What is the solution to 1UpT?

[Matthew.]

True, if somewhat situationally. Remember what happened to the French at Agincourt...

There will always be exceptions. Point is I'd imagine it would be difficult to hold a longbow steady or reload a musket while being trampled by horses, lances, and whatever else. I say imagine, because I have yet to find myself in such a situation

The main problem with making melee units the undisputed focus of combat is that the AI will always be able to pump out more of them than the human player at high difficulty levels.

Which is fine. While many of us are comfortable playing at Immortal-ish range, it shouldn't be what the game is balanced around. At worst, the difficulties would have to be modified to have less carpet of doom, which I think would be a good thing.

People don't necessarily build them because they're too powerful; they build them because they're currently the only thing that works.

One of the things I play around with most when modding the game is giving the AI a passive combat bonus. It doesn't represent the changes I mentioned above exactly, but it is close enough to get a feel for how it plays out. It isn't until up to ~65% combat strength that it begins to feel too cheap--as in you do next to no damage with an archer and then get one-shot the next turn. Even then I could manage once I get a general and a few promotions.

My only point here is that 65% is quite significant, so there is quite a bit of room for boosting basic infantry before it begins to break the game. If archers are currently "the only thing that works" then that should be a clear indicator something needs to be looked at.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Personally, I think they simply need to loosen the rule for non-combat units, allow pass-through of units of other friendly civs, and provide a shortcut to identify a "formation" and move that formation to a "muster point". The hardest part of 1UPT for me is giving an order to move someone to a spot halfway across the world, and 2 turns later he forgets that order because some other unit crossed in to his eventual landing spot.

I know this is an old post, but: a thousand times this.

 

[Biologist]

If archers are currently "the only thing that works" then that should be a clear indicator something needs to be looked at.

There certainly should be more than one thing that works in a given situation. I play Starcraft off and on, and the last time I looked at the forums (several months ago) the biggest number of complaints by far were about a particular unit that was overused because it was the only thing that would work for that faction.


Tweaking AI melee so that they do not die as easily to ranged attacks would probably work, but it would have to be done carefully to avoid making ranged units as irrelevant to humans as melee units currently often are in the early game. The AI still has some basic tactical flaws that lead to it dying to ranged units more easily, as well. I still see AI units stubbornly try to fortify and heal while being pounded at range, instead of just backing up and healing.

 

[DrunkenRine]

well in my opinion the solution to 1UpT is MORE SPACE.

make maps larger, make minimum distance between cities 4-5 or even 6 tiles (or water). that way you have more space moving your armies and space and tactical positions becomes an interesting new resource. battles would occur even before armies reach the cities, with intersting flank movements, ambushes from behind hills, forest and other tactical stuff going on.
the it is now, battles are almost entirely fought over cities, almost never in open terrain. with more space you would also make much more use of improvements like forts. when do you really sacrifice a workable tile to build a fort? more space means also more space where a fort could make sense. you could even add new improvements like airports, to provide a base for air units. forts could add a healing bonus to units like cities do etc. ...

 

[Hpuk]

well in my opinion the solution to 1UpT is MORE SPACE.

make maps larger, make minimum distance between cities 4-5 or even 6 tiles (or water). that way you have more space moving your armies and space and tactical positions becomes an interesting new resource. battles would occur even before armies reach the cities, with intersting flank movements, ambushes from behind hills, forest and other tactical stuff going on.
the it is now, battles are almost entirely fought over cities, almost never in open terrain. with more space you would also make much more use of improvements like forts. when do you really sacrifice a workable tile to build a fort? more space means also more space where a fort could make sense. you could even add new improvements like airports, to provide a base for air units. forts could add a healing bonus to units like cities do etc. ...

Making cities larger than one tile might also be helpful, perhaps growing by era even.
Anyway, these are more like ideas for the next Civ game, as I don't see how they could change the game so radically as to enlarge the maps and scale at this point.

 

[DrunkenRine]

well one thing that occured to me reading the posts. especially when someone mentioned a game like starcraft.
playing against the AI pretty quickly became a "noob thing" in starcraft. when we became more powerful in the game it was just a "just for fun" thing to play against 7 ai's and still win abusing its difficulties.
no matter how far u think an ai, it will always be weak. and the ai is only a kind of training mode or fun mode, a kind of demo version, or light version of the actual game. since the invention of games, since the earliest days of chess or other strategy games, they were meant to be played by humans against humans.
basic civilisation 1 and 2 had no multiplayer mode, but i guess since civ net and later versions of civ 2 it was added and that made the ai problem kinda obsolete.

now where i can still understand the problem is when i consider my time. right now, im 29 years old and its just difficult to get my friends to play a game of civ with me, because it takes a lot of time and everybody has a completely different schedule. now with kids, its not the thing, where the problem dissolves again. because games are mainly made for kids ... (ok maybe not, considering chess-pro's) ... but you get my point with the ai.

 

[Matthew.]

Anyway, these are more like ideas for the next Civ game, as I don't see how they could change the game so radically as to enlarge the maps and scale at this point.

