My Impressions

[Asmodean]

How is an army of 1 unit in the system you propose not equal to injured unit from a 1upt system (like current civ5 system)?

Perhaps because it isn't injured? Yes an army consisting of 1 unit would have problems facing an army with 4 units. But in the early game, everyone would only have access to armies with 1 or 2 units. That would depend on tech - as it should. The player with superior tech has advantages over the player with inferior tech.

In my system, the unit is still itself. It's still an independant unit, with independant stats. I propose this system not to reinvent the unit mechanics in Civ 5, but rather to find a middle ground between the current extremely restrictive system, and the stack of doom which many of us want to avoid.

Asmodean

[jnh140]

Which is why i proposed a mobilization concept. By no means would the way I described it even be the end all be all, but the 1UPT restriction means that not even at home can you have military units deployed at more than 1 unit per tile. You should not, and cannot, have the ability to attack from a stack of more than one unit, and defense from such a position would be poor. So, an option to mothball units which would allow them to stack seems to be the only thing I can imagine. A penalty in time is mandatory, as being able to pour out from one square into six would be stupid, but that penalty should come with some advantage.

ooo! what if you could pack units into a Citadel? Hm!

A second way you could consider this is "convoy mode" Convoys are very common IRL. Convoys are often highly susceptible to attack, which is why they are kept behind the front. I would imagine a convoy would alloy you to carry units down a road faster than normal road movement and stacked, but would require some extra time to deploy and would be enormously susceptible to attack.

VARUS! GIVE ME BACK MY LEGIONS

[Sir Og]

Perhaps because it isn't injured? Yes an army consisting of 1 unit would have problems facing an army with 4 units. But in the early game, everyone would only have access to armies with 1 or 2 units. That would depend on tech - as it should. The player with superior tech has advantages over the player with inferior tech.

In my system, the unit is still itself. It's still an independant unit, with independant stats. I propose this system not to reinvent the unit mechanics in Civ 5, but rather to find a middle ground between the current extremely restrictive system, and the stack of doom which many of us want to avoid.

Asmodean

For the purposes of calculating who wins a battle it doesn't matter if you have full army vs a single unit in your system or a healthy unit vs an injured one in civ 5 system. In both cases one has huge advantage over the other.
Since in your system all players would want to field only full armies (otherwise they put themselves at big disadvantage) you might as well get rid of the army concept altogether. Either leave it at 1upt or have a system with no restrictions on stacking(SoD)

[notyoueither]

Update

I'm not posting much because I am busy playing the game. Perhaps that is the best measure of how good a game CiV is in my opinion.

I've increased difficulty to King and the AI is showing a lot more life. Although it remains a poor warrior it is expanding sooner and at least has some quantity of units to make up partially for poor tactics.

The economic and empire management system is quite deep. Happiness, gold, culture, and number/positioning of cities are all inter-related. You can REX, but you will face happiness and cultural issues. Delaying growth has rewards as your core will be better able to support a growing empire, but you may miss out on choice city sites and happiness from luxuries as well as new cities having lower ability to generate cash. More cities sooner will make the amount of culture required to adopt social policies increase dramatically. There's a lot in here for the builder.

One possible reason for the slow expansion of AI Empires may be intentional. Delaying growth in number of cities until several social policies can be adopted can be very beneficial. Perhaps some of the AIs are pursuing more builderly strategies as delaying large numbers of new cities appears to be a valid strategy.


AI Diplomacy is much better than in previous versions in one critical aspect. The AI leaders are not mindless caricatures in behaviour. It is possible to deal with the stereotypically aggressive civs as I've been on good terms with just about every leader in the pack in some game or other. Even Monte can be dealt with... even if it only puts off the day that he will declare war if he is close.

Geography, power, and past behaviour all play a part in how the AI will treat the human. This is very positive. Also, the various diplomatic options actually have an effect. An AI may agree not to settle close to you if asked. An AI may agree to make peace with a City State, and they actually respond to the declarations of protection.

I had made an ally of a distant City State through a stroke of luck. My scout came up to the borders and found a barb archer with a captured worker inside the CS borders. I had my scout kill the barb and free the worker. This gave me enough influence to allow a grant of gold to put me in comfortable ally territory. So I ended up with a very distant cultural CS feeding my appetite for social policies.

It was not too long before the nearby Japanese attacked the CS. Oda destroyed the CS army and laid siege to the city. I sent some units as gifts, but they were lost quickly after arrival. I decided to make the fultile request to Oda to leave the CS alone. I was quite surprised that he agreed (we had previous good relations). Sometime later Oda again attacked the CS. Now the CS was unwilling to make peace so there was no option to ask Oda for it. I declared the CS to be under my protection. Oda stopped his attack.

The ability to have relationships with civs and that they will respond to requests is very positive. Also, I am not noticing any ganging up of AIs on the human. Civs are responding to each other for reasons on the map and due to behaviour. These things are exceedingly positive developments. If the AI is being worked on for economic and military ability, this could end up as one of the best in the series for this aspect of the game.

