xUPT, right for WM?

[Fafnir13]

xUPT refers to a limit on unit per tile. Apparently, this mod has it in as an adjustable option. This thread goes into more detail on it.
Given how modular WM is, I think this would make an interesting addition.
Thoughts?

 

[Sonereal]

xUPT refers to a limit on unit per tile. Apparently, this mod has it in as an adjustable option. This thread goes into more detail on it.
Given how modular WM is, I think this would make an interesting addition.
Thoughts?

I've playtested that feature to death and I have to say that the wars aren't as simple as a single slugfest in the field followed by a few turns of taking city-by-city in Stalingrad-esque battles.

Plus, the limit can be set during the game and as you go right in the menu which makes it possible to test the feature and see if you like it. You can also control how many units there are per tile (1 isn't recommended as there's no unit swap like there will be in CivV) but you can easily set it up to 20 and mod it to go MUCH higher.

 

[Valkrionn]

There's a poll about this in the RifE forum: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=366499

So far the response is overwhelmingly positive, so it looks like RifE at least will merge the feature; No idea if Sephi will for WM, but given the number of people who request things like this, and it's completely optional/highly configurable nature, I think it's a good merge.

 

[acantoni]

I've read the thread and it does seem to be a very interesting addition to the game if the way WM ai works can easily use it

 

[Fafnir13]

Just idly thinking of nothing when the thought occurs:

Having to spread out your army + Invading a FoL nation = TREANTS!

And lots of them. You could get some real usage out of that now.

 

[esvath]

I vote for yes in RifE, especially if I can set the x in xUPT (20-25 might be good, IMHO).

While I enjoy the epic fight of a SoD, it became tedious to destroy 100+ Axemen in one stack, only to destroy another 100+ Axemen in another SoD.

I do hope WM (and vanilla FfH) will merge this feature too.

 

[Calavente]

I haven't spoken here, but I think this would be a nice addition.
certains modifier are necessary as FFH/WM has some game play differences versus vanilla cIV.
(medic promo only on medics, arcans units, aoe spells, buffs...etc : see my post in the RifE forum)

 

[Brokenbone]

I've played a little bit of ROM:AND with this now, you dig into one of the BUG type menus to go and find a pulldown menu about how many units you wish, max, on a tile. For the heck of it, I set it to 10, seems though you could change it at your discretion on any given turn (again, just open the CTRL-ALT-O menu). I guess this could be like cheating if you changed stack size to suit your moods, like high size if you're out conquering and low size if you're turtling, but presumably this only applies in single player, you're only cheating yourself this way, may as well enter Worldbuilder at that rate.

Anyhow the system in ROM:AND seems to apply to cities as well (unless I missed a game option somehow), I had a wounded stack of spearmen limping home to my capital full of archers and whatnot, and was surprised (but pleased!) to see I couldn't enter the city to lick my wounds... it was too full. It also seemed to explain why better off nations coming to harass my capital always had only "medium" sized stacks, although I found that it'd be bite sized stacks following each other, often meant my defenders would stop a stack, get some XP and maybe promotions, and hopefully be sufficiently healed by the time the stack 2 moves away got there.

I'd encourage people interested in seeing how it works to give ROM:AND a whirl. Huge downloads, but an interesting change from the FFH world, heh.

 

[Sephi]

This xUPT stuff isn't new. There was a Civ4 mod years ago that had it. Limit was IIRC 8 on normal tiles and 12 in cities.

There was also great hype that this feature makes SoD Warfare obsolete but there is a reason this stuff is long forgotten. In short:

• Micromanagement Nightmare
• AI is heavily handicapped at this as it was never written for it (might put all siege in one stack, etc.)
• longer turntimes because number of selectiongroups is increased

and it breaks lots of FFH features like area spells.

I am more interested in encouraging splitting up stacks by altering game rules like magic, not by artificial tile limits. CivV will have tile limits with an AI and Interface written for it, should be very interesting.

 

[Calavente]

you killed the chick in the egg...
I thought, after reading the comment on AND's forum, that the AI had not so many issues with it and that it was even a bit better.

The turn time should not be really longer. I almost never play with "stack move" as I like to order each unit to attack, choosing the order of attack.. it is much more efficient; the automatic stack attack is not so good and thus I almost never use it. (being submitted to the automatic stack defense is bad enough ; sometimes I don't want to defend with the best defender... chance for more xp, wounded defender...etc but that's not the topic). Thus any attack will take as much time as before.

And why micromanagement nigthmare ? because you have to move 2-4 stacks instead of a huge one ? Playing cIV, and especially FFH/WM, that emphasis in personizing each unit is supposed to have a bit of micro. I can't understand how breaking the stacks would rise it so much that it would be more annoying than the actual "1huge stack per civ roaming arround and nothing else in the whole empire" situation. or the "1huge city defense with units that the Ai should really do something else with" situation.

well, for the area spells, I'm ok with you.

So I have to understand that you won't include it into WM ?

 

[Pazyryk]

I agree totally with the sentiment here of killing or reducing SoDs, even if Selphi pretty much pooh-poohed the xupt concept. It's a tricky thing. I hate SoDs but I hate ineffective AI even more.

