One unit per tile ... epic game concepticide.

[Arbitre]

First off, I've been playing civ since civ 1... it's always been a secret favorite of mine, and I've paid for every version of the game... a couple twice when I've destroyed discs....

That being said, I am EXTREMELY upset about the one unit per tile system... I play Civ for the strategy of the game. Having only one military unit usable in a tile completely destroys the concept of the combined arms force. I want to be able to stack a spearman, on a swordsman, on an archer, on a catapult.

Yes, being able to stack hundreds of units and playing the sacrificial artillery game was not that great in past civ games, but the concept was good.

There was a right and wrong way to address that issue, and this wasn't the right way. If you want to limit the unit stacks, I agree, that's realistic.

Five units per tile sounds awesome to me. Why did you go with ONE. ONE?! Seriously? You have tricked your fan base and slighted them, in a near unforgivable away.

I only hope that it is not so hard coded into the core of this that it cannot be patched or modded out, ASAP.

EDIT: For all the "stacking an infinite group isn't realistic" people posting their hate mail in this thread.


I'm not proposing infinite stacks, I'm proposing between 3 and 5 unit stacks that would allow for choke point reduction and INCREASE in strategic thinking. The ability to have units and counterunits is a reality in its real world analog. A column of infantry, with a cavalry escort that is able to be sent on skirmish missions and return to the (relative) safety of their comrades is something that happens on battlefields everyday. Just one example... the applications of small stacking are extremely diverse.

Excellent proposals in this thread, though, guys. Keep the idea's coming and I'm sure that the dedicated fan base (if not firaxis) will create something that will satisfy us all. With mod's we can all be happy. If you like stacks, you will be able to mod for it. If not, then you can play vanilla. It's that simple. Keep the "OMG YOUR A NOOB CUZ U DUNT LIK THE WAY THAY MADE EET" posts to a minimum, please...

[Veshta]

There was a mod that undid the 1UPT restriction a few days after launch. Personally don't want the SoD back but I also hate the cluster☺☺☺☺ that current system brings with it .. move any amount of units through a bottleneck and its rush hour traffic x 100.

Question is where to set the limit.

[mjm800]

In the GlobalDefines XML you can change the number of units per hex, but it does strange things to the game.

I was at war with Russia and was trying to attack a Russian unit but an Egyptian Scout was stacked with the unit so I could not attack without going to war with Egypt and then the game would crash.

I guess when you have open boarders and remove the stacking limits you can stack with another Civ and the game can't handle it.

I would not be surprised if a an upcoming patch removes the restriction and allow 2-5 units per hex. I would like 2 per hex myself.

[biazu17]

You probably need to move this topic into the suggestion directory or somthing else. I read only your complaint.

[thefluffyrocker]

I play Civ for the strategy of the game. Having only one military unit usable in a tile completely destroys the concept of the combined arms force. I want to be able to stack a spearman, on a swordsman, on an archer, on a catapult.

Got this far and realised this was another joke whine thread about someone who doesn't know what their on about.

If you think SoD is more strategic than 1upT then you have no real concept of strategy and this is why you likely hate it. I'm going to guess your having issues adjusting to the less simplistic combat style and it's a L2P play issue like most other whines about 1upT rather than an issue with the gameplay.

Even if you limit the stacks you take away any concept of strategy and you can always creat and invincible stack that has no weakness.
if you find units having a weakness an issue you need to learn some strategy to protect them, not nerf the game back into the stoneage.

[JoshTheValiant]

Got this far and realised this was another joke whine thread about someone who doesn't know what their on about.

If you think SoD is more strategic than 1upT then you have no real concept of strategy and this is why you likely hate it. I'm going to guess your having issues adjusting to the less simplistic combat style and it's a L2P play issue like most other whines about 1upT rather than an issue with the gameplay.

Even if you limit the stacks you take away any concept of strategy and you can always creat and invincible stack that has no weakness.
if you find units having a weakness an issue you need to learn some strategy to protect them, not nerf the game back into the stoneage.

