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

[Windsor]

Tactical moves XML

<!-- edited with XMLSPY v2004 rel. 2 U (http://www.xmlspy.com) by Ed Beach (Firaxis Games) -->
<GameData>
<!-- Table definition -->
<Table name="TacticalMoves">
<Column name="ID" type="integer" primarykey="true" autoincrement="true"/>
<Column name="Type" type="text" notnull="true" unique="true"/>
<Column name="OperationsCanRecruit" type="boolean" default="true"/>
<Column name="DominanceZoneMove" type="boolean" default="false"/>
<Column name="OffenseFlavorWeight" type="integer"/>
<Column name="DefenseFlavorWeight" type="integer"/>
<Column name="Priority" type="integer"/>
</Table>
<!-- Table data -->
<TacticalMoves>
<Row>
<ID>
0
</ID>
<Type>
TACTICAL_UNASSIGNED
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<Priority>
-1
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_MOVE_NONCOMBATANTS_TO_SAFETY
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<Priority>
0
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_CAPTURE_CITY
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>
100
</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
150
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_DAMAGE_CITY
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>
100
</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
15
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_DESTROY_HIGH_UNIT
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
140
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_DESTROY_MEDIUM_UNIT
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
120
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_DESTROY_LOW_UNIT
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
110
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_TO_SAFETY
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
11
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_ATTRIT_HIGH_UNIT
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
17
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_ATTRIT_MEDIUM_UNIT
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
15
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_ATTRIT_LOW_UNIT
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
12
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_REPOSITION
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>
50
</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
50
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
1
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_BARBARIAN_CAMP
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>
100
</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
10
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_PILLAGE
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>
100
</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
40
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_PRIORITY_CIVILIAN_ATTACK
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>
100
</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
130
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_CIVILIAN_ATTACK
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>
100
</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
20
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_SAFE_BOMBARDS
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>
100
</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
60
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_HEAL
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
8
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_ANCIENT_RUINS
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>
50
</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
50
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
25
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_GARRISON_TO_ALLOW_BOMBARD
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
20
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_BASTION_ALREADY_THERE
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
7
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_GARRISON_ALREADY_THERE
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
6
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_GUARD_IMPROVEMENT_ALREADY_THERE
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
3
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_BASTION_1_TURN
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
5
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_GARRISON_1_TURN
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
4
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_GUARD_IMPROVEMENT_1_TURN
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
true
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
2
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_AIR_SWEEP
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<OffenseFlavorWeight>
100
</OffenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
10
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_AIR_INTERCEPT
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
20
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_AIR_REBASE
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DefenseFlavorWeight>
100
</DefenseFlavorWeight>
<Priority>
1
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_POSTURE_WITHDRAW
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
101
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_POSTURE_SIT_AND_BOMBARD
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
105
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_POSTURE_ATTRIT_FROM_RANGE
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
104
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_POSTURE_EXPLOIT_FLANKS
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
107
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_POSTURE_STEAMROLL
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
108
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_POSTURE_SURGICAL_CITY_STRIKE
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
106
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_POSTURE_HEDGEHOG
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
50
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_POSTURE_COUNTERATTACK
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
103
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_POSTURE_SHORE_BOMBARDMENT
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
100
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_CLOSE_ON_TARGET
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
45
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_MOVE_OPERATIONS
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
false
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
80
</Priority>
</Row>
<Row>
<Type>
TACTICAL_EMERGENCY_PURCHASES
</Type>
<OperationsCanRecruit>
false
</OperationsCanRecruit>
<DominanceZoneMove>
true
</DominanceZoneMove>
<Priority>
200
</Priority>
</Row>
</TacticalMoves>
</GameData>

 

[Nares]

Sweet. Thanks Windsor.

<Row>
<Type>TACTICAL_ATTRIT_HIGH_UNIT
<OperationsCanRecruit>true
<DefenseFlavorWeight>100
<Priority>17
</Row>

<Row>
<Type>TACTICAL_ATTRIT_MEDIUM_UNIT
<OperationsCanRecruit>true
<DefenseFlavorWeight>100
<Priority>15
</Row>

<Row>
<Type>TACTICAL_ATTRIT_LOW_UNIT
<OperationsCanRecruit>true
<DefenseFlavorWeight>100
<Priority>12
</Row>

Notice the disturbing lack of offensive flavor weight? The AI cannot calculate sacrificing a unit into its invasion plans. There are a few conditions where it may randomly do so, and it's possible to witness the AI doing something you may consider sacrificing its unit, but the reality is it cannot intelligently plan on countering strong defenders. This is a massive oversight, because with the extreme potency of friendly territory promotions, there's a tremendous advantage for the defender that the AI is unable to even begin contemplating the handling of, despite being programmed to generally be diplomatically aggressive.

