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

What is the solution to 1UpT?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by TheMarshmallowBear, Sep 21, 2011.

  1. Helmling

    Helmling Philosopher King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,679
    I think that would be a cumbersome system to manage.

    And about your first point, I disagree. You could have just as much tactical depth with unit classes being able to stack and it would remove the absurd situations (which really subtract from suspension of disbelief) in which archers are firing over such long distances and have much longer range than riflemen and such.
     
  2. Psyringe

    Psyringe Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,394
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    No. You may be confusing size and scale, and you probably never played Panzer General, otherwise I see no way to explain that reply.

    To make 1upt work, a battlefield with many tiles is needed, to provide maneuverability and tactical options. Civ games cannot provide that: the maps are at a much bigger scale, therefore much smaller with regard to number of tiles. Therefore 1upt in Civ games can never offer as many tactical options, while the crammed spaces at the same time pose an unsolvable problem to the AI, which in turn can't even be prepped up with scenario-specific algorithms or bonuses because Civ gameplay isn't scenario-based.

    You're committing to an argumentative fallacy, imho. You simply declare every implementation of stackability to constitute a SoD, and then argue that it doesn't solve the SoD problem because of that. This is a convenient way of arguing since it can never be falsified without renouncing your central axiom, but it's also an very circular argument that doesn't contribute much to the understanding of the problem and its solutions.

    In the approach I described (which, again, is just one of many approaches that have been proven to work in previous games or mods), players get an advantage from breaking up their stacks as soon as they enter a battle. How they do this, and whether they run the risk of keeping one "main" stack which can then easily be attacked by the enemy's counter-attack, is up to them. You assume that keeping one "main" stack and some small "supportive" stacks would always be the best option, which (to be honest) only shows that you haven't fully understood the tactical implications of such a system yet. Actually, relying on one "main" stack is a very frail defensive position in such a ruleset.
     
  3. RonMar

    RonMar Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    222
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    @TheMapDownLoade

     
  4. CoolLizy

    CoolLizy King

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    Kentucky
    I'm going to have to disagree that it's "artificial". Zone of Control is a gaming concept derived from old-style wargaming that outdates even computer strategy games. It's meant to model the area that a military squad/formation/army/what-have-you has influence over. Removing it from the series (I think Civ III was the first to drop it) was, in my opinion, a huge mistake.

    Think of it like this: if an enemy detachment is on the march to, oh, say London, and I'm nearby with an infantry battalion under my command, am I going to stay holed up in camp and let them walk right by me simply because it's not my turn? Of course not! Even if I can't engage them at the moment for whatever reason, I'll at least send some of my men to harass their troops and slow their momentum.

    This is akin to what ZOC is trying to represent. It also helps keep players from abusing the turn-based nature of a game by just bypassing each other's units in unrealistic and awkward ways and forces them to actually think about how they're engaging each other.
     
  5. Psyringe

    Psyringe Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,394
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    I see what you mean. However, ZOC rules still seem artificial to me because they prevent operations that could be realistic options even in an example as you describe.

    Let's say I'm controlling a unit of Panzers that's on its way to London. I know that I'll pass an enemy unit of spearmen. I know that this unit might try to harass me while I'm passing by, but I'm confident that these spearmen are way too backwards to put a dent in my panzers (let's not go into the spearman vs tank debate here, let's agree that a spearman has a very low chance to hurt a panzer). The obvious decision for me is to simply march towards London and if those spearmen want to harass me, well, let them try.

    In a ZOC based ruleset, this option does not exist. You are simply forbidden from entering the respective square, although it would be both good strategy and realistic. That's why ZOC rules seem artificial to me.

    Personally, I prefer opportunity fire as an alternative to ZOC rules. (Since you seem to know about pre-computer wargaming, I probably don't need to explain that term. ;) ). Opportunity fire makes entering the tile in question potentially risky, but not outright impossible. To me, it feels like a better representation of realistic combat situations.

    In theory, opportunity fire does have one disadvantage when compared to ZoC: It allows units to sneak by, passing the defenders and moving out of their range in the same turn. In practice, however, that is rarely a problem in a game like Civ, where the range of movement points is very small (usually 1 to 2). It would make sense though (and be realistic) to remove the road/rail movement bonus from tiles adjacent to enemy units.

    Taking all factors into account, I think that in a Civ game, opportunity fire works better than ZoC to achieve the effect you want. It is also much more manageable for the AI. (It's very difficult to write an AI that doesn't allow itself to be exploited through ZoC rules, and even harder to write one that applies ZoC rules in a reasonable way.)

