On why civ5's combat system is nothing more than a good idea...

[Aristos]

I reckon I was one of many that waited for the new combat system with anticipation. It sounded very interesting, applicable, and a step forward when compared to what became known as the SoD.

Then reality struck. I won't go into details, because they have been pointed out many times around here. The system just does not seem to work in practice. What is interesting though, is the question: WHY?

After two weeks of trying hard to like civ5, and boys I tried (I promised lemmy101 in a long ago buried thread that I would after the initial horrible impression)... after much trying, I could see some things that may be worth sharing. One of these things is the answer to the previos question. In essence, I foresee that the combat system in civ5 is inherently broken by design, and not only because of its own design, but also because of how the system interacts with other parts of the game.

Most people here think the combat system will be perfect if they fix the horrible AI. I think it won't change anything. The combat system, and its interaction with the rest of the game, basically forces an all-out conflict in a war. Firaxis decided to go for 1UPT, but to "make it work", the obvious conclusion was that the number of units should be limited to small numbers in order to make them manageable, both for the player and the AI. Although it is a "logic" conclusion given the premise, it is also a broken conclusion.

When war starts in civ5, each side is compelled to take action. Whatever the sides are, and whoever is in charge, the fact is that one side will emerge victorious; in civ5 terms, this means something like "the last man standing". One army will be completely destroyed. Given the production costs and times, there is no way that any civ can recover after the first wave of battles. Movement of troops will always be much faster than the best production city. THAT is exactly what we are seeing now, when we defeat the horrible AI and walk from city to city aftwerwards.

Now, the problem with this is: even if they make the AI a superman, and able to defeat good civ players, the issue will be the same. Only this time, in such a miraculous scenario, the AI will defeat our army in the first wave, and there is no way the player will recover on time to mount a second defense. In both cases, the ultimate fact is that the player abandons the game (victorious or defeated), because either the challenge is over or it has become impossible (if they fix the AI, that is).

So, from this point of view, it is a Loose-Loose situation. The truth is, hexes and 1UPT work only for wargames. THAT is one of the biggest mistakes in design decision for this new version; in wargames, the player deals with closed scenarios, and total victory or defeat over the enemy is usually the objective, and the outcome. Destroying the army of the enemy in a wargame scenario just ends that scenario, and the player starts another one (or the same, if he has been defeated). In a civ game, the world is the scenario, and destroying the enemy's army means no more resistance, making the rest of the game useless.

This is a HUGE mistake. As you can see, fixing the AI won't fix this; the problem is inherent to the design, and very hard to fix. More units won't fix the problem either, as you can probably see when you try the higher levels and each hex is occupied by an AI unit. The reality is that the civ world is not a wargame scenario, and any mechanic that works there cannot work here. It is sad, because many of us expected the new system to be great. Of course, we did not have enough insight into the game to foresee this, but they did, and never saw it coming.

Now, for those of you who will jump at me yelling "fear of change!" blablabla and "why don't you propose the solution then?", I did many times before, even before Civ4 was released: CtP2's combat system. THAT is the system that solves the SoD problem while maintaining the core of the civ design. It would have worked perfectly, and with all the tools available now, Firaxis could have made the system much better than it was 10 years ago.

In summary, I honestly don't feel much hope that this can be fixed. Fixing it, from this point of view, would mean almost to remake it. And that does not seem to be a possibility... for the next 5 years, that is, and only if our beloved franchise survives this storm.

Have a peaceful Thanksgiving my friends!

EDIT: after two more months of playing, has something changed in our views? I still think mostly the same as when I posted this.

 

[DarkSchneider]

That is a really interesting point. I often find the easiest way to beat the computer is to lure him into an offensive battle he cannot win, kill off all of his units in my territory, and then to heal up and walk over his cities. The computer never holds anything back. But it would be difficult to fix, because if the computer was actually good enough to take my cities, that wouldn't be fun either. Perhaps they just need to make the computer play like a person would...

 

[damnyankees]

The more I play, the more I tend to agree with this. Like I said in another thread, playing Civ V feels like playing one of the Total War games, just without the battle part.