<Row>
<Type>TACTICAL_DESTROY_HIGH_UNIT
<OperationsCanRecruit>false
<DefenseFlavorWeight>100
<Priority>140
</Row>

<Row>
<Type>TACTICAL_DESTROY_MEDIUM_UNIT
<OperationsCanRecruit>false
<DefenseFlavorWeight>100
<Priority>120
</Row>

<Row>
<Type>TACTICAL_DESTROY_LOW_UNIT
<OperationsCanRecruit>true
<DefenseFlavorWeight>100
<Priority>110
</Row>

Continuing on, we see the same flaw in the AI's ability to attack even with good odds. Where's the offensive flavor weight? Why isn't the AI, which can out-tech me, out-produce me, out-upgrade me and can afford to maintain a larger military, so poorly tuned to using those advantages?

I'm a bit perplexed why the AI also can't recruit to destroy medium or high (health?) units. At least it can do that with attrition, though as per the strategic XML, the AI is really only capable of fielding a cohesive military force when preparing to invade. Which is an added problem; those same friendly territory promotions which the AI can't handle invading against, it also can't make effective use of because it never really maintains a potent defensive force. You sometimes think you see an AI building formidable defenses, but in reality it's just preparing to invade.

Sorry if this took longer than my boasting claimed it would; I first wanted to neaten up the text, and then went back to add the additional example which meant more cleaning up to do.

<Row>
<Type>TACTICAL_DAMAGE_CITY
<OperationsCanRecruit>true
<OffenseFlavorWeight>100
<Priority>15
</Row>

Here's a funny one. Extremely low priority to attack a city, even though capturing the city would eliminate that pesky friendly territory bonus which perplexes the AI so, and would flip those tiles to the AI's control, ie those defensive flavor weights I mentioned earlier. It actually has a very high priority for capturing a city, but they took the South Park approach of Phase 2) ?, Phase 3) Profit; you need to actually damage the city to a point where it can be captured first, which the AI isn't inclined to do.

<Row>
<Type>TACTICAL_MOVE_NONCOMBATANTS_TO_SAFETY
<OperationsCanRecruit>true
<Priority>0
</Row>

Well, now I know why the AI uses workers and sometimes even great people as forward scouts in the middle of a war. Priority 0? You've got to be kidding me. Actually, editing this and some strategic AI XML values for building tile improvements during war preparations and during war itself almost completely eliminated the braindead no-tile-improvement syndrome I've seen on occasion.

<Row>
<Type>TACTICAL_REPOSITION
<OperationsCanRecruit>true
<OffenseFlavorWeight>50
<DefenseFlavorWeight>50
<Priority>1
</Row>

Another classic. The priority of 1 could be a logical setting, until you realize that this one actually has an offensive flavor weight. That is to say, the AI will reposition instead of killing your low health unit when it's invading your territory.

I told you it's bad. Some are probably simple oversights. Others indicate an extremely limited vision for how the AI should behave, or perhaps not limited enough. There's a chance I'm reading these totally wrong, but after editing them I saw what I considered dramatic improvement, though I understand just how limited those results are compared to the overall expectation of having an AI which can handle 1UPT as well as a human can, which most players seem to have, despite it being totally impractical and not something even BTS did.

A good AI at this point would handle war-preparation better in that it would rely on a more simplistic unit composition (primarily offensive units), with no regard for their safety when actually at war. Yes, you can end up watching the AI throw itself at you, only to fail and leave itself open to counterattack, but you're not getting anything better than that currently. At least this suggested approach has a greater potential for randomly being challenging on the higher difficulty settings, while also making it virtually impossible for the human to defend against an AI invasion using nothing but the city attack, and possibly a scout. And randomly being challenging is about as impressive as the BTS AI got; the real hallmark is having an AI which can actually steamroll you sometime before the modern era should you fail to build an additional military units.

