Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
maybe they are just increasing the relative scale of the units 
Civilization V - Units: Disappointment
- Thread starter Grishnash
- Start date
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
The scale in civ is really elastic, and it works at quite a wide range of scales. But not an infinite range. Mechanics that work along the lines of 1 hex = 10 feet are obviously way outside that range. The reason? To be elastic, it has to be believable at large scales too.
An archer can shoot, at best, four or five hundred yards. This is way outside the range of scales that civ can stretch to accomodate, really. Such a scale would be suited to a game map that depicted a single city and environs.
I'd say artillery (and ships with guns) really ought to be the only units capable of ranged bombardment, as it was in civ3. Civil war cannon can shoot to about a mile out, which is just within reasonable elasticity of scale.
A case could be made for catapults and trebuchet, but really the only time they ought to be able to do this is to bombard defenders in a city or fort during a siege, not in the field. It's a special situation that calls for special mechanics.
Really, archer bombard is the only thing that threatens suspension of disbelief in terms of relative scales. 1upt doesn't, because the size of the units can simply be relative to the map scale. They could be anything from an entire army group (consisting of multiple divisions) to just a platoon.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
That argument doesn't hold up. If we accept that hexes in civ will represent hundreds of square miles, then the model breaks down for melee units as well as archers. If we can accept that my swordsmen in hex A can move far enough to engage the enemy swordsmen in hex B - and then move back into hex A after the fight, why can't we accept that my archers behind my swordsmen can advance through hex A, attack into hex B, and then withdraw to their original position.
If you are going to use a turn based model, you need some means of simulating the attributes if different unit types. To me, that is what the proposed model does.
If you are going to use a turn based model, you need some means of simulating the attributes if different unit types. To me, that is what the proposed model does.
archers should have a longer range than melee units. They having the same range is weird. I don't think archer bombard is like catapult bombard. When you attack a melee unit from farther than 1 tile away then the melee unit clearly cannot fight back and the archer won't suffer any damage. In fact that is how Mongols used Keshiks to soften up the enemy before heavier units can mop them up.
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
No contradiction.
I said the idea of adopting a combat system from a different game set in one time period and one scale was an inherently bad idea for Civilization.
When you start with an inherently bad idea what results is usually bad, although there can be rare exceptions.
When changes are proposed or made in Civilization or other games, one usually should wait until you play them until you claim they are better. The exception is when they remove something that was not working, such as corruption.
I think we can safely predict that some players will like the new combat system and some will not. Some will tolerate it without finding it a positive feature of the game.
Some will love it and will find it the main reason to play the game.
Others seem to think that a comment on one change means someone is against all changes.
I think the CIV IV combat system can be improved. For those who think there should be fewer units, a simple fix would have been to increase the cost of building and/or maintaining military units. (They seem to have radically decreased the number of units in CIV V. I will wait to see this one before commenting.) This could have been done by just changing some values in the program/file. This could have been either hard coded or one could allow the player to choose among game settings.
Don't agree here. You contradicted yourself. First you say that the new system is "inherently bad" and then you say nobody should think it might be good until they've played it.[/QUOTE]
I said the idea of adopting a combat system from a different game set in one time period and one scale was an inherently bad idea for Civilization.
When you start with an inherently bad idea what results is usually bad, although there can be rare exceptions.
When changes are proposed or made in Civilization or other games, one usually should wait until you play them until you claim they are better. The exception is when they remove something that was not working, such as corruption.
I think we can safely predict that some players will like the new combat system and some will not. Some will tolerate it without finding it a positive feature of the game.
Some will love it and will find it the main reason to play the game.
Others seem to think that a comment on one change means someone is against all changes.
I think the CIV IV combat system can be improved. For those who think there should be fewer units, a simple fix would have been to increase the cost of building and/or maintaining military units. (They seem to have radically decreased the number of units in CIV V. I will wait to see this one before commenting.) This could have been done by just changing some values in the program/file. This could have been either hard coded or one could allow the player to choose among game settings.
