Civ 6 vs. Civ 5 in regards to future 7

[aieeegrunt]

You shouldn’t be able to upgrade units period. No amount of money can magically make a trireme into a frigate that isn’t just “keeping the nameplate and building a new ship around it” like the US navy used to do

History is replete with examples of this not working. Various potentates in India quickly discovered that just buying muskets is not enough, there is an entire system and skillset that you need to develop to effectively use them.

There was a massive negative uproar in the Royal Navy when Jackie Fisher built Dreadnaught, because it was essentially a reset button on the naval race because it made Britain’s giant horde of predreadnaugt ships worse than useless

This also acts as a good anti-snowball mechanism because a massive investment in a military inevitably becomes an investment in obselescence, which allows a rising power to leapfrog.

The current upgrade mechanic does the opposite. My big victorious veteran army simply keeps getting upgraded and being even more unstoppable

 

[GeneralZIft]

Huh? Without upgrading units the game would be intensely stale. You'd have to build new units all the time and the old units are literally worthless.

Is it so incredibly unrealistic to give your warriors swords instead of clubs once you have done the research and bought the equipment? This is such a strange thing to dislike in my opinion.

The upgrade cost is meant to represent the entire cost of refitting an army with new equipment. You shouldn't have to raise a new army every time you get new equipment.

Like if they announced this in Civ7, everyone would be of massive bewilderment because not only does it make less sense, it's more inconvenient.

 

[kaspergm]

Huh? Without upgrading units the game would be intensely stale. You'd have to build new units all the time and the old units are literally worthless.

Is it so incredibly unrealistic to give your warriors swords instead of clubs once you have done the research and bought the equipment? This is such a strange thing to dislike in my opinion.

I half agree with you, there are instances where upgrades make some sense - but the unlimited upgrade from ancient era to future era doesn't.

Civ5 had those broken upgrade lines on release, and it was widely hated (and I admit freely that I hated them myself), but I do think from a gameplay point of view it's a solid design. And @GeneralZIft has a valid point, not allowing units to upgrade freely makes for a good balance - the promotions you have on your old units will keep them relevant for a certain while, but they will expire at a certain point, which is both realistic and good for balance.

Also we need a shift away from the very expensive but very powerful units we have in Civ6. I don't want to go back to spamming units like in Civ4 either, but there might be a better balance somewhere in between the two. In Civ6, the difference between losing and not losing a unit is pretty immense in terms of game impact, and again, this is not healthy for balance and easy to abuse for units.

PS: In terms of having to produce new units being stale: One idea I would like for Civ7 is for a city to be able to produce multiple things at once given the right districts. So if you build an Encampment, you get an extra production slot dedicated to units. If you build an Industrial zone, you get an extra production slot dedicated to ... I know not exactly how the division would be, but I guess you get the picture, it would be a way to make production system more flexible and dynamic than Civ6's endless turns of doing nothing.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Huh? Without upgrading units the game would be intensely stale. You'd have to build new units all the time and the old units are literally worthless.

Is it so incredibly unrealistic to give your warriors swords instead of clubs once you have done the research and bought the equipment? This is such a strange thing to dislike in my opinion.

The upgrade cost is meant to represent the entire cost of refitting an army with new equipment. You shouldn't have to raise a new army every time you get new equipment.

Like if they announced this in Civ7, everyone would be of massive bewilderment because not only does it make less sense, it's more inconvenient.

Although @aieeegrunt is largely correct, the correctness is largely irrelevant. The problem is that building new units takes time, so that constantly having to build entirely new units simply means you will frequently be playing with units about one Era behind, and I very much doubt that gamers will accept a mechanic that prevents them from playing with the shiny new units as soon as possible.

Yes, IRL every European Army between 1815 and 1890 (about 15 game turns) re-equipped their armies with rifled muskets, black powder breechloaders, rifled artillery, and then smokeless powder magazine rifles and long range rifle artillery. In game turns, starting with Line Infantry they 'built' every infantry unit twice and every artillery unit at least once (and then rebuilt them again into modern Artillery in the next 3 turns). In addition, they increased the number of units by about 100% (average field army went from 200 - 300,000 each for the Great Powers in 1815 to 400,000 + in 1870 and 1,000,000 + in 1900. Even allowing for larger units, that's a massive increase).