He has a legitimate point, actually. A five unit stack is not a SoD, as any given civilization can likely match a single stack with a single stack of theirs. It would open up a new batch of strategic concerns, such as how to best combine units for the most effect for any given use, or giving horsemen a place to fall back to after a hit-and-away run, or other such things.

I'm a fan of 1UPT, until you start looking at the scale of the game and wondering why Archers can fire from one end of England to the other, or why a city can only be manned by cannons OR musketmen OR crossbowmen, etc. Stacks make the issue much more reasonable, and yet limiting the stacks makes the ever escalating SoD a non-issue. As I understand it, the SoD was a problem because a military superpower could assemble a stack that could not POSSIBLY be taken down, whereas in Civ V, even if a SoD was unlimited and possible, individual units reduce in efficacy when they take damage, and they take damage separately from one another.

The main problem I have with adding stacks back in is that the game offers no way of determining how the stack defends, or how the attackers push forward. I really feel that it should be defender choice, but currently such actions are impossible, to the best of my knowledge. If someone could figure out that particular wrinkle, I'd be down to give it a whirl.

[King_Course]

I think allowing 2 or 3 military stacks on a tile would help the game alot (mainly the AI) without breaking the gameplay idea. What would be needed was a negative combat modifier of say 0.75 or 0.66 for stacked units, so it would be feasible to still attack with 1 unit against a stack. Two swordsmen stacked, should even out with two single attacks by swordsmen, all other things being equal.

Maybe let all stacked units take full damage from bombers and ranged attacks generally.

Just finding the sweet spot where it might be beneficial to have 2 or 3 stacks in a citadel or a fort, but not beneficial to move through the countryside in a stack if logistics don't force you to.

Edit: If an AI patch comes up that makes the game as great as it could be, then forget about stacking, I only really like the idea for logistical reasons. The AI's problems first and foremost, my own problems much less.

[Arbitre]

Id even be satisfied at 3 upt's.

[SlimScarpa]

I like this line of thought, but I think the best balance would come from limiting how many of each 'class' of unit can stack. For instance, make it up to 3 per tile but limit of two melee/ranged and one siege type. Possible permutations could be 2 melee, 1 ranged or 1 each or 2 ranged, 1 siege, etc.

This would keep combined arms strategy but still require thoughtful composition.

[JoshTheValiant]

I like this line of thought, but I think the best balance would come from limiting how many of each 'class' of unit can stack. For instance, make it up to 3 per tile but limit of two melee/ranged and one siege type. Possible permutations could be 2 melee, 1 ranged or 1 each or 2 ranged, 1 siege, etc.

This would keep combined arms strategy but still require thoughtful composition.

This is an interesting idea, unfortunately, after Crossbowmen, ignoring Naval units, there simply aren't many ranged units that aren't siege, so the separations would mean rather less. Also, it would require writing in an entirely new classification of unit (Siege) in order to function as you imagine it.

It's probably possible, but it could easily be a pain.

[Veshta]

1UPT has more downsides than benefits, the traffic jams alone makes pandas everywhere sad.

- Make ranged/mounted/melee separate types and allow them to stack (ie. maximum three per tile).
- Add collateral damage to secondary/tertiary units on a tile equal to half that inflicted on the primary.
- No limit to non-combat unit stacking.
This would help to alleviate the jams and most importantly help the AI in combat that isn't conducted on flat terrain (~90% of all fights) as well as assist naval combat to some extent.
Human players would still win due to proper terrain abuse but the AI would no longer march his army single file to the slaughter thus present more of a threat.

[JoshTheValiant]

1UPT has more downsides than benefits, the traffic jams alone makes pandas everywhere sad.