    But anyway - I should add (and probably should have said that in my previous post already), that I indeed consider "stacks with ZoC" a generally better fit for Civ games than 1upt. I just think that other approaches (which I described previously) work even better.
     
  6. TheMapDownloade

    TheMapDownloade Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    64
    Exactly. ZOC is as artificial a limitation as 1upt. They are both trying to FORCE the player away from what is naturally good play. It's not the player's fault that stacks are the best way to defend and attack cities, that is the game engine's fault. As long as combat is about putting a big stack next to a city and hammering away, why would players maneuver their units in anything other than stacks?

    Again 1upt does not solve this, it just frustrates player attempts to create stacks. If this artificial limit were taken away, players would immediately put all their units in stacks.

    You have to give players an INCENTIVE to split up their units. Like, for every unit that you have occupying a tile in the city radius, the more combat bonuses you get. or something.
     
  7. Atlas627

    Atlas627 Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,789
    I loved Rise of Nations, but that is an RTS and this is turn-based. If you want to play Rise of Nations, go play it! Civilization is supposed to be turn and tile based.

    Back to the original topic: I like 1upt, and I hated SoD. The only problem I have with 1upt is the stupid AI. And I don't think Firaxis is at fault for that, it is very hard to code good AI. I instead blame them (or 2K, rather) for rushing the game out the door without making good multiplayer!

    Also, you hear about people hating 1upt because those are the people that will talk. If people want to complain, they will go right ahead, but people won't praise until somebody complains. And even then, usually people that love 1upt will be too busy enjoying it to bother arguing with somebody who hates it. If they hate 1upt they should go play Civ4. They are different games.
     
  8. Psyringe

    Psyringe Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,394
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    Well, the thing is, the abysmally weak AI is a direct consequence of Firaxis' game design decisions, namely to go for 1upt. So in effect you're saying "I don't like the stupid AI, and although that stupid AI is a direct consequence of Firaxis' decisions, I don't they are at fault". Which is not a very logical decision imho.

    I read some posts here which say "let's assume the AI worked well", or "1upt would be great if the AI would be improved", etc. Imho, these post miss a sad but simple truth: The AI is so bad because of 1upt, and there is no way to give the AI a decent grasp of 1upt in Civ5, not even through dll modding (in case that ever becomes possible, it seems to become an endless story). I'll explain why.

    The "safest" way to program a good AI for any game is to let the AI evaluate all possible options, then have it choose the option that scored best on the internal evaluation function. It's important to have a good evaluation function of course, but once you have that, the "check all options" approach ensures that you'll never make an outright stupid move. You can then also evaluate future options ("look ahead") to make sure that the move that seems good right now will not turn out to have been stupid three turns later.

    However, an AI that is written this way will need tons of resources and lots of processing time. It is totally impractical to write such an AI for a Civ game, you'd have to wait days or even weeks in between turns, while the AI is contemplating all options for all opponents.

    So what contemporary AIs do is to ignore options that, on first sight, seem like bad moves, and focus their computing on options that seem more promising.

    And this is exactly where 1upt destroys any hope of ever having a good tactical AI in Civ5. 1upt makes especially this decision - which options to ignore, which options to pursue - excessively hard, because all of the possible moves depend on each other, because there is a complex mess of moves blocking or invalidating others, etc. Civ5's ruleset creates such a mess of interdependent options that even years from now we won't even have a good theory on how to solve it mathematically. And even if we have a working theory one day, Civ5's programming paradigm is very unlikely to ever support that solution, because it confines all AI operations to a single thread, which processes them sequentially. This means that the one solution that might come up in theory, which probably entails parallel processing on a broad level to deal with such an unwieldy computational problem, will not be applicable in practice at all. It also means that even a Cray supercomputer wouldn't be able run a competent Civ5 AI with acceptable inter-turn times, because all AI calculations have to be performed one after the other on a single processing unit.

    The only thing that Civ5 can hope for in terms of AI, is a set of crude rules-of-thumb that make the AI not look totally daft. Quick, hard rules like "never place ranged attackers in front" which prevent the AI from looking like an idiot, but which also make the AI formulaic and easy to exploit once the players recognize these crude rules.

