Jatta Pake
Warlord
Civilization fans have been divided over Civ 5's introduction of the One Unit Per Tile (1UPT) restriction. Some love it. Some hate it.
For those that hate 1UPT, I started wondering if the perceived limitations have less to do with the amount of units on the tiles and more to do with another factor: shape of the tile.
A hex movement system provides 6 directions of movement. A classic square movement system provides 4 directions of movement - like a rook moves in chess - no diagonal moves. But previous iterations of Civilization provided squares with 8 directions of movement by allowing diagonal movement. At a fundamental level, players had more choices of movement with the square system with 8 different directions to choose from.
Fewer directions for movement constrain player choices when limited to a single unit per tile. To combat this restriction, Civ 5 gives base units two movement points. Unfortunately, most terrain features restrict movement to actually moving only a single space. And being next to enemies limits movement to a single space. Invariably, this reduces choices at the tactical level.
I think this problem with the Hex 1UPT system, perhaps we can call it "Choice Restriction", is at the heart of what folks dislike about the 1UPT system. The tactical game isn't allowed room to breathe and develop.
A design change could fix Hex 1UPT. Increase unit move points and increase map sizes. Increase city growth rates, increase food production to support faster city growth, set higher limits for city placement spacing (like four empty hexes between cities), and alter the Happiness system back to being city specific.
The idea being that instead of patching the game to remove choices and "nerf" options, you are INCREASING choices for the player. Larger cities faster would build units quicker, build buildings quicker, and allow technology growth quicker. What to do with the extra money, hammers, beakers, and luxuries? Add more units, buildings, Social Policies, techs and options.
I don't think allowing Stacking is necessarily the answer. The hex format can potentially offer more choices rather than less.
For those that hate 1UPT, I started wondering if the perceived limitations have less to do with the amount of units on the tiles and more to do with another factor: shape of the tile.
A hex movement system provides 6 directions of movement. A classic square movement system provides 4 directions of movement - like a rook moves in chess - no diagonal moves. But previous iterations of Civilization provided squares with 8 directions of movement by allowing diagonal movement. At a fundamental level, players had more choices of movement with the square system with 8 different directions to choose from.
Fewer directions for movement constrain player choices when limited to a single unit per tile. To combat this restriction, Civ 5 gives base units two movement points. Unfortunately, most terrain features restrict movement to actually moving only a single space. And being next to enemies limits movement to a single space. Invariably, this reduces choices at the tactical level.
I think this problem with the Hex 1UPT system, perhaps we can call it "Choice Restriction", is at the heart of what folks dislike about the 1UPT system. The tactical game isn't allowed room to breathe and develop.
A design change could fix Hex 1UPT. Increase unit move points and increase map sizes. Increase city growth rates, increase food production to support faster city growth, set higher limits for city placement spacing (like four empty hexes between cities), and alter the Happiness system back to being city specific.
The idea being that instead of patching the game to remove choices and "nerf" options, you are INCREASING choices for the player. Larger cities faster would build units quicker, build buildings quicker, and allow technology growth quicker. What to do with the extra money, hammers, beakers, and luxuries? Add more units, buildings, Social Policies, techs and options.
I don't think allowing Stacking is necessarily the answer. The hex format can potentially offer more choices rather than less.
