Do you like 1UPT?

[Shogun Gunner]

your comments are of course logical, however you overlook the cathartic experience I enjoyed when typing that.

I still think the combined arms concept is a better model for a simulation game. To me thats units (or weaponry) being co-located.

[Ming]

I have no problem with the 1upt concept... but then again, I'm an old wargamer who grew up with 1upt. The SOD is what I find silly, not 1upt. However, my problem is with the AI and its inability to do battle properly. To me, that's a big problem with the game... not the concept.

[Shogun Gunner]

I think we've talked about this before, but I can't remember many of the old wargames that were 1upt. Afrika Korp, Squad Leader, Stalingrad were typical of the time allowing three unit stacking max. I know the SPI games all had stacking. Panzer Blitz/Panzer Leader were examples of 1upt - is that what you played?

[Ming]

I played them all... plus a ton of others not mentioned

[Pinchak]

No less "realistic" than needing years to move a single square... like in all the Civ games.

Feel free to attack 1upt for real reasons... but to claim it's not realistic is just plain silly, since the whole game is already full of unrealistic elements.

True, but most of the "unrealistic" elements seem to fit better into the overall feel of the game then 1UPT.

The mere concept that you can't move more than one unit into a tile because of available space is laughable.

What they SHOULD have done was place a limit on the number of units that can occupy a space... 3-5 would seem appropriate.

[Ming]

Again... using a realism argument or "seems" to fit better argument is absurd.
The movement in terms of "years" is just plain silly, 50 years to move a single tile... 15 turns to build a granery in the early years... at 50 years a turn... just plain crazy. Everything is NOT REALISTIC.

So let's not attack it because you find it laughable... most of the game is laughable.
Realism arguments have no place when discussing Civ. Find some real reasons to not like it. If you think 3 to 5 units is a good limit, discuss why that should be the case... don't just claim it's more realistic, because that's no argument at all.

[wodan11]

When I used to work for a game company, and we were talking about game design, the very first question to ask yourself in response to a topic is whether it's a "gameplay" issue or a "story" issue. Because Ming you're exactly right, they are two completely different concepts and yet people mix them up all the time.

And frankly, the response to pretty much any "story" problem is usually to simply come up with a different rationalization.

[Boracks]

And gameply is the fundamental issue with CivV at the moment. Although 1 UPT is okay in my opinion (and I'm another one of those that's played the old board games), with the AI not handling it, the gameplay just doesn't work.

Another factor may be that since they knew there would not be as many units in play, since it is only 1 UPT, they slowed down the production of the units, but did it by slowing down the production of everything.

[Dinner]

Since they're incapable of making an AI which can use 1UPT why ruin the game by forcing the AI to try to do something it can't? If folks don't like unlimited stacking then just limit it to a few units and call it a day. On the upside this would immensely improve MP play as being able to build small stacks of like 3-5 units is an improvement over having to individually move every single unit on the map.

[Ming]

It's not that they are incapable of making an AI that can use 1UPT... Others have done so in other games. Why they haven't been able to so far is kind of silly considering the 1UPT concept is one of the core changes. Again, it just shows they put too many resources against the visuals and not game play.

[Dinner]

I hope you are right but something tells me Sid's comments on why stacking was in Civ1 still apply. It was too hard to create an AI which could do it decently so they just added stacking to make it so the AI was less handicapped. Sure, much has improved since 1991 but, it appears, somethings have not changed.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I think I missed which opend ended games have 1UPT concept AI that actually works?

[bantams]

Yes

Just dont like the game though would have prefered it to be more like civ 4 but with hexes, 1upt and flash Graphics oh and the ability to play huge earth maps in Multiplayer would have been nice

[Dinner]

Why 1UPT is crap and why it completely breaks the game on just about every level. It's the heart of everything that went wrong in Civ5:

http://www.garath.net/Sullla/Civ5/whatwentwrong.html

[Brael]

I'm not voting on the poll because I'm not against 1 UPT but I am against the way it was done in civ 5.

In my opinion, for 1 UPT to be successful you need to limit people to small armies. Once army size grows too much, it's just not fun to manage the number of units. Ironically enough, I think civ 4 handled the spirit of what 1 UPT was supposed to accomplish better than civ 5. In 4, during the early game you wouldn't have huge stacks, they would be small stacks or individual units. As your army grew you ended up with a few stacks, with stacks requiring several losses to be fully destroyed, and fewer stacks limiting just how many tiles you were fighting over per turn.

It's completely backwards but civ 4 was better at accomplishing what civ 5's major defining feature was supposed to be, and civ 4 didn't even try to do it... it's just how stacks function.