    In short: the switch to 1upt is directly responsible for the inept AI. Not because Firaxis wasn't given enough time to fine-tune the AI, but because Firaxis has deliberately created a ruleset that is impossible for an AI to handle, no matter how much time you spend fine-tuning it, no matter how good your hardware is, unless you're willing to wait several days between turns.
     
  9. CoolLizy

    CoolLizy King

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    Kentucky
    ZOC is modeling more than just harassment tactics, though. It simulates the territory they're influencing. They don't have to throw themselves under your treads to slow you down (as hilarious as that may or may not be); even simple spearmen can put up makeshift road blockades, confiscate fuel, sabotage bridges--and just because they're wielding spears, who's to say they haven't got a few land mines or RPGs stashed away?

    That being said, I'm actually in favor of all mounted units (including tanks and modern armor) being exempt from ZOC. It would allow them to be used more closely to their real-world counterparts and give them a much-needed boost to set them apart from infantry (the category, not the unit; I wish Firaxis wouldn't call them that).

    I'd have to disagree for this one. I don't like the element of chance it would add to combat, and I don't feel it would model pre-modern unit combat very well.

    I'd have to disagree on this one as well. With an opportunity fire system, I can just imagine unit setups that encourage AI enemies to pass a bunch of your own units to go for a bait unit in a sort of makeshift tower defense array...

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, again, I disagree. No, you're not going to get a human-level AI in 1upt. But that's not going to happen in stacks either. The bad AI is not a consequence of 1upt. There are plenty of games out there with decent 1upt AI, including ones working with rules more complex than those in Civ V.
     
  10. Psyringe

    Psyringe Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,394
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    First of all: Don't worry about the "broken record" thing. Broken records don't add arguments, which you do. It's clearly apparent that you know what you're talking about, and I can certainly respect that, even though I disagree. In fact it's a welcome digression from the ususal "Civ5 sucks / Civ5 is great" trench war. ;)

    I see what you mean. Well, it seems to come down to a matter of preference. For me, it's a pretty huge immersion breaker to not be able to move into an empty tile, and I think it would be better to allow such a move, but make it a risky one. I also think that ZoC weakens the AI (more on that further down). To you, however, the "forbidden empty tile" isn't such an immersion breaker, because you envision means of control exerted by the defending unit which make the tile in question not as "free" or "empty" as it looks.

    That could make sense - however, I can't resist to add that it doesn't match all too well with the explanations you use for the realism of ZOC (barriers, landmines, etc.). Exempting mounted units from ZoC would allow them to pass enemy units unscathed, should that really be possible if the enemy's ZoC consists of barriers, landmines, and the like? Incidentally, that's a problem that opportunity fire could solve ... ;)

    Mmh, how big the element of chance is would depend the actual implementation, I think. You could even use a fixed damage factor if you liked, though I would rather prefer an element of chance there. There are certainly several opportunities. In the Civ4 combat paradigm, for example, units can have 6 different states of fortification. These states could heavily influence the amount of opportunity fire, as they reflect the amount of time that the unit had to build barriers or traps.

    I don't quite get the reference to pre-modern combat. If you can envision walls and landmines as the real-word equivalents of a ZoC, then you should be able to envision traps as an equivalent of opportunity fire, no? I have no problems imagining a unit of warriors putting traps in a forest - then the enemy unit comes by, takes damage from the traps, and the warriors are then (in their next turn) free to decide whether they attack the wounded enemies or prefer to retreat.

    Well, that's a problem of AI baiting, not of opportunity fire, isn't it? What I mean is: Even without opportunity fire, AI baiting is a serious problem, which needs to be solved. However, if it's solved, it's not difficult to extend this solution to a ruleset that allows opportunity fire. Either the "defense array" is known, then its effect can be calculated and can influence the AI's decision making accordingly. Or it isn't known, in that case the problem is just a variation of "How readily should the AI pursue a seemingly easy victory if that leads its units into unknown territory", which is a problem that's not necessarily tied to opportunity fire. (Personally, I'd tie that decision to the AI leader#s aggressiveness.)

    However, the AI shortcomings with regard to ZoC are imho far more obvious. Three examples:

    - You have a unit with strong defense, but weak offense. The AI has a similar unit. Both units are on a peninsula. Since neither unit can effectively attack the other and hope to survive, no one attacks. Now the human player can easily "maneuver" the AI unit to the tip of the peninsula, where the AI will fortify the unit and never move it again. The AI, on the other hand, cannot do this deliberatly since it doesn't understand ZOC as well as a human. So this is one case where ZoC puts the AI at a disadvantage. Playing Civ2 should give you ample opportunity of observing this problem. ;)

    - In a similar vein, ZoC often allows the human player to "channel" an AI attack force to where he wants it. Again, this can very easily be done in Civ2 or in SMAC, and it shows how the AI's incapability of understanding ZoC puts it at a disadvantage.

