Soren Johnson on 1UpT in Old World

[The_J]

I have put the following on the main page:

"""Soren Johnson has written a blog-post on the challenges with the concepts of “one unit per tile” (1UpT) versus “stacked units” in Old World, you can read it here. 1 UpT was certainly one of the most controversial changes going from Civ4 to Civ5. Soren did not work on Civ5, but had to make the same decisions for his current game Old World. He writes about the various things he had to consider, changes, which were tested, and how they returned to the original design.

To quote from his blog post: “Although I saw that Civ 5’s 1UPT had become the mainstream conception of a tile-based 4X game, Old World actually went through roughly a year of development WITH stacked units. […] Unlike the rest of my writing on Old World’s design, I’m not sure I can quite articulate why 1UPT worked better than the stacking system I had implemented. I can still explain what was great about giving the players a reason to stack and a reason not to.”

The whole blog post is certainly interesting in general for pepole interested turn-based strategy and the possible concepts you could test.

Follow this discussion on Twitter: https://twitter.com/SorenJohnson/status/1425289290318106625"""


I have to say I enjoyed reading the blog post. When it was announced for Civ5, it always seemed like 1UpT was the worst possible decision ever, when you listened to some of the people. This blog post gives you the pros and cons of the system, and some experience how changing them actually works. Nice read .

 

[Gedemon]

In many ways, the Orders system, limited city sites, and one-unit-per-tile all need to be viewed as part of a single holistic system where each part buttresses the other.

that's the key.

As said in the blog, the scope of the game is also important, I can't visualize a way to have 1UPT working as well in a civ-like game, even with designing map rules for larger areas between chokepoints, unless maybe if the UI allows a "select all units in this area" and "move group to..." actions.

 

[Dale]

As I said elsewhere just today on this topic:

I really didn't like the 1upt implementation in Civ5. I believe the issue is related to that Jon was trying to implement the fun of "on the ground tactics" like you see in Panzer General, with the World encompassing scale of Civ. PG was able to do this really well as space on the map was huge. But in Civ it failed due to the limits of space on the map. This resulted in traffic jams, or shuffling, or carpet of doom whatever you call it.

This was partly fixed for Civ6 but ultimately due to map scale it still suffers the same problem. An AI or city state left alone for most of the game literally carpets the map with units and it's a horror to navigate. Ed tried to resolve this with more complicated movement rules, but that just led to movement confusion.

1upt works in Old World due to the wide spaces on the map, plus Orders and large movement / attack ranges. We return to the PG principle of wide open spaces and long ranged attacks which as we can see works.

Stacks / 1upt has always been about scale. If your tile represent 10 sq kms it's illogical to stack units. If your tile represents 100 sq kms then 1upt comes across as illogical. And at 10 sq kms your blocked tiles (think mountain ranges) are 15-20 tiles apart. At 100 sq kms they may only be 5 tiles apart. Huge difference in play experiences.

 

[Taefin]

After reading the blogpost, I see that 1UPT also give a role for range that would not ordinarily exist. When dealing with a cluster of units against a natural wall, or in the middle of a line, it becomes difficult even for a numerically superior force of melee units to kill more than a few in the first turn since it’s difficult to get more than 2 hits on each unit. Range allows dealing that extra damage and each kill opens up another space for another attack. In this way, flanking works by allowing more hits on target, rather than by dealing extra damage each hit. Especially when I get unique units, my army often quickly becomes melee heavy (or all range and then forests become a problem). More of my army than I care to admit survives by retreating with 1-3 HP.

I’ve also still yet to try fortifying, need to challenge a few more superior empires to start a war.

 

[Dale]

I’ve also still yet to try fortifying, need to challenge a few more superior empires to start a war.

A fully fortified spear with a few guard promotions in a fort in the middle of a mountain pass, with a couple backup archers, is like a frikken tank!

 

[Taefin]

Oh wow! I got in over my head when Rome declared on me, moved a fresh line of axes to the front and fortified while my archers took pot shots, picked off a few units while their attacked glanced off then took out the entire enemy force with a chain route by my strike III event chariot. In earlier games I’d move in half my force to deal max first round damage, but then take heavy casualties. This way my opponent never gets a good shot and I am move everything in counterattack.

Though now Egypt’s declared on me because I took my gems back, but that’s another matter. My Ascetic schemer queen took the throne at 17 and is cleaning house (what are future generations going to do with legitimacy anyway?!) and I am really enjoying the use of tactics when up against this wall.

 

[Stringer1313]

Yeah and pre-fixed city locations guarantees those wide open spaces, which i love

 

[dguichar]

It's a long time since my last post here in civfanatics. Yes, this new game (old world) is inside a civilization forum and it's basically designed by Soren, which comes from that team.

My history with civilization is really long, so this 1 unit per tile it's something i resented early... but then i started to love. So, having 1 unit per tile in old world it's really nice.

Back in civilization 1, a whole stack was destroyed by a single unit. Painful, indeed... the combat system favored the stronger unit, but from time to time a militia destroyed a tank. Always the attacker/attackers or the defender/defenders gets destroyed. In chess, the attacker always wins and the defender gets always destroyed... so "strength" of unit doesn't seem to be important. In civilization 1, even without this wide open spaces from old world, there was a lot of space for units.

What's my problem here with old world combat, even that i love 1 unit per tile? It's that only defender gets damaged. Civilization 2 introduced damaged units, so the results from a combat wasn't just one unit (or stack) survives and the other unit (or stack) gets destroyed. Damage condition was introduced and either the attacker or the defender was injured after a combat round. This was repeated until destruction.

In old world, attacker never is injured after combat. That's comprehensible for range units, they fire their missile weapons and the melee units can just endure the hail of iron falling from the skies.

So, even by having one unit per tile, the number of units and orders to overwhelm the enemy it's huge. If both attacker and defender could get damaged in the battle, then no more carpet of attacking units. Some will die and retreat for healing (or using general ability to heal in neutral turn) will be more valuable. Combats will be less predictable and units sittting there for starting to move the next turn will be less.

Simplifying the combat by having less units in the battlefield and requiring retreats for healing will indeed add a depth to the grand strategy.

I really can grasp why this design decision (only defender gets injured) was taken. I don't find it fun, but i'm pretty sure that (maybe) there's a lot of people who love it as a new addition to the combat system. For me is a step back, i'm pretty much feeling i'm playing chess (attacker always win) meets dnd (there are hitpoints). But even in dnd-based games with combat by turns (Donjon de Naheulbeuk is a great example) there's a chance for de defender to "react" by chosing a "defensive stance" and the enemy trying to move passing through or leaving from a zone of control. There's also another game (which is not dnd-based) that has combat by turns that introduced this idea of reaction, it's X-COM.. where there was even a button to "save" movement points for "ducking" (augmenting the defense) and firing to aliens which happens to pass close a soldier.

Why not put this "reaction based" system over the "only attacker makes damage" system of old world? The "unused" orders from the previous turn can be "planned ahead" for trigger during the next turn. It's organic: "chariot, you won't attack now... but i order to do it if the enemy moves during its turn".

Sure moderators can "split" this thread between the discussion of 1 unit per turn and "only-defender gets damage", but i think this is the only topic about the combat system.

 

[PiR]

In old world, attacker never is injured after combat

My melee units often lose 1 HP when attacking another melee unit. It might not be enough for you and I don't know the general rule though.
I guess it can be modded easily.

I like your idea about the unspent orders though. It could be a little evolution of the order spent into "fortify": "expect attack and react". But if you wouldn't know which unit has it on or not, things could get unpredictable. And I really like the predictability in the game combats. For me, HP are here to abstract the unpredictable, and a game (4X, RTS... but of course not RPG) should here have HP count OR randomness in combat damage.

 

[Old World Fanatic]

It's a long time since my last post here in civfanatics. Yes, this new game (old world) is inside a civilization forum and it's basically designed by Soren, which comes from that team.

My history with civilization is really long, so this 1 unit per tile it's something i resented early... but then i started to love. So, having 1 unit per tile in old world it's really nice.

