Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
It doesn't work because it nerfs any sort of production mechanic, turning what was a series of good empire building strategic games into an inferior tactical wargame.
Was It Obvious 1UPT Wouldn't Work?
- Thread starter Stretchy Man
- Start date
It doesn't work because it nerfs any sort of production mechanic, turning what was a series of good empire building strategic games into an inferior tactical wargame.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,287
yeah, on the same note I don't remember that we couldn't attack from stacks.
One kill in a stack destroyed the whole stack, but combat odds were not as random as in Civ3 and Civ4. If you had units stronger than your enemy, it was very unlike that your stack would die from an attack. That's why stacks were still used.
I thought Civ 3 had the stacking where killing one killed everything? I'm pretty sure Civ 2 didn't.
.shrug been years since I played either, honestly - Civ 4 then 5 hooked me. You get the point.
Stacks of Doom don't take any AI to manage. Move stack toward city. Kill whatever gets in your way. Take City. The Civ 5 combat AI isn't any 'dumber' than the Civ IV combat AI. It's just that SoD doesn't require any smarts from the AI. 1UPT does.
1UPT takes more AI, and yes, the AI isn't up to par yet, but, I much more like 1UPT than the old stacks, because, despite bad AI, it takes more thought on my part to use 1UPT than SoD.
Change, causing people to QQ since forever.
1UPT takes more AI, and yes, the AI isn't up to par yet, but, I much more like 1UPT than the old stacks, because, despite bad AI, it takes more thought on my part to use 1UPT than SoD.
Change, causing people to QQ since forever.
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Look at Civ3 AI then. It has SoDs and the AI was incapable of handling them, all you got was a trickle of suicide (frankly what 5 has now). AI coding is still needed for stacks, because it has to think of composition, target tech and production levels, which cities to target, best course to travel, etc. That still takes quite a lot of processing, nothing like your simple go to city>bombard>attack routine, just that the processing has to be a lot more long-term and deep (in the game) for it to work properly.
Frankly to get a properly working AI for either set you need equally as complex algorithms, just that they have to have differing calculation sets, the 1UPT set has to be able to replicate tactical decisions (i.e. manoeuvring for the battle) while the SoD has to be able to replicate strategic (i.e. what units are needed and how many of each). And that is the biggest reason why 1UPT fails in the game, as we are taking a strategic game, and nerfing core mechanics of the game, all because the lead designer wanted to remake PG.
eraofdiversion
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 63
Except there was no strategy/tactics when it came to warfare....now there is. What tactical games are you speaking of that CiV V are inferior to? Im curoius..
Brian Shanahan
Permanoob
Well I hate them in Civ because they destroy the whole ethos of the game series. 1UPT is a great mechanic for the right situation, a tactical battlefield level game, but when you are looking at a strategic level SoD is far more appropriate and realistic.
If Shafer wanted 1UPT so badly he should have designed a battle map where 1UPT would be the ideal, leaving us with stacking on the main, strategic, map. Instead he took the easy, and stupid, decision to just mash the strategic and tactical together into an unworkable mess.
eraofdiversion said:
Except that there was, try using your army in Civ 4 as something other than a giant clunking fist, look up things like the Sirian Doctrine or simply just split up your stacks next time you play civ4 and attack two targets simultaneously. Decision making will win you the war far more easily and swiftly than just going in.
And on games that are better tactically than Civ V, ever hear of Panzer General? It's the game Shafer loved so much he tried to remake with this one. And how could a game which is strategic at all levels except for the war system be close to being even good as a tactical system. Either it's a good strategic game properly incorporating tactics (not Civ 5, something closer to MOO) or a bad strategic game. Oh and here is a full list, I defy you to not be able to pick out 20 of them that are far superior tactically than Civ 5.
ElWanderer
Warlord
Civ 2 definitely had the mechanism whereby you'd lose the whole stack if the top defender was defeated whilst in the open. You could stack without risking the whole lot if you were in a city or fortification... which meant that "combat engineers" played a big role: with each square the stack advanced to, they'd stick down a road/railroad and a fort so that the stack was safe(r) and could be reinforced quickly. Back then a fort "stacked" with the other tile improvements rather than replacing them so you ended up with them spammed all over the place (the AI loved them too).
Meanwhile, I want to like 1UPT in Civ 5, but I don't.
Meanwhile, I want to like 1UPT in Civ 5, but I don't.
Aristos
Lightseeker
Yes, I hate those Stacks of Doom...
I feel a new term has been coined.
I reveal the Blanket of Doom!
CanuckSoldier
Emperor
Funny I was just discussing this at CivPlayers
http://www.civplayers.com/index.php?section=smf&topic=9520.15
And came to the conclusion that good 1UPT games, like Panzer General and Rome: Total War, are good because they are tactical level combat games.
Civ is a strategic level game with a strategic level combat system, so therefore it can not take advantage of all the detailed mechanics of tactical combat that make 1UPT Frontal combat work well.
I'm sure Jon Shafer must have known he could not reproduce tactical combat in a Civ game, but had to do something as in Firaxis's opinion even the collateral damage model in Civ4 did not modify the SoD enough.
But unfortunately 1UPT in Civ5 just doesn't allow for manageable effective combat in MP let alone in SP were the tactical AI as no idea how to run a frontal battlefield, but then you can't really blame them, MP players have to have a large tech lead to conquer opponents because you can not "out maneuver" another army using a strategic warfare model game.
If you want to see what I mean about good tactical use of 1UPT look at this youtube video of a RTW FFA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0UHKz5O3u0
CS
That blanket of doom pic sure does get around. Used by Sulla and pretty much everyone else to show how laughably flawed 1UPT is. Question: how often do you actually see that in a game? If every game were broken by this carpet, you'd think there'd be more than one pic of it, right? I haven't seen it yet. I haven't played that many games on deity, but I tried a few. Haven't seen one. Do I just have a different game than everyone else, because apparently this happens in almost every game thanks to that awful 1UPT rule which clearly doesn't work since it produces that result in nearly every game.
ohioastronomy
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2005
- Messages
- 714
Odd. The new system made the game extremely easy for me. At the same time, it also made it mechanically clunky, slow, and the overall game pace quite boring. So I'll have to ask:
In what sense is Civ 5 challenging? As a wargame it's far easier than earlier Civ games, since the AI is so patently not up to the challenge. As an empire-builder it's deadly dull. As a simulation of history it's incredibly poor, worse than prior entries in many areas.
Look, maybe some people really like games where it is really, really easy to beat a poor AI opponent. Just don't claim that they are "challenging", because...well, Civ 5 just isn't.
And, in answer to the OP, yes it was obvious that it was a terrible design choice for a good game, but apparently not obvious enough to the design team.
sketch162000
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 221
One nitpick...Rome:Total War is not 1upt. Perhaps you mean to say, that R:TW and Panzer general are good TACTICAL games because the operate at the tactical level, as opposed to Civ which operates on a strategic level. Point noted though.
Except it's a indication that unit limits were mishandled. 1UPT on a strategic scale requires fewer, more valued units (think highly promoted veterans).
That screenshot is like saying ICS is proof of a failed city settling system (note: distinct from a failed anti-ICS mechanic). It's also probably a spoof put together by those wacky guys at RealmsBeyond.
The only real adaptation they made to the game mechanics to accommodate 1UPT was two base movement points minimum. In that sense, it's on par with where anti-ICS was in earlier Civ iterations.
It's not challenging in any of the ways CIV was. Sadly, that was their primary goal; significantly lower the bar in terms of challenging gameplay. People blame 1UPT because it's the most notable change, but it's the entire game which is equally poorly implemented.