    - Also, when attacking, the competent human player can easily build a "ZoC net" that protects his weaker units and that can't be broken by a much more powerful group of AI units, because the AI units are simply not allowed to enter the necessary tiles. The AI doesn't understand ZoC well enough to span such a ZoC net by itself (although it sometimes does so by chance). Again, Civ2 and SMAC ave examples of this in nearly every playthrough.

    In essence, ZoC is usually a (solvable) puzzle for the player, while the AI is mostly oblivious of its tactical implications. That's why I said that ZoC isn't easy for an AI to handle. Opportunity fire, on the other hand, would be much easier to handle since it doesn't restrict movement to desirable locations too much, it just makes reaching them more risky, but this risk can be calculated and can influence the decision making.


    Which games are these, specifically? The only 1upt games that have a successful AI, imho, have either a lot of open space (which massively reduces maneuvering calculations), or are scenario based (which means that the AI can be given scenario-specific advantages and algorithms to outweigh its difficulties with evaluating tactical positions), or ar RTS games (which are a different beast altogether, RTSs can get away with a weaker AI because the time constraints will force the human player to make less optimal moves as well). All these factors help an AI to deal with 1upt, unfortunately Civ5 cannot ever offer any of them.
     
  11. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,322
    Actually, since "cities" are the basic unit in civ, and they act over a territory (thier BFC/H) Why not extend that same concept to Stacks... (as the natural counterpart to cities)

    Make Stacks have a "Zone of Combat" rather than a Zone of Control that extends 2-5 tiles away. The way it extends would depend on the Terrain.

    So Stacks would almost always be moving from City to City, and it would be what Type of orders they had, and what type of terrain they were in. (If the attacking stack approaches and the "Zones of Combat" intersect on a lot of hills+forests, defender and Melee units have a bonus)

    So keep the stacks but eliminate the "doom" through proper combat mechanics

    ie Combined arms are a benefit, but combat is not 1 unit on 1 unit it is stack on stack
    A stack of 10 swords v. a stack of 3 swords should end up with a stack of 7 swords on average (Death not Damage)
     
  12. Fluffball

    Fluffball Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Messages:
    299
    Your assuming that players will play the game as they are encouraged to be played rather than seeking any advantage they can and playing in to it's maximum capacity.
    SoD is a generalized term used to describe stacking and part of that reference comes from the fact that when given the choice to stack or not, stacking is almost invariably the best option that will give you the best chance of success.
    I have played every civ as far back as Civ2 and everytime i have heard they have implemented anti-stacking i became excited and everytime i gave up trying to use any form of tactic other than stacking after the first couple of games when i found not stacking always put me at a disadvantage.

    I have been a gamer for 20+ years and one thing i have learnt is that if you want a player to do something you have to force them in some way. You can put as much encourangement as you want into the gameplay mechanics but if given a choice the player will always do what they want to do therefore the only way to discourage stacking is to prevent it from being posible at all.

    Now that is a fallacy!
    What your trying to claim is that it would take days for the AI to calculate the relationship between one of it's ranged units and an enemy unit 2 tiles away and then seeing that as a dangerous position thus making a decision to either place one of it's melee units in between to protect it or withdraw it out of range.
    That is the most classic example of the AI problems with combat.

    You can make a claim this is because the scale is too large but that would be forgetting that individual unit placement is down to the tactical level of the AI. The big picture is dealt with via the strategic level of the AI.
    The scale that the tactical AI works on is generally much smaller scale than most Panzer General style games which do the tactical side reasonably well.i.e. individual unit placement therefore the tactical AI should not be struggling due to lack of resources unless the programme is immensly innefficient.
     
  13. CoolLizy

    CoolLizy King

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Glad I could be of service. :p Wouldn't say I always know what I'm talking about, though...

    Actually, to be honest, when playing the game I envision the "forbidden empty tile" as twelve angry two mile tall men are standing there with clubs and they don't want you to pass. Id est, I honestly don't think about it too hard.

