Who is planning to remove 1UPT with the new Mod?

[Banditt]

Playing Civ5 made me realize how tedious combat was in previous Civ games. I think I would actually zone out and just go through the motions until I won the battle (in Civ4, my only thought was how many catapults I'd lose and whether my cities should pump out some more or to go with swordsmen. If I had to, my second thought was which unit I should highlight that would give me the highest percentage kill). One unit per tile has actually made combat fun. It's not a war game, but it's flat out enjoyable. If I want to go back, I'll play Civ4 for the day (then I can go with role playing AI and religions too). Civ5 is a different game and I'm enjoying this change for sure.

I feel the same way. In IV I used to just make stacks of doom and drop em on the closest enemy city. It was kind of a no brainer. Now it's much more tactical. Building the correct units to get the job done. Positioning them just right to take advantage of terrain bonuses etc. It's a much more strategic way of playing, which I enjoy.

 

[Buccaneer]

When I first heard about 1upt, I was dubious. But I think it is one of the better changes in Civ5.

 

[Iceciro]

I am really shocked that Kael went through the motions for this mod, as the guy who made FFH I wouldn't have expected that, but hey, his mod time to spend as for me, I will never go back to stacks if they dragged me.

 

[Elhoim]

I would never, ever use it. 1PT is the best addition that Civilization combat ever had.

 

[jtb1127]

I love this mod. Never before have I been able to conquer my foes with such ease and grace.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

Amusing necro. I wonder how many of those extolling the virtues of 1upt are still playing?

 

[The_Quasar]

I'm still playing, and I think 1upt is definitely the way to go. Remember, this is the first game with 1upt, which is radically different, so there are bound to be a few problems to be sorted out. Give them time!

Combat in V is so much better than IV, you actually have to think! Stacks of doom do not make a good game, they are not interesting strategically, and, imho, V is a better game than IV for dispensing with them.

Yes, IV had some interesting aspects, which I'd like to see in V, like it's religion and spies, but I suspect/hope they will come, in time.

Bottom line is that I will not be using this mod, as I believe it's a step backwards...

 

[lschnarch]

I'm still playing, and I think 1upt is definitely the way to go. Remember, this is the first game with 1upt, which is radically different, so there are bound to be a few problems to be sorted out. Give them time!

There have been plenty of games with an 1upt system in the past. They date back to the early 80ies (in terms of computer games), too.
Any closer look at those games would have revealed exactly why Civ5 lacks in combat.

Actually, almost any problem of 1upt we are facing today was already foreseen as soon as the announcement about 1upt was made. Latest, after the first screenshots were released.

 

[swimslave]

There are several things wrong with Civ V, but 1UPT is not one of them.

 

[JBConquests]

There are several things wrong with Civ V, but 1UPT is not one of them.

Don't blame the poor tactical AI on 1upt. Blame the poor tactical AI on the game being released early and not enough developer time allocated to AI programming.

Don't blame a continent full of units on 1upt instead blame then on the game rules which allow that many to be built in the first place.

1upt is the one great thing about Civ 5. I remember playing a really good 1upt game from the 80's. It was allot of fun and was done very well but the critical difference is that game only did combat - nothing else. You didn't build cities, you didn't research technology, you didn't have population, etc... If all the game does is combat then it is easy to spend a couple years on it and perfect it but Civ 5 is so much bigger and so much more complex that in order to perfect each of these areas it takes considerably more time than what they allocated to building the game in the first place.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

1 upt is good for an RPG, can work for a tactical game (like the Total War battle map) and is wholly inappropriate for any larger scale. Think about it, Civ unit types represent component parts of armies, while 1upt represents an army group or larger, a unit so vast that another unit cannot even pass through the same area despite having years to do so. When in history did 100,000 catapults operate as a massive independent unit? It's a mismatch of scales that wrecks both immersion and the AI. An unforgivably stupid design decision.

 

[lschnarch]

Don't blame the poor tactical AI on 1upt. Blame the poor tactical AI on the game being released early and not enough developer time allocated to AI programming.

Shafer told us that the work on Civ5 had begun almost immediately after the release of BtS. That means 2 years between starting the project and release. 2.5 years from start to now.

