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. Gedrin

    Gedrin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2008
    Messages:
    52
    Actually I felt the only reason for the immense distance archers is because you have no rational choice but to place them in the secondary lines I agree that range 1 and 1upt makes ranged units useless... since I play with 999upt [or 3upt as I have started to]... placing the archer in the front it fine because [see below]...

    The unit most likely to win seems to be the choice made. The reverse it true... if I attack an AI stack [yes it does stack them] I must defeat the most difficult units to kill first... which means I dont get to attack cavalry with my pikemen if they are co-located with a swordsman. Of course I have also seen [I think] cases where the Pike cannot attack the cavalry but some other unit might... basically... it seems to be defenders choice....

    But this raises another point... I had assumed that anyone arguing for or against 1upt would have tried Legions mod, but then you would have known this... show of hands.... how many in favor of 1upt have actually tried the Legions mod? [and if you do I would recommend changing the value to from 999upt to 3upt... its a nice compromise and reflects the logistical reality that the tile is not infinite sized and cannot support an arbitrary large army]

    Actually they AI handles it quite well... well... at least as well as it handles 1upt.
    The primary difference is that when they go to war with you... the wars are fast and bloody since they dont have to dance around their own units... You get much less time to react as a result. But in addition with other mods of my own I play with [much faster units] this also reduces reaction time.


    Download the Legions mod:
    look in your \Sid Meier's Civilization 5\MODS\Legions Mod (v 2)\XML for the file:
    GlobalDefines.xml
    edit this file and change the 999 on line 5 to 3
    Your file should have a section that looks like:
    <Update>
    <Where Name="PLOT_UNIT_LIMIT"/>
    <Set Value="3"/>
    </Update>

    This mod also adds some unit promotions but they are not significantly game altering
     
  2. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    @Blitz:

    if you just want to try xUPT to see if Ai can handle it and how, just modify the field PLOT_UNIT_LIMIT in civ5's GlobalDefines.xml, in your main civ5 folder, inside assets/gameplay/xml folder...
     
  3. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    If you have a game design that the AI can't perform well you have a bad game design, regardless of the theoretical merits. You're claiming that the problem is "bad AI", while I'm saying that the problem is bad design. That's the divide, and I think there is a lot of ammunition for the "bad design" argument. In particular, there are a lot of other strategic games on the market, and no one has chosen the combination used by Civ for good reasons.
     
  4. TM Moot

    TM Moot King

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    693
    Location:
    Somersetshire
    I do find it slightly amusing that pro-1upt'ers nearly always qualify there stanch by adding "if the AI was better programmed..".;)

    To me its not about whether civ4 is better then civ5 (or vice versa), or whether a SoD is better then a CoD (or vice versa), its all about spoiling a mighty fine Empire building Strategy game by poorly implementing a crude version of tactical warfare into it.

    Yes, its nice to have archers firing over a melee unit, but far too much has been sacrificied to make this happen.

    In my view, and each to their own etc.., there are many better tactical warfare Games out there, but there has never been a better overall historic Strategy game anywhere...so why ruin it.:mad:
     
  5. Fluffball

    Fluffball Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Messages:
    299
    Are you trying to say there that SoD is less crude than 1upT?
    Even if it is supposedly poorly implemented at least it can be described as tactical.
     
  6. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    And it's killed my interest in the series. Judging from the fierce fan reaction, and the sales data, I'm far from being alone. I guess I think the poor AI can be traced directly to the lack of stacking, and isn't a separable issue. Perhaps it's because I've played a lot of games, and what made Civ special for me wasn't the wargame side (which I never liked much in any incarnation.) The wargaming emphasis in this version spoiled the other aspects that I thought were special, without actually giving me a wargame as good as others.
     
  7. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714

    The AI could pose a better challenge to the players with stacking. In that sense the system could make up for poor AI (e.g. tactics) with brute numbers, which is neutered without stacking.
     
  8. Fluffball

    Fluffball Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2011
    Messages:
    299
    Thats not evidence of 1UpT being crude or a failure, it is evidence that the AI designed to deal with it is crude or a failure.
     
  9. blitzkrieg1980

    blitzkrieg1980 Octobrist

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,899
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Thanks for your responses. I will try to alter the max units per tile and see how the next game goes.
     
  10. Zyxpsilon

    Zyxpsilon Running Spider

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,075
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    On Earth
    Click on the appropriate link below to find an alternate system that is currently waiting for the source DLL to experiment with 12 directions instead of the default 6 limit.
     
  11. lschnarch

    lschnarch Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2010
    Messages:
    1,296
    A design which literally forbids the computer to become a competent opponent is bad design per definition.
     
  12. TM Moot

    TM Moot King

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2005
    Messages:
    693
    Location:
    Somersetshire
    Er, no i wasn't? Reread my post and feel free to comment again...:D
     
  13. Becomedeath

    Becomedeath The Destroyer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Channel Islands
    So the biggest selling Civ in the franchise being the biggest selling is an indication of...