Speaking of the modern era, the reason the AI seems to be more effective there is that the drastically increased movement points of modern era units reduce the number of decisions the AI makes. Fewer decisions means its far less likely to fall prey to its own shortcomings.

 

[rbj2001]

It would require the understanding or regional concepts (once again), giving such a region a certain "weight" and based on that determine whether to attack/defend that region or not.
And given the three elements:
* current processing power
* available memory (especially for a 32bit program)
* tolerable turn-change times
you won't see such a system in the near future.

It might be coded (theoretically) but it would require the best processors, more RAM than available for most players and finally would result in turn times somewhere in the range of minutes, if not even more.

I'm a little sceptical that current home PC processing power is the limiting factor on how good the game's AI can be.

And I can't claim to be an expert on AI, but I know that modern CPUs are lightening-fast, much faster than we really need for everyday computing, and 2 GB of RAM is just huge. You only need that much RAM to cache a lot of audio and video files. A home CPU can execute around 50 billion instructions per seconds. That's a lot of processing power.

I've seen chess programs that play a very solid game in about 2 KB of code. And Stonkers ran well enough on the 48K Spectrum, which, although it didn't have as many tiles and units as Civ 5, ran on a machine (literally) 100,000 times slower. The spacecraft that took people to the moon had the processing ability of a modern toaster.

I'm not saying AI programming is easy. It's not, and that's probably the reason why the Civ5 underestimated the task and made such a mess of it. But I think it has more to do with lack of expertise and investment than raw processing power.

 

[JBConquests]

Sorry for the delayed reply, I have been out for a while.

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.

I am a programmer and 2.5 years isn't very long from a development perspective. Civ 5 strikes me as a rewrite - I seem to remember quotes like "we are starting from scratch, etc... If they really did start from scratch then it is easily possible that to do it correctly with all the features Civ 4 had then it should take 4, or even 5 years.

Certain areas of the product feel like the code is "temporary" code. This is code we developers put in place that isn't supposed to ship but is used so that other programmers working on other areas of the product can use it to get to the areas they need to work on. We typically do this for windows/functionality that isn't schedule to be built until later but some hacked up prototype is needed earlier. The multiplayer save/load/autosave functionality is a perfect example of this.

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.

Civ has always had tactical combat on a strategic map at least to a small extent. Though Civ 5 did take it farther. Personally, I have no problems with tactical combat occuring on a strategic map but I know some people don't like it.

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.

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

I think the traffic Jam is more a result of a bad design decision regarding how the AI will cheat at high skill levels. I would like to see limits on the # of units based on something like population, or something else. The AI needs to cheat to compete at Diety but Firaxis should come up with some other way of it cheating.

 

[sketch162000]

I would like to see limits on the # of units based on something like population, or something else.

Wow, I never thought of that, but it makes so much sense! I wonder if it can be modded in...

 

[RockyBalooba]

1UPT is one of the major reasons I was excited about Civ 5. Particularly with melee units being able to protect ranged units this way.

1UPT is one of the major reasons I've lost interest of Civ 5.

 

[Toulouse]

1UPT is one of the major reasons I've lost interest of Civ 5.

Me too.

 

[lschnarch]

I'm a little sceptical that current home PC processing power is the limiting factor on how good the game's AI can be.

Well, let's compare Civ4's SODs with Civ5's units.
In V, we have double movement. And assuming a group of just 6 units to move towards your city, this means roughly 24times to calculate paths, possible enemy units somewhere and whatnotever.
Add to this the fact that even the enemy can move double as fast which enlargens the area to take into consideration and you see that a proper analysis of any given situation will take much more processing power than in the previous title.

I am a programmer and 2.5 years isn't very long from a development perspective. Civ 5 strikes me as a rewrite - I seem to remember quotes like "we are starting from scratch, etc... If they really did start from scratch then it is easily possible that to do it correctly with all the features Civ 4 had then it should take 4, or even 5 years.

Which makes my statement even more valid.

How on earth can somebody come up with an idea which may take 5 years of development? And even if these five years would have been predicted, how on earth can you then go on, when this timeline suddenly has cut to only 2 years?
This is just insane.

Civ has always had tactical combat on a strategic map at least to a small extent. Though Civ 5 did take it farther. Personally, I have no problems with tactical combat occuring on a strategic map but I know some people don't like it.

It is less about "liking it" or not. It is about "working".