Back in civilization 1, a whole stack was destroyed by a single unit. Painful, indeed... the combat system favored the stronger unit, but from time to time a militia destroyed a tank. Always the attacker/attackers or the defender/defenders gets destroyed. In chess, the attacker always wins and the defender gets always destroyed... so "strength" of unit doesn't seem to be important. In civilization 1, even without this wide open spaces from old world, there was a lot of space for units.

What's my problem here with old world combat, even that i love 1 unit per tile? It's that only defender gets damaged. Civilization 2 introduced damaged units, so the results from a combat wasn't just one unit (or stack) survives and the other unit (or stack) gets destroyed. Damage condition was introduced and either the attacker or the defender was injured after a combat round. This was repeated until destruction.

In old world, attacker never is injured after combat. That's comprehensible for range units, they fire their missile weapons and the melee units can just endure the hail of iron falling from the skies.

So, even by having one unit per tile, the number of units and orders to overwhelm the enemy it's huge. If both attacker and defender could get damaged in the battle, then no more carpet of attacking units. Some will die and retreat for healing (or using general ability to heal in neutral turn) will be more valuable. Combats will be less predictable and units sittting there for starting to move the next turn will be less.

Simplifying the combat by having less units in the battlefield and requiring retreats for healing will indeed add a depth to the grand strategy.

I really can grasp why this design decision (only defender gets injured) was taken. I don't find it fun, but i'm pretty sure that (maybe) there's a lot of people who love it as a new addition to the combat system. For me is a step back, i'm pretty much feeling i'm playing chess (attacker always win) meets dnd (there are hitpoints). But even in dnd-based games with combat by turns (Donjon de Naheulbeuk is a great example) there's a chance for de defender to "react" by chosing a "defensive stance" and the enemy trying to move passing through or leaving from a zone of control. There's also another game (which is not dnd-based) that has combat by turns that introduced this idea of reaction, it's X-COM.. where there was even a button to "save" movement points for "ducking" (augmenting the defense) and firing to aliens which happens to pass close a soldier.

Why not put this "reaction based" system over the "only attacker makes damage" system of old world? The "unused" orders from the previous turn can be "planned ahead" for trigger during the next turn. It's organic: "chariot, you won't attack now... but i order to do it if the enemy moves during its turn".

Sure moderators can "split" this thread between the discussion of 1 unit per turn and "only-defender gets damage", but i think this is the only topic about the combat system.

I see where you are coming from. There's always a tradeoff between various systems.

I quite like the balance of the current system. There is a huge defender advantage in that fighting inside your terrain allows you to hold the best defense tiles, you can heal and you can hide one unit in the city tile. But on the other hand it's the attacker that does most damage, and it's often tempting to leave units in open spaces so they can hurt/kill a specific unit.

The issue with what you propose from balance perspective, is that quality of units becomes much much more important. This means that tech will be the leading decider for (melee) combat. This also severely weakens such units as militia, because they'll take more damage than they do.

Alternatively, if they only retaliate once, you get the homam thing, where you use weak/expendable units to draw out the retaliation then attack with your strong units. I guess you could argue for that, but that feels much more gamey and convoluted to me than the current system. I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[nolegskitten]

I think Soren design notes where he explains how the combat in OW is like combats in civ unfolded over several turns is the clearest expression of my feelings about the tactical game. I quoted the passage I'm thinking about below. I don't understand why many people feel like the tactical game would be better with only a handful of units. Using ZoC to create front lines, protecting ranged units behind melee, In my experience it all just works so much better in OW than in any other 4X I've played. MP fights are very tactical despite large numbers of units, and the AI know how to disperse when there is splash damage and rout abilities on the field, to priority target units with a stun ability (grappler ships), etc.

The simplest explanation for why 1UPT works in Old World is that it‘s actually a perfect fit for the game’s unusual combat system, which splits combat resolution across multiple turns by requiring multiple attacks to kill a unit and minimizing retaliation damage from the defender. Allowing a strong defender to damage an attacker significantly was never going to work with this system because doing so is akin to giving the defender a free attack on the attacker’s turn (and without spending an Order). Defenders always tend to be at an inherent advantage, both in real life and in strategy games, so anything that boosted their advantage even more would be a mistake. At its best, the lack of retaliation damage pushes players to go on offense, to take risks, to take an active role in combat, which is inherently more fun. A game where you take an active role killing enemies is much more engaging than one where the AI annihilates itself against your stationary defenders.