 

[ssh08]

basically, fixing it would not only entail fixing the combat AI, but also lowering production costs, something ive seen a few people ask for as well

 

[Aristos]

basically, fixing it would not only entail fixing the combat AI, but also lowering production costs, something ive seen a few people ask for as well

Indeed, but that "solution" destroys the design, and the game. It's that what you see at higher levels with the production bonuses for the AI, and the game becomes unplayable. So no, the obvious solution (lower costs) is not a solution. In fact, I thought and thought these two weeks about how to make it work and I could not find an answer. Thus, my hopelessness... and believe me, I love Civ since forever (1991), I love anything related, I WANT to love civ5, but mine is not a blind love... it is profoundly broken...

 

[ohioastronomy]

The Europa Universalis system has some ingredients which could prove useful. Taking things which "don't belong to you" cause other nations to be upset with you, and they can even gang up together to make you give them back. If a war goes on for too long then you have revolts on the home front. This combination can lead to limited wars with partial victories. The problem, at least as far as a simulation is concerned, is that ancient war really was pretty much an all or nothing affair: if you lost to the barbarians then it really was game over. So both models - that of Renaissance to Napoleonic Europe and that of the ancient world - can legitimately be viewed as valid.

I do think that more numerous and cheaper units makes it easier to regroup during a war. But you actually have to make war different from peace in some way or you have no reason not to engage in war to the bitter end - and that is one of many pieces that Civ 5 is missing. There are so many absent or broken things here that fixing them would take forever. And I'm not sure that they're fixable at all (I had a thread arguing that 1upt simply can't work on this game scale.)

 

[Biz_]

you address the slow unit production system more than the combat

if they made a unit cap along with fast producing troops i think the game would work

it'd be a bit more technology-dependent, but that's fine

 

[Thormodr]

The Europa Universalis system has some ingredients which could prove useful. Taking things which "don't belong to you" cause other nations to be upset with you, and they can even gang up together to make you give them back. If a war goes on for too long then you have revolts on the home front. This combination can lead to limited wars with partial victories. The problem, at least as far as a simulation is concerned, is that ancient war really was pretty much an all or nothing affair: if you lost to the barbarians then it really was game over. So both models - that of Renaissance to Napoleonic Europe and that of the ancient world - can legitimately be viewed as valid.

I do think that more numerous and cheaper units makes it easier to regroup during a war. But you actually have to make war different from peace in some way or you have no reason not to engage in war to the bitter end - and that is one of many pieces that Civ 5 is missing. There are so many absent or broken things here that fixing them would take forever. And I'm not sure that they're fixable at all (I had a thread arguing that 1upt simply can't work on this game scale.)

You've nailed it there. I love Paradox games. Victoria 2 and EU3 have done very well to limit warmongers.

You've got war weariness if you war for too long and especially if you start losing units.

You've got badboy points if you are too greedy.

You've got war goals now where massive greed is punished and more realistic peace treaties are signed.

You actually have realistic alliances and in EU3 royal marriages.

So much better than ciV's free for all. I see your point about the ancient era however. They do need to work something out though as it clearly isn't fun as it is.


The Op also makes some excellent points. JS had some grand ideas but they were implemented horribly. I can just picture the beta testers pulling their hair out.

 

[Aristos]

you address the slow unit production system more than the combat

if they made a unit cap along with fast producing troops i think the game would work

it'd be a bit more technology-dependent, but that's fine

no, I address the interaction between the combat system and other systems of the game, and how they seem to be incompatible... the scale of a civ game just does not fit a wargame structure, and that is what civ5's combat system is: a wargame out of scale (both in space and time). Given the multiple declarations of Shafer about his love with Panzer General, that is not a surprise... but this is not Panzer General, and never will be.

 

[Aristos]

The Europa Universalis system has some ingredients which could prove useful. Taking things which "don't belong to you" cause other nations to be upset with you, and they can even gang up together to make you give them back. If a war goes on for too long then you have revolts on the home front. This combination can lead to limited wars with partial victories. The problem, at least as far as a simulation is concerned, is that ancient war really was pretty much an all or nothing affair: if you lost to the barbarians then it really was game over. So both models - that of Renaissance to Napoleonic Europe and that of the ancient world - can legitimately be viewed as valid.

I do think that more numerous and cheaper units makes it easier to regroup during a war. But you actually have to make war different from peace in some way or you have no reason not to engage in war to the bitter end - and that is one of many pieces that Civ 5 is missing. There are so many absent or broken things here that fixing them would take forever. And I'm not sure that they're fixable at all (I had a thread arguing that 1upt simply can't work on this game scale.)

