Final Verdict: We want our stack back and other great cIV features!

[DashieBaby87]

The combat in Civ IV was broken and boring. Why on earth would anybody want to go back to it?

You could literally set a fort up with a unit, and the AI would just commit suicide on it in the dumbest way possible. Or, they would put a bunch of sucky units in a stack that you could just catapult out, and then send in your own stack of doom. Bad system, imo.

Also, the whole stack idea was ridiculous. Having a stack of 100 units in a small area (stack of doom) is probably the worst idea ever. Plus, I hated how Civ IV had no battle lines like Civ V does. It was just a stack of units mowing down city after city. It didn't feel like a real war at all. Battles were usually one-sided, and determined only by army size.

When I played Civ IV, I thought the combat system was boring compared to Civ II. The whole 'whoever has the most units wins' element was pretty irritating.

♥

 

[DuseCutter]

I could maybe go with bringing back religion in a more robust some way, shape or form than Social Policies. But spamming missionaries got old. But as for everything else, I say no.

 

[Ahriman]

This thread is fail. There is no "none of these, I am glad they're all gone" option.

 

[Taygeta]

Civilization is in no way realistic when it comes to time and distance - it never has been and it doesn't try to be. It is abstact. For example, is it realistic than on Earth maps you can only fit one city in the British Isles? Is it realistic that a Warrior takes 1000 years to produce and then it takes 200 years for it to walk to a neighbouring city?

I don't see how having 2 or 3 UpT would make things any more "realistic".

Of course I know that fact. I have played Civilization since the series was born.
Many things are pretty abstract, time goes like you need to close your eyes a bit if you dont want to ruin your suspension of disbelief.

But still. Why not bind that city ability (to bombard nearby units) to tech tree (=archers)? Feels so out of place, and these guys have not even invented the wheel

My point was mainly about the hexes and stacking, nothing more.

 

[Venger]

I voted for stacks, but not unlimited. I prefer 2-4 max. It removes the ridiculous overstacking, but makes the game a little more sensible and manageable than just 1.

 

[Venger]

who on earth could want stacks back

that was nonsense and ruined civ for years

Ruined Civ for years? You mean, since it has existed?

 

[The_J]

Moderator Action: Added 2 new options, i hope everyone is happy now.

 

[TheLean]

I have played civ for 16 years and I dont agree with the OP at all. People should be banned for lying if they say they represent the "core players" when they in fact do not. The things the OP have listed are the things that are good with civ5.

 

[NobleJms]

Did no one bother to check the poster's other posts to see where he/she actually stands?

There is an agenda here and it is obvious to me that it is NOT what the poll is about.

It is obvious to me the choices are crafted in such a way to garner the responses that we have seen here so far.

Haha, so someone is paying attention.

 

[nekom]

You know what I want back? The actual time displayed. I don't have a clock in my office and I hate having to alt+tab just to check the time. So I'm voting `something else'.

I do NOT want stacks back. I'm glad to see that go, and while combat isn't perfect and the AI leaves much to be desired, overall I think 1UPT is a move in the right direction.

 

[Emperor Peter]

I voted for 1.

I never liked the stack of doom, it's unrealistic (a tile does not have unlimited room to deploy troops) and offers not much tactical gameplay. So I understand the developers tried to fix that, however, my opinion is they failed.

The one unit per hex is silly. It makes it more tactical then the SoD thing, but not enough. If you allowed say 3 to 5 (not sure what number would work best, maybe up to 10) units on a tile, battles would be more interesting and players would have more options. Also it would be less annoying to move units around.

I've played some hex-based WWII wargames where they solved this problem very well. You could stack up to 10 units in a hex (so there was a limit, but the player still had enough flexibility in deployment) but the drawback of stacking units was that indirect fire attacks (in Civ: archers, artillery, ...) were more effective against the units in that hex which discouraged players from grouping too many units together.

I think something like this would work well for Civilization and I don't really understand why the developers gave us this ridiculous restriction instead. And for workers too!

Just my 2 cents

 

[Onionsoilder]

Moderator Action: Added 2 new options, i hope everyone is happy now.