Indeed. There may be some slight to major modifications, but the core structure of 1UPT is not likely to change much for Civ5. Any major changes would be introduced in a Civ6.

I do agree on larger maps, although I think the devs were forced into a specific size to not completely tank performance, as huge maps are already a bit unstable. I do think the "vision" of Civ5 would be better with more tiles to work with. Chariots/horsemen would be able to use their move advantage, battles wouldn't be cramped in tight areas between cities and terrain obstacles, etc.

... but you get my point with the ai.

AI is constantly improving. Keep in mind computers and video games have not been around for that long in the big picture. In the mainstream, even less time. There was a time when no one thought a machine could outwork a man, or a software program beat a human at chess. There will be a time when the AI can play a mean game of Civ, no doubt. It may not be until Civilization 27, but the time will come

 

[jjkrause84]

Since we're letting this zombie survive I'll just reiterate that I think limited, progressive stacking is the best option (so, as the game goes on it moves from 1upt to multiple upt). I think it would solve the low production issue, and would help the players have a better sense of scale (I still don't feel like a world power with 5 tanks...it just feels wrong). Stacking could be implemented easily by having each stack act as a unit, and attack with its combined strength. In this system two swordsmen would beat a swordsman and an archer in melee combat, but would be less flexible (i.e. it would not be able to engage in ranged combat). This would greatly INCREASE the tactical depth, while preserving a more 'strategic' feel for Civ.

 

[DrunkenRine]

(I still don't feel like a world power with 5 tanks...it just feels wrong)

thats why a tank in civ has always been a unit, not single vehicle. you are supposed to believe you are having 5 divisions of tanks in your army which would actually make you a power to cope with.

 

[poncratias]

.




I tell you what the problem of 1UPT is:


WRONG SCALE OF THE WORLD.


1UPT would fit perfectly, if 1 tile represents like 10m² for example.

and not like 10 km² like it is now,


it's just wrong scaling of the tiles.



.

 

[jjkrause84]

thats why a tank in civ has always been a unit, not single vehicle. you are supposed to believe you are having 5 divisions of tanks in your army which would actually make you a power to cope with.

I understand that...but five divisions is still miniscule (Continental armies began the First World War with over 70 divisions of infantry each, for example). If there is a difference between armour and infantry I must assume that each unit is primarily composed of that arm (i.e. they don't represent mixed order of battle). 4-6 infantry units can never feel like 2-5 million men...especially when there are 3-4 tank units supporting. They feel more like divisions (or corps at the very most).

Th scale is all wrong...period. There is no rational argument to the contrary. The only argument there is is in regard to gameplay, and even that is contested.

 

[Menzies]

So wait, now the complaint is that it "doesn't feel right". That's a pretty pathetic reason right there, and it doesn't even make sense. Are you telling me that one tile with 40 infantry, 20 tanks and more artillery than WWII Europe on a single tile makes sense "scale" wise? It's pretty damn clear that they sat down and thought through the problem during development and decided that a game having a more game like mechanic which seemed a bit unphysical was better than it having another game like mechanic which seemed just as unphysical and I don't see the issue in that. Neither system represents the real world particularly well.

Come to think of it, the only system I've heard mentioned on here that would even remotely work would be to build units out of subunits. That is, basically building small army stacks, with obvious low number limits. This of course would add an extra level of complexity, which if you ask people would be either a great or terrible thing, but we can barely agree on the core mechanics of the game, so that isn't surprising.

 

[Funky]

So wait, now the complaint is that it "doesn't feel right". That's a pretty pathetic reason right there, and it doesn't even make sense. Are you telling me that one tile with 40 infantry, 20 tanks and more artillery than WWII Europe on a single tile makes sense "scale" wise?

The game "not feeling right" by incorporating ridiculous features which have no resemblance of historical reality and thereby destroying any sense of immersion is a major flaw of the game which by itself has turned off large parts of the traditional fan base. And are you really trying to argue that having a large army on a tile isn't the more accurate depiction of WWII? Look at the numbers of Stalingrad, or any larger battle for that matter, you'll be surprised.

 

[Windsor]

So wait, now the complaint is that it "doesn't feel right". That's a pretty pathetic reason right there.

The feeling of the game is of course immensely important and if something "doesn't feel right" then that's not a pathetic thing to point out.

Why do you think we get things like tech quotes and images of wonders we build? To make it feel good!

You might easily argue for reasons why 1upt makes armies feel better. This will be a subjective matter in the end. Some get a better feeling since 1upt lets you visually see the arrangement of troops while stacks abstract this. But there's of course an equally valid argument that stacks can give you a feeling of having a big army simply because you have 20 tank units and not 3.

Disliking a mechanic or a game because it doesn't feel right, lacks the right atmosphere, is a perfectly valid point and not a pathetic reason at all.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I think that, over the months the game has been out, the fan base has split. Some folks who loved stacking units (or believe it is more realistic) tried Civ 5, were repelled by 1upt and went back to Civ4 or Civ3. Many folks tried Civ for the first time by playing Civ5, are attracted to the hex map and 1upt, and are repelled by the idea of stacks of units.

