Only one unit on a tile

[sketch162000]

I like the idea of 1upt but I think the traffic jams make it needlessly frustrating. I think they should just remove the advantage from stacking rather than doing away with it completely.

For example, a stack can only send one unit to attack per turn, but they retain the ability to use the most advantageous unit while defending. That way you would be encouraged and allowed to move your armies in a convenient stack, but it attacking would call for spreading your units out.

 

[flyingbunnys]

I like the idea of 1upt but I think the traffic jams make it needlessly frustrating. I think they should just remove the advantage from stacking rather than doing away with it completely.

For example, a stack can only send one unit to attack per turn, but they retain the ability to use the most advantageous unit while defending. That way you would be encouraged and allowed to move your armies in a convenient stack, but it attacking would call for spreading your units out.

That might make defence a bit too powerful as you could stack ranged units with melee units and it would be near impossible to kill the ranged units as the stacks strongest unit always gets to battle what you attack with, while the archers pick your attack force apart.

 

[PawelS]

For me the "traffic jams" are a part of the fun

 

[migkillertwo]

Have given up on Civ 5 after playing for 16 hours straight - hated it.
The reason is simple - only one unit is allowed on one tile, this led to frustration with the game and led to some interesting army maneuvers.
The game was hard enough without having to move units around for others to get into attacking range - or simply letting them die; I bought the game in order to fight the AI, not myself.
Trying to invade a city through a mountain pass was impossible.

My question is simple - is this going to be patched out? (Or has it already been patched out? I haven't played it in over a month.) It makes no logical sense or game play sense.

It will never be patched out, I guarantee you that, and I am glad that it won't. You just need to build more siege units when attacking cities.

The reason for 1UPT was simple: It makes maneuvers relevant. There was absolutely no way to out-smart your opponent except by building larger and more technically capable armies all the way through Civ IV. IRL, a mobile army will always defeat a static army, even if the static army is much bigger. In Civ III and Civ IV, the speed of your army didn't make any difference whatsoever.

 

[migkillertwo]

I like the idea of 1upt but I think the traffic jams make it needlessly frustrating. I think they should just remove the advantage from stacking rather than doing away with it completely.

For example, a stack can only send one unit to attack per turn, but they retain the ability to use the most advantageous unit while defending. That way you would be encouraged and allowed to move your armies in a convenient stack, but it attacking would call for spreading your units out.

They tried this "disincentivising" in Civ IV by having siege units inflict "collateral damage" (and the hilariously unrealistic tactic of sending in waves of suicide catapults) and it failed miserably. Human players still built stacks of doom, and the AI still built stacks of doom.

Oh, and one point the OP made I didn't address before: You said that it was impossible to capture a city surrounded on all but one side by mountains. In real life, it really is nigh impossible to capture a city surrounded by impassable terrain, for similar reasons that you can't do it in CiV; only so much firepower can be brought to the front.

 

[flyingbunnys]

Oh, and one point the OP made I didn't address before: You said that it was impossible to capture a city surrounded on all but one side by mountains. In real life, it really is nigh impossible to capture a city surrounded by impassable terrain, for similar reasons that you can't do it in CiV; only so much firepower can be brought to the front.

Unless you have lots of bombers....

 

[JLoZeppeli]

For me the "traffic jams" are a part of the fun

Traffic cop??

Then buy the next DLC, it will come with a whistle and a signal paddle....

 

[ohioastronomy]

They tried this "disincentivising" in Civ IV by having siege units inflict "collateral damage" (and the hilariously unrealistic tactic of sending in waves of suicide catapults) and it failed miserably. Human players still built stacks of doom, and the AI still built stacks of doom.

Oh, and one point the OP made I didn't address before: You said that it was impossible to capture a city surrounded on all but one side by mountains. In real life, it really is nigh impossible to capture a city surrounded by impassable terrain, for similar reasons that you can't do it in CiV; only so much firepower can be brought to the front.

In real life there is no such thing as an impassible mountain range the size of a Civ V hex. The lack of stacking is utterly inappropriate for a grand strategic game. It could be fun if you moved your stack (e.g. army) to fight a battle on a tactical map using something related to the Civ V model (but with the ingredients that tactical wargames have had for decades, but which Civ V lacks). But this game does violence to the combat model in every sense. There is no combined arms for the defender; the various units just sit there while their friends get destroyed piecemeal. There is no opportunity fire (so you can't attack the horsemen charging your archer.) The bottlenecks are on the wrong scale (you can't pass on a road the width of England). And units die for foolish reasons - because the AI pathed them wrong or they spill out of cover. (No, darting from cover to cover safely is not remotely realistic either.)

 

[Bob1475]

So, you played 16 hours and hated it? I don't think so. If you hated it you would have stopped long before. You hated not winning. Well, if the choke point gave you a problem then that is a challenge to overcome. If you want to win all the time play at chieftain level.

