Why was 1UPT necessary?

[Anthropoid]

The Civilization franchise has always purposely avoided the approach of expanding battles into a tactical minigame. The objection is that doing this is too distracting from the main, strategic, game.

This has been a core design principle from the beginning and is not likely to be abandoned.

So they "integrate" tactical dynamics into a global-level strategic map . . . yeah, coherent.

FoF and COGEE have three options for the resolutions of battles: instant (to avoid the tedium problem noted); quick (in between); and tactical maps = randomly generated hex map. The AI does fine as long as the force levels are not asymmetrical.

If the themes of the defenders of Civ5 are true, and Civ developers insist on avoiding innovative design elements which make sense with their purported design goals (e.g., bringing a tactical feel to a strategic game), then the Civ series really is moribund.

My understanding is the development philosophy for each new incarnation: some totally new; some revised; some solid traditional, in about equal thirds.

 

[Ayt]

Because no historian in the history of the world has recorded: "...and then we saw the enemy. Every man was stacked upon the head of another. It was a sight of terror."

"And they defeated the enemy due to the extra range they had with their longbows compared to the opposing cannons!"

 

[aatami]

"And they defeated the enemy due to the extra range they had with their longbows compared to the opposing cannons!"

-.- Please, that's not very likely.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Because hex-based 1upt has been around in gaming since the 1960s?

On scenario maps, bigger and with limited troops...

Seriously, but an army system instead of the two was so difficult? It's the ideal, no scale problems, no movement problems for tha AI... No SOD, no 1UPT... You produce a troop and put it in the army slot (we can have the general slot too)... We can also use a combat tactic map for the wargamers and autoresolve for the others.... Simple, strategic, with no flaws at all... Only a stupid can't understand that's the best solution in a game like this....

In the army slots you can put a limited number of infantry, cavalry and ranged units, artillery only works to siege or at an hex of distance to add strategic factor... General gives bonus to the army.

 

[alpha wolf 64]

i love 1upt, HOWEVER, the Ai obviously has no idea how to handle this as i watched time after time, the AI leads with art and cannons, or leaves generals and settlers completely undefended. the ai also has no concept of flanking an enemy or being flanked.

for me, the best solution would still be a single unit, but that unit would comprise of melee, ranged, mobile, and general components. upon earning XP, you'd have an option of which component that you'd want to upgrade. you'd add components by purchasing them. so maybe you build an archer 1st. 100 turns later, you have the funds to add a warrior component maybe another 100 turns, you add a horseman component, and upgrade your archer to crossbow, and your warrior to swordsman. there'd also need to be a way to combine units into a single unit with multiple components. generals earned would still start as separate units but would have no impact until added to a unit and would only affect that unit. mobile units not only would be part of the melee battle directly but would impact the ability of the enemy to retreat from the battle (yes, units should have the ability to retreat instead of holding their ground)

each battle would then be comprised of 2 parts: bombardment, and melee. so that you wouldnt have to bombard 1st as it would happen automatically. you would not be able to bombard other hexes unless your ranged component consisted of a siege type, this way you could lay siege without risking the entire unit.

the scale of civ is just too large for a unit to represent only 1 type of weaponry.

i think the ai would have a much easy time this way. we still wouldnt have the SoD. you lose the unrealistic concept of archers shooting from london to paris.

also to help upgrades, a unit would have the option to upgrade immediately via gold, or by not moving at all for 5 turns per upgrade, so warrior to longsword would take 10 turns. i laughed the other day when the ai had both a warrior and an infantry.

 

[McRoos]

The simple answer to the initial question is that multiple units on one tile eat to much system resources.

I mean, who does not have to wait a minute or so for the next turn in the late game era ?

 

[JLoZeppeli]

The simple answer to the initial question is that multiple units on one tile eat to much system resources.

I mean, who does not have to wait a minute or so for the next turn in the late game era ?

It's the opposite... The AI doesn't need to calculate different route for every single unit.

 

[tylor]

MoO and MoM had tactical level battles, and they worked. Compared to Civ5, at least.