1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Thoughts on 1UPT and possible improvements

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Schetter, Dec 23, 2010.

  1. Schetter

    Schetter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    39
    Really appreciate the feedback. I'll try to get through a few games myself this weekend with it, if I have the time.

    The modified worker mechanic needs some tweaks, I agree. I was thinking of trying the following for the next build:

    • Introduce a new unit: Improvement Crew.
    • Split duties between regular Workers and Improvement Crews - Workers will not be able to build improvements I had marked to kill the builder (Farm, Mine, Trading Post, Lumbermill, Pasture, Camp, Plantation, Quarry, or Well). The ability to build those would be transferred to the Improvement Crew.
    • Improvement Crews are one-use units - they're consumed after building an improvement.
    • Hard limit on Workers and Improvement Crews per player. I wish I could specify something based on number of cities, but that's currently over my head, if not impossible.
    • Workers return to their normal production cost, Improvement Crews retain the deflated cost.

    That might be worse...not sure. It's really the last gasp for trying to modify this mechanic. Thing is, it felt like games really cooked along while playing AI turns with the destructable Workers; I think if anything it really shows just how inefficient their worker automation code seems to be.

    For scouts, I may take up a similar approach as I'm considering with the Workers above. I'd leave the scout unit's combat power as defined in Vanilla, and create a new unit, maybe called Recon, maybe unlocked at Optics, that would have a greater sight range (3) than the Scout but would have absolutely no combat power.

    Just want to point out that the defensive experience nerf only applies to ranged attacks, such as city volleys, siege volleys, naval bombards - those kinds of attacks. The 'immersion' rationale for that is that in all those instances, the unit being shelled is doing nothing, just being shelled - it's passive. The gameplay rationale for that is that the system can be easily gamed to use opposing units as experience ATMs, and simply increasing bombard strengths across the board would bring it too far out of balance.


    Thanks again for giving it a spin, I'll try to get a second version out sometime this weekend.
     
  2. Medicalham

    Medicalham Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Hello, I'm new to the civfanatics forums, but I've played Civ since III. I'd like to put out there that despite everyone's whining and complaining, I've had a blast with Civ V. The hexes, 1UPT, 3D leader scenes where they speak their own languages, those were all welcome and excellent additions to the series in my opinion.

    I've read a few threads complaining about the 1UPT system though. In Civ IV, my average army size after 2000 AD was usually 200+ units, with a few on each city and 2-3 stacks of doom. In Civ V, end-game is more along the lines of one unit on each city, a navy, an air force usually stationed on a carrier, and a small standing army of 9-10 units (I <3 paratroopers), which adds up to about 50 units altogether, for defense and offense.

    While I feel it makes war more strategic, like a large game of chess, sometimes units get bunched up and bottlenecked and there's just plain not enough room.

    I come from a mixed gamer background of FPS's, MMORPG, and RTS, with the MMORPG trait being the most dominant. Civ V is the only turn-based strategy game I ever got into. So with that, and the quote above in mind, here's my suggestion:

    Instead of only one unit per tile, how about the ability to combine units into armies. Not armies like cIV or Civ III which were glorified stacks of doom, but with each unit contributing a type of bonus or resistance to the overall army.

    For example (JUST AN EXAMPLE, actual bonuses or resistances wouldn't end up like this), an army with:

    2 Horsemen, +2 movement to the army
    2 Swordsmen +3 Combat strength, -1 speed
    1 Archer Ability to range attack, -1 melee strength
    1 Catapult +4 combat strength vs. cities, -2 speed

    The army would move around as a unit, and combat calculations would be based on resistances and weaknesses vs. bonuses. There would be a unit cap on each army (I think a good idea would be a percentage of your total army, for example if you have 50 units, max units in an army is 5, if you have 100 units the army cap is 10) this would encourage balanced armies.

    This wouldn't make individual units obsolete, they would still be valuable for worker/settler escort, scouting, and possibly as a supplement to the actual armies to grant flanking bonuses.

