Not excited...... not one bit

[Louis XXIV]

There are several complaints about 1upt. Some of which I think are far more valid than others.

The most valid is the economics of it: To limit carpeting the map with units, units are harder to build and end up being fairly expensive to maintain (at least later in the game based on Civ5's ridiculously complicated unit support formula). It feels like things are better balanced in Civ5 now, though, unless I simply got used to it. It no longer feels like it takes forever to build units and that you are SOL if you haven't built enough right away to withstand an attack.

The AI is a valid concern: I think the game may well optimize the 1upt AI to the best it could be under the circumstances, but it'll never be as good as a human player. In the end, that forced me to handicap myself to a degree and not simply go on a conquest rampage. But those who feel the need to use every advantage will be disappointed by this advantage.

The scale of the map: Once again, this might very well be a valid complaint for Civ5, but I don't think it's a valid complaint for CivBE. We're talking about advanced weaponry, artillery that shoots for miles, etc. Even the "melee units" will be shooting at a distance. Given this, the scale actually makes sense for this game.

Are there any other complaints about 1upt in this thread that I missed?

 

[Sonereal]

It no longer feels like it takes forever to build units and that you are SOL if you haven't built enough right away to withstand an attack.

It still takes forever. Pre-Industrial unit build times are just painful.

 

[Commander Bello]

The scale of the map: Once again, this might very well be a valid complaint for Civ5, but I don't think it's a valid complaint for CivBE. We're talking about advanced weaponry, artillery that shoots for miles, etc. Even the "melee units" will be shooting at a distance. Given this, the scale actually makes sense for this game.

I have to disagree here.

If "melee" units could shoot farther than one hex this would make it even worse, as the area to take into consideration automatically would become even larger.
The human brain can do this at one glance - the AI has to calculate each and everything.
Now, the more hexes are to be taken into consideration and the more the possible interactions between the military units are (by shooting at each other over long distances) the more complex the whole thing gets... Which will turn into an even less capable (combat) AI or into longer turn times (or in the worst case, into both).

 

[Sonereal]

If "melee" units could shoot farther than one hex this would make it even worse, as the area to take into consideration automatically would become even larger.

I think you're reading the post wrong. He doesn't mean that melee units are literally firing at range. The scale/size of each hex is greater, not smaller.

 

[jozef57]

i do agree we need a real follow up on 4, 1upt can work but only on much and i mean much bigger maps than now "huge" as "this panzer general guy"did admit himself.
as far as beyond earth goes, i loved 4 next war mod played nothing else than that all the time. this seems more a one off colonization type game than a civ 6 ( from which i hope strongly it will come) it would be nice to if the next games in the civ franchise will not have the many problem and bugs i encounterd in all civ 5 games.

 

[Commander Bello]

I think you're reading the post wrong. He doesn't mean that melee units are literally firing at range. The scale/size of each hex is greater, not smaller.

hmm... Maybe you're correct and I misinterpreted his statement.

Nevertheless, assuming this wouldn't change much from C5 then. The tactical beauty of 1upt lays in the ability (and necessity) to manouvre your units in the best possible way. This in turn requires some space in which you can manouvre.
But in C5 you are looking at a strategic map where open fields are very rare.

For the units this strategic map turns into a tactical one, meaning that they are all limited to an environment of bushes and hills, with the resulting restrictions in movement.
After all, you are playing strategically on a planet - but tactically your units would manouvre in some kind of battle theatre... which is not reflected by the maps scale.

 

[Sonereal]

After all, you are playing strategically on a planet - but tactically your units would manouvre in some kind of battle theatre... which is not reflected by the maps scale.

Which brings me back to my earlier point in saying that the tactical decisions of 1UPT need to be turned into strategic decisions.

 

[Dale]

Thats not analysis, thats acknowledging that Civ V designers had more inteligence than cockroaches.

I'm sorry, I disagree.

Having inter-related models within a single design..... is good design, where each model gains off each other model within the game.

Having every other model within the game be dictated by a single model....... is bad design, where a single model determines the design of every other model within the game.

 

[Fabio1701]

Which brings me back to my earlier point in saying that the tactical decisions of 1UPT need to be turned into strategic decisions.

I agree, it's strategic warfare, not and tactical warfare. In the beginning it's hard to keep this in mind because really what ancient tribe has more than a few dozen individual archers? But at least by the iron age a unit really represents a thousand legionaries or whatever. the actual size of a unit has always been hard to pin down in a civ game.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I'm sorry, I disagree.

Having inter-related models within a single design..... is good design, where each model gains off each other model within the game.

Having every other model within the game be dictated by a single model....... is bad design, where a single model determines the design of every other model within the game.

I disagree with that too. It depends entirely upon both context and personal taste. It also depends entirely upon what you define as a "model". Right now all your doing is spouting nonsense to sound philosophical. There is no definitive measure of what makes a game good, or else we'd all be playing one game until a better one is released.

It's really unfortunate you don't like the direction this game and series is headed, but this has been done to death. Your argument is dictated by a single complaint, and it's rather old hat sir I'm afraid.

 

[jeffreyac]

Well, crap.

Just saw today, for the first time, the announcement of beyond earth.

Here's a commentary as I looked for info:

"Please don't be 1upt... Please don't be 1upt... Please don't be 1upt....

....crap."

I know the argument about the popularity of CV mentioned earlier is a valid point - but as a diehard Civ IV player - well, let's just say I think we're in two camps now, those that like the 1UPT style Civ V brought, and those that didn't.