 

[Calavente]

But maybe it'll have to be playtested again ?
maybe the mod Sephi's recalling had not the "max unit per tile per team" limit, but a max unit per tile limite ?
maybe there were other issues due to strategical decisions of the AI that were corrected with BetterAI and Sephi's improvement ? eg : former method deffects were emphasised with xUPT ?

 

[Valkrionn]

This xUPT stuff isn't new. There was a Civ4 mod years ago that had it. Limit was IIRC 8 on normal tiles and 12 in cities.

There was also great hype that this feature makes SoD Warfare obsolete but there is a reason this stuff is long forgotten. In short:

• Micromanagement Nightmare
• AI is heavily handicapped at this as it was never written for it (might put all siege in one stack, etc.)
• longer turntimes because number of selectiongroups is increased

and it breaks lots of FFH features like area spells.

I am more interested in encouraging splitting up stacks by altering game rules like magic, not by artificial tile limits. CivV will have tile limits with an AI and Interface written for it, should be very interesting.

That is a different system, and one that I'm aware of already.

The one you mention was not 'x'UPT, but just UPT. You could not modify the limit to suit your own playstyle. xUPT is completely optional, and it's limit can be modified at any time by the player.

As for Micro... Yes, there is micro. Isn't that the entire flipping point of the mechanic? Limited numbers of troops = More strategic positioning ('micromanagement') becomes necessary.

I don't quite agree that the AI is that handicapped; I've played a few games with it at this point, and it seemed to handle it quite well. Honestly, it fought more intelligently than it did before... So even if a stack ended up composed entirely of siege, I like that better than a stack of HUNDREDS of units becoming stuck because they want to attack a city but won't for some reason.

And I also don't see that it 'breaks' area spells. They become more useful, yes... But if you merge 'Surround and Destroy' with this, then you get combat bonuses for each tile adjacent to the enemy with your troops on it. And you WILL be surrounding people with this system, as will the AI, even if it doesn't set out to do so.

As for CivV having the system... Isn't that reason enough to want to try it? It's not like this would be forced on players; They can turn it off or ignore it if that's what they want to do.

 

[Pazyryk]

If you impose an xUPT limit without other major changes, then the micromanagement nightmare that Selphi describes seems inevitable. It's already a big headache having to manage 200 or 400 units in a game -- having to move them in 20 stacks of 10 units each just adds to the already considerable tedium. On the other hand, if total units did not inflate to such large numbers (for the human and AI) then you would not need an xUPT rule.

It would be a huge endeavor, but I wish that some ambitious modder would try to re-balance the game so that total units did no go to such high numbers for either AI or human. I don't want hard number limits. I don't even know if it is possible, but I wonder if adjusting support costs (more for advanced units), build costs, building modifiers, and so on, could be done to keep unit numbers down to, say, dozens, rather than 100s in late game. You might say this is impossible, and you might be right. You might say that the AI needs huge numbers to be effective and properly aggressive. But I would disagree on this point. As the total number of units goes up, the worse the human/AI ratio can be while still holding off the AI: 10 AI vs. my 2 is almost certainly a loss for me; 50 vs. 10 is dangerous and unpredictable but I might prevail; 100 vs. 20 will usually go my way (if I'm at all prepared).

 

[Valkrionn]

Well, that's something RifE already has plans for. Rebalanced units, and more attractive buildings. And MORE buildings, but I won't say how that's accomplished without a massive confusing build queue... Just know that it is.

 

[Sephi]

As for Micro... Yes, there is micro. Isn't that the entire flipping point of the mechanic? Limited numbers of troops = More strategic positioning ('micromanagement') becomes necessary.

No, that is not micromanagement. Micromanagement means having to spend lots of time on decisions that are quite meaningless. Like when you want to heal a unit in a city, but the city is full, so you first need to move a unit out of the city, then move the unit in, let it heal, after that move the other unit back into the city. Or you want to move a unit through a tile that is already full and you need to cycle units around.

I don't quite agree that the AI is that handicapped; I've played a few games with it at this point, and it seemed to handle it quite well. Honestly, it fought more intelligently than it did before... So even if a stack ended up composed entirely of siege, I like that better than a stack of HUNDREDS of units becoming stuck because they want to attack a city but won't for some reason.

Try to compare it to an AI that isn't broken. And the stack of only siege is one of many examples. Play a map with chokepoints and the AI thinks it cannot move units through them when they are full and it might send units on weird path that take many turns and what a human player would never do.

And I also don't see that it 'breaks' area spells. They become more useful, yes...

no, they become less useful because they target also your units in neighbouring tiles, making them nearly useless.

But if you merge 'Surround and Destroy' with this, then you get combat bonuses for each tile adjacent to the enemy with your troops on it. And you WILL be surrounding people with this system, as will the AI, even if it doesn't set out to do so.

AI might surround you every now and then randomly, but it has no logic to seek the Surround and Destroy bonuses strategically. The only way to keep it competetive is to give it Deity like bonuses, something I really do not like.

As for CivV having the system... Isn't that reason enough to want to try it?