    This is just a vague idea that popped into my head when I saw that post, so if you guys love it I would love to hear some improvements and suggestions for it, if you hate it I'd also like to hear improvements, suggestions, and why it sucks :)
     
  3. tylor

    tylor Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    109
    I was thinking about something like this, but with mixing of equipment, instead of armies.
    So, you can build units like "horses", "spears", "shields", "leather armor", etc. They can't fight by themselves, but you can add them to warriors, and they will give bonuses. Also you can bunch several warriors together, to a certain limit (dependent on tech level).

    For example, 2 warriors + 2 horses + spears + bow = light cavalry with some ranged attack.

    You can strip stuff from army to replace it. For example, you can remove leather armor to give them steel one, or in later stages, replace parts of vehicles - new cannon, etc.
     
  4. Tokira

    Tokira Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    160
    I agree with you.

    In my opinion the idea of the bonuses and stuff is a bit too much. Though I like the idea that if you have 100 units you could stack 10 units to the army and so on. So in my opinion a better idea could be that you could stack units to an army like that. Insteads of them working as one single unit they could work somewhat like the stacks in Civ IV with the difference of being limited in size and maybe recieving some penalties (for example only 3 units being able to attack out of 5 units).

    If the army would work as a single unit, I think that a better idea insteads of the bonuses would be that it would just combine the attacks of all the units included in the army. Maybe they should be penaltised like mentioned above. After all this system would mostly improve the mobility of units and ease conquering coastal cities or cities surrounded by mountains.

    Edit: I like the idea above. It would certainly add more micromanaging but I am not one of those who dislike it over anything else ;)
     
  5. aziantuntija

    aziantuntija Prince

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Finland
    IMO, we cant really have any complicated combat/unit or army building system in civ game. We need to keep it simple. Always.

    So we have too much units, i agree that there could be less units from time to time. Fortunately this is a pretty simple problem, and for simple problems we should first be looking at the simplest solutions possible to correct it. Possibly the simplest way to somewhat correct this lack of space would be to minimize unit count even further somehow. Someone in some other thread suggested that the units would also use food as upkeep in addition to gold just like in civ1. I think that sounds like a pretty good idea and also its pretty dam simple, of course it has to be implemented well in order to work properly.
     
  6. tylor

    tylor Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    109
    Food is wortheless in civ5. If units would consume happiness - THEN it would be a serious limiter. For a player - not AI, of cause.
     
  7. aziantuntija

    aziantuntija Prince

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Finland
    If happiness is not a limiter for AI (and it really isn&#8217;t, it also doesnt limit the player too badly) then IMO, it would be pretty much pointless to limit army size with happiness. Food makes cities grow and bigger cities means more gold and science, so how come food is worthless in civ5? Yes you can get it from CS but that costs gold and to keep the food flowing from CS for your army to consume costs pretty much money.

    EDIT: IMO, by making army consume happiness (and money of course) just makes players build more happiness buildings (wich has upkeep of course). By making army consume food (with money of course) you have to make a decision between city growth and army size. Also, by saying that food is worthless in civ its like saying that bigger cities are worthless in civ5.
     
  8. aasand

    aasand Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4
    So, if you lose a group o swordmen in battle your civ will become more happy? Its just like my last MP game where i got battered and lost a few cities. My population got so happy i entered a golden age. Global happiness i also broken IMHO. I prefered the city based happiness and health.
     
  9. Tokira

    Tokira Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    Messages:
    160
    In my opinion happiness would be a serious limiter especially in early game. If one unit cost 0.5-1 happiness, having an army bigger than 50-100 units would be very hard even in the modern/future era.

    Both food and happiness would be pretty reasonable limiters for army size. The food is obvious, the soldiers have to eat. Happiness could be caused since people don't want to join the army or something like that. However, in my opinion the real problem is not the army size but the lack of room for the units. For some cities it is possible that there is only space for 1-2 meelee units to attack to the city. Of course usually the navy and siege units can help but those kind of cities are very hard to occupy in early game, though maybe it is better like that.. Overall I am quite pleased with the current system.

    Edit: aasand has a good point. It would be pretty weird that the people get happier if the soldiers die in a battle.
     
