Upt?
- Thread starter zatarra09
- Start date
civnoob13
King
I voted for ranged and melee on same tile; ranged should not be able to defend themselves but to compensate for this should have a stronger attack.
Hail
Satan's minion
you make the mistake of mixing two games into one (e.g. strategic empire-builder game and a tactical wargame)
let units stack!
Thats a great idea, still allows flexibility of moving troops *across* other troops for maneuver capability, but does prohibit stacks of doom. Thats worth modding.
Trias
Donkey with three behinds
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 594
The problem with any sort of limit stacking mechanism is that it is a worst of two worlds where the AI is concerned.
For limited stacking, the AI has to consider two separate issues, both at which it isn't particularly good:
-Unit/stack positioning: It has to consider the relative strength of various positions. It typically does not farewell in evaluating which positions are good and which are bad, as shown by the AI in civ5.
-Stack composition: The AI has to decide which units to combine in a stack. The AI in civ4 has shown that it isn't particularly good at this either. The saving grace for the AI in civ4 is that can use its production/upkeep bonuses to just make massive stacks that are sub-optimally composed, but inevitably contain at least a few of every unit. Limiting the size of the stack (either through a soft or hard limit) will just leave the AI with badly composed stacks.
So limited stacks will result in an AI with badly composed AND badly positioned stacks.
For limited stacking, the AI has to consider two separate issues, both at which it isn't particularly good:
-Unit/stack positioning: It has to consider the relative strength of various positions. It typically does not farewell in evaluating which positions are good and which are bad, as shown by the AI in civ5.
-Stack composition: The AI has to decide which units to combine in a stack. The AI in civ4 has shown that it isn't particularly good at this either. The saving grace for the AI in civ4 is that can use its production/upkeep bonuses to just make massive stacks that are sub-optimally composed, but inevitably contain at least a few of every unit. Limiting the size of the stack (either through a soft or hard limit) will just leave the AI with badly composed stacks.
So limited stacks will result in an AI with badly composed AND badly positioned stacks.
Yes, but they produce units like crazy at the expense of their own development, I think they can spare a few for balance.
jacyp
Winter Lover
The only thing stupid about 1UPT in Civ 5 is how it was implemented. Do not confuse the idea with the implementation. It's perfectly possible to make a 1UPT system without the problems you've described.
What most people seem to forget is that SoD is a 1 unit per tile system. If you are forced to use all units in the same tile (cos the AI does the same) then you have essentialy a 1 HUGE UNIT per tile system. But you control what parts of this unit will fight at a time and the parts involved in both sides fight individually, so it's the same nonsense problem that you've pointed out: the same way "a battle between four spearmen, three cavalry and four archers should not take up half a continent", also a battle between 2 massive armies isn't resolved by small parts of these armies individually dueling each other while the rest sit and watch waiting for their own turn.
That's the problem about these discussions, people are confusing the idea with the implementation of the idea and that's exactly why these discussions leads to nowhere.
There's perfectly reasonable solutions for both SoD and 1UPT that could be implemented in Civilization series, but no one wants to talk about that, they just want to defend something that has been (poorly) done as if there's no other way of redoing it. People are lazy of thinking by themselves.
Both the 1UPT system of Civ 5 and the SoD system of Civ 4 are ridiculous outdated bad-implemented unit management and combat systems.
The waste of time discussing which is worse or best, instead of declaring both as badly implemented and sugesting a better way to implement them, is the very reason why Civilization 6 will continue to have a ridiculous system, no matter what they chose.
Mark my words.
HorribleHarald
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2010
- Messages
- 132
These kind of polls seems to be battle with civ4 and civ5 system, I think both of them is not a good solution. I prefer still choose civ4 style than civ5 style because civ5 is just stepping backward in developing process.
I think civ4 system should improve that only say about 10 units in stack are involved in battle and other x number of units are reinforcements and these units do not battle but they can be used in the next turn if necessary and if you lose battle you lose reinforcements too.
I think civ4 system should improve that only say about 10 units in stack are involved in battle and other x number of units are reinforcements and these units do not battle but they can be used in the next turn if necessary and if you lose battle you lose reinforcements too.
This isn't just between Civ4 and Civ5. Most of the reason why the creators created the 1upt system is probably because of the massive SoD's that the AI's created in Civ3. Some people are still reeling from that for some reason. They weren't that bad though, as long as you had some veteran units and proper air and artillery cover.
ryantherenegade
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Messages
- 28
having just reinstalled Civ IV and replayed a game, I've concluded after being attacked by 14 horse archers, 7 archers, and 6 spearmen in the same tile, that I prefer 1upt system in Civ 5.
Care to elaborate? I don't see why it's so horrible just because they're on the same tile.
LOL 14 horses 7 archers 6 spears,dont u thing thats a perfect combination of ranged plus anti-mounted and mounted?
..and if ur not an experienced player..u will def fall under those cirsumstances..