[Asmodean]

For the purposes of calculating who wins a battle it doesn't matter if you have full army vs a single unit in your system or a healthy unit vs an injured one in civ 5 system. In both cases one has huge advantage over the other.
Since in your system all players would want to field only full armies (otherwise they put themselves at big disadvantage) you might as well get rid of the army concept altogether. Either leave it at 1upt or have a system with no restrictions on stacking(SoD)

At least in my system, we would be allowed to field more units in a given space. I like my proposal - even with the limitations that you have lined out, because it solves SoD, while not being too restrictive.

I can't help feeling, though, that we shouldn't be having this discussion at all. 1UPT is in my main a total failure for 2 reasons:

1) It feels overly restrictive. While the rest of the game is very much fun, and actually in many ways better than Civ IV, I grind my teeth when thinking about warfare. 1UPT has for restrictiveness alone made warfare unfun.

2) 1UPT forces us to play tactically on the strategic map. Meh..... Unfun at best. A catastrophic design decision at worst.

Asmodean

[rah]

1upt is the best feature in V and once the improve how the AI used it, will make V the best in the series. SODs were just plain silly and took all strategy out of combat. LOOK I have 150 units in one stack. "this makes me the best general ever". It was a joke. BUT, it made the AI easier to program and would make it looks smarter. Having said all that, currently the AI is so bad and 1UPT just makes it look worse.

[Hermann the Lombard]

So far I like 1UPT as the combat is more interesting and--for me--more fun, having to worry about things like deploying from a column of route to a line of battle. It's very much better than the classic Civ model of two columns of guys slugging it out in a narrow hallway where only one guy at a time can fight. No maneuver, no nothing, SOD favored. The AI even (sometimes) seems to know to put melee units in front with missile units behind.

It's clear that YMMV regarding 1UPT, and we'll all get used to it whether we think it's the best feature or the worst feature of Civ V.

[gdijedi7]

I'd prefer to have actual armies and tactical battles. Pop a unit cap onto the armies (say, five to seven units), with each unit representing, say, a corps, generate a battlefield from the surrounding tiles, and let me manuever my army around.


I know, I know... too complex, don't want a seperate screen for battles, etc. I'd still prefer it.

[Asmodean]

1upt is the best feature in V and once the improve how the AI used it, will make V the best in the series. SODs were just plain silly and took all strategy out of combat. LOOK I have 150 units in one stack. "this makes me the best general ever". It was a joke. BUT, it made the AI easier to program and would make it looks smarter. Having said all that, currently the AI is so bad and 1UPT just makes it look worse.

Yes, it is good that 1UPT removes SOD. That alone, however, doesn't make it a good feature

I strongly feel that tactical combat on the strategic map is.....wrong

Asmodean

[Chemical Ollie]

Wow, I cant believe I'm posting ON topic, must be my first of that kind in years. I read between the lines that the final game is out, right? No beta.

Nice to see so many old timers here.

What's your call, should I buy the game or stick to Civ4 (which I haven't played in a year anyway) when I get hungry for Civ again?

[jnh140]

I don't like civ IV, but it was better than III, and I played it a lot.

I like Civ V, which makes me happy.

I still think Civ 2 is a nearly perfect game for its time.

[Beatie]

I like the 1UPT as well... if we only have enough money to build a huge army and use it

[notyoueither]

Wow, I cant believe I'm posting ON topic, must be my first of that kind in years. I read between the lines that the final game is out, right? No beta.

Nice to see so many old timers here.

What's your call, should I buy the game or stick to Civ4 (which I haven't played in a year anyway) when I get hungry for Civ again?

I'd have to say that what we have is a beta. Although it is very playable, there are some large bugs and balance issues.

If you want polished and finished, wait. If you can look past the blemishes then jump right in. The combat is fun if not overly challenging. The economics and building aspects are all there and working, but in need of a bit of balancing.

[PrinceBimz]

I disagree on city specialization being important. Why shouldn't you build every gold improving and happiness building if given the chance? Why shouldn't you just plop a bunch of trading posts down?

Maybe other things are more important at a given time such as a Public School if you are going for a tech vic or units if a war is coming around. Sure you can buy them but you will have to have a lot of gold in your stockpile if you plan on buying everything for your city.

[Calvin Vu]

Yes, it is good that 1UPT removes SOD. That alone, however, doesn't make it a good feature

I strongly feel that tactical combat on the strategic map is.....wrong

Asmodean

I don't agree that 1UPT is the only way or even a good way to remove SOD. There are several other ways:
1) Make units very expensive so it will take forever to create a large number of units (Civ V did this)
2) Make unit maintenance cost prohibitively expensive for large armies (Civ V did this)
3) Make collateral damage more serious than in Civ IV (but probably not as bad as Civ II when a whole stack would be killed if the one defending unit lose the battle) and by any range units.
With that people can still stack probably half a dozen or a dozen of their units and move them from one end of their empire to another for convenience. When they get close to the battle field, the player will have a choice of risking a serious collateral damage by stacking or spreading their units out. If they have 10 units stacked up and those units got blown away by 3, 4 archers then they will think twice about stacking even when it is still allowed. People might have 2, 3 units per tile when the field is too cramped though and a 3-unit stack is not a SOD, just a choice of better maneuver vs risk of more damage.
Without condition (1) and (2) above then even if stacking is not allowed, players still need to create a lot of troops to fight off the other players with similarly large nmber of troops and you probably see 50, 60 units on each side of the battle all over the map. That will be even worse than having SODs.