  10. CTH

    CTH Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Messages:
    399
    Location:
    Göteborg, Sweden
    I would like to see that units could stand on each other in a stack but when attacked only the strongest can defend, if that unit dies all units on that tile die. It would be best for the player to have the units on separate tiles (unless they are very injured) in war and otherwise on the same tiles. Would solve the irritating bottlenecks when moving units but would still work as 1upt in war (where it matters and where bottlenecks should have effect as they do irl).
     
  11. tylor

    tylor Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2010
    Messages:
    109
    People get happier when they are razed. Those are insane Civ5 people, so it's ok.
    Civ1 had armies also consuming shields from home city. So, more armies you build, slower build rate becomes. But it added micromanaging of swapping army ownership between cities.

    Hmm, another idea. Give penalty to strength of each army for number of armies. It's like professional vs conscript army - when you have small military you can afford having only best of the best in it.
     
  12. Strategy Master

    Strategy Master Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    30
    The concept of an army is a good solution. At least it has more chance of being implemented.

    But care has to be taken. It should really only be allowed for increased manouverability. It should not really provide any combat advantages (in attack or defense), otherwise we lose the whole point of the tactical battle element of civ 5.
     
  13. fendrake

    fendrake Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    19
    I agree with the concept of armies being a great fix to the major problems associated with 1UPT: traffic jams, slow unit production, and bad AI.

    To not go back to the stack days, we should limit the number of units allowed, perhaps something like 6. Other things could modify this later: GG, policies, and techs.

    The question then is how to treat armies in combat. I think a decent, straightforward implementation would be to keep track of the constituent units and choose some subset of them to be involved in a given fight. When an army goes up against individual opponent units perhaps only 1 or 2 units are chosen from the army to be involved, while equal sized armies in combat can bring in all units.

    I hope something like this could be considered in a major patch, though perhaps more likely an expansion. On the other hand, maybe the mod community to cobble it together more quickly.
     
  14. Iron59

    Iron59 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2009
    Messages:
    58
    What about you can only have one kind of unit in a tile, but you can still stack? You can have a musketman, knight and etc. in one tile but you can't place two musketmen in one tile.

    Is that good? If you add a group select feature they would become like an army with various weapons at hand rather than just a bunch of units hacking away at each other with a predetermined outcome.
     
  15. DrewBledsoe

    DrewBledsoe Veteran QB

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Cheering For Mr Sanchez
    :lol: You can't illustrate a completely broken concept any better than this..:goodjob:
     
  16. Sir Spanky

    Sir Spanky Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    76
    I for one love the 1UPT. I also don't fully understand why there is no transportation units in the game... allowing for rapid transport of several units at a time. I believe implementing transport units would solve the 1upt problem. Transport Units by Era, or Tech should be easy enough to employ as long as XML or other programming allows it. You can go a long way with Transportation units... giving flexability with types of units it can carry and how many of each...etc Also, defense / speed / logistics (food or gold) PT should change per Transport unit... Also, bring back water born transports.. damn I hate seeing an army of spearmen in the water...
     
  17. aziantuntija

    aziantuntija Prince

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Finland
    Well at least I think that most people in the U.S might be happy if their government would stop occupying foreign lands. :) Im not too sure about them 'getting' a golden age for that though. :lol:
     
  18. DrewBledsoe

    DrewBledsoe Veteran QB

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,634
    Location:
    Cheering For Mr Sanchez
    Foreign Lands? I thought he was implying his own cities. So if San Fran and LA got invaded and captured by North Korea, everyone in NY would hold a week long festival? (ok a few might ;))
     
  19. Moss

    Moss CFC Scribe Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    May 1, 2002
    Messages:
    6,584
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Moderator Action: Threads merged
     
  20. aziantuntija

    aziantuntija Prince

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    533
    Location:
    Finland
    Well I don’t think this is the case that the happiness would raise when one of your original cities is captured. Think it like this: If you have three big cities (3), wich all produce more happiness vs. how much they produce unhappiness (since this is the most likely scenario), your total happiness would be five (5).

    Now, one of those cities would be captured by the enemy, so what will happen? Do you think that the happiness of your civilization will raise after that scenario? In my calculations it doesnt.
     

Share This Page