- Make ranged/mounted/melee separate types and allow them to stack (ie. maximum three per tile).
- Add collateral damage to secondary/tertiary units on a tile equal to half that inflicted on the primary.
- No limit to non-combat unit stacking.
This would help to alleviate the jams and most importantly help the AI in combat that isn't conducted on flat terrain (~90% of all fights) as well as assist naval combat to some extent.
Human players would still win due to proper terrain abuse but the AI would no longer march his army single file to the slaughter thus present more of a threat.

I have no counter to your traffic jam argument. Think of the pandas.

However, your proposed change I can't see any serious merit in. The AI would still march their units in single file, because they wouldn't know what to do with the stacks. Even if they didn't, your collateral damage concept would just make their units die FASTER, since you'd be hitting more units at once. Regardless of their stacks, you would have your own stacks. The net effect of this change wouldn't help the AI at all, and wouldn't help the player much either, it would just make combat approach faster and be way more chaotic when it happened.

Topping it all off, creating new unit classifications strikes me as something that isn't going to be as straight forward as it initially appears to be. Changing the nature of the game should be put off for as long as possible when considering mods.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

The unlimited stacks of the previous games were because the AI's that could be made at the time (for a reasonable price) couldn't utilise 1UPh effectively. Yes, the current AI has flaws, but if you put the civ4 AI in charge of this game's units, the AI'd be declaring war left, right and centre without even having any type of military.

The Stacks of Doom were simplistic. And let's face it, they're a thing of the past.

[BitterDevil]

i like it when people complain on one part that the game isn't realistic enough... but then cry cause the combat part is too difficult for them... I for one love the 1 upt... esspecially due 2 the choke points... it makes u think strategic... as a defence point it's perfect and as an attack point...well u have to know how to brake the choke point... and even in real life on the field of combat u can't have more than one tipe of unit in the same space at the same time... it's phisycs the one thing that botheres me is that u can't garison more than one unit...cause in a garsion there are more than one units and the fact that if u have that unit garisoned it can't defend agains melee atacks

[SteelDragon]

I like it. It makes sense. You cant just place 1 000 000 soldiers in one house,truck,ship,plane. Troops take place and eat and drink. If you want to move 10 000 000 soldiers on foot from Berlin to Paris the first ones will get there before the last one makes its first step (its a metaphor).

[The Rockman]

Ok so the OP want the uber stack of doom mark 2 a spearman + archer/cat = a new lesser doom stack archer kill at range and spear guy kills any melee attackers = invincible steamroller why make cavalry when every military unit got an anti-cav in it?

[CrispyCritter]

I much prefer the 1UPT combat of Civ5 to Civ4. It's much more playable than I expected. It's a good mixture of strategy and tactics without having to go to separate interfaces for each, which is a pain (from other games).

The AI problems are more obvious with it than with SOD where quantity triumphs over quality. But that's what makes it more fun for us; we actually have to think!

I'm hopeful that the combat AI will improve with updates. I'm actually impressed at how well it does in general (though lots of rough edges) in the very limited time it has on underpowered machines. I'd like to see an option for "More AI time", so people with either more powerful machines or lots of patience can bump up the AI.

1UPT is fun!

[axebyte]

I been playing since Civ 1 myself, I personally like the (idea of) 1 unit per hex. But i dont like some of the issues it causes. Mostly with workers not being able to pass thru each other, allied units blocking routes <--this sucks if its a choke point. Took some getting use to after all the years of SOD's, presently stacking would be great since the AI doesnt seem to be able to handle the new rules yet.

I expected 1 unit per hex they said that, they also said hexes,which i like. They and reviewers always said the AI was awesome and played like a real person! <--- this last one is where i feel cheated, cause i would like to know what game they where playing. For a while i thought they might have used Chimps to test the AI, and by watching the chimps loose they thought the Ai was tough, but after deeper thought i think that might be insulting to the chimps. Once they figure out how to get the AI to use the new rules we might be able to go back to playing prince and loosing, instead of playing on immortal/deity and winning a majority of the time.