The game simply doesn't allow that unless you buy every new unit with Gold and Religion: Production is much, much too slow to replace your entire military every 5 - 10 turns at practically any point in the game. They could do a complete redesign of the Production/Unit cost interface, but that produces other problems entirely - like how you get enough Resources to build a bunch of units in a few turns and how you handicap Production to avoid turning the game into a Production Ratrace, constructing and reconstructing everything throughout the game at breakneck pace, and making invasions virtually impossible because by the time your units get a few tiles/turns into enemy territory the enemy army is an Era ahead of them!

 

[kaspergm]

Although @aieeegrunt is largely correct, the correctness is largely irrelevant. The problem is that building new units takes time, so that constantly having to build entirely new units simply means you will frequently be playing with units about one Era behind, and I very much doubt that gamers will accept a mechanic that prevents them from playing with the shiny new units as soon as possible.

Yes, IRL every European Army between 1815 and 1890 (about 15 game turns) re-equipped their armies with rifled muskets, black powder breechloaders, rifled artillery, and then smokeless powder magazine rifles and long range rifle artillery. In game turns, starting with Line Infantry they 'built' every infantry unit twice and every artillery unit at least once (and then rebuilt them again into modern Artillery in the next 3 turns). In addition, they increased the number of units by about 100% (average field army went from 200 - 300,000 each for the Great Powers in 1815 to 400,000 + in 1870 and 1,000,000 + in 1900. Even allowing for larger units, that's a massive increase).

The game simply doesn't allow that unless you buy every new unit with Gold and Religion: Production is much, much too slow to replace your entire military every 5 - 10 turns at practically any point in the game. They could do a complete redesign of the Production/Unit cost interface, but that produces other problems entirely - like how you get enough Resources to build a bunch of units in a few turns and how you handicap Production to avoid turning the game into a Production Ratrace, constructing and reconstructing everything throughout the game at breakneck pace, and making invasions virtually impossible because by the time your units get a few tiles/turns into enemy territory the enemy army is an Era ahead of them!

I think the concerns you list here are great and valid points, and certainly something that needs to be taken into consideration.

I do think that an overall complete re-thinking of production costs is required, however, like I also mention above, I think the "few-but-very-expensive" approach applied in Civ6 was not healthy. Like I also suggested above, I think it's worth pursuing the idea of alternative parallel production lines so that you can produce military units without stalling your entire production system.

I also think the mechanism and cost of upgrading needs to be taken into account. The upgrade mechanism of Civ6 is problematic because it's instant and universal and costs less gold than buying a new unit. So you pay less gold in return for getting a superior unit when you upgrade an old promoted unit instead of buying a new one, which is clearly bad for balance. Like I said above, losing a highly promoted unit is devastating and makes the game system very prone for abuse.

To counter this, one could take any number of measures including and not necessarily limited to:
- Only allowing certain upgrades (as discussed above)
- Upgrades being as costly as buying a new unit
- Units losing certain or all promotions on upgrades (promotions relating to specific weapon types obviously should be lost on upgrade)
- Upgrades takes a number of turns to "retrain" the unit
- Units can spend turns "training" at encampments to earn experience and promotions (to level the field between new and old promoted units)

 

[GeneralZIft]

Several queues would probably have its own separate issues - namely that it might take away from the choice between building units and infrastructure (which is a choice for strategical reasons) and replace it with a system where you can constantly spam units from one end and still keep up from another end, which isn't very healthy from gameplay perspective (there's no longer any decision making, I just do everything at once in my city).
Also, it's not healthy in grand scheme, because players that spend ages at war should be disadvantaged compared to those who don't. If you can build both units and buildings at once that just completely nullifies any catch-up players can make.

 

[Patine]

To be honest, I'm not sure the rationale of this debate. Civ7 should be as different and innovative from past iterations as they all are from each other, and introduce new endemic mechanics and ways of handling notable areas the past ones differed in, and not ape mechanics in those ways from previous iterations.

 

[pokiehl]

This also acts as a good anti-snowball mechanism because a massive investment in a military inevitably becomes an investment in obselescence, which allows a rising power to leapfrog.