    My point was that opportunity fire is generally meant to model "hey, there's some guys walking in the forest over there, we better shoot them". This doesn't work so well with pre-modern units (even musket-equipped troops) that would have to physically walk over to the edge of the forest first to attack, while rifles and the like can just fire from their current position real quick.

    Most of my time playing Civ 2 back in the day consisted of watching the computer move a dozen or so ships in and out of a one-tile lake for about two millennia. Good times! :(

    Jokes aside, the computer AI actually doesn't need a deep understanding of ZOC. In the original Civilization (and, as best I can recall, Civilization II) you could not walk from one adjacent tile to another civ's unit (friendly or otherwise) to another tile adjacent to any civ's unit. EVER. Even in peacetime. A red box would come up telling you to read page 23 of the manual. (Was it page 23? Been awhile.)

    In Civ V you can do this, it just takes all your movement points for the turn by doing so (and is only applicable when at war). The AI can see it can walk around you and should do so, or failing that fortify in place instead of allowing itself to be herded. If it can't do that, it also has the option (depending on how early into the game you are) to embark and just sail away. There's also another option at its disposal which the AI should be making way more use of considering its absurd production bonuses at the higher difficulty levels: suiciding against your unit. There's a reason I loathe barbarians far more than the normal AI players...

    Again, remember that Civ V uses a weak/fluid ZOC system. ZOC nets are not unbreakable; you can still move past units, just not in one turn, so the computer doesn't need a concrete understanding of the system the way the player does.

    Really, because of the way ZOC works in Civ V, it'd actually be just as easy to program the AI into taking account of ZOC as it would be opportunity fire. It's primarily just a matter of weighting against moving past enemy units if you pass through adjacent tiles.

    The game I've been using as an example lately are the Advance Wars games for the Game Boy Advance. Now, people are quick to point out how it's a scenario-based game, often with odds (initially) stacked against the player, and that's a true and valid point. However, it also comes with a map editor and lets players play on maps of their own design against the AI. Yes, the AI makes some stupid mistakes, and it's not all that good overall. But it actually does a fairly decent job, all things considered. It tries to protect its transports and indirect combat units, it knows to beeline to bases with its infantry to capture them, and it does its best to attack units it has an advantage against.

    Is it perfect? Heavens, no! But that's why the games make such a good example. The AI is decent. If an almost decade-old Game Boy Advance game of all things can have a decent 1upt AI--one that even has some more difficult rules to take into account, at that--why is the AI in a modern PC game so lacking in comparison? As it stands now, I've literally watched a computer player station all its units--probably two or three times my army's size--just outside my movement range, watching while I whittle down its capital's HP to zero. And then, as soon as I take it, they scatter. Come on, now, Firaxis. Surely you can do better than that. Considering my overall skill level, I really should not be beating the game at the difficulty levels I am.

    You're not going to get a perfect AI. I notice you used the term "successful AI", and while that could be defined several ways I'm not sure I'd use it to define what I look for in an AI opponent either. The goal should be to get something interesting to play against, and right now Civ V isn't doing very good on that front. (This especially says a lot considering the production bonuses the AI has.) But wait to fix it until after I get my Deity win achievement, okay?
     
  14. Gedrin

    Gedrin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    52

    Its going well and incidentally... if you started the game with Legions you can change this value on the fly....

    Now I have not yet read all this thread since last I posted but I do mode the game alot for my own tastes...

    I find ancient range 2 attacks silly.... its like archers that can shoot things 500 miles away... I made them range 1... first range 2 is artillery I think... Also all my units move a lot faster... if a turn is 20 years I find it silly that it can take 100 years to get a unit into position. I also have units way way cheaper to build and much much more expensive to maintain [but that is not going so well... the AI still builds like mad even when they are broke and never suffers auto-disbanding... so they end up with no tech....ya that one needs work :p]

    Anyway 3upt is working well. :)
     
  15. blitzkrieg1980

    blitzkrieg1980 Octobrist

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,899
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    While I agree with you regarding the 500 mile archery shot, I'm pretty sure the distances were set for gameplay purposes. I wouldn't have much use for an archer if immediately after he attacks, he is killed because he had to be on the front lines to do any damage. The reason for the immense distance archers is so you can place them in the secondary lines with siege units while your infantry is on the front lines and your cavalry are flanking the enemy.