 

[dguichar]

My melee units often lose 1 HP when attacking another melee unit. It might not be enough for you and I don't know the general rule though.
I guess it can be modded easily.

I like your idea about the unspent orders though. It could be a little evolution of the order spent into "fortify": "expect attack and react". But if you wouldn't know which unit has it on or not, things could get unpredictable. And I really like the predictability in the game combats. For me, HP are here to abstract the unpredictable, and a game (4X, RTS... but of course not RPG) should here have HP count OR randomness in combat damage.

Interesting, for me... combat it's amazingly predictable. Unless you have a huge amount of units and a huge number of orders, the ennemy will always focus on just one unit to destroy it. Systems for "fortify", "expect attack and react" do already exists, as i mentioned. In old world, combat must be carefully planned. And even so, the level 2 of culture allows to train units instantly with civics. So, even though the ennemy might seem weak... there's a chance to be underestimating the counter attack.

I see where you are coming from. There's always a tradeoff between various systems.

I quite like the balance of the current system. There is a huge defender advantage in that fighting inside your terrain allows you to hold the best defense tiles, you can heal and you can hide one unit in the city tile. But on the other hand it's the attacker that does most damage, and it's often tempting to leave units in open spaces so they can hurt/kill a specific unit.

The issue with what you propose from balance perspective, is that quality of units becomes much much more important. This means that tech will be the leading decider for (melee) combat. This also severely weakens such units as militia, because they'll take more damage than they do.

Alternatively, if they only retaliate once, you get the homam thing, where you use weak/expendable units to draw out the retaliation then attack with your strong units. I guess you could argue for that, but that feels much more gamey and convoluted to me than the current system. I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Sure, balance might be important, even though there's no way i can see any balance on attackers just getitng so little damage (i've never noticed that, maybe it's insignificant in comparison with the damage that defender receives). Military science race it's part of the way that war was in those classical times of the old world. Every edge was really important and polybolos has an absurd range and an absurd damage. Even in that case, a swarming force of chariots can surround and kill very fast. The tradeoff it's always there, but this "attacker does full damage" while "defender does so little damage" it's a little step over chess (yes, i know i've alreaady stated that). Tactics will be much deeper if the defender could do full damage if orders are "stored" for reaction.

 

[PiR]

Interesting, for me... combat it's amazingly predictable.

It is. And I like that about it.

What I meant:
Real-life combat is not predictable. But we do not have HP in real-life. For me health points abstract the unpredictability.

 

[Old World Fanatic]

Tactics will be much deeper if the defender could do full damage if orders are "stored" for reaction

I hear where you are coming from. I don't agree.

I don't think it makes tactics any deeper to have that kind of reactive system and it has a good chance of slowing down gameplay, the way it did in xcom which I think is the origin of reaction fire mechanic (not exactly the same, but similar). Although it was the right choice for the original xcom, considering its difficulty, the low tech nature of the game, and the "bad horsehocky happens" atmosphere, it also made the game slower, because every turn you would have save multiple actions as unused so that they could reaction fire in case enemies show up. It really slowed down the game.

It also took some of the immediate immersion out of the game, as now the game was getting the kills (somewhat randomly) rather than you doing the action.

Assuming you mean each unit would retaliate infinite times, it means you could have one crack unit, be completely surrounded by chariots and such and still do more damage than they receive to each unit.

Assuming you mean retaliate once, it would mean that you just draw out the retaliation with militia and it changes the game only in the fact that everyone now uses orders to retaliate on some key positions and bring a horde of expendable militia to draw out reactions.

It is also an indirect boost to ranged units, which they don't really need.

Military science race it's part of the way that war was in those classical times of the old world

Yes, this is why I said these things are tradeoff. The real world has never been balanced. And though I very much enjoy life there are many places where one would not enjoy being or living.