Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1UPT - A Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1UPT - A Discussion

    A lot of different threads are currently talking about the merits/detriments of 1UPT. I would like to see a focused discussion on why some love it, why some hate it, and how this new concept can be properly applied to the Civilization series.

    I've been playing this series since ~1997 when I started playing CivII at a friend's house. I was hooked from the start and put several hundred hours into what I still consider to be one of my favorite games of all time. In CivII a stack was very vulnerable - the death of the defender meant the death of every unit in the square. Because of this issue we saw rule changes that introduced collateral damage and the death of just one unit at a time in a stack. In turn this led to the the Stack of Death (SoD), an enormous group of units piled into one coherent army that could steamroll its way across an opponent's empire. Because of this issue the developers of Civ V introduced One Unit Per Tile (1UPT), an attempt to fix once and for all the ubiquitous SoD.

    So after that brief (and unnecessary) history lesson, let's talk about some of the pros and cons of 1UPT:

    Pros
    • Fixes SoD
    • Coupled with ranged units, introduces actual tactics to warfare.
    • Allows for true "chokepoints" wherein one unit can theoretically hold back an entire army (think "300").
    • Can mimic how a real battlefield is arranged (You can't have multiple tank, artillery and infantry divisions all occupying the same space at the same time.)


    Cons
    • Leads to traffic jams along roads. This is especially frustrating when an AI opponent with one unit (usually a scout) blocks the road leading to a different opponent you are at war with.
    • Micromanagement of units when moving them across the map.
    • Unnecessary mouse clicking. When purchasing a unit, why do I need to move my current defender out of the city, buy the new unit, move them out, and then move the original defender back?
    • Contrary to the Pro listed above, on the scale of the Civilization series this does NOT mimic a real world battlefield in the least. Units are conceivably spread across a front hundreds or thousands of miles wide.


    So there are just a few of the pros and cons of 1UPT, and more are welcome.

    At least one of the "fixes" proposed that I have seen is a return to CivII style rules wherein the "active" unit defends the stack, and if it is killed the entire stack dies. Others have requested that 1UPT be disabled entirely.

    Do you like 1UPT as it is? If not, how would you change it?

    Personally, I like 1UPT. I think it adds a dimension of tactics to warfare that was missing from prior Civ games. I don't think the problem in Civ V is 1UPT, but rather the fact that the AI has no frickin clue how to handle it. If the programmers can "teach" the AI how to effectively wage war this divisive issue is greatly minimized.

    And finally, I read in the PC Gamer article that there is a mod (Legions) that removes the 1UPT restrictions. Does this suffice for those of you who dislike the one unit restriction?

  • #2
    The biggest problem is the acronym. This is Civ, not Super Mario Bros.
    “As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
    "Capitalism ho!"

    Comment


    • #3
      1upt is the inappropriate application of a clearly tactical warfare system to a strategic game. It's simply a mismatch. SoD wasn't perfect, but it could've easily been fixed, probably by a simple, hidden, and automatic logistics system of tile fertility/population=unit support number. So easy. So authentic. 1upt was a Poor design choice. In terms of immersion, it was too jarring to tolerate. In terms of AI effectiveness, it was too difficult to implement successfully. Even the enthusiasts admit that. Bad thing, but it was only one bad thing among many that kept me from purchasing the thing. My message to firaxis; you'll have to do better if you want my money. Didn't buy civIII either. Won't buy a bad game. Waiting for Civ6 (oddly, it seems that the even-numbered versions are the good ones. )

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Exiled View Post
        1upt is the inappropriate application of a clearly tactical warfare system to a strategic game. It's simply a mismatch. SoD wasn't perfect, but it could've easily been fixed, probably by a simple, hidden, and automatic logistics system of tile fertility/population=unit support number. So easy. So authentic. 1upt was a Poor design choice. In terms of immersion, it was too jarring to tolerate. In terms of AI effectiveness, it was too difficult to implement successfully. Even the enthusiasts admit that. Bad thing, but it was only one bad thing among many that kept me from purchasing the thing.
        You at least played the demo, right?

        I agree that the AI, as it is right now, sucks and needs to be taught how to properly wage war. This includes proper use of ranged units, use of chokepoints, not suiciding units by embarking them next to my warships, and how to cycle vet units away from the battlefront. All of these things would, in my opinion, greatly improve the one unit per tile experience.

        I do not agree that 1UPT is a tactical feature being improperly forced on a strategy game, nor that it is an immersion-breaking feature. In a couple of games I have played I have been invaded by an enemy and was not entirely prepared for war. For several very tense turns I was able to whittle away at my opponent until finally their offensive stalled. With a better AI I may not have been able to pull off such a victory, but I can say without a doubt that if they AI had been able to mass all of their units into a SoD I would have gotten my ass handed to me in just a few turns. A close, unit-for-unit battle was much more immersive (and fun) than just watching two stacks smash into one another until the bigger one wins.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think that your units should be able to "pass through" other friendly units in order to get to where they are going. If your stack is attacked, they will die one at a time, but to balance this, NO unit in a stack may initiate an attack--you have to "deploy" your units in a 1upt formation in order to attack with them.
          Those who live by the sword...get shot by those who live by the gun.

          Comment


          • #6
            While I really like this and I think the concept could really help reduce a lot of the headaches that IUPT causes, I can just imagine how this would become another weakness of the AI as stacks are left to be easily eliminated.
            It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
            RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DaShi View Post
              The biggest problem is the acronym. This is Civ, not Super Mario Bros.
              haha so true... I recently dusted off my old NES and had been playing SMB3 - had the same thought when i saw the title
              No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... (And no, koalas don't usually speak!)

              Comment

              Working...
              X