Civ 5 Confirmed Features

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 UPT is better than what we've had for civ 1 till 4, but it isn't the ultimate combat model for civ or something. Wait when civ6 comes along. Most players on this site will be saying that the model the designers choose for civ6 is better than the one used for civ 1 till 5.

I've played my share of 1 UPT games. It's a pretty interesting combat model mainly because it allows some tactics, but I don't think it's the best combat model possible for civ.

By the way, I'm wondering what they'll do with the airplanes. I know that airplanes are limited at 1 UPT at a separate level from the land units. But will they go with the civ3-4 model of airplane missions or more like the civ1-2 model where airplanes move like land units on the map. Haven't heard or seen anything about that while I consider it an important choice in the combat model.
 
It makes more sense for air units to be based in cities as in reality (I know Civ isn't perfectly realistic but still), if they just moved along terrain, they'd have no place to refuel.

I'm all for getting rid of SoD's, but I personally think limited U'sPT is a more balanced approach.
 
Hi

I was just looking at the interview with Jon Shafer and at 0:56 on the YT video I think it says, "Your rifleman (7 damage) attacked an enemy rifleman (4 damage, 0 Fear)". I was wondering if this has been noticed before and/or does anyone know what the "0 Fear" part means?

 
Hi

I was just looking at the interview with Jon Shafer and at 0:56 on the YT video I think it says, "Your rifleman (7 damage) attacked an enemy rifleman (4 damage, 0 Fear)". I was wondering if this has been noticed before and/or does anyone know what the "0 Fear" part means?


It was noticed a few weeks back. Someone spoke of it speculating on a Morale mechanism. However it was a detail revealed from a closed demo which was not meant to be filmed. It's entirely possible (and likely IMO) it's something that won't make it to the final game.
 
It was noticed a few weeks back. Someone spoke of it speculating on a Morale mechanism. However it was a detail revealed from a closed demo which was not meant to be filmed. It's entirely possible (and likely IMO) it's something that won't make it to the final game.

Oh right. How much of the game do you think revealed at E3 will look like at release. Personally I don't like the look of the cities.
 
All this talk of stacks and no stacks.

1UpT, Panzer General Style. It works, get used to it.

I am still playing Panzer General and having fun with it.
Therefore, in the first moment I have been very enthusiastic about the 1upt.

Nevertheless, the dimensions in PG and Civ5 are completely different.

In PG, cities and villages are much further apart then we have to expect in Civ5.
In PG, combat was performed between units of just one age. In Civ5, battleships may meet galleons.
In PG, it made sense to have limited ammo and fuel, which in Civ might become a mm nightmare.

And so on.

Meanwhile I am very doubtful whether 1upt really was a good idea for a civ game.
 
I am still playing Panzer General and having fun with it.
Therefore, in the first moment I have been very enthusiastic about the 1upt.

Nevertheless, the dimensions in PG and Civ5 are completely different.

In PG, cities and villages are much further apart then we have to expect in Civ5.
In PG, combat was performed between units of just one age. In Civ5, battleships may meet galleons.
In PG, it made sense to have limited ammo and fuel, which in Civ might become a mm nightmare.

And so on.

Meanwhile I am very doubtful whether 1upt really was a good idea for a civ game.

I largely agree with this post. I also really like the 1 UPT games that I've played, so I'm not criticizing the combat model. But even this combat model has it's limitations. I don't worry too much about ammo and fuel micromanagement as I strongly believe that the designers haven't included it. But I do know that the dimensions of the 1 UPT games that I've played were very different than the ones used in Civ5 and therefore simply transferring a combat model might not work as ideally as hoped. The movement rates, attack ranges and distance between primary objects (in this game cities) are different. And I also fear that a small technology gap might very quickly lead to walk-over situations as it's very difficult to combat better units with more units in a 1 UPT combat model.

I do still think it will be better than civ1-4, but I also think the combat model will not be as balanced as it was when used in the 1 UPT war-games. So I'm happy with the improvement, but I'm not singing glory hallelujah like some of the posters on this site.
 
You know, with limited units, I'm thinking upgrading might be more useful, as it would cost less (presumably?) to upgrade a few units to modern ones, instead of an entire stack. And agreed, one who has a new unit and mass produces it might have quite a higher advantage than in previous civ games.
 
Hi

I was just looking at the interview with Jon Shafer and at 0:56 on the YT video I think it says, "Your rifleman (7 damage) attacked an enemy rifleman (4 damage, 0 Fear)". I was wondering if this has been noticed before and/or does anyone know what the "0 Fear" part means?