Implacing a tactical combat system on the strategic map of Civ5 means that any given region more or less always looks the same: you will have quite some forests, quite some hills, and quite some cities to the left and to the right.
Translating this into a tactical map means you always, always will have to fight in an area where typically you would want to avoid the fighting: a densely covered bushland.
You cannot really make use of your mounted troops, because they always have to cross bushes (forests), or to climb over elevations (hills). The cities in the terms of tactical combat are something like bunkers, firing at you if you come to close.
And - thanks to some idea which I will never understand - you even cannot make proper use of open space because you get a penalty there.
In other words: one of the main points of having a tactical combat system, manouvring your units, out-manouvring the enemy is almost impossible.
In almost all cases it comes down to taking the shortest path considering defense bonuses and avoiding open space penalties, lining up in front of the city to be sieged, shooting against the enemy and receiving defensive fire for four of five turns.
That's it.

I think the traffic Jam is more a result of a bad design decision regarding how the AI will cheat at high skill levels. I would like to see limits on the # of units based on something like population, or something else. The AI needs to cheat to compete at Diety but Firaxis should come up with some other way of it cheating.

The traffic jam is literally unavoidable due to the fact how the map has been created (see above). You always have to move through "slow-speed areas" (hills, forest, forested hills).
Mix this with the unavoidable lakes, mountains, a coast and finally some neutral units, and you have all the necessary ingredients for a traffic jam. Even worse, the latter is still true within you own territory.
And this unfortunately is a direct consequence of 1upt on a strategic map.

 

[JBConquests]

How on earth can somebody come up with an idea which may take 5 years of development? And even if these five years would have been predicted, how on earth can you then go on, when this timeline suddenly has cut to only 2 years?
This is just insane.

It isn't unheard of for companies to initiate 4 or even 5 year development cycles. I have been involved in one such project. Typically this is done by bigger companies which have other software being released to pay the bills.

The traffic jam is literally unavoidable due to the fact how the map has been created (see above). You always have to move through "slow-speed areas" (hills, forest, forested hills).
Mix this with the unavoidable lakes, mountains, a coast and finally some neutral units, and you have all the necessary ingredients for a traffic jam. Even worse, the latter is still true within you own territory.
And this unfortunately is a direct consequence of 1upt on a strategic map.

If the traffic Jam is caused by each side having 25 units going to attack then there are too many units. See my previous point on limiting the units. If not and the traffic Jam is caused due to mountains and lakes and coast resulting in only 1 or 2 squares for units then that is good city placement by the AI and not a problem with the game or the rules. If a city is placed in a good definsible position then it should be very hard to take.

 

[lschnarch]

It isn't unheard of for companies to initiate 4 or even 5 year development cycles. I have been involved in one such project. Typically this is done by bigger companies which have other software being released to pay the bills.

I was not clear enough in my description.
Civ games have had a timeframe of roughly 5 years between each title. For Civ3 and Civ4, there have been some (two) expansions in that period. Working on the next title began after the last expansion.
It seems to be quite likely that the planning for Civ5 was the same.
This means that going for a concept requiring 5 years of development, although only 2 to 3 years are available would just result in a complete failure.

The fact that other companies have different schedules for different projects doesn't make it any better.

 

[JBConquests]

I was not clear enough in my description.
Civ games have had a timeframe of roughly 5 years between each title. For Civ3 and Civ4, there have been some (two) expansions in that period. Working on the next title began after the last expansion.
It seems to be quite likely that the planning for Civ5 was the same.
This means that going for a concept requiring 5 years of development, although only 2 to 3 years are available would just result in a complete failure.

Agreed, this is very much a lack of planning. I'm going to guess that whomever gave the estimates for how long it would take to build Civ 5 completely underestimated the project. Or worse yet, no estimates were done and they were just told to build it.

My main point was that in a properly run development shop, assuming the release date for Civ 5 was set in stone, this project would have been on the radar when Civ 4 released and they would have split off or hired some staff to develop Civ 4 expansions and Civ 5 simultaneously.

 

[Disgustipated]

1UPT is one of the major reasons I've lost interest of Civ 5.

me too.

I just found it so tedious to move around units. It took forever. To me, a game shouldn't be tedious. I like stack combat despite it's flaws because it made wars take a reasonable amount of time. It was never tedious. Sure it was simplistic, but I didn't care. It allowed me to get wars over with quickly and get back to building, which is what I love most.