I honestly hope
![Civ5 [civ5] [civ5]](/images/icons/civ5/entries/entry2.gif)
is awesome and 1UPT is a contributing factor to its greatness. I just can't break myself out of the mindset of Civilizations titles should be upgrades to

. Stacking is an integral part of why
![Civ4 [civ4] [civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif)
is great, and stripping out an essential feature is lethal blow. Of course, people will remind us
![Civ5 [civ5] [civ5]](/images/icons/civ5/entries/entry2.gif)
!=
![Civ4 [civ4] [civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif)
. I admire Firaxis for having the courage to make a brand new game, instead of going the safe route and just refurbishing the platinum standard.
However, I disagree with premises of the design decisions which motivated the 1UPT rule. Many have said SoD's ruin the game. I never had a problem with them. Stacks dominate
![Civ4 [civ4] [civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif)
battlefields because they are the optimal configuration. This phenomenon isn't unique to
![Civ4 [civ4] [civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif)
. Many situations have optimal techniques which far more successful than others. In Football, recruiting strong, fast and dexterous players works better than to taking on weak, slow and clumsy players who are handsome, and good at mathematics and playing guitar. It's nature of the beast.
Also, effective SoD building and usage isn't a mindless exercise (there's a least one stack building question thread per week in the strategy forum). You have pick the optimal composition and promotions, and decide how many SoD's to use and when & where to use them. If you're fighting an enemy at tech parity, building homogenous stacks won't work out well because of the rock-paper-scissors mechanic. You make a SoD too big, pay an opportunity cost. Make it too small, you'll fail to achieve your objectives. But to even get to this point, you need to setup your mighty empire with the technology, funding and production capacity to create it. That's good planning and logistics and one of the funnest things in Civilizations games.
Obviously, not everyone sees unit stacking in this light. So the solution is to ban it completely. I have two major issues with this. First, it is too extreme. Why not give tiles varying unit capacity values? Or give units size values which limit the number that can fit in a tile. If Over 9,000 is too many, why isn't 1 too few? Surely there most be compromise somewhere between. The other problem I have is, what sort of problems are we trading for? Just like most things in life, gameplay issues cannot simply be solved with a simple rule. You might get rid of one problem, but in the process you create new ones. How am I supposed to mass my troops to rapidly overpower an enemy if my army is spread out all over a continent because of a geographical bottleneck? If, as a result superior gameplay, I've achieved a significant production advantage over an a rival civ and levy a mighty army I will be penalized by way of throttling on account of 1UPT. This prospect bothers me. In short, 1UPT is flawed solution to a problem which doesn't exist.
Aussie brings up another point of support for 1UPT: unit size.
![Civ5 [civ5] [civ5]](/images/icons/civ5/entries/entry2.gif)
units are brigades or divisions instead
![Civ4 [civ4] [civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif)
units being companies or battalions. My counter-argument is: what if I want to put a division or a corps or an army group in one tile? If there's
![Civ5 [civ5] [civ5]](/images/icons/civ5/entries/entry2.gif)
has a feature that allows X number of single units to merge into a single unit the next echelon up (hence gaining more firepower, hit-points whatever), and subsequently allowed to breakup until the smaller units then I have absolutely no problem with 1UPT (as long mixed unit type task-forces are allowed... combined arms is essential). I'm under the impression this has not been announced, but I don't know why Firaxis would be saving that for a surprise.
Now, to directly address the tactical/strategic aspects of 1UPT... Dale, I acknowledge it won't destroy the strategic layer of the game, but it will drastically alter it. I don't fear change for the sake of fearing change, but I fear changes from awesome to not as awesome. Unit stacking resonates well with me because the player has more freedom of action. I've never played Panzer General, heard great things about it. Until I play
![Civ5 [civ5] [civ5]](/images/icons/civ5/entries/entry2.gif)
and enjoy or hate 1UPT I have no experience basis to go on. However, I know have a new restriction in place which is a negative modifier.
Nicolas10, I appreciate the chess analogy. I like how Civ games abstract history inspired entities (like military units) into pieces like a board game. Chess deserves the high esteem in which it is held. But I prefer a history inspired game to be more akin to Axis & Allies and Risk than Chess. As for 1UPT increasing options, unless units have a greater selection of actions available to them I strongly disagree. In
![Civ4 [civ4] [civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif)
, units can move, stay still, attack and perform specialty operations and occupy any tile within their range. In
![Civ5 [civ5] [civ5]](/images/icons/civ5/entries/entry2.gif)
their movement will be restricted to tiles unoccupied by other friendly units. The only way
![Civ5 [civ5] [civ5]](/images/icons/civ5/entries/entry2.gif)
provides more options is if the merging/splitting is allowed or if there are larger number of special actions and new basic actions are introduced. At the point it becomes an apple vs orange comparison.
So I really have yet to see any rational argument about how you "lose" strategic choices with an increased emphasis on "tactics."
I'm not saying strategic choices are reduced in favor more tactical emphasis. I'm saying (with the caveats above) strategic choices and tactical choices are reduced on account of movement restrictions.
About the greater emphasis on tactics, it's a separate issue. The impression I get from players who are unhappy with
![Civ3 Icon [civ3] [civ3]](/images/smilies/civ3.gif)
and
![Civ4 [civ4] [civ4]](/images/smilies/civ4.gif)
is the game is so heavily military focused. It seems to me that peaceful players and builders want warring to take a less prominent role. My point is, the player is the president/chancellor/emperor who logically should be involved in strategic decisions. Heads of state and military high commands handle strategy and logistics. Tactical decision making is the job of the Colonels, Captions, Lieutenants, Sergeants, Petty Officers, etc. Since NCO's and Company/Field grade officers greatly outnumber Secretaries of Defense and Presidents, tactical decisions outnumber strategic decisions. Thus, if the player has a hand in tactical decisions as well as strategic choices he is making more military decisions, thus warfare takes on an even bigger role... to the angst of builders and diplomacy-oriented players who want less of that.
Personally, I love micromanaging wars so getting into the tactical layer won't bother me. However, facilitating this tactical focus by restricting movement doesn't sit well with me.
Obviously, we all need to see how the gameplay works, but that's separate from what we can expect/react/argue about when discussing the concept of 1upt.
Agree. This post will also be available in paper back & hard cover at fine bookstores near you.