Panzer General has a concept called "suppression", which reflected the disruptive effect of multiple attacks on a defending position. Fear in Civ might work similar. Suppression only has an effect for the current turn, and a defending unit would only counter attack with its remaining strength minus the amount of suppression, and once the amount of suppression was equal or higher than its remaining strength, the unit would retreat, or be destroyed if there was nowhere to retreat.
 
You know, with limited units, I'm thinking upgrading might be more useful, as it would cost less (presumably?) to upgrade a few units to modern ones, instead of an entire stack. And agreed, one who has a new unit and mass produces it might have quite a higher advantage than in previous civ games.

Upgrading units will also be more attractive because promotions are more valuable. With fewer units overall and fewer units actually participating in battles due to iupt, 1 veteran unit is going to be more effective than 2 rookies.
 
I largely agree with this post. I also really like the 1 UPT games that I've played, so I'm not criticizing the combat model. But even this combat model has it's limitations. I don't worry too much about ammo and fuel micromanagement as I strongly believe that the designers haven't included it. But I do know that the dimensions of the 1 UPT games that I've played were very different than the ones used in Civ5 and therefore simply transferring a combat model might not work as ideally as hoped. The movement rates, attack ranges and distance between primary objects (in this game cities) are different. And I also fear that a small technology gap might very quickly lead to walk-over situations as it's very difficult to combat better units with more units in a 1 UPT combat model.

I do still think it will be better than civ1-4, but I also think the combat model will not be as balanced as it was when used in the 1 UPT war-games. So I'm happy with the improvement, but I'm not singing glory hallelujah like some of the posters on this site.

I share your concern although
1) Units don't seem to be that much stronger than the ones preceding them, for example riflemen are 20 and musketmen are 16 IIRC.
2) In history, small technology gaps or improved battle tactics with the same technology led to walk-overs in a number of situations, for example Alexander the Great, the Roman legions, Attilla the Hun and his horse archers, the Battle of the Golden Spurs, Agincourt, Napoleon, the Blitzkrieg. If that works well in game play is a different matter of course.
 
I share your concern although
1) Units don't seem to be that much stronger than the ones preceding them, for example riflemen are 20 and musketmen are 16 IIRC.

It's 25 and 16, but whatever. These numbers don't mean a lot if we don't know the combat formula's. Seeing a gameplay video, it seemed a 2 to 1 strength advantage resulted in (almost) complete annihilation for the weaker team in one fight. But even that could easily change.

So, a bit too little information as always. It's just that a 1 UPT system has few things to compensate for a power difference due to technology.

2) In history, small technology gaps or improved battle tactics with the same technology led to walk-overs in a number of situations, for example Alexander the Great, the Roman legions, Attilla the Hun and his horse archers, the Battle of the Golden Spurs, Agincourt, Napoleon, the Blitzkrieg. If that works well in game play is a different matter of course.

Historically correct, no argument there. I can't see it working for gameplay though as the game should be able to go through several ages of history without someone easily conquering everything. And most humans don't like to be easily conquered by a civ that has a slight military research advantage compared to them.

Maybe, the designers will come up with some new defensive mechanics which will help the defender diminish the power difference due to technology. In the gameplay video I saw, both the attacker and defender seemed to have combat bonuses, so the defender didn't have the advantage in that build of the game.
 
Hi

I was just looking at the interview with Jon Shafer and at 0:56 on the YT video I think it says, "Your rifleman (7 damage) attacked an enemy rifleman (4 damage, 0 Fear)". I was wondering if this has been noticed before and/or does anyone know what the "0 Fear" part means?


Didn't they mention at one point that battles didn't always result in one side losing units? If so this may be part of that. Units can get damage and morale losses but not necessarily be destroyed by an attack.
 
Why are we worried about dimensions when even Civ 1-4 didn't get this right?

The dimensions of 1UpT may not be exactly right, but it certainly does get the spirit of combat right, in that you have armies spread over vast battlefields.

Personally, I really liked Call to Power for the fact that it had stacks of 9, with artillery in the back.

1UpT won't be quite the same as that, it will actually be better. You will be able to tactically withdraw your artillery if the front line units are having a rough time. You will actually be able to control territory instead of just stacking all your men in and around cities. Even with stacks of 3, it is very likely that you would not be able to control your borders since you would need too many units.


It is next to impossible to get any sort of battle dimensions in Civilization unless you zoom down to tactical battle view like some 4X space strategy, or total war game. Personally, I don't think we really need or want that kind of control over our battles. It detracts from the rest of the game.
 
oh well at 287,791 views and 1,134 posts it was fun, lets see if we can beet that with the new thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom