Not excited...... not one bit

[Conspirator]

Anyone who complains and 1UPT hasn't played a MP game. Yes, in SP 1UPT is bad because of AI, but when you play against humans you need to use tactics and think about logistics and how to move effectively. It's just a lot better. I used to think Civ 4 was a better game but once I started to play MP Civ 5 I turned.

The only way I could see stacks working is Civ 2 style. That is you can stack as many units as you like BUT if the defending unit of the stack dies so does the ENTIRE stack.

 

[Conspirator]

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.

But war isn't all about numbers. It's about quality and varied troops and good strategy and tactics. That's why Alexander the Great was able to take over the Persian empire with 40,000 troops. In Civ 5 you can kill an entire map of units with a handful of good quality troops and clever positioning. Actually pumping out loads of troops is detrimental in Civ 5 causing logistical problems just like in real life, when for example the Germans messed up Soviet Russia because they had too many troops trying to get into position to defend against Operation Barbarossa.

 

[Wodan]

But war isn't all about numbers. It's about quality and varied troops and good strategy and tactics. That's why Alexander the Great was able to take over the Persian empire with 40,000 troops. In Civ 5 you can kill an entire map of units with a handful of good quality troops and clever positioning. Actually pumping out loads of troops is detrimental in Civ 5 causing logistical problems just like in real life, when for example the Germans messed up Soviet Russia because they had too many troops trying to get into position to defend against Operation Barbarossa.

That's why we need better AI. Half of the detractors against 1upt wouldn't be upset if the AI did a good job at unit tactics.

 

[Aeson]

You have to judge 1UPT as it interacts with the game it interacts with, not with a hypothetical game it doesn't.

The likelihood of getting an AI that handles 1UPT well is less than of getting an AI that can compete with good players in other regards. That's because the AI won't get movement bonuses so will have to compete on even footing. (AI unit teleportation? yah, that'd work out very well ... ) Also, the economic bonuses that are required to get the AI to present a challenge end up causing even more problems with the pathfinding in 1UPT, since more unit clutter makes for more traffic jams.

While it may be a more interesting mechanic in MP (debatable), MP accounts for a very small number of players in comparison to SP. Introducing disruptive game mechanics to SP to help out MP doesn't make sense.

So either 1UPT makes sense in SP with an AI that we can reasonably expect, or it doesn't make sense.

 

[Commander Bello]

Well said.

 

[Wodan]

Hmm. While I agree with you in principle, Aeson, taking that logic to its conclusion argues against quite a bit of things. For example, there are quite a few of UAs, UUs, and UBs that the AI has no clue how to use. Using your logic, doesn't the fact that the AI is currently incapable of using, for example, William's UA (Netherlands) mean that is gameplay that shouldn't have been designed in the first place? Since we can't reasonably expect that the AI could manage it.

At the end of the day, there really should be a balanced approach. The designers shouldn't bite off more than they can chew (and design functionality that SP AI can't manage) AND the designers should spend somewhat more effort enabling the AI to handle more of the functionality that is designed.

 

[Aeson]

I did say "disruptive game mechanics".

1UPT is a huge change to the game that impacts almost every other aspect of the game. It's in your face all game, every game. There is no way to circumvent it short of not playing. Many players passed on Civ V because of it. Regardless of whether you're on one side of that debate or another, it's obviously a very disruptive game mechanic.

Compare that to a UU the AI can't use well. Only very observant players will even notice it, and then it's only in games where the Civ is present, and at times when the player has visual contact with the AI's units. So most of the time it will pass unnoticed and without any obvious impact on the game.

If a UU did somehow manage the level of disruption that 1UPT has achieved, then it definitely should be changed! But there are very few game mechanics that even approach the level of impact that 1UPT has had. MP being excluded from Civ III at release for instance, but then the scope (MP communites) was smaller. Corruption in Civ III was closer, but was toned down significantly in patches and expansions and then discarded entirely in Civ IV. Culture Flips in Civ III were less of an impact (and rather easily avoided entirely), but still were disruptive and rightfully toned down in later patches/versions/games.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

But war isn't all about numbers. It's about quality and varied troops and good strategy and tactics. That's why Alexander the Great was able to take over the Persian empire with 40,000 troops. In Civ 5 you can kill an entire map of units with a handful of good quality troops and clever positioning. Actually pumping out loads of troops is detrimental in Civ 5 causing logistical problems just like in real life, when for example the Germans messed up Soviet Russia because they had too many troops trying to get into position to defend against Operation Barbarossa.

Any idiot can kill scores of AI units for zero casualties. It is not hard at all.

And no, that's not how the Soviets were forced back in the early days of Barbarossa.

Anyone who complains and 1UPT hasn't played a MP game. Yes, in SP 1UPT is bad because of AI, but when you play against humans you need to use tactics and think about logistics and how to move effectively. It's just a lot better. I used to think Civ 4 was a better game but once I started to play MP Civ 5 I turned.

I've played a ton of both MP Civ4 and Civ5, and there is a ton of tactical depth in Civ4. Forking cities with 2-movers, setting up killzones around cities, positioning cities and their cultural borders for maximum defence, setting up whips to concentrate forces in anticipation of a timing attack, and so on and so forth. Alot of thought goes into a successful attack on a competent opponent, and that includes the very decision to attack.

MP Civ5 is also fun from a tactical perspective, but the strategic game suffers for it.