    Yes it is a seperable issue. The AI can use the current system, it just doesn't do it well. That can be improved upon and patched in, the tactical play was always going to be a weakness for the AI, it's just taking extraoridinarily long to correct. That doesn't mean it can't or won't be done.

    The fact is, that this argument requires the 1upt format to be seperated from the combat AI. While the two interlink, they are two distinctly different issues.

    Just for a moment presume that the AI has been replaced with a HAL9000 and knows everything it has to do, take the AI issues out and consider them solved so the AI has a vicious sniper like knowledge of it's units and how to move them, create formations, advance, retreat, support, plan tactical and strategic moves dozens of turns ahead and adapt fluidly to user led disruption etc etc.

    What is the problem with 1upt once the AI is on that level?

    That's what this should be about. Too many discussions focus on what's rubbish about XYZ or why it was better when it was Civ 4 or 3 or even entirely different games.

    1upt and combat AI create a compound problem, but they stem from two very seperate issues. One can be resolved, the other, you're just going to have to learn to get on with.

    So without the AI problems, what's so Earth shatterlingly, life ruining about having one unit per tile?
     
  14. DavidCAD

    DavidCAD Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    82
    How is it forbidding the computer from being competent? And when has the AI in a civilization game ever been competent anyway - it's always been the same chieftain AI design to wave its arms about in the hope that it looks like it's doing something. For higher difficulty just add massive bonuses.

    There are many games, many dating to the 90s (and the hardware of that era) which could play a competent wargame. Now Civ5 adds some additional thinking (wars are not self contained so it's not enough to win with one unit left standing, wars sometimes fought against a technologically stronger or weaker foe) but as a I programmer I would say it is far from impossible for the AI to put up a competent fight - it's just that you can't throw brute computing power at a tactial game. The human programmer (or someone consulting with them) needs to actually play the game and be good enough at it to start writing the book on tactics that the AI uses. For example the Civ5 AI does understand the futility of a suicidal attack. However it does not have much knowledge of suicidal positioning, which becomes very important in a tactical game vs SoD.

    I am confident that given the knowledge provided by good tactical players and a programmer the AI can be incrementally improved to the point that it is a very competent warmonger.
     
  15. Scrooge

    Scrooge Baa Humbug

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    London
    What amazes me is that 1UPT is actually so easy to modify (does not even require a mod) and apparently the AI can use the stacking or legacy code, so For The Love Of Yoda, why did the developers not leave this option open for the player to decide, especially knowing that it can be potentially such a divisive and inflammatory issue? :eek:

    I'd agree and emphasise that game AI is a subset of game design (and rather important), thus if it's "bad" it means that game design is "bad".

    Good game design should compensate for AI that due to complexity of decision-making algorithms may perform sub-par to a human opponent who is able to abstract information and has a better grasp of the overall picture. Coding such a VI (virtual not artificial) at this level may not be even possible; it may be possible instead to code a few not-so-darn-stupid algorithms + surprise-surprise-backstab-war to simulate "sophisticated and unpredictable" human level of play. As there is a limit to how "not-stupid" you can code the AI, to pose a greater "challenge" on higher levels of play, it has to be insanely handicapped with bonuses instead. Thus.

    Adding complexity as 1UPT rule does not help. With stacking, the AI simply did not seem to be as "stupid" as with with 1UPT. In comparison - Civ4 has better game design because the AI did not have to take 1UPT into consideration and there were other alternate paths to achieve an objective thus it did not matter as much as it matters in Civ5.
     
  16. ohioastronomy

    ohioastronomy King

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    714
    Biggest selling? All the evidence I saw was that 5 ended up about half of 4, despite being marketed as a game for the masses. I'd welcome concrete evidence to the contrary.

    The AI problem is clearly terrible with this design; yet other games manage to have good AI without needing supercomputers. That alone makes it pretty clear that the core issue isn't computer speed - it's the design itself. Gal Civ 2 has much better AI. Europa Universalis has better AI, even with a simpler combat system (in the sense that the AI can both do a far better simulation of history and can actually beat you in a war if you choose unwisely or pick a challenging country.) There are much older games, developed for far more primitive computers, that have better AI. The current crop of RTS games have much better AI. And, yes, I'm well aware that they have no stacking. It can clearly work some of the time, and there is a reason why it doesn't work in Civ.

    Lack of stacking makes the mechanics of movement very, very complicated on a crowded map. Most games with no stacking have more real estate to move in, the units have more movement points, or there are fixed scenarios where the AI can be programmed to always beeline for Hill A or River Ford B.

    Civ 5 chose a crowded map with limited movement points, maximizing the difficulties with the mechanics of moving. Unit performance depends on position. The game format - I go, you go - creates a series of artificial openings for cheap exploits; there is a reason why it's been abandoned in modern board war games.