 

[Sonereal]

In real life there is no such thing as an impassible mountain range the size of a Civ V hex. The lack of stacking is utterly inappropriate for a grand strategic game. It could be fun if you moved your stack (e.g. army) to fight a battle on a tactical map using something related to the Civ V model (but with the ingredients that tactical wargames have had for decades, but which Civ V lacks). But this game does violence to the combat model in every sense. There is no combined arms for the defender; the various units just sit there while their friends get destroyed piecemeal. There is no opportunity fire (so you can't attack the horsemen charging your archer.) The bottlenecks are on the wrong scale (you can't pass on a road the width of England). And units die for foolish reasons - because the AI pathed them wrong or they spill out of cover. (No, darting from cover to cover safely is not remotely realistic either.)

1. It's a game.
2. It's a game.
3. There is combined arms for the defender.
4. Opportunity fire is the actual attack or do you think archers and siege weapons just stood around while getting ripped to pieces.
5. It's a game.

There were two choices. Make an extremely convulted way of stopping stacks or simple 1UPT with higher unit maintenance. Collateral damage didn't stop anyone from making stacks. If anything, it encouraged bigger and bigger stacks.

 

[sketch162000]

That might make defence a bit too powerful as you could stack ranged units with melee units and it would be near impossible to kill the ranged units as the stacks strongest unit always gets to battle what you attack with, while the archers pick your attack force apart.

That's how it happens IRL, right? The ranged units bombard the enemy from safety until they run out of ammo, the enemy is dead, or the enemy breaks the main battle line. Besides, you could place archers on the tile behind your attacking unit for supporting fire.

 

[UWHabs]

I'll agree the scale is off if you consider it a "world-like" map. But we bypass lots of other realism. Just know that your "pangaia" that you play on is not like a America-Eurasia pangaia, but like Australia. Your "Continents" map is more like England-Ireland. Then you can kind of imagine battles like this on that scale (never mind that when playing on a Europe map, the city of "Berlin" takes up about half of Europe).

 

[Flyingdwarfzz]

I hope they never patch this out.
Ever. its the best thing about CiV.
I was sooo sick of doom stacks in Civ 3 and 4.

 

[Deep_Blue]

the problem with 1UPT is limited space, we need at least double huge map to make it run smoothly.

An Idea came to my mind last night, instead of making much bigger maps that slow the game why not making another sub-hexes layer (with hexes that are half size of tiles hexes) where units can move into that layer not the main one (units size need to be scaled down for this). This way we have double movement room on same map size. But I guess this is too much to ask for a patch because it is a core change in the game not a simple one.

 

[Cordycep]

Unless you have lots of bombers....

Well they only made things more difficult at Monte Casino and Stalingrad.

 

[Rudster816]

1UPT is what makes war so much fun in this game. Rather than having to mobilize some massive army, and march the whole thing on one tile through the other players empire, you can use a much smaller army in a good formation to destroy armies that are 3 times as big as it. Soon as I get Artillery in my games the game is over, I can destroy the AI's units by the dozen by simply staying in one spot, or moving my formation one to two tiles at a time (so my infantry\rifleman get either a terrain bonus, or fortification bonus). You need to keep two or three infantry\riflemen in the back to cycle out as the ones up front get wounded. Trick is to try and never attack with your infantry units, and let your artillery do the work. The AI will a lot of the time throw there units at your unit thats been fortified for two turns and sitting on a hill, killing his unit while it does 2 damage to yours.

 

[pi-r8]

1UPT is what makes war so much fun in this game. Rather than having to mobilize some massive army, and march the whole thing on one tile through the other players empire, you can use a much smaller army in a good formation to destroy armies that are 3 times as big as it. Soon as I get Artillery in my games the game is over, I can destroy the AI's units by the dozen by simply staying in one spot, or moving my formation one to two tiles at a time (so my infantry\rifleman get either a terrain bonus, or fortification bonus). You need to keep two or three infantry\riflemen in the back to cycle out as the ones up front get wounded. Trick is to try and never attack with your infantry units, and let your artillery do the work. The AI will a lot of the time throw there units at your unit thats been fortified for two turns and sitting on a hill, killing his unit while it does 2 damage to yours.

Do you really think it's a good thing that 1 artillery and a couple of infantry can kill an infinite number of AI units? And that army size doesn't matter?

 

[Paradigne]

In real life there is no such thing as an impassible mountain range the size of a Civ V hex. The lack of stacking is utterly inappropriate for a grand strategic game. It could be fun if you moved your stack (e.g. army) to fight a battle on a tactical map using something related to the Civ V model (but with the ingredients that tactical wargames have had for decades, but which Civ V lacks). But this game does violence to the combat model in every sense. There is no combined arms for the defender; the various units just sit there while their friends get destroyed piecemeal. There is no opportunity fire (so you can't attack the horsemen charging your archer.) The bottlenecks are on the wrong scale (you can't pass on a road the width of England). And units die for foolish reasons - because the AI pathed them wrong or they spill out of cover. (No, darting from cover to cover safely is not remotely realistic either.)

Yeah, I guess Switzerland's ability to stay neutral was due to there cunning political savvy. The alps may not be impassable but they sure do make ground transport a nightmare.

 

[GrayingGamer]

My only irritation with this so far has been how a neutral 3rd party can completely gum up the works in an invasion situation.

 

[migkillertwo]

My only irritation with this so far has been how a neutral 3rd party can completely gum up the works in an invasion situation.

sort of like in real life