CivV has been designed for this system, Civ4 or FFH have not.

It's not like this would be forced on players; They can turn it off or ignore it if that's what they want to do.

true. But I do not want to make a mod where players have to guess which option is broken and which is not

 

[Valkrionn]

No, that is not micromanagement. Micromanagement means having to spend lots of time on decisions that are quite meaningless. Like when you want to heal a unit in a city, but the city is full, so you first need to move a unit out of the city, then move the unit in, let it heal, after that move the other unit back into the city. Or you want to move a unit through a tile that is already full and you need to cycle units around.

This one I'll give you; I'd like to add some kind of unit-switching mechanic. Think the easiest way would be to have a new move action available (so you don't do it on accident) which pushes the unit into the tile and places another unit in the tile you vacated.

Biggest issue would actually be handling how to choose which unit is bumped off.

I never said I played it in RifE, which is what I'm sure you're referring to there.

My test games have been in AND, I have not started merging it yet and won't for a bit. Other things first.

The AI in AND is fairly effective... And I didn't notice much appreciable difference. If anything, the AI handled itself better, as it never had a massive stack get stuck in a city siege. That may have just been me adjusting to it, though. I also didn't play a chokepoint heavy map; Will do so next.

Really though, I don't think there are too many horrible issues.

This one I'd neglected to take into account. Will have an optional module which rebalances them.

It doesn't have any logic implemented for it, but it is still able to make use of it, even if just by accident. The smaller the limit, the more it happens; With a limit of 8, it was not a rare occurrence.

No they weren't, but it's still interesting and is a feature that has been requested often.

And I disagree about it being broken, so to each their own.

 

[Sephi]

I never said I played it in RifE, which is what I'm sure you're referring to there.

no, I referred to your last post. An AI that cannot even handle a simple city siege is broken, no need to use it as an argument.

The AI in AND is fairly effective... And I didn't notice much appreciable difference. If anything, the AI handled itself better, as it never had a massive stack get stuck in a city siege. That may have just been me adjusting to it, though. I also didn't play a chokepoint heavy map; Will do so next.

well, I have higher expectations from AI than not getting stuck in a city siege.

No they weren't, but it's still interesting and is a feature that has been requested often.

I don't find it interesting at all, just a bad implementation of a good idea. And I do not mean the code in AND, but the whole "allow 8 units on a tile, but not 9" thing. There are plenty of other ways to encourage tactical movement and splitting stacks if one is so interested in it.

 

[Neomega]

I agree with Sephi. I see a lot of band-aid solutions for "problems" popping up on the board all of the sudden that are very poorly thought out.

And I don't play with SoD's. I spread out because that allows a web defense with focused attacks, but that requires highly mobile forces.

(being submitted to the automatic stack defense is bad enough ; sometimes I don't want to defend with the best defender... chance for more xp, wounded defender...etc but that's not the topic)

I agree. A fodder/frontline promotion or switch would be nice. This is actually something that has pissed me off since day one of Civ IV.

WM is not exactly the place to experiment with attempts to stop SoD's or giant stacks. That is just the way the civ series has always worked best.

I guarantee with a mod limiting tile numbers, you would just get crappy AI, and micromanagement. Yeah, the earlier wars are better, but that is just something about the game in general.

I don't find it interesting at all, just a bad implementation of a good idea. And I do not mean the code in AND, but the whole "allow 8 units on a tile, but not 9" thing. There are plenty of other ways to encourage tactical movement and splitting stacks if one is so interested in it.

maybe. But one of the most common mistakes of so many great generals is to split their forces. The SoD works because it has so many tactical advantages. I mean civ is just complicated risk, and when playing risk, you almost always put all your reinforcements on the same space and roll. That's just the way it is.

It might take some brainstorming, but I assure everyone, a fix like this simply will not add any value to the game. it will just make the you better and the AI dumber.

CivV seems to be attempting to change it, but we'll see.
Think about it, it has been about 6 years since civ IV came out, and no solution to this "SoD" problem. Soren Johnson and Sid Meier themselves never found a solution. Collateral damage was supposed to discourage stacks, but that just didn't pan out well. The fact is, they decided that it would actually be better to rebuild the whole freaking concept from scratch, than try to rework the traditional system. That should say something.

 

[Lorak]

I think Wildmana has plenty of encouragement to split stacks if you are playing against a human player who uses magic. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't realize this, and his stack of 120 units getting hit by 4 mages with spells that reduce everything in his stack to 1.0 strength every turn will just stand there and die.

I think splitting up stacks can only help the AI in situations like this, and I don't see a nerf on aoe spells as a side effect being a particularly bad thing.

The intent of those spells is to split up stacks, but the AI refuses to split their stacks. But then you say that if the AI's stacks are split, those spells are now less effective. Which one do you want? I personally want the AI to split their stacks and make those spells less effective.

If you're hitting friendly units with aoe spells, that's your own problem. However, I -can- definitely see this as an issue if the AI is hitting it's own units with aoe spells, which it most probably will, if it even uses aoe spells. I don't recall ever seeing it, outside of Acheron.