Thanks for that.

 

[vandyr]

Yea, thanks for the last option. Don't like any of the other options, but I'm most vehemently against bringing stacks back. I hope that never happens, aside from non combat units.

 

[jtwood]

I didn't want anything in the list changed on its own merits.

I want a functioning AI that can aptly use the new system before I even think about asking for any of the old stuff back.

 

[edpovi]

...
Many of the systems present in Civ4 are not sacrosanct "features" of the Civ series as a whole. They are Civ4 features. Civ5 has just as much in common with original Civ as Civ4 does, maybe more on some levels. Does this make Civ5 better automatically? Certainly not. On the other hand, the Civ series is not just Civ4. Civ5 is *very* true to the general themes and style of the Civ series, it is just a radical departure... from Civ4.

I know most fans want every sequel to be a purely additive affair, but this is impractical for literally thousands of reasons. Civ4 boiled over to a level of complexity where it was completely inevitable that the sequel would be less, or at least no more, complex.
...

Nice Post!
I agree that CIV 5 has a lot in common with the Civ series. I don't agree that "most fans want every sequel to be a purely additive affair". I for one see too many sequels that are really just more of the same old stuff, perhaps a new gun or a new map is the only change. It may be still be fun, but hardly innovative. Borderlands for example was a lot of fun to me as it wasn't the same old FPS.

It was entirely possible for CIV 5 to end up as "spreadsheet Civ of uber micro management" or "Civ 4 now with hexes!". I'm for one glad they looked at the game design from the ground up and provided a new game experience that is very much CIV!

 

[TheBlackAdderBG]

Voted for 1. Tactical rules for strategy map?Epic fail.

 

[CleverFool]

I have to say I have to disagree with all of the TC's points except maybe religion; and even then if it was to come back I'd want it modified. The problem seems to be that you want CiV+. But what's the point of having a game that's so similar?

There's a fine balance between change and stagnation. And many don't realize that there would be a hell of a lot of complaints here if there were no changes to CiV's (albeit excellent) style of gaming. One can look at Bioshock 2, successor to one of the best FPS's in the last decade, to see just how well no change can come across. Sure it was an okay game, a slight upgrade (one could argue) over the first, yet its almost universally panned.

Ultimately you can't please everyone, and as someone who has been playing Civ for 14 years, every game from Civ II through to now, I can say that change is a good thing. Is Civ V a great game right now? No. Was CiV a great game off the bat? No. Patches and adjustments will fix many of the problems. As is its still based off a pretty spiffy new system with a lot of potential.

 

[edpovi]

How is it good to title a poll thread "Final Verdict we want our stack back.."?

How can you have a "Final Verdict" when you are opening a poll? It wasn't designed well, as a key option "Civ 5 is fine as it" wasn't added till page 5 by a mod.

And even then, that added option (as of this post) is doing better than all the other options except for "religion" and "local happiness". Hardly a final verdict, and it dosn't stack up.

 

[keweedsmo]

I'm sorry that Civ 5 isn't a glorified expansion to Civ 4 like you wanted it to be...People like you are truly more than welcome to go play Civ 4 again and stop polluting the civ 5 forums with "Wha Wha Wha I want this back" style posts.

There's a fine balance between change and stagnation. And many don't realize that there would be a hell of a lot of complaints here if there were no changes to CiV's (albeit excellent) style of gaming. One can look at Bioshock 2, successor to one of the best FPS's in the last decade, to see just how well no change can come across. Sure it was an okay game, a slight upgrade (one could argue) over the first, yet its almost universally panned.

Exactly

 

[DashieBaby87]

One thing I think they should have done for Civ IV was make it so that the more units you stack, the less combat strength your units have. Imagine trying to put 30 units together in a small area, and have them roll over a city all at once. It would be like suicide. I mean, you would overwhelm the city, but it's a really dumb idea because you have wasted thousands of needless lives against a tactical enemy that is probably just mowing row after row of the horde down.

Plus, aiming for artillery would be real easy. No matter where you shoot, you're going to kill large amounts of people.

♥