Please note - not saying 1upt is better or worse - many folks really seem to enjoy it, and more power to them. (I never want to rain on anyone else's game enjoyment!) Just saying, for my tastes, I personally didn't enjoy Civ V as much as previous titles, and am worried BE will continue the trend.


edit to add that it's not JUST the 1upt that turned me off to civ V - the global happiness mechanic was the other thing that I really couldn't get past. Just didn't really care for the mechanics and the direction the game moved. But as I said - I know others were happy with this change, and wish them happiness with the new game, too. Unfortunately, looks like I won't be joining them...

 

[KevinLancaster]

You must have missed out on the expansions, they made changes to the combat and happiness.

 

[berialima]

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.

Moderator Action: Smiley-only posts are considered spam. Please ensure your posts contain something more substantive in future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Lord Tirian]

You must have missed out on the expansions, they made changes to the combat and happiness.

Seconded. While I admit I always liked 1UPT (large armies are, to me, tedium, I rather have 3 units on each side than 30, mathematically, it's the same - bigger numbers for bigger numbers' sake is silly) - Civ5 lost me as a player shortly after release because... it just felt sluggish. Everything took ages, too much was on autopilot, there weren't many interesting strategies and/or decisions. It just didn't capture me the way CivII to CivIV did.

When G&K came out, I gave it another chance and, lo and behold, it felt like Civ to me again and BNW made it good enough for me to stop playing CivIV for non-modded games.

I dearly hope Firaxis remembers the lessons it learned in that regard.

 

[Ashbery76]

Grumpy old farts.

Moderator Action: Not a helpful comment. Please refrain from spam like this.

 

[terrycrist3]

As someone who has played every game in the series (even CTP which doesn't really count notwithstanding its name), I actually like 1UPT. In fact, Civ 4's implementation is probably the worst in the series. At least in ( most) of the others, stacking had the risk that you would lose or damage the survivors after a successful attack. Civ 3 did not do this, but Civ 4 added a big problem:

The thing that people seem to have forgotten about Civ 4 was that the combination of A and D into Strength and the rock-paper-scissors mechanic are what really ruined stacking. Since you always fought the best defender, all you needed was one archer, one axemen, and one spearmen (or more) to stave off the hordes. Aside from sheer overwhelming numbers, there wasn't a very good counter. Siege was supposed to be the answer, but catapult Strength was so low that they ended up being suicide units.

Could Civ 5 have done better with 1UPT? Of course. Bigger maps, more rock-paper-scissors units, position and flanking bonuses, City nerfs, and other things could make it more tactical. Are there viable alternatives? I imagine so (CTP's stack combat was opaque and convoluted (like a Paradox game) but could be revived). But I certainly don't think Civ:BE is dead on arrival simply by using 1UPT. Honestly, combat has never been the strongest part of the series, so I think other factors matter more than stacking vs 1UPT

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think you're reading the post wrong. He doesn't mean that melee units are literally firing at range. The scale/size of each hex is greater, not smaller.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I got confused at the confusion my post generated and then I saw I phrased things inartfully.

"Melee" in this game are units that shoot 400 meters or more. "Range" are units that potentially shoot miles away. That helps preserve the scale. If cities are four tiles apart and you can shoot two, you can theoretically be shooting two miles from your position for a city four miles away. Or more, these are sci-fi weapons. Each hex could be 100 miles for all it matters.

 

[manu-fan]

1upt is what makes Civ 5 so great. Bring it on. Best thing to happen to the franchise.

 

[Commander Bello]

Each hex could be 100 miles for all it matters.

And, after all, there still will be only one (military) unit in said hex, may it be 10, 100 or even 1000 square miles big.
Scale is not important for how big one thinks the area covered by a hex is, but it is important in regards to how you can manouvre your units.

From the screenshots currently available we may assume that the maps don't differ very much from what we know from Civ4/5. There will be "forests" and "jungles", "swamps" and "plains" and "hills". They may be called differently now and will provide other ressources, but from the perspective of the gameplay they will be what we already know. And some of them will be hampering unit movement - huge.

From the perspective of an unit, they are just some hexes and most of them won't be easy and fast to cross, thus limiting the manouvreability.
That is the big mistake of having a 1upt military system on a planetscale overall map - to be able to display the whole planet you effectively put the units onto a "tactical" map (from the unit's perspective) of hilly, forest covered nature. Each and everywhere.
Now put some settlement (which, as the experience of C5 tells, for units have the nature of bunkers) in that picture and you know why a lot of tactical elements in warfare will get lost. No widespread actions anymore, which in other 1upt games with a real "tactical" map are creating the fun. No circumnavigation of the enemy, no "fake attack" here with the center of your army doing the "real" attack there.

The tactical elements of warfare are limited in such an environment - as planetwide scale of the map and unit scale don't fit.

And because they don't fit (and cannot fit) you have to limit the number of units. Because you have to limit the number, you have to make them expensive in terms of production. Because they will have to remain expensive even for a fullgrown economy, you have to limit economy as well. High production capacity is something which you cannot allow - or you're running into the "carpet of doom".

This can only be avoided if you somehow allow a "tactical" map for 1upt-style military actions - which you cannot do if the "tactical" map (unit's perspective) equals the "strategic" map (planetwide scale).

 

[Commander Bello]

1upt is what makes Civ 5 so great. Bring it on. Best thing to happen to the franchise.

1upt is what makes C5 so weak. It hamperes the AI each and everywhere.
Granted, the human players benefits enormously from this - but he does so from lower difficulty levels, too.