    This is what I mean by "bad design". A game at the scale of Civ has a mature game philosophy with numerous interlocking pieces. Cities are "this size", continents are "that size", the economy is build around armies of a certain size, and so on. The design change doesn't fit the rest of the building blocks.

    You could also achieve the same ends with very different means. If you wanted tactical combat, stacks with a separate tactical map would be far better. (You could then train the AI on a small set of fixed maps, much as for a scenario.) If you didn't like unlimited stacks, you set limits on how many units you can have or make lots of units very expensive. Etc. etc.

    If other people can create a good challenge for players with current , and you can't, then there is a problem with your design.
     
  17. MkLh

    MkLh King

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    903
    Location:
    Finland
    Because 1UPT is the core concept of the game. Allow stacking and you have a different, broken game. All units are balanced to be used with 1UPT. For example, because of 1UPT, we don't have collateral damage units anymore, but ranged units instead. With 1UPT, collateral damage is of course useless and with stacks, ranged units would be completely unbalanced. Furthermore, the same AI can't possible handle both 1UPT and stacks. If you allow stacking the AI will be much much weaker than now (yes, it's possible) as it has no idea how to use stacks or how to defend against them. You need to write a completely separate tactical AI if you want to allow stacks and still keep a game somewhat challenging on Deity level.
     
  18. blitzkrieg1980

    blitzkrieg1980 Octobrist

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,899
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Sorry, I missed your concrete evidence here.
     
  19. Becomedeath

    Becomedeath The Destroyer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Channel Islands
    http://gamrreview.vgchartz.com/sales/43507/sid-meiers-civilization-v/

    They have Civ 5 recorded at ~900k units in it's first 52 weeks. Numbers for Civ 4 vary from 3 million units to 6 million units, the higher number including expansion sales if you look at those numbers seperately and put them tother they gel around 6. 3 million is thrown about all over the webternet quite regularly however as it's unit sale total over the 6 years of availablility.

    4 was released in 2005 and 5 has just completed it's first year and with the release of the GOTY pushing this further and the potential for expansions and further bundles Civ 5 will clearly surpass it's predecessor over the same time scale.

    Civ 4 has been sold for under ~£10 going as low in some sales as $2.50 since Civ 5's release makes mapping it's actual sucess after October 2010 clearly difficult as it entered "impulse buy" mode.

    From that, biggest selling by scale is a fair assesment.


    Moving back on topic however:

    The scale arguement is a good one. Units can quickly get themselves in a jam, however, I feel this is part of the charm as it forces you to think your strategies in advance, that said, I can appreciate that a larger scale would make troop movements infinately easier.

    Perhaps a solution is to increase the distance between cities? Alright you're artificially creating more space and forcing larger maps, but the AI does tend to place it's cities close together making a tighter web for you to move in. But as we all know, even on a decent gaming PC late game large maps give you enough time between turns to build a small house so changes would have to be made at a much deeper level.

    The idea of a seperate tactical map is something I've heard before, but it moves too far out of Civilisation territory for my liking. The hybrid map that facilitates both empire management and military strategy has always been a staple feature, I'm not sure if a tactical display as standard would improve or detract from the feel of the game.

    However, it would open the door to an independant AI combat system, which would - I believe - solve many of the of the AI issues.

    Size appears to the be the main factor however, if you make more room to manuvere then you can make more choices without having to compromise. Perhaps it would be possible to create hexes that cities can count as 1 tile, but units can consider as 6 smaller ones?

    The problem with that is, create a larger army and you encounter the same problem.
     
  20. Scrooge

    Scrooge Baa Humbug

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2001
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    London
    That is a reason I would not want them unguarded in the open. Don't think any sane leader would. The whole point is that because they ranged they are vulnerable, not that because they are vulnerable they are ranged. Simple causality.

    Because it is the core concept it is a game design decision. Allow stacking and you have Civ4, still going strong and seen as superior by many of us. I think for a game of this scale 1UPT was a bad design decision. There are other ways to tackle SoD if that's the problem, CoD being worst. I still stand that it should have been up to the player to be set in [options] (1 being default). I for one do not have to swallow bad design decisions if I can do something about it.

    Ranged units, like archers shooting pigeon-propelled arrows over continents and crossbows matching artillery... Yeah Right. Sure if you play ginormous Pangea maps and compensate with movement pts and few obstacles (or split strategy/tactical like HOMM) it may work but not in Civ. It's the plausibility and scale that's the problem. The "balancing" comes at too much cost to gameplay.

    I could not have put the point across better. Please see this brilliant post above.

    Well it seems, somehow it does, and IMHO it does stacks better than 1UPT. Legacy code? I do not feel that the combat AI has been in any way re-written from Civ4 to accommodate Civ5. The 1UPT only adds complexity the current AI cannot quite cope with given the scale. And it was for some reason tacked-on to existing AI code via XML "as a major design feature". Please see for yourself. Mod it for 1 game. Instructions in this thread.
    .
     

Share This Page