Don't agree here. You contradicted yourself. First you say that the new system is "inherently bad" and then you say nobody should think it might be good until they've played it.[/QUOTE]
There is one significant reason why I do not put my blind faith in the developers in assuming Civ5 will work: it's called Civ3. That was a lousy game, definitely a step back from Civ2 and maybe Civ1. It was so bad that I joyously played Civ2 until Civ4 came out, where I had complete faith in Soren. Civ5 could turn to be a dud like Civ3 or could be better than Civ4 (if they don't limit gameplay).
Howard Mahler
Since Civ 1
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 619
Some compromises are needed.
In a tile based game, units need to have some way to attack each other.
Moving into the tile where the enemy units are, is a traditional compromise for strategic games.
It is meant to approximate two armies meeting on a battlefield, or a series of battlefields.
For a tile based game, with tiles 50 to 200 miles across, and turns of at least 6 months length, this makes some sense.
Civ combat in which each element of a stack goes in one at a time and attacks one enemy unit at a time is a bigger compromise.
It would be better for realism, but much more complicated, to switch to different time and distance scale to play out battles.
However, this would severely compromise the game play of a game like Civ.
As far as archers being about to shoot at a distance, this was intended to be approximated by the first strike ability. (Whether this was sufficient is a separate issue.) There is no need to have archers firing across the English Channel.
In a tile based game, units need to have some way to attack each other.
Moving into the tile where the enemy units are, is a traditional compromise for strategic games.
It is meant to approximate two armies meeting on a battlefield, or a series of battlefields.
For a tile based game, with tiles 50 to 200 miles across, and turns of at least 6 months length, this makes some sense.
Civ combat in which each element of a stack goes in one at a time and attacks one enemy unit at a time is a bigger compromise.
It would be better for realism, but much more complicated, to switch to different time and distance scale to play out battles.
However, this would severely compromise the game play of a game like Civ.
As far as archers being about to shoot at a distance, this was intended to be approximated by the first strike ability. (Whether this was sufficient is a separate issue.) There is no need to have archers firing across the English Channel.
of course archers being able to shoot across the English Channel is ridiculous and I hope they find a way to fix it (archers cannot shoot over sea or move UK a couple of tiles away from the continent). But on the other hand this opens up so many other interesting battle scenarios. It might be a good trade off.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Yes, but we're all talking about the ideas, aren't we? You're not unique there. Everyone is examining whether the principles (not the game) are sound.
Or claim they are worse.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
They can .... that's exactly what they do when they attack normally, without bombardment. When you attack another tile, you are actually moving into that hex. The battle takes place inside the defender's hex. Ranged combat associated with units like archers, crossbowmen, muskets etc is represented by first strikes. You can make it back after the battle is over sometimes, because you haven't been able to move all the way through the hex; you were driven back (or disengaged) before you could, so you've got enough movement left to return.
With ranged bombardment, the battle is not taking place in the defender's hex. You're firing from one tile to another, not moving into the other tile. Unless they've got a quiver full of V-2s this is difficult to imagine.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
In a turn based model, it is a means of simulating that a ranged unit has the ability to damage a melee unit without engaging in melee. In a game model in which a single turn can represent decades, any discussion of the actual distance between two units in relative proximity is somewhat moot.
This is how I see it: these are the units I have near the front; each turn I can direct them to engage specific enemy units; During the enemy's turn, they can direct their units at or near the front to engage specific units of mine. The distinction between ranged and non-ranged is how exposed the acting unit has to be during their own turn.
This is how I see it: these are the units I have near the front; each turn I can direct them to engage specific enemy units; During the enemy's turn, they can direct their units at or near the front to engage specific units of mine. The distinction between ranged and non-ranged is how exposed the acting unit has to be during their own turn.
Chalks
The blue pieces
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,097
No, you have played with SOD combat. You KNOW how that works, you know if you enjoy it, you know if it is fun.