Me, I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of impassable mountains (introduced in Civ4). Really? Hannibal led his elephants over the Alps, they built Macchu Pichu in the mountains, but none of our Civ units are ever able to build roads, tunnels, or railroads over a mountain range. Ever. For more than 4000 years. Ugh.

 

[mynystry]

Solution in one word: Armies

Do you remember the armies from Civ3 in which you could combine units and they would attack and defend together? Well, just polish that idea and put it in Civ6, because many of us, who played Civ since the very beginnings, rather playing Civ4 than 5

Greets

 

[jjkrause84]

So wait, now the complaint is that it "doesn't feel right". That's a pretty pathetic reason right there, and it doesn't even make sense. Are you telling me that one tile with 40 infantry, 20 tanks and more artillery than WWII Europe on a single tile makes sense "scale" wise?

Where in my post did I advocate unlimited stacking? Read my post again...I very specifically said that limited stacking (in my mind 5upt in the end game...at most!) would probably be the best answer.

"Projecting" is hardly a way to argue.

 

[michaeljhuman]

I think a move mode would be cool. It would let you move units to spots on the map as desired, without the game logic being triggered. It would show you a "ghost" unit in the landing location. Once you moved all the units to their ending locations, and the game did not complain about any unsolvable conflict, the game would do it's best to move all those units in the fewest possible turns (exiting move mode would "save" the information needed and put all those units into a move group.)

It could be extended to handle a situation like an attack on a unit. It could temporarily degroup that unit from the move order, for example. You could click on a button to regroup it, and it would re-calculate the move sequences.

 

[smallfish]

Since we're letting this zombie survive I'll just reiterate that I think limited, progressive stacking is the best option (so, as the game goes on it moves from 1upt to multiple upt). I think it would solve the low production issue, and would help the players have a better sense of scale (I still don't feel like a world power with 5 tanks...it just feels wrong). Stacking could be implemented easily by having each stack act as a unit, and attack with its combined strength. In this system two swordsmen would beat a swordsman and an archer in melee combat, but would be less flexible (i.e. it would not be able to engage in ranged combat). This would greatly INCREASE the tactical depth, while preserving a more 'strategic' feel for Civ.

I think of all the suggestions here, this one has the most ground to be implemented in future hex instalments.

This could work like in Firaxis' other baby XCOM, where you had to unlock the squad sizes (starting with 4 dudes, but goes all the way up to 6) by having your troops reach certain ranks. Instead of ranks (and cash) here, this would work through acquiring techs and building the structures to support the stacks - this would come with Barracks, Armory and Military Academy (and perhaps one or two more such military buildings either in the Info-future era or in between the Medieval and Modern eras). So this will give the player more incentive to build the barracks line of stuff for purposes other than acquiring promotions

Maybe it'll go like this:

Classic Era: Barracks - 2 units per hex
Medieval Era: Armory - 3 units per hex
Renaissance Era: ???
Industrial Era: Military Academy - 4 units per hex
Modern to Infofuture Eras: Advanced Warfare Command - 5 units per hex

Perhaps getting Brandenburg Gate won't be just a matter of getting additional experience points too - you'll unlock that special extra unit slot for your hex armies and increase their fighting potential!

But to compensate for having more units on the battlefield, you'll have buildings like Workshops, Factories and Assembly Lines not only giving you the usual production bonuses but also unlocking seperate build queues for you to pump those units out quickly.

What do ya'll think?

 

[DrunkenRine]

im so sad about this discussion because i feel like i am the only one who thinks, that it is just awesome the way it is.
right now, in my new flat i dont have internet yet and so i had to come back to civ 4, and... god it annoys me. the combat system is sooooo tedious. if you are behind, it is impossible to come back against the stacks that roll against you, if you are ahead, have fun on your future working schedule rolling and rolling and rolling over the map until you reach the domination VC.

moving stacks is boring

moving single units is fun

since civ 1 there was an incentive not to build stacks because if you killed one unit on a tile, all the others on the same tile would immediately die aswell. the only way to work around this was building forts, which protected your units like cities, in forts and cities u could stack units without penalty.

now why was this good? because it was risk to mass your units on small areas of land and made you spread out your armies and capture key positions in the terrain. (it actually made you plan an invasion of a another continent on a large scale instead of choosing just one single tile where you would drop all your ball to start the right clicking cities, healing/reinforcing, right clicking cities and so on.)

since civ 3 introduced stack combat with its generals i was bored of that. i actually still played civ 2 and i much prefered alpha centauri before civ 5 came out. but with civ 5 i am so damn ing pleased that i cant explain it right and that i cant understand all the hating.

the only thing for me to further improve the tactical combat mechanics of the game would be more space between cities. but the problem with this is, that it would change the game from a strategic game to a tactical game if you know what these terms mean.

so considering these genre-aspects, i can only conclude that Civ 5 is awesome! stop hating on it and stop wanting to improve it beyond necessity. if you dont like it so much... well there will be civ 6 and there are plenty of other civ style games you might try out.