If this is not enough time to program a decent combat AI (and obviously, it is not) then the design decision for 1upt was bad.
If the design decision requires years and years and years of a strong development team, then the design decision becomes questionable.
Even more, as such a system has to be implemented in the context of a civ game, meaning that somehow the tactical combat has to be performed on a strategical map.

Don't blame a continent full of units on 1upt instead blame then on the game rules which allow that many to be built in the first place.

The full continent is only one of the most prominent examples of the inherent flaws of an 1upt system.
Why is the continent full with units? Because the scale does not fit.
Why doesn't the scale fit? Because Civ is a game playing on a world map.
This limits certain possible solutions for the traffic jam, as for instance higher speed of units.

1upt is the one great thing about Civ 5. I remember playing a really good 1upt game from the 80's. It was allot of fun and was done very well but the critical difference is that game only did combat - nothing else. You didn't build cities, you didn't research technology, you didn't have population, etc... If all the game does is combat then it is easy to spend a couple years on it and perfect it but Civ 5 is so much bigger and so much more complex that in order to perfect each of these areas it takes considerably more time than what they allocated to building the game in the first place.

So, a wrong design decision. Improper design element, willingly chosen although the restrictions were known early enough and a working system was already available.

 

[brxbrx]

SoD suck, but I'm no fan of friendly AI clogging everything up

 

[elthrasher]

SoD suck, but I'm no fan of friendly AI clogging everything up

So don't make friends. Just kill everybody! Kill!

 

[SpearMan153]

no - too much extra ui work to support xupt in a non-cludged manner
time better spent making tactical ai better

 

[SpearMan153]

argghh! just realised the post date - who dug this smelly thing up?

 

[Nares]

I wonder how many of those extolling the virtues of 1upt are still playing?

I don't play, but that's due to the rest of the game being complete crap.

I wonder how many of the SoD-fanboys would play if 1UPT was removed. Probably very few, because the rest of the game is complete crap.

Think about it, Civ unit types represent component parts of armies, while 1upt represents an army group or larger, a unit so vast that another unit cannot even pass through the same area despite having years to do so.

Cities are implemented on a completely unrealistic scale; why do you suspend your disbelief for those, but not for units?

Proportional scale is one of the weaker arguments to use in defending SoD. Following the argument to its conclusion would eliminate any Earth-map at all, even if CiV could efficiently run larger map sizes.

Is that what you want? Hyper-realistic proportionality?

 

[Becephalus]

I have no idea why anyone would want to head back towards civ4 as far as this is concerned. This is one of the best changes.

Civ 5 has lots of problems, this is not one.

 

[jtb1127]

This mod is awesome.

 

[Jolly Rogerer]

I don't play, but that's due to the rest of the game being complete crap.

I wonder how many of the SoD-fanboys would play if 1UPT was removed. Probably very few, because the rest of the game is complete crap.

I can't argue with this, though I will note that I'm no SoD fanboy. I like stacks, but hated Civ4's combat system. My point is why get rid of Hitler only to bring in Stalin?

Cities are implemented on a completely unrealistic scale; why do you suspend your disbelief for those, but not for units?

No, but the "city" is easier to forgive in that they can be considered state sized units. It only takes one to allow you all the ingredients of sovereignty, and they take up the same space as a medium sized state (like England) on many maps. I've had a bigger problem with units and scaling since Civ1. Civ5 is both the worst offender in this category as well as the latest game, and hence the hate.

Proportional scale is one of the weaker arguments to use in defending SoD. Following the argument to its conclusion would eliminate any Earth-map at all, even if CiV could efficiently run larger map sizes.

I'm not defending SoD (ie the Civ4 combat system). I can even make a case for 1 army per tile limitations. But a game at this scale which chooses to depict military units which rarely or never operated independently should allow them to operate as parts of larger units (ie armies). There are a number of reasons why no game of this scale or larger has had both articulation (ie units that represent army components) and a 1upt limitation. I'd be plenty happy with a combat system that is more conducive to a game with decades long turns and tiles which represent vast areas. But if people want their horsemen, machinegunners, catapults, spearmen etc. and simultaneously want to play a game above a tactical scale, they should get used to the idea of armies and stacking.

Is that what you want? Hyper-realistic proportionality?

If it's doable, yes. Would you prefer to retain hyper-unrealistic dis-proportionality?