1UPT: the Civ 1 approach!

[wodan11]

Try 'sarcasm'.

Oh, I got that part. But sarcasm, when applied through a nonsense sentence, is a waste of time. What makes sarcasm work is the context. Nonsense sarcastic context just comes through as nonsense.

[Boracks]

Actually, more like witticism, the original point had some validity as the poll sample would be slanted by its very nature.

I was thinking of a poll asking if you respond to polls. And of course there'd only be a yes option, since a no option would be moot. Oh, and a banana option, as tradition would have it.

[MxM]

I would like different approach. I would let units to "pack up" and "unpack". You spend a whole turn to do that (though you could move before unpacking/packing, but once you do it, that's it). Packed unit become civilian-like unit and could stack and could not fight, except for defense equal to the defense of other civilian units, like a worker. In short, it is nearly identical to how it behaves on water.

When multiple units are stacked, then the last unit that moved in is on top of the stack, and will be the one to be damaged/killed if the stack attacked. The rest of the units suffer no damage. One can even unpack one unit on top of the stack to protect it.

There could be actually some bonuses to such packed units, e.g. faster heal times, or faster move speed, and may be lower maintenance.

I think it would be much better and more realistic approach - it reflect military units in inactive state and ready to transportation, but not for fight.

[Burticus]

I like the 1UPT with one exception. I would like to be able to share a unit with a defensive unit. IE - pikeman+archer/crossbow on one tile. Cannons/artillery ain't cheap, YO! Why can't I park a defensive unit on top of it?

[Beatie]

1UPT is a good idea.. but I agree on the fact that is sometimes hard to place your troops the right spot.. Some people try to play this game like CIV IV (I did myself at the start of Civ V) but hey.. this is something else my friends... We need to find different strategy's to win. I was a invasion force player with civ 4, with civ 5 this is very hard to do. If I create an army of let say 30 troops, with 10 or more ships around them.. that is 40 troops to move each turn. so basically is not fun to build a huge army to attack somebody oversea. If you like to fight oversea wars with a huge task-force.. play CIV4.

But what if let say a great general could be used to move a army oversea? 1UPT rule, so they follow the leader! and you should be able to auto defend your general/army with your ships. this way the whole army auto move where you want it to go! So if you just manualy move a few destroyers to check out the sea you be fine. Maybe a idea for a expansion pack?

[Nikolai]

1UPT

I love your insight.

[Beatie]

I hit enter to soon hehehe

[Arrian]

1UPT is ridiculous. A cap on # of units per tile, scaled to map size, would have "solved" the stack-of-doom "problem."

-Arrian

[Beatie]

I think the problem is not 1UPT. It's the lack of depth in this game. The food is sience rule is kinda stupid I think. I loved the commerce slider. And it makes sense in my eyes (in Civ IV). Religion was a fun in CIV IV, BTS, corporations as well.

I did not say the game is easy not at all.. but the attention now is on the 1UPT rule. It feels more like a war game now instead of the real civ game.

So it sounds that I do not like the 1UPT rule. The idea is good I think. But there are a few things that makes this rule stupid.

1 warlike people (like me) who like a huge army have problems to place your army to the map. I do not want my entire army at the border, only when Im at war. There for I love to stack my units to store them. Stack units should be possible at a fortress for example. The 1UPT warfare is fun... but the logistics needed in during the day to day life (in game) is not fun at all this way. More roads can help, but hey.. they make you pay money for your roads. So usualy you place your army a the side of the road.

And what about oversea warfare? That was the most fun of civ IV (for me) and this is not possible in CIV V or not fun to do it this way.

I must say.. I am playing a CIV IV game right now and I love it. But I must say I do miss the hex squares, and the fun range attacks of CIV V.

So I agree on the fact that there must be some changes to the 1UPT rule, but lose one unit and lose them all rule is a no go for me. Firaxis, bring back Transports ships, stack units into fortresses and where fine I think.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

1UPT is clearly the decision behind the lack of depth in this game...

there are other poor choices of dealing with Civ concepts in Civ V than in Civ IV or earlier, but 1UPT trounces them all as THE issue. AI is garbage, building anything is slow and boring, terrain is clogged, roads are screwed... if they somehow made CiV V a peaceful citybuilder game with 1UPT where war is totally marginalized, it might have been interesting (but no thanks to 1UPT)... however they made it into an almost war game, where war option, thanks to 1UPT has been dumbed down in an unreal way... hard to believe that it was possible, but they dun it .

edit: Civ 1... 1990 approach was better than Civ V... says it all. If you had to make Civ combat worse and more tedious, I do not know if I can imagine a system more boring than 1UPT while at the same time it remains ridiculously challenging for AI... at Firaxis they should stick with facebook Civ, clearly the correct direction for them.

[Robert]

The most important reason that the civ1 approach will work are borders.
Civ1 had no borders! Enemy units would invade your land first, then dow and attack.
But now we have borders, your defensive stacks have time to respond to a dow and unstack in time.

It's a matter of strategy and planning to make sure that no enemy can ever destroy a huge stack civ1 style, simply by keeping every stack out of striking range of all your enemies.
The fact that civ1 had no borders made the "1 unit dies, the entire stack dies" terrible. Now we have borders your stacks can be save.

And for the record: it's a personal strategical decision to stack up units. Do you take the risk to lose them all or do you move them around unstacked.

[rah]

I remember in CIV II using a large stack of engineers to build a railroad in one turn and then move all the artillery down the railroad and attack on the same turn. No where in your territory were you save.

[Beatie]

I want to say that without the 1UPT the game is still very boring in my eyes. What means that the lack of dept is defiantly the problem, and of course the bad AI in this game.

Now where is my CIV IV icon....
btw, I placed a nice poll in the Civ IV forum.. but no one is voting.. just watching
it's about if you still play Civ IV while having Civ V.... (have something to do with this toppic does it?)

let face it... I miss my stacks of doom

[Robert]

I remember in CIV II using a large stack of engineers to build a railroad in one turn and then move all the artillery down the railroad and attack on the same turn. No where in your territory were you save.

In civ2 your enemy could use your roads.
I remember having huge stacks of armors and howitzers.....taking city after city turn after turn...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I want to say that without the 1UPT the game is still very boring in my eyes. What means that the lack of dept is defiantly the problem, and of course the bad AI in this game.

Now where is my CIV IV icon....
btw, I placed a nice poll in the Civ IV forum.. but no one is voting.. just watching
it's about if you still play Civ IV while having Civ V.... (have something to do with this toppic does it?)

let face it... I miss my stacks of doom

the fact is, that I still play Civ IV, but do not visit those forums here anymore ... I do visit the Civ V ones, hoping against reason that something will dramatically change for the better, but that hope is slowly dying...