Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[Mr.WorldWide]

This is the Civ 5 rant thread - nuff said.

 

[lollibast]

This is the Civ 5 rant thread - nuff said.

that

That fanboy's Godwin's law come true post is just so full of false assumptions and conclusions that it's really a pain to read or respond to. There have been innumerable posts on 1upt, please read those or the wikipedia entry on "abstraction". 1upt is not a question whether it's plausible that units can occupy the same spot but whether you want 1upt or stacks.

 

[Funky]

Erm, am I the only one who thinks he was being sarcastic? Not that his post was especially funny or anything.

 

[Browd]

Sarcasm is always hard to detect on the internet. Certainly not as "rant-ish" as most posts on this thread, but I heard a strong mocking tone. Fun to read.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

1 UPT works well in a tactical level game like Panzer General II which is where the Civ V developers ultimately got the idea from. 1 UPT doesn't even fit in a strategic level game which essentially abstracts away nearly all tactical level decisions. Above the purely strategy level game we have the grand strategy level game that adds production and wealth generation that supports both military and the economy and makes the logistics of both a primary concern. However, the scale of Civilization is far bigger than either a tactical level game, a purely strategy level game, or even a grand strategy/logistics game in that it encompasses the entire life span of a Civilization or until it wins which can span many Eras of civilization.

Stacks of units are simply a better generalization of both land military, naval units and worker/settler units at the scope of entire civilization's existence/win than 1UPT could ever be.

Finally, I must agree with previous posters that this is a rant thread where "rave" posts are not welcome and are off-topic, even sarcastic posts which this one clearly wasn't or was too well disguised at least. To be clear, it wasn't in the least sarcastic to me; it was framed in a very serious manner.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Naokaukodem]

Finally, I must agree with previous posters that this is a rant thread where "rave" posts are not welcome and are off-topic, even sarcastic posts which this one clearly wasn't or was too well disguised at least. To be clear, it wasn't in the least sarcastic to me; it was framed in a very serious manner.

It was obvious that this post was sarcastic, and thereby is totally approppriate to the topic. If every thing would be said on the same tone everything would become boring quickly. Sorry if you can't detect the sarcasm, but the fact that the poster posted it on the Rants Thread is a good tip.

 

[lollibast]

It was obvious that this post was sarcastic, and thereby is totally approppriate to the topic. If every thing would be said on the same tone everything would become boring quickly. Sorry if you can't detect the sarcasm, but the fact that the poster posted it on the Rants Thread is a good tip.

he's not the first to post no rant. the first part of the post might be interpreted as sarcastic but not the rest, far from obvious, maybe the poster would like to elaborate

 

[Naokaukodem]

I think the poster elaborated enough, and he may wait for an answer instead of a discussion about the tone of his post.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I think the poster elaborated enough, and he may wait for an answer instead of a discussion about the tone of his post.

My initial response focused on why 1UPT (a tactical game limitation) is a bad idea for an epic grand strategy/logistical game and I've always maintained that his post was serious, yet he didn't respond to my "answer".

This is a rant thread, not a discussion thread per se, so no answers should be expected anyway.

Maybe Giant Death Robots should be restricted to 1UPT, but no other units should be so restricted, especially not Workers.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yes and you're wrong and your answer was what it was. By the way, if this topic doesn't support discussion, why is it on a forum then ? Beside voluntarily parking "unwanted" ones in a place of non rights ?

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Please see post #1 for the reasons this thread exists:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9969267&postcount=1

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

I have no issues with having civil discussions here, but they clearly aren't required in this thread as post #1 implies. Uncivil posts/discussions might violate forum rules and may be halted or otherwise dealt with by the forum moderators.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Naokaukodem]

I know the reasons for this topic, although understanding is not justifying.

You have no issues with having civil discussion, fine. Topic closed.

The author of the sarcastic post still may wait for an answer, nothing has changed.

(I still really wonder what's wrong with you about sarcasm...)

 

[gozpel]

Seriously, the time in Civ3, when you have survived and gathered an army strong enough to beat a neighbour, was fun. My SG-Games on Deity, limited us to build only 5 cities, still we won because of an army.

