Do you like 1UPT?

[OzzyKP]

Yes or no?

[Zoetstofzoetje]

Yes

[Robert]

I voted yes.
I'd like it to tweat it a bit though.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I am representing 90% of absent Civ community so my one vote for No counts as 10000

[Nikolai]

Yes.

[Quick]

Yes

[Jaybe]

1UPT:
Non-military units unable to pass through foreign units:

[Boracks]

yes, beats the SoD with 'whomever gets to use siege units first usually wins'. Even though that was fun most of the time.

[Proteus_MST]

Didn´t vote, because I cannot answer this with a clear yes or no.

It has its good things, like no SoDs, but also ranged attacks, which probably wouldn´t have been introduced without 1UpT.

But it also has its bad things, like the AIs lacking ability to wage war with 1 UpT
and especially the fact that, considering the huge size of a single tile (which can be thought of as hundreds of km), it is rather hard to imagine that a single unit occupies all this area (there were games which solved this problem much better, for example by having combat take place on a smaller scale battlemap [done by Master of Magic almost 2 decades ago] or by simulating army style combat where every unit in the stack has its role [done by CtP 1/2])

[Adagio]

I like the 1UPT... while it's not perfect, it makes the battles more interesting... Unfortunately the AI is not good at it, but hopefully soon it will "learn"

[Iola of Shinola]

i am sure you have already determined that the results of this poll are going to be slanted by the fact that the people that really disliked 1 UpT have stopped playing and most likely have stopped reading/responding to this site. so why bother to ask/poll?

[wodan11]

As always, polls are a pretty good measure of people who respond to polls.

Correlation to the entire market? Not so much.

[Supr49er]

Voted yes.

[Sabre2th]

The implementation could probably use some improvement, but I like the general idea.

[nbarclay]

Voted no. Large, consolidated armies are a much more realistic depiction of how wars have been conducted through most of history than having armies spread out all over the map with ranged units firing from dozens if not hundreds of kilometers behind the front lines. The Call to Power games got things almost right, allowing large but not unlimited stacks (nine units in CTP1 and twelve in CTP2) and having the stacks fight each other as stacks in a way that provided advantages for mixed forces. Unfortunately, there were two serious problems in the implementation:

1) The movement system was unwieldy because stacks couldn't move through other stacks unless the combined size of the stacks was within the limit. The size limit should have been ignored as long as units were just passing through.

2) There wasn't a way for multiple stacks to attack simultaneously in order to counter defensive bonuses with weight of numbers. That made the limit on stack sizes unreasonably favorable to defenders until bombardment units became available to even the odds.

When I made the transition from CTP to Civ III, I thought the ability to have unlimited units on a tile and the lack of a way to represent the advantages of mixed forces were less realistic than the CTP approach. But the Civ III/IV approach was significantly simpler to use. The Civ V approach is neither realistic nor user-friendly; any advantage in ease of gameplay comes from reducing the numbers of units, not from 1UPT.