Over all the game still needs a ton of work before its playable, with crashes,slowdowns in late game,trade probs with resources, and countless little bugs and problems with game play. Hopefully if they ever make a civ 6 they should have an open alpha and beta, i use to test alot of games shame only a few companies seem to use these. I think i would of rather had the game delayed and fixed and ready, then pushed thru release.

[BitterDevil]

I been playing since Civ 1 myself, I personally like the (idea of) 1 unit per hex. But i dont like some of the issues it causes. Mostly with workers not being able to pass thru each other, allied units blocking routes <--this sucks if its a choke point.

i agree...i had 2 declare war several times because a damned city-state or "ally" would leave a unit in a choke point and on top of it all the choke point was comprized only by hills...so no chance to get across... and the worker issue i don't see why they implemented the same 1 upt there... but hopefully with new expanssions (in 1 year or so *sigh*) things will look up!

[JoshTheValiant]

i agree...i had 2 declare war several times because a damned city-state or "ally" would leave a unit in a choke point and on top of it all the choke point was comprized only by hills...so no chance to get across... and the worker issue i don't see why they implemented the same 1 upt there... but hopefully with new expanssions (in 1 year or so *sigh*) things will look up!

The Worker issue is an easy easy mod, you can simply change the stack limitations to whatever number you desire, or -1 to make there be no limits. I don't think Civvie units would be a problem with the game, since they all react the same when attacked: They be captured. Which actually raises an interesting tactical consideration to stacking your civvie units. While you might be able to move them more efficiently, your day can be ruined just as efficiently.

[Ash_F]

You still want to use combined arms. You just can't stack'em.

[EasymodeX]

I like the current system. Stacking units sounds dumb. Like "hey, I want spearmen's +100% versus mounted and swordsmen's raw attack power, oh and I want both to stack on a range unit so I can harass at the same time". UNSTOPPABLE TILE OF WIN.

L2 position your units.

L2 fight without 10,000 units swarming the map.

[Одуванчик]

I have an idea to improve the single unit per tile, but I think it would take more code and alter the game too much to be implemented by a patch. To take military land units only, giving them column and line formations. Column would deduct battle effectiveness for all units, but maybe spears. Make column formation necessary to get travel bonuses with roads and railroads. Only allow 1 unit in column formation to occupy another unit's tile. This will allow passing of units. Allow each unit per turn to change formation once. This will end the slide puzzle problem with too many impassible units. It will make it dangerous to be caught in column formation by many other military units, except for those who specialize in column type warfare. Simple, idea implemented in many strategy games. It doen't interfere with the overall game drastically. It will allow movement and prevent stacks of doom while keeping the psychology of the game intact. Therefore those seeking a domination victory will have a more satisfying game.
summary:
-land military units gain option to change 1 time per turn into column or battle line formations.
-column would allow 2 units to occupy 1 tile at a time(for movement)
-Column formation would bonus special units like spearmen
-Column would penalize attack and defense for most units that don't specialize in column fighting.
-column formation would be necessary for using improvements like roads and railroads. Otherwise they move as if no road or rail exists. Civilian units exempt.
-If 2 units occupy a hex, it would be impassable. This would prevent the stacks of doom, but allow more fluid movement and also leave the decision when to deploy an important decision as it could make one lose their unit.


If anyone agrees with this, I hope it is some how suggested to Firaxis.... Maybe I am wrong about it being coded into Civilization 5, but I think if they make Civ 6, it definitely should be implemented. I deplore stacks of doom. There is no military strategy involved in that.


My other hope is the AI aggression is toned down for those who want to be a more peaceful empire. I think all nations are 1 point or another challenged militarily throughout history, so it is definitely a threat that should be present to all civilization, no matter the goal.

[skullkandy]

i love the one unit per tile.