Now in Civ5, armies swarming us on higher levels, but the skillful player already have the advantage to build appropriate units, before the swarm. And the same skillful player makes a bunch of archers and beeline to CB's and win.

Is any of this fun? Well, in Civ3 you had a lot hair-tearing moments in how to manouver your troops. In Civ5 everything is so congested, it's hard to to anything but defend, on an AI assault. If you survive, you have to risk these troops on a counter-attack.

I think after a few games, neither is fun. Fun in 5CC was that you actually had to build up all this from 20% of the multiple AI's capability. In Civ5, it's just mindblowingly boring to have/make wars.

 

[Civert]

Greetings all.


While only about 10 games in and still a nuber to Civ5, I can't help but agree with many of the viewpoints, here.

The 1upt, is not well suited to the tile per landmass representation.
There would need to be many more tiles to produce viable playability.

Or about 3 units should have been allowed per tile.

At any rate, it is what it is, as they say.

JMO.

 

[Funky]

Greetings all.

Welcome to the board! It's funny how controversial the 1UPT thing is. Most Civ 5 players and even the occasional Civ 4 player prefer the new combat system. Then there also many who despise it, for overemphasizing tactics, for distorting the scale, and for not providing a competitive AI. Anyway, since you are new to the forum and fairly new to Civ 5, it must be asked: have you played Civ 4 yet?

 

[Civert]

Welcome to the board! It's funny how controversial the 1UPT thing is. Most Civ 5 players and even the occasional Civ 4 player prefer the new combat system. Then there also many who despise it, for overemphasizing tactics, for distorting the scale, and for not providing a competitive AI. Anyway, since you are new to the forum and fairly new to Civ 5, it must be asked: have you played Civ 4 yet?

Thanks for the welcome.

No, I havn't played Civ 4 yet, but I have played Civ Rev extensively.
From what I understand, Civ Rev is a streamlined version of Civ 4.

Coming from that perspective, the AI in Civ5 is generally better combat wise than in CivRev, but the combat system is too cumbersome, making it almost drudgery to engage.

 

[headcase]

Greetings all.


While only about 10 games in and still a nuber to Civ5, I can't help but agree with many of the viewpoints, here.

The 1upt, is not well suited to the tile per landmass representation.
There would need to be many more tiles to produce viable playability.

Welcome to the boards

I like the 1UPT system. There are problems with the size of what each hex represents, but micro\macro was always a paradox in Civ regarding time, and now it is with space as well. For gameplay, I prefer it. There are still lots of other issues with Civ5 besides that, and while the patches have helped, it will be nice to see the .dlls released so the best devs (mod makers) can clean up the mess hopefully.

 

[Civert]

Welcome to the boards

I like the 1UPT system. There are problems with the size of what each hex represents, but micro\macro was always a paradox in Civ regarding time, and now it is with space as well. For gameplay, I prefer it. There are still lots of other issues with Civ5 besides that, and while the patches have helped, it will be nice to see the .dlls released so the best devs (mod makers) can clean up the mess hopefully.

Thanks for the welcome hc.

To each his own.
The combat system may grow on me over time, but it is difficult to like at this point.
As you say, its not the only issue some of us have problems with.

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

From what I understand, Civ Rev is a streamlined version of Civ 4.

An understatement imo, I have played Rev but I never was able to develop a sense of my place in it's world. Everything felt so...disconnected.

 

[Civert]

An understatement imo, I have played Rev but I never was able to develop a sense of my place in it's world. Everything felt so...disconnected.

If your perspective is from the PC Civ series side, I can see how that might be the case.

However, from the console gaming side, CivRev is a true diamond in the rough, even in its comparitively simplified state.

Apparently, it was still too deep for the point and shoot crowd, only selling around a couple hundred thousand copies, I think.

For my money, it is easily a top three game ever made for consoles, and the primary reason I am playing Civ5.

Like Civ4, stackable combat was also the system it employed, and to which I had grown accustomed.