Hmm. I overall don’t love the idea of dropping upgrades, but I think you would create an interesting dynamic in that investment in war is guaranteed to be obsoleted. It could be an effective check on the rampant OPness of conquest.

 

[leif erikson]

You shouldn’t be able to upgrade units period. No amount of money can magically make a trireme into a frigate that isn’t just “keeping the nameplate and building a new ship around it” like the US navy used to do

History is replete with examples of this not working. Various potentates in India quickly discovered that just buying muskets is not enough, there is an entire system and skillset that you need to develop to effectively use them.

There was a massive negative uproar in the Royal Navy when Jackie Fisher built Dreadnaught, because it was essentially a reset button on the naval race because it made Britain’s giant horde of predreadnaugt ships worse than useless

This also acts as a good anti-snowball mechanism because a massive investment in a military inevitably becomes an investment in obselescence, which allows a rising power to leapfrog.

The current upgrade mechanic does the opposite. My big victorious veteran army simply keeps getting upgraded and being even more unstoppable

This is surely true of naval vessels.
It is certainly not true for ground units. I have overseen the upgrade of Cavalry Squadrons from M60's and M113's to M1's and Bradley Fighting vehicles. Have also seen Engineer units change out equipment that gave them a new mission, yet they maintained their unit identity. Training is needed for the upgrade to happen properly, but it is a fairly common.

 

[Patine]

This is surely true of naval vessels.
It is certainly not true for ground units. I have overseen the upgrade of Cavalry Squadrons from M60's and M113's to M1's and Bradley Fighting vehicles. Have also seen Engineer units change out equipment that gave them a new mission, yet they maintained their unit identity. Training is needed for the upgrade to happen properly, but it is a fairly common.

Though some iterations of Civ directly upgrade horse cavalry to the first available tank type, and that seems a stretch.

 

[leif erikson]

Though some iterations of Civ directly upgrade horse cavalry to the first available tank type, and that seems a stretch.

It was done both during WW1 and before WW2.

Last paragraph from the link above:

Spoiler :

The Punitive Expedition marked the last major action of American
horse cavalry, which played only a minor role during World
War I. However, the horse cavalry continued to modernize and
experiment with new ideas and tactics. Cavalry leaders sought to
retain the battlefield relevance of their branch amid an array of
new technologies. In the 1920s and 1930s, horse cavalry units incorporated
a growing pool of motor vehicles for reconnaissance
and logistics purposes and increased the number of organic automatic
weapons. The horse was retained because no vehicle could
yet match its cross-country mobility. Cavalry doctrine stressed
the importance of operating in small, dispersed groupings. Coordinating
the actions of these groups posed a challenge that encouraged
increased use of the radio. In response to the growing
threat of armored vehicles, the horse cavalry developed antitank
tactics based on firepower, depth, and mobility to channel and destroy
enemy tanks. With the development of reliable armored
fighting vehicles and the need for heavier weapons to defeat them,
however, horse cavalry ceased to be a competitive force on the
battlefield. World War II marked the final replacement of the
horse with vehicles, and mechanized cavalry replaced the horse
cavalry.

 

[Patine]

It was done both during WW1 and before WW2.

A direct upgrade? I mean, I know then-Captain George Patton was a Cavalry officer who commanded the American Tank Company, but he just given command of the unit by Pershing that contained British and French-made tanks. As I understand, the first British, French, and German tank pilots were effectively army engineers, and horse cavalry, save for couriers, had been non-existant on the Western Front for almost two years previously. At least that's what my source off the WW1 issue on it says.

 

[leif erikson]

The formation of the WW1 Army Tank Corps.

In games, it is the concept, not always the specifics.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A direct upgrade? I mean, I know then-Captain George Patton was a Cavalry officer who commanded the American Tank Company, but he just given command of the unit by Pershing that contained British and French-made tanks. As I understand, the first British, French, and German tank pilots were effectively army engineers, and horse cavalry, save for couriers, had been non-existant on the Western Front for almost two years previously. At least that's what my source off the WW1 issue on it says.