Have you played Civilization 5 with 1upt combat? No. You have not. You imagine it will work a particular way, so you elaborate on this fantasy and decide you don't like it.
If you are unable to recognise the difference between how you think this is going to be in your own head and how it will turn out to be in reality then that is the issue here.
But you don't know how they are implementing the new combat system. How can you "believe that the way they are implementing" anything will fit when you have never played the game? All you know is that it will be 1 unit per tile. The rest is in your head.
Yes, you have indeed identified my point.
I'm arguing for the new system because I know that talented developers who know the Civ franchise inside out think it's good - NOT because I imagine it to be good. So, people who know how it works think it's good. Can you list someone who knows how the game works who doesn't think it's good?
If you can't, then the only people who don't think it's good at this stage are people who don't know what they're talking about...
Humz....
Huummmzzz....
I wonder if this is significant.
I'm not saying that it will be good, but I'm certainly saying that you don't have enough knowledge at this point to pass judgement.
I have concerns, but I recognise that I am currently in a position of complete ignorance about the reality of the mechanics. You would do well to recognise the same.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
It's a nice idea, however, archers are never unexposed to melee attackers. At least, not foot archers - mounted archers do have the ability to up and run without getting cut down from behind. Foot archers do not (especially not when faced with chariots or cavalry!). Neither do muskets - that's why pike squares became so important.
First strike simulates the situation alot better - the archers can attack and get some volleys off still, but they are not immune by virtue of shooting over-the-horizon arrows.
It's something I can overlook if the rest of the game is brilliant and the gameplay is fun, but it will always stick in my craw a little.
Thyrwyn
Guardian at the Gate
In the model that we have seen so far, whether or not your archers are exposed depends on how you position the rest of your troops - whether or not the enemy can get to you on their turn - and they have stated that archer type units will suffer if ever engaged in hand-to-hand
What we know: 1UPT; Loser is not (usually) eliminated; Units move more than one square; Ranged units can attack from non-adjacent hexes. . .
The graphics are not what is happening, they are a representation of what is happening. The current model says: if you position your ranged units in such a way as to prevent the enemy from being able to reach them, you will be rewarded. It is a model that allows what would normally be happening on a tactical scale to be represented on a strategic scale. In cIV, there was no attempt to model tactical decisions. In cIV, first strikes were an attempt to model ranged capabilities - whether it worked or not is debatable. Given what we have seen of the Civ V model, I do not think they would work as well.
If military units were really represented on the same scale as the terrain, we would not have individual units anyway, we would simply have "armies". But that would be un-fun, boring, and far less engaging.
What we know: 1UPT; Loser is not (usually) eliminated; Units move more than one square; Ranged units can attack from non-adjacent hexes. . .
The graphics are not what is happening, they are a representation of what is happening. The current model says: if you position your ranged units in such a way as to prevent the enemy from being able to reach them, you will be rewarded. It is a model that allows what would normally be happening on a tactical scale to be represented on a strategic scale. In cIV, there was no attempt to model tactical decisions. In cIV, first strikes were an attempt to model ranged capabilities - whether it worked or not is debatable. Given what we have seen of the Civ V model, I do not think they would work as well.
If military units were really represented on the same scale as the terrain, we would not have individual units anyway, we would simply have "armies". But that would be un-fun, boring, and far less engaging.
Chalks
The blue pieces
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2010
- Messages
- 1,097
Exactly. If you see an archer unit in a particular hex, that does not mean "there are archers throughout this entire hex" nor does it mean there are archers right in the exact centre of that hex. It means that there is an archer unit somewhere in the vicinity of the hex, they could be at the front, or the back, or the side, or anywhere.
It follows that if you see three units, an archer, friendly pikemen and enemy swordsmen in a line, this does not mean that in the first square mile there are archers, then in the next square mile, there are pikemen then in the next square mile, there are swordsmen.
It means that, in the vicinity of those three hexes, there is a troop formation of archers, pikemen and swordsmen, in the configuration represented by the graphics.
Each turn takes an entire year, minimum, so when combat takes place between the archers and the swordsmen, this does not mean that there was an entire hex worth of space between them filled entirely with pikemen. In the context of the battle, the archers were close enough to shoot at the swordsmen with pikemen between them, somewhere in the region of those three hexes.
Things are not to scale and when people say this it doesn't just mean "that guy is much bigger than he should be".
Abraxis
☮
Are you autistic? This is one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read, how does a visual aesthetic representation have any bearing on how game-play mechanics should be handled in the future?! Like, you got so into this idea you completely forgot the context under which you were arguing.
"1 unit per tile" sounds like a very promising change. Of course the success depends on exactly how they implement it.
In the Civs up to IV warfare tends to require a lot more micromanagement than peaceful advancement. I find in Civ IV my conquest-oriented games tend to take a lot longer. There's a lot of moving units around, checking various cities (yours and your enemies) for weaknesses, and sorting through promotions to select the best qualified units. No doubt more experienced war-mongers can do it faster than me, but the fact remains that there's a lot more little details to manage in warfare.
Limiting the number of units as in Civ IV could bring warfare more into proportion with the rest of the game. I'm all for a Civ that's less micro-focused, that enables you to operate on a broader strategic scale.
In the Civs up to IV warfare tends to require a lot more micromanagement than peaceful advancement. I find in Civ IV my conquest-oriented games tend to take a lot longer. There's a lot of moving units around, checking various cities (yours and your enemies) for weaknesses, and sorting through promotions to select the best qualified units. No doubt more experienced war-mongers can do it faster than me, but the fact remains that there's a lot more little details to manage in warfare.
Limiting the number of units as in Civ IV could bring warfare more into proportion with the rest of the game. I'm all for a Civ that's less micro-focused, that enables you to operate on a broader strategic scale.
boredatwork
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2010
- Messages
- 104
How many of the PG games have you played? If you have played them I don't see how you can say they're set in one scale or the same time period. If you haven't played them then I don't see how you could make a judgement that using them as a basis is an "inherently bad idea for Civilization?"
Again I don't think 1UPT is an automatic path to success for Firaxis however there is sufficient evidence that a) 1UPT could be made to work if the rest of the game grows to match it and b) that unit stacking has been in the game for as long as I've played (civ2) and Firaxis hasn't yet made it fun for the average player should be evidence enough that change could be good.
X_nemesis_X
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
- Messages
- 27
If you dont like micro-management use SoDs 
I never liked SoDs. There should have been any negative fight bonus for having too many units in a stack (hearts of iron like).
I think the most important change is that warfare will take place at front lines between cities. In cIV it was rarely possible that you can block the enemy army in the battlefield (take the Kaukasus Region for example). Fortunately this will change as well.
I never liked SoDs. There should have been any negative fight bonus for having too many units in a stack (hearts of iron like).
I think the most important change is that warfare will take place at front lines between cities. In cIV it was rarely possible that you can block the enemy army in the battlefield (take the Kaukasus Region for example). Fortunately this will change as well.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
No kidding. The question is, what are they representing and is it believable?
This isn't just an animation. This is a game mechanic.
In no previous version of civ was there an attempt to model what was happening at the tactical scale - because it's a strategy game. You don't need tactical representations at the strategic level.
Well, the nice thing about not tying the scale too tight is that you can envision a unit as anything from a platoon to a division or even army group. That's flexibility of scale. Archers shooting into adjacent hexes - or worse, 2 or more hexes away - destroys that flexibility. 1upt itself is fine - one can imagine that the units are just larger. It's just this archer thing that bugs me.
Says who? That's just your personal preference. Lots of people have been playing civ under the impression that the little group of 3 archers that they see is just a representation of a much larger force ... and having plenty of fun doing so.
