPT is essentially an unanswerable question.

Also keep in my mind that based on Sid's formula for every new civ game, there will be about 1/3 new features in the next civ game, so there is a high chance that 1upt stays.

Finally, I think 1upt still has a lot of room to improve, and it will be a pity if civ developers abandon it.

1UPT can only improve by becoming less of 1UPT than it currently is. (Which isn't truly 1UPT already.)

1UPT is the most contentious game element, so it also would be more likely to be looked at. Which is why it's important that players do voice their opinions about it, rather than simply give up on the series if they don't like how it is.

 

[SCBrain]

One advantage of SODs is that large armies reflect economic might, which in turn reflect good empire management. If two opponents have vastly different economic potential, but similarly sized armies because of 1upt and terrain, then that's a problem. Powerful and rich countries should be able to bring concentrated shows of strength, as represented by SODs.

But there should be a downside, if only to make the war part more nuanced and fun. Some people say to bring in healing penalties. That sounds good.

How about this : support penalties? 1 gold per turn per unit per tile outside home territory. Second unit in the same tile costs 2 gold, and so on. There will be cases when you want or need to stack, but it will cost you. This could be conceptualized as the expense of supplying troops in a crowded space, but very easy to understand, and pretty flexible.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The actual formula was 1/3 new, 1/3 old and 1/3 modified. That formula wasn't used at all in Civ 5 judging by what I've read, which is one of the reasons why I didn't bother with the game. And how do you know that one of the next 1/3 new features might just be a whole new combat mechanism? You're making an assumption without any sort of facts to back it up. There's clearly enough complaints about the system that they might take a good hard look at it and come up with something different yet again in Civ 6.

Well, the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 idea that Soren Johnson created was more of a rule of thumb than anything hard and fast. The idea was to preserve things that worked, change things that needed to be changed, and add some new stuff. I don't think Civ4 was literally that either.

They both had the idea that you have to abandon the safe route and go for something new. If I had to guess, Civ5 was a bigger change than Civ4, but they both had big changes.

 

[Vohbo]

I think 1 unit per tile is the second best improvement (after city states), and the main reason I have almost 2000 hours of played time in this game. It's just one of the most fun aspects and makes the game interesting.
The problem of the AI and moving new units through occupied terrain are annoying, but things that can be solved without compromising all the good that this change brings.

 

[Fabio1701]

pretty amazing that this thread has reached over 200 posts! the power of a negative thread title...

I agree with Vohbo that best improvements have been 1upt and city states. obviously I miss some other stuff not included from previous civs (civics, nuke planting, etc) but these two things have made me generally happy. I recently taught civ4 to my sister (thinking its cartoony graphics would appeal to her more than the seriousness of civ) and made the mistake of leaving a city without a guarding unit, it got nabbed and I looked like a noob! therefore another improvement I like is cities having their own health bar. I do hope that cbe retains cities with their own health bar.

 

[Mousey_Commander]

Been playing Endless Legend over the last couple of days, and it does both tactical combat in the way Civ V and BE should have done it.

Having armies of multiple units spread out once they initiate combat is amazing, and for those who find the combat tedious they can easily auto-resolve any sure victories.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Been playing Endless Legend over the last couple of days, and it does both tactical combat in the way Civ V and BE should have done it.

Having armies of multiple units spread out once they initiate combat is amazing, and for those who find the combat tedious they can easily auto-resolve any sure victories.

Does that use one of those breakaway mini-maps? I really really hope Civ stays far far away from using something like that. Stacks OR 1upt are better IMO.

 

[Babri]

Does that use one of those breakaway mini-maps? I really really hope Civ stays far far away from using something like that. Stacks OR 1upt are better IMO.

What is so bad about mini maps?

Sent from my One V using Tapatalk

 

[SammyKhalifa]

What is so bad about mini maps?

Sent from my One V using Tapatalk

Just personal taste. I'd rather keep the "breakaway" aspects to a minimum in a big-picture game like the Civs.

 

[Mousey_Commander]

Its not breakaway, it literally just places a boundary of about 10x10 hexes around the two conflicting armies and lets each side deploy their army in each half as they see fit, using the exact same terrain.

Battles are over fairly quick too, and will likely get quicker when they add an option to disable animations.

 

[Urbannaja]

Personally, the only problem I had with 1UPT was with cities. Cities could essentially defend themselves without armies, and you couldn't have non-combat units stacked in them. It always ticked me off when an opponent left a city completely open, but it would take several attack turns prior to annexation. Though, it is probably worth it in order to remove the massive, unending stacks of obsolete units from previous games (hello fanatic hordes).

That said, one of the absolute best part of SMAC was the unit customizations/upgrades which makes individual units (and 1UPT) much more valuable. It kept early innovations viable because you could swap in parts to keep costs down. Hope BE pushes this as well (I believe it will).

 

[Babri]

Its not breakaway, it literally just places a boundary of about 10x10 hexes around the two conflicting armies and lets each side deploy their army in each half as they see fit, using the exact same terrain.

Battles are over fairly quick too, and will likely get quicker when they add an option to disable animations.

Not to mention less clutter on the main map (individual units moving here & there each turn). More space to maneuver would be another plus. There are dozens of advantages such as these.

Sent from my One V using Tapatalk

 

[Drakarska]

pretty amazing that this thread has reached over 200 posts! the power of a negative thread title...

I agree with Vohbo that best improvements have been 1upt and city states. obviously I miss some other stuff not included from previous civs (civics, nuke planting, etc) but these two things have made me generally happy. I recently taught civ4 to my sister (thinking its cartoony graphics would appeal to her more than the seriousness of civ) and made the mistake of leaving a city without a guarding unit, it got nabbed and I looked like a noob! therefore another improvement I like is cities having their own health bar. I do hope that cbe retains cities with their own health bar.

Sorry, but I'm trying to understand your analysis here. Your stating that Civ V is a more serious game than IV because of a city health bar? as opposed to some kind of logic of leaving at least one military unit in a city as a defender? I'm not exactly sure how that corrolates to the OP.

 

[The Rusty Gamer]

There are Mods out there which increase from 1upt; that's the simplest solution.

What I'd love to see is a mod that allow 1 melee unit + 1 ranged unit in the same tile.

I'd also love to see a game that start off with 1upt, but through research and other means such as leader attributes, civics and wonders, the stack limit is slowly increased over the space of the game.

You could make it even more sophisticated by giving each unit a size attribute. Thus you would not be able to squeeze in as many bigger units into a tile.

All this is possible through MODs I think so there's no need to abandon the game over the 1upt limit; that's an overreaction.

 

[Babri]

There are Mods out there which increase from 1upt; that's the simplest solution.

What I'd love to see is a mod that allow 1 melee unit + 1 ranged unit in the same tile.

I'd also love to see a game that start off with 1upt, but through research and other means such as leader attributes, civics and wonders, the stack limit is slowly increased over the space of the game.

You could make it even more sophisticated by giving each unit a size attribute. Thus you would not be able to squeeze in as many bigger units into a tile.

All this is possible through MODs I think so there's no need to abandon the game over the 1upt limit; that's an overreaction.

How would 2upt solve our problem. In fact it would cause more trouble than helping with the issue. You would need to spam twice as many units, you would always need to keep 2 units in a tile for max effectiveness, ranged units would do all the fighting while melee units would be there for solely defending their tile etc. It is kind of pointless. The problem with 1upt was never with battle tactics. It is the exponential micromanagement increase when moving over large distances. 2upt won't help with solving that issue any way I can think of.

 

[Dellan]

I'm not excited, not one bit. Know why?

Hexes.
Hexagons are such a weird shape. If you make a grid system out of x and y axes, what do you get? Hexes? No, squares. Squares are a much better shape that hexagons. Squares have four sides and if you rotate them 45 degrees you have diamonds. Which are a girl's best friend. Like me. On a square you can go up or down and sort of diagonal. Hexagons you have to go in weird directions, I don't even know how to pronounce some of them. Hexagons have 6 sides, and 6 is the devils number. That's why Three 6 Mafia call themselves as such, because a 6 followed by two 6s, (like 555 but if the 5s were 6s) is the devil's number and do we really wanna play with the good Lord's feelings like that? My God is a vengeful God & long may he reign.

I just DIED

I am really excited about CivBE
Something I didn't exactly understand: They're getting rid of "traditional" leaders, right??? So what kind of civilizations do live up there? And who leads them?
Sorry hadn't have time to read those infos yet