Here's a hint; culture victory is not challenging. Space victory is challenging only in that they completely neutered terrain, which they're modifying in the upcoming patch, after which space victory will not be challenging. Diplomatic victory is retardedly easy, and the whole diplomatic system is a complete joke of a replacement for the CIV BTS system.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Clearly this poster NEVER played a game with SoD against a similar inteligent player. The experience I have of MP in civ IV allows me to say that the situation is far more like any pre-modern war: 2 armies stand at close range of eachother ( but normally not close enough for a sucessful attack by the enemy ), normally both in good defensive positions and both try to manouver to get the other into a trap or into a mistake ... it is a very brain-demanding process, and it only becomes worse by the real MM nightmare that is to choose with what unit you should attack at each time ( a thing that is normally not a issue with a brain-dead AI, but that is a enourmous issue from the moment you have a thinking oponent ).
The fact that SoD fighting looks to need no brain power is simply because the AI is programmed to do exactly what this poster said: assign SoD, march to city, profit. This is not a good strategy at all and because of that you don't need to make anything better than have a bigger SoD to counter the thing ... even if because that AI, unlike a human, will never have a strategic reserve in case of their SoD going to the fishes, just static defensive units pinned to the cities.
On other words: 1 upt definitely needs more brain power to work in a minimal level, surely... and the fact that both the last Civ game allowing SoD and Civ V have lowest denominator military AI ( just the enough programming for it to look minimally inteligent ) under their hoods makes that the Firaxis SoD AI is necessarily worse than the civ V AI. But notice, that is just because, to put it bluntly, Firaxis does not have good AI programmers/ does not give them enough time to do their work and primes for do the least possible. It has nothing to do with the average dificulty of handling a SoD ( or 1utp ) war or even with the highest level of dificulty that a war under SoD ( or 1 upt ) can have in terms of brain power needed, unlike the quoted poster assumes.
Going to more mundane terms, you only need to be as smart as the AI and because the AI that Firaxis does is worse in the SoD example because of inbuilt diferences in lower dificulty, you get the ( wrong ) impression that you need less brain power for a SoD based war. A nice Pitboss game would help you to put things in perspective
davelisowski
Spartan
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 354
1UPT can work on a large scale... Like 1,000s of hexes
If I'm up against a human player, SoD is a lot of fun, as 1UPT could be, but, in either case, the AI question means nothing, and the whole exercise has NO relation to my post, because, in MP vs a human player, AI means nothing at all.
And yes, I have played against a human player, with SoD. It's a complete different thing. Again, that has no relation to playing against the AI with or without SoD. I still say 1UPT requires more effort on my part vs an AI than SoD does. Anything you say about playing MP doesn't change that at all.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Then why the "build SoD, march to city while smashing everything in path, profit" talk from the quoted post, if you know that things are not like that? It was because of that that I got the impression that you had only experienced playing against a very uninteligent oponent while in a SoD game... hence my response.
P.S The MP talk is important because we don't have a smart AI , so we have to resort to humans The rules are the same, the decisions to be made are the same, the complexity is the same... IMHO SoD looks dumber than it is because weak players ( human or not ) tend to go by the strat you posted, that is recognizably less complicated than the minimum strat for a 1upt game, and, because of that, you don't need to do more than have a bigger hammer than them. The fact that is a human player or a AI doing that newbiness is not relevant.
It makes a huge diference ...
P.S The MP talk is important because we don't have a smart AI , so we have to resort to humans
The rules are the same, the decisions to be made are the same, the complexity is the same... IMHO SoD looks dumber than it is because weak players ( human or not ) tend to go by the strat you posted, that is recognizably less complicated than the minimum strat for a 1upt game, and, because of that, you don't need to do more than have a bigger hammer than them. The fact that is a human player or a AI doing that newbiness is not relevant.Raw effort or more effort/enemy effort ?
It makes a huge diference ...I was talking about playing against the Civ IV:BtS AI that a bunch of you keep insisting is so much better than the Civ 5 one. It's not any better at all. It's just able to use stacks, and the Civ 5 one can't. The Civ 5 one needs to be smarter, I'll agree, but it's not 'dumber' than the Civ IV one. It just simply can't get away with being as dumb.
Again, playing against a human is a completely different thing and not relevant to an AI comparison.
Similar threads