    How are you resolving the AI's combat mechanics? If an enemy cavalry attacks your 3 unit stack (1 sword, 1 archer, 1 cavalry), who defends? Are all 3 defending? Did you gain access to the DLL to change the mechanic so that the strongest defender defends? How is this not breaking the AI war mechanics? Do they even comprehend how to combat 3upt? I mean, basically, if you have 1 sword, 1 spear, 1 catapult on a tile, there is very little the AI can do to stop you. Who receives the damage from a ranged attack?

    I'd like to see this 3upt mod, if possible. I have too many questions. It would be easier to see the mod first hand.
     
  16. Scrooge

    Scrooge Baa Humbug

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    London
    You can change the value (don't remember off the top of my head but it's very easy to find) in the Legions mod from 99 to 3 (or whatever you fancy). I find 3 a good number as it reflects a "battalion" or an army group as in main unit+support and because I personally never play with bigger stacks as it prevents me from using said tactics (like pincer movements). De-clutters the battlefield and does away with CoD. AI uses stacks (guess a lot of the code has been recycled from Civ4 with the new 1UPT restriction) though it's tactical intelligence does not seem to improve a lot, for me, it's a much better, streamlined game. Now I can expect those pesky trebs the AI loves to be guarded with something, so in the end, it is a bigger challenge.

    Remember to lower archers' bombard range to 1. I keep all other units at their default values, so cats to cannon + early naval get 2 range, but am thinking of giving 2/3 strength 1 tile ranged ability to other "melee" land units (like muskets and infantry) in addition to direct attack (aka: "charge"). Could make for an interesting trench/position warfare.
     
  17. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    Think about movement as a trivial example of the programming problems with no stacking. You can have a lot of programming work even if you knew where you wanted the pieces to go - because there are so many other units creating traffic problems. There is the problem of sequencing the orders, and there is the problem that there is no opportunity fire and the extremely artificial setup of I go - you go. There were long threads on this subject when the game came out.

    The stacking and combat rules have changed with almost every iteration of the game, and I predict that no stacking goes away in the next version. There are numerous ways of dealing with the infinite unit problem: you can make large armies incredibly expensive; you can have a unit cap depending on population; or you can have a stacking limit or a split tactical/strategic map. They simply had a bad designer who made a poor strategic decision, and they had too much invested in it to just admit the failure and junk it.
     
  18. Becomedeath

    Becomedeath The Destroyer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Channel Islands
    That's a ludicrous point. The fact that there is a clear split of support on the matter, described earlier rather aptly as a "trench war" proves it.

    I, and many others if you read the posts here, are completely at a loss as to understand what your issue with 1upt is. We think it's an outstanding improvement on Civ4's SOD combat system and that improvements to the AI allowing it to have a better grasp on the dynamics of this tactical play is all that's missing.

    I personally have never had a problem with 1upt and would be extremely dissapointed to see it removed or altered from it's current format. As I said, a better level of AI competence with 1upt would vastly improve it. The problems human players have, imo, all stem from a lack of appreciation of the pre-planning involved in moving units in this rendition of the game.
     
  19. CoolLizy

    CoolLizy King

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2001
    Messages:
    631
    Location:
    Kentucky
    If 1upt was a bad design decision, I wish I made more bad decisions in life.

    I know not everyone like it--we all have different tastes--but I've put in more hours into this game since I've bought it than I have any other Civilization game in the same time span despite it's faults and poorly programmed AI, and it's because of 1upt. Considering I've been playing since the MS-DOS version of Civ 1, that says a lot.

    Just because you do not like it and are not happy with it does not a "poor strategic decision" make.
     
  20. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    Your post seems to be a good example for the so-called "trench war".

    First, you are admitting that "currently" (meaning, one year after release and after how many, 10, patches?) the AI is not able to cope with the 1upt system.
    Then, all you can do to "defend" this system is to blame Civ4's SoD?

    Of course, Civ4's system wasn't perfect, either.
    Yet, it allowed for numerous tweaks via mods without limiting the AI even further.
    In theory, you could mod Civ4 to insane levels of productivity and it would still work, as far as the game mechanics are concerned (the limit would be your computer's ability to deal with the number of units).
    In Civ5, this is just not possible without creating the CoD (not to mention that you will experience the CoD on the higher levels quite some times).

    Well, as I have stated several times already, of course there are many people who like the 1upt rule, as the AI cannot be a competent opponent.
    Given the time which has gone by already, I am not quite sure that we will ever see major improvemtent in the AI's military skills - and I honestly think that most of the current players would leave the game immediately afterwards.
     

Share This Page