Good that you bring up the EU engines... in that series, wars can be do-or-die affairs but peace treaties cannot. You can completely destroy an enemy's army, and occupy the whole country, but if the country is big enough (more than a small amount of provinces), you cannot simply annex it. You have to negotiate the treaty and even then, you can only take a part of the throphy, and with a huge cost in terms of reputation. In the latest iteration of EU3 (HttT), and in Vicky 2, it works like a charm.

 

[damnyankees]

Good that you bring up the EU engines... in that series, wars can be do-or-die affairs but peace treaties cannot. You can completely destroy an enemy's army, and occupy the whole country, but if the country is big enough (more than a small amount of provinces), you cannot simply annex it. You have to negotiate the treaty and even then, you can only take a part of the throphy, and with a huge cost in terms of reputation. In the latest iteration of EU3 (HttT), and in Vicky 2, it works like a charm.

In EU3, you can literally take every province but one. Then you need to declare war again and take the last province through annexation.

I frankly find that annoying, and I with EU3 would fix it.

 

[Thormodr]

Good that you bring up the EU engines... in that series, wars can be do-or-die affairs but peace treaties cannot. You can completely destroy an enemy's army, and occupy the whole country, but if the country is big enough (more than a small amount of provinces), you cannot simply annex it. You have to negotiate the treaty and even then, you can only take a part of the throphy, and with a huge cost in terms of reputation. In the latest iteration of EU3 (HttT), and in Vicky 2, it works like a charm.

It really does work well. It is a system of checks and balances that keeps things more realistic and keeps the immersion going.

I also hear trade is being improved for EU3 DW. It sounds very exciting. Especially considering trade has been such a big disappointment in ciV.

 

[civilapediac]

Most people here think the combat system will be perfect if they fix the horrible AI. I think it won't change anything. The combat system, and its interaction with the rest of the game, basically forces an all-out conflict in a war. Firaxis decided to go for 1UPT, but to "make it work", the obvious conclusion was that the number of units should be limited to small numbers in order to make them manageable, both for the player and the AI. Although it is a "logic" conclusion given the premise, it is also a broken conclusion.


Now, the problem with this is: even if they make the AI a superman, and able to defeat good civ players, the issue will be the same. Only this time, in such a miraculous scenario, the AI will defeat our army in the first wave, and there is no way the player will recover on time to mount a second defense. In both cases, the ultimate fact is that the player abandons the game (victorious or defeated), because either the challenge is over or it has become impossible (if they fix the AI, that is).

So, from this point of view, it is a Loose-Loose situation.

This is a HUGE mistake. As you can see, fixing the AI won't fix this; the problem is inherent to the design, and very hard to fix. More units won't fix the problem either, as you can probably see when you try the higher levels and each hex is occupied by an AI unit. The reality is that the civ world is not a wargame scenario, and any mechanic that works there cannot work here. It is sad, because many of us expected the new system to be great. Of course, we did not have enough insight into the game to foresee this, but they did, and never saw it coming.

In summary, I honestly don't feel much hope that this can be fixed. Fixing it, from this point of view, would mean almost to remake it. And that does not seem to be a possibility... for the next 5 years, that is, and only if our beloved franchise survives this storm.

I pretty much agree with what you are saying here. It's fairly dead on, except that I don't think the hexes are the problem at all. You can't have 1upt and make it work, and you've nailed why.

Of course, firaxis probably doesn't care. With the DRM built into the PC version and a game easily ported to PS3/Xbox, they will make a ton of money on this version of the game. Its a crying shame to see it come to this.

 

[masterminded]

In summary, I honestly don't feel much hope that this can be fixed. Fixing it, from this point of view, would mean almost to remake it. And that does not seem to be a possibility... for the next 5 years, that is, and only if our beloved franchise survives this storm.

This has been my conclusion regarding many of the games mechanics. It seems that because there are so few elements in the game designed to restrict the player, that adjusting those few elements, in this case production, to improve one aspect of the game completely imbalances another. I'm not really sure how this can be salvaged sans a massive redesign of the core mechanics, which is something we won't see unless there is another iteration of the franchise.

The Op also makes some excellent points. JS had some grand ideas but they were implemented horribly. I can just picture the beta testers pulling their hair out.