It gives a much more tactical aspect to war rather than who could stack 70 tanks on top of each other. The stack thing was just silly. An entire army could march right past all your defenses because they were only 1 square wide, so you needed hundreds of units for a decent defense which just bogged the game down horribly in 45 minute turns. as soon as you got a big stack, the other guy got a bigger one and so on. soooooooo boring. having 1 unit per tile really makes you have to think more about what you're doing.

[uhcougar31]

I would like to bring back armies. Only a great General could create one, up to 3 units per army. Ones that you could revise when wanted/needed. Change between an army of Cav, an army of arty, or a combo of three different types. That way there won't be an over abundance of armies and the remain a special commodity.

[ManOverGame]

1UPT is fine, and if you haven't been convinced yet, let me reinforce that it ADDS MORE STRATEGY TO THE GAME... Any noob can stack units together to create an invincible tile army, tell me where the strategy is in that.

[Belurien]

You probably need to move this topic into the suggestion directory or somthing else. I read only your complaint.

I would like to see the suggestion directory since I can't find it and on the point,maybe a policy to allow one or 2 more units in the same tile under order tree sounds good too

[UConnIzzy]

I like the 1upT concept for military. It's much more strategic, which seems apt for a strategy game . That being said, negotiating mountain passes and such can be a huge pain when you want to move 10 units through.

Perhaps there can be a "stacking mode" which allows you to stack, but your units can not attack while stacked, and maybe there's a defensive penalty as well (real life equivalent: Military units have always been fairly disordered and susceptible to attack while traveling, especially before more modern military techniques came into play. This wouldn't be that out of line with actual history). That way you can pull your army through a small area faster, but you can't create a SoD.

In addition, this would add to the strategy because you would have to be very careful about stacking your units and stay very aware of the other civ's military units near yours.

I would, however, like to be able to stack workers. It's very annoying to have to line them all up when there's nothing to do. They just sit there... it's an eyesore!

Just a thought. Feel free to blow it up with a SoD.

[SanderThomas]

I love the 1UPT I used to produce massive stacks of units and conquer anything I liked. I didn't care about unit loss. With 1UPT you really want your units to survive. Plus: you'll have to think over every move instead of just beating the ** out of your enemies.
It's been challenging, but I'm getting better at it

[Takao]

SanderThomas,

I used to produce massive stacks of units and conquer anything I liked. I didn't care about unit loss. With 1UPT you really want your units to survive.

Why? Your still mass spamming units, now they just take up a whole continent instead of one tile

Plus: you'll have to think over every move instead of just beating the ** out of your enemies.

Not really, the fast units move out and clean up and the slow units just pick up the pieces. There is little thought required in Civ V combat.

[Marthieu du Blois]

I love 1UpH for its elimination of SoD, because you need some tactics to win, but it becomes such a ridiculous block in choke points that something has to be done about it.

Now, why I don't agree with simple limited stacking (5UpH) is because you can still create the paper-stone-scrissor stack:

• Spearman
• Swordsman (strength)
• Ranged support
• ranged support
• Horseman

and this can defeat anything you throw at it, except outshooting (but then I go up there with my horseman )

So, I think the best solution would be a system that allows, but discourages stacking. Then you could overcome chokepoints, deliver concentrated punches, but you won't be able to keep that for long.
Now what do I mean by it?

• All units in a given stack you have just ordered to attack do combat with all units on the defending tile, regardless of numbers
• You can stack infinite units BUT
• Your units need supply, or suffer attrition
• This way all units get badly dented by missile fire

And also you'd have stack combat, not 1-on-1. No chivalry!

And why would this be better?

• No chokepoint problems
• SoDs starve themselves down
• SoDs can be softened up with missile fire (much more than in Civ4)
• You can have attrition/guerilla warfare!

I don't think there are any drawbacks, except for developing a stack combat system.

[Peets]

First off, I've been playing civ since civ 1... it's always been a secret favorite of mine, and I've paid for every version of the game... a couple twice when I've destroyed discs....