American armored forces, though, did NOT upgrade from cavalry. The cavalry was, in fact, forbidden to have any tanks after WWI because the tank forces (called "Heavy Machinegun Units") were assigned to the infantry, and the Cavalry Branch had absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the first American armored divisions in 1939 -And by that time, cavalrymen who had seen the light, like Patton and Chaffee, had long since transferred to the infantry or the new Armored Force.​

​

In other armies, the easiest transition was when the Mission stayed the same. For instance, The British Army had a Royal Tank Regiment which provided tanks to directly support the infantry. But the bulk of the new armored and armored car units were old cavalry regiments, which were pursuing the same tasks the cavalry had: reconnaissance, like the 11th Hussars whose armored cars shadowed Rommel's forces across the desert, or "Assault", like the Dragoon Regiments that formed the tank units in the armored divisions.​

​

And the German Army in WWI had one tank, the A7V, with a crew made up of men from the infantry (machinegun crews), artillery (light gun crews), engineers (mechanics and drivers), and the infantry (commanders). When they restarted armored warfare with the formation of the first panzer units in the early 1930s, it was under the term "schnelle truppen", or "fast troops" which included the infantry's motorcycle units, horse cavalry, armored cars - and the new panzers. Of the 30+ panzer divisions the German army formed, only 1, the 24th, was formed from the cavalry - converted from the last horse cavalry division in the German army in 1942.​

​

Unfortunately, the 'upgrade path' isn't always as neat and straight-lined as in the game!​

 

[Patine]

The formation of the WW1 Army Tank Corps.

In games, it is the concept, not always the specifics.

Although, Empire Earth has the interesting notion that in the WW2 age, the horse cavalry unit tree reaches it's upgrade terminus, like archers do in the Industrial Age, and Armoured/Mechanized units start from scratch in WW1 and Gunpowder infantry in the Renassaince, the same as Air Units do, by necessity, in WW1. I guess there's a number of ways to view it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Although, Empire Earth has the interesting notion that in the WW2 age, the horse cavalry unit tree reaches it's upgrade terminus, like archers do in the Industrial Age, and Armoured/Mechanized units start from scratch in WW1 and Gunpowder infantry in the Renassaince, the same as Air Units do, by necessity, in WW1. I guess there's a number of ways to view it.

There are a lot of ways to do Upgrades, because, as posted, there were a lot of ways it went in reality , and sometimes it doesn't make a lot of sense in retrospect! For instance, crossbowmen and archers rarely 'upgraded' to arquebus or musketmen, because they had spent in some cases most of their lives mastering their weapon, and the new gunpowder weapons required only a few weeks to master, so were considered a major 'step down' in status! Likewise, although it seems obvious and logical, a great many cavalrymen absolutely refused to give up their horses for the oily, dirty, loud new machines.

I suppose a game could be designed that took all the various factors into effect and gave you all the options for upgrades with varying difficulties and times required to 'change over', but I suspect the most common result would be to give the average gamer a splitting headache before they were more than a quarter of the way through the game . . .

 

[GeneralZIft]

Would seem like complexity for the sake of complexity. Like having a minor problem of late game balance and fixing it with a sledgehammer

 

[Patine]

Would seem like complexity for the sake of complexity. Like having a minor problem of late game balance and fixing it with a sledgehammer

Why is a little more nuance and detail proposed always decried as, "complexity for the sake of complexity," by you, as opoosed to being acknowledged as being desired in it's stated context? And how does the second sentence in the post I'm quoting remotely and sensibly fit into the topic at hand?

 

[GeneralZIft]

Why is a little more nuance and detail proposed always decried as, "complexity for the sake of complexity," by you, as opoosed to being acknowledged as being desired in it's stated context? And how does the second sentence in the post I'm quoting remotely and sensibly fit into the topic at hand?

I wasn't talking to you there. I mean to say the system we have, if it has issues such as late game balance wrt to upgrade costs, then reworking the entire production system, or completely deleting upgrades, Is like taking a sledgehammer to the entire house just because you don't like one thing about it

Plus, the system we do have is fairly elegant and headache free for the most part, is it not?

But consider your idea. How do you tell the player to expect that their army of archers becomes obsolete eventually but that doesn't apply to their melee units? For example.

 

[pokiehl]

Would seem like complexity for the sake of complexity. Like having a minor problem of late game balance and fixing it with a sledgehammer

That describes the majority of suggestions here