Do we even know if this game had a beta test? The level of quality leads me to conclude not, but then again, Elemental had a Beta. . .

Regardless, I think that public betas may not be such a bad thing for future civ games.

 

[Thormodr]

I pretty much agree with what you are saying here. It's fairly dead on, except that I don't think the hexes are the problem at all. You can't have 1upt and make it work, and you've nailed why.

Of course, firaxis probably doesn't care. With the DRM built into the PC version and a game easily ported to PS3/Xbox, they will make a ton of money on this version of the game. Its a crying shame to see it come to this.

They knew exactly what they were doing and people pointed this out beforehand but the apologists would have none of it.

We all know that the console version is coming. Money is more important than satisfying loyal customers.

Personally, I want to know where this "big sloppy kiss" is that Dennis Shirk promised?
Usually you get kissed before you get...(you know.)

 

[sgrig]

The Europa Universalis system has some ingredients which could prove useful. Taking things which "don't belong to you" cause other nations to be upset with you, and they can even gang up together to make you give them back. If a war goes on for too long then you have revolts on the home front. This combination can lead to limited wars with partial victories. The problem, at least as far as a simulation is concerned, is that ancient war really was pretty much an all or nothing affair: if you lost to the barbarians then it really was game over. So both models - that of Renaissance to Napoleonic Europe and that of the ancient world - can legitimately be viewed as valid.

I do think that more numerous and cheaper units makes it easier to regroup during a war. But you actually have to make war different from peace in some way or you have no reason not to engage in war to the bitter end - and that is one of many pieces that Civ 5 is missing. There are so many absent or broken things here that fixing them would take forever. And I'm not sure that they're fixable at all (I had a thread arguing that 1upt simply can't work on this game scale.)

In my Civ5 games I was forced to stop a successful invasion precisely because of internal troubles - even when puppeting cities, I still got to -10 unhappiness very quickly, and didn't want to risk further war with units fighting with a 33% penalty. This is not to defend the Civ5 system, but just to point out that there is a mechanism of slowing down an invasion. Even razing cities doesn't help, because they generate lots of unhappiness while they burn. However I think that this mechanism is flawed, because why should all of my population become unhappy after just a few turns of a successful war? War weariness based on length of war and number of losses would make more sense.

 

[Zelig]

To stop the winner-take-all in wars, you could return 80% of hammers from any units destroyed to the nearest friendly city.

 

[drachasor]

Up city defenses (and maybe give them more than one attack per turn). Lower maintenance on units. Lower unit production cost.

Pretty sure all that together would solve the problem.

You claim more units wouldn't work, but that's simply not true. There might be a few minor tweaks needed to ease the movement of units, but doubling or tripling the number of units in almost any game would NOT cause any problems. It's only in games where the AI can do whatever it wants and is very stupid that there become issues.

An alternative approach would be to keep things mostly the same, but ease the ability to earn money, then if things go bad you can rush a new army. That said, I think armies that are larger ARE needed. Two or three times what I have in most games would do it.

Edit: Though the ideal would be much, much cheaper units, much cheaper expenses, and stacking units to 6-12 per hex and making armies like CTP2, and having the limit per hex to be the army limit. A great general can be attached to an army. You'd want some sort of retreat mechanism still, with lost units but without losing the army.

 

[drachasor]

To stop the winner-take-all in wars, you could return 80% of hammers from any units destroyed to the nearest friendly city.

Hmm, I'd say better to have some sort of retreat if the battle is going bad, but that's tricky to do (maybe the unit gets a free move to run and loses a promotion and level or something). That feels better to me.

That said, just having more units would seem to be the better way to go.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

@ricardojahns:

That was probably one of the most sensible discussions of the problems of Civ5 that I have read here. You've nailed it. I think it sums up what a number of people are beginning to feel about the game. It's very flawed and broken, and people are becoming disenchanted with it.

I threw in the towel from boredom earlier this week. I was trying to explore the game to see if I could come up with any modding ideas, and I came to the conclusion that it just isn't worth the trouble. As for the "one more turn" thing, I can hardly play an hour without nodding off.

If you have to break open a bottle of tequila just to make the game fun and playable, well... that isn't what I want Civ to be. Sorry Firaxis, but after all of the marketing hyperbole, I feel burned and you've lost me.