That being said, I am EXTREMELY upset about the one unit per tile system... I play Civ for the strategy of the game. Having only one military unit usable in a tile completely destroys the concept of the combined arms force. I want to be able to stack a spearman, on a swordsman, on an archer, on a catapult.

Yes, being able to stack hundreds of units and playing the sacrificial artillery game was not that great in past civ games, but the concept was good.

There was a right and wrong way to address that issue, and this wasn't the right way. If you want to limit the unit stacks, I agree, that's realistic.

Five units per tile sounds awesome to me. Why did you go with ONE. ONE?! Seriously? You have tricked your fan base and slighted them, in a near unforgivable away.

I only hope that it is not so hard coded into the core of this that it cannot be patched or modded out, ASAP.

In my opinion it's the best thing they did!

[Kevik]

I also hate the one unit per tile. One of my scouts got stuck because the only way out was were another races unit was.

[JoshTheValiant]

I love 1UpH for its elimination of SoD, because you need some tactics to win, but it becomes such a ridiculous block in choke points that something has to be done about it.

This argument I don't much understand. What's ridiculous about choke points actually working? Why aren't you using your artillery en mass to loosen that choke? Most of the time in a choke point, you (the attacker) will have superior firepower with the way that ranged combat works, and how multiple units can focus on a limited area better. If your opponent grabs you at the other end of a choke point, that's just good tactics, and you either need a REALLY dedicated force to break through the other end, or you need to find another way around. If they catch you in a choke point in a way that you can't actually escape due to a traffic jam of your own units, why didn't you send a scout ahead to what is obviously a potential meatgrinder situation?

I understand travel problems with the current stacking restrictions, but the greatest problem that arises from that is ENEMY units causing the traffic, which has no possible elegant answer currently. It would require a way to force the opponent to move, which could be abusive, or require your units to stack with them, which could break the game.

An interesting idea would be to have a unit enter into a state that told it to move into X space when the occupying unit moves away from it, on the turn it moves away. Or to allow a military switch movement IF the other Civ is not at war with you IF the enemy Civ agrees to it in a pop up diplomacy window. Normal move costs would be expended.

I just wonder if that would be possible.

[Peets]

I also hate the one unit per tile. One of my scouts got stuck because the only way out was were another races unit was.

A scout can do two tiles a turn. You can pass an other race unit.
Just hold your mouse button and click next to the unit where the spot is free.

[Jaenus]

Got this far and realised this was another joke whine thread about someone who doesn't know what their on about.

Got this far and realized this was another pointless reply from a douche bag not taking the four seconds needed to actually read the OP and understand that he isn't "whining" about 1UPC in favor of the SOD, but the choice of 1UPC over another alternative.

[Jaenus]

Horseman[/LIST]and this can defeat anything you throw at it, except outshooting (but then I go up there with my horseman )

That's when your horseman hits their spearman.

Operating armies as actual armies (2xspearmen, archers, horseman) is more realistic, given our world scale, than 1UPT, but I'd be fine with less... but workers should be unlimited and ought to be able to speed up a build by more than one worker doing something.

[Jaenus]

This argument I don't much understand. What's ridiculous about choke points actually working? Why aren't you using your artillery en mass to loosen that choke?

Because the choke points happen sometimes in your own empire in friendly land when just moving/mobilizing your armor for war.

Ever try having a lot of workers? They can't stack, they don't have enough movement to move over a worker who's working, so it slows everything down.

It's a horrid idea to have workers, moreso than military units, not stackable.

[anniebenlen]

I'm on the side of really liking the no stacking rule. Sure, it makes things generally harder. So it forces me to use a bit more strategy instead of just mindlessly making my cities Fortresses of Doom as I did before. I thought I would hate the concept. But for me at least, it's added a whole new dimension of fun to the game.

[Peets]

Jaenus, for multiple quotes you can use the " key between "quote and +
Use the posts you want to quote and then when you are done hit the post